♪♪ >>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & COMPANY."

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

>> I CAN CERTAINLY IMAGINE A TIME IN FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS WHERE THESE TOOLS ARE JUST SO, SO POWERFUL THAT LEFT UNCHECKED, THEY COULD CAUSE ENORMOUS INSTABILITY.

>> THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS DEEPFAKES OF TAYLOR SWIFT FLOOD THE INTERNET, I DISCUSS WITH MUSTAFA SULEYMAN, CO-FOUNDER OF THE A.I.

LAB DEEPMIND.

>>> PLUS -- >> THEY WANT STEREOTYPES?

I'LL GIVE THEM ONE.

>> WHAT IS THIS?

DEADBEAT DADS, RAPPERS, CRACK AND BLACK, RIGHT?

>> JEFFREY WRIGHT LEADING THE CHARGE FOR "AMERICAN FICTION," A STINGING SATIRE ABOUT RACIAL STEREOTYPES.

>>> ALSO AHEAD -- >> THIS WAR IS ACTUALLY THE BEST INVESTMENT WE HAVE MADE IN OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR.

>> "WASHINGTON POST" NATIONAL SECURITY COLUMNIST MAX BOOT TELLS WALTER ISAACSON WHY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE'S BATTLE WITH PUTIN IS IN AMERICA'S OWN INTERESTS.

♪♪ >>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT, JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS, CANDACE KING WEIR, THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS, MARK J. BLECHNER, THE FILMON M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION SETON J. MELVIN, CHARLES ROSENBLUM, KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS, AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.

THE THREAT OF VLADIMIR PUTIN LOOMS LARGE IN EUROPE, AND TODAY THE EU SHOWED THE WORLD THAT IT IS SERIOUS ABOUT STOPPING HIM BY PLEDGING TO GIVE ANOTHER $50 BILLION EUROS.

THAT'S $54 BILLION OF AID TO UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY LOST NO TIME THANKING EUROPE.

>> EUROPE, TODAY SENDS A SIGNAL ACROSS THE ATLANTIC AND THE WORLD ALL OVER THAT THE INTERNATIONAL RULES-BASED WORLD ORDER WILL WITHSTAND ALL CHALLENGES.

EUROPE SETS THE TONE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS WITH ITS UNITY.

>> OF COURSE, ACROSS THE ATLANTIC IS THE UNITED STATES, WHICH BY COMPARISON IS STILL STUCK IN POLITICAL GRIDLOCK OVER ITS SUPPORT FOR KYIV WHICH TWO YEARS AFTER RUSSIA'S INVASION IS STILL FIGHTING FOR ITS SURVIVAL.

PRO-DEMOCRACY AMERICAN LAWMAKERS ARE ALL TOO AWARE OF THE DANGER PUTIN POSES ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND ALSO IN CYBERSPACE.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS WARNING RUSSIA WILL CONDUCT, QUOTE, INFORMATION OPERATIONS AROUND WESTERN ELECTIONS THIS YEAR.

IT COMES AS THE ERA OF A.I.

IS UPON US.

THE TWISTING OF TRUTH, EVERYONE STRUGGLING TO DISTINGUISH WHAT IS ACTUALLY REAL, TRUTH, OR LIES.

MUSTAFA SULEYMAN IS AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PIONEER.

AS CO-FOUNDER OF THE A.I.

LAB DEEPMIND, WHICH GOOGLE BOUGHT FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BACK IN 2014.

HE WAS ALSO IN THE ROOM WHEN PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED NEW AYE SAFEGUARDS LAST YEAR.

SULEYMAN SAYS IT IS AN INCREDIBLE TIME TO BE ALIVE DURING THIS TRANSITION TO A.I., AND THAT THE WORLD STILL DOESN'T QUITE GRASP HOW BIG A DEAL IT REALLY IS.

HE JOINED ME HERE IN THE STUDIO TO DISCUSS ALL THE UPS AND DOWNS WHICH HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT IN HIS BOOK "THE COMING WAVE."

MUSTAFA SULEYMAN, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

2023 LET'S SAY HAS BEEN THE YEAR OF A.I.

EVERYBODY WAS FOCUSED ON IT.

AND BY AND LARGE, IT WAS THE CATSIFYIZING OF A.I.

PEOPLE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELECTIONS FIRST AND FOREMOST.

PEOPLE WORRIED ABOUT KNOWING WHAT TRUTH.

WHAT SHOULD WE KNOW RIGHT NOW AFTER THIS YEAR?

>> LOOK, I THINK NATURALLY, WHENEVER WE ENCOUNTER A NEW TECHNOLOGY, WE INITIALLY FEEL ANXIOUS, AND WE'RE SORT OF AFRAID.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

HOW IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT SOCIETY?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR JOBS AND PRIVACY AND TRUST.

AND THEY'RE ALL GOOD QUESTIONS TO ASK, BUT I THINK IN THE PANIC AND THE HYPE PERHAPS WE'RE SORT OF LOSING SIGHT OF THE VERY PRACTICAL REAL CHALLENGES WE HAVE IN JUST GETTING THIS TO WORK, GETTING IT TO BE USEFUL, GETTING IT WIDELY AVAILABLE, MAKING IT CHEAP SO THAT ANYBODY CAN PLAY WITH IT AND EXPERIMENT.

AND THEY'RE THE THINGS THAT I TEND TO FOCUS ON.

MY NEW COMPANY IS CALLED INFLECTION AI.

WE'VE BEEN GOING FUTURE A FEW YEARS.

WE CREATED A CHAT BOX PI, PERSONAL INTELLIGENCE.

IT'S INCREDIBLY WARM AND KIND AND SUPPORTIVE.

IT HAS VERY HIGH EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

>> EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE?

I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE ONE THING WE HAVEN'T GOT YET, TO EMOTIONS IN A.I.

>> IT'S A FUNNY THING.

A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGHT EMOTIONS WERE GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT FOR A.I.s TO REPLICATE.

BUT IN FACT THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ON THE EASIER END OF THINGS.

IF YOU REALLY FOCUS ON CREATING AN A.I.

THAT IS SMOOTH, CONVENTIONAL, FLUENT, VERY EVEN-HANDED AND BALANCED, IT TURNS OUT IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO IT.

AND OUR A.I.

PI IS REALLY, REALLY GOOD.

PEOPLE SHOULD CHECK IT OUT.

IT'S VERY, VERY KIND AND BALANCED AND FRIENDLY.

AND I THINK THAT THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY CONTROL THESE A.I.

SYSTEMS.

WE AREN'T AT THE MERCY OF THEM.

THIS IS NOT SOME TECHNOLOGY THAT IS TAKING PLACE BEYOND US OR OUTSIDE OF US.

THIS ISN'T AN EMERGENT EFFECT OF LIFE.

THIS IS A TOOL.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE MAKE.

THESE ARE REAL PRODUCTS THAT WE HAVE CONTROL.

>> AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT, THAT WE ACTUALLY EVENTUALLY WILL NOT HAVE CONTROL, THAT IT IS FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER AND THE WHOLE CAUTIONARY TALE OF IT TURNING ON ITS OWN CREATOR.

YOU HAVE NO WORRIES ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW, EVEN FOR THE LET'S SAY -- LET'S JUST SAY THE AMERICAN ELECTION.

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN A FAKE ROBOCALL USING A BIDEN VOICE WHICH WASN'T HIS.

>> IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU SAVE YOUR VOTE FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.

VOTING THIS TUESDAY ONLY ENABLES THE REPUBLICANS IN THEIR QUEST TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP AGAIN.

>> I MEAN, THAT EITHER IS BIDEN'S VOICE ALL PATCHED TOGETHER, OR IT'S A REALLY GOOD FACSIMILE.

AND IT WAS TRYING TO TELL DEMOCRATS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE DON'T BOTHER, WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER.

THAT'S SCARY STUFF.

NOBODY IS CONTROLLING THAT.

>> ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

>> OR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING FAKED AREN'T CONTROLLING IT.

>> OF COURSE.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES BRING NEW THREATS.

THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

AND THIS IS A NEW THREAT THAT WE ALL HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR AN A.I.

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS?

WE CLEARLY SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT.

FOR ALL THE WEAKNESSES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, DEMOCRACY IS FOR HUMANS.

CHAT BOX, A.I.-GENERATED TOOLS, THESE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTIONS.

AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE MANY, MANY CHOKE POINTS AROUND WHICH WE CAN FOCUS THESE KINDS OF POLICIES.

ALL OF THE BIG TECH COMPANIES PROVIDE ACCESS TO THESE SERVICES.

AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE AN OBLIGATION ON THEM, WHICH I THINK THEY SHOULD EMBRACE PROACTIVELY BEFORE REGULATION REQUIRES IT TO PREVENT CHATBOX AND OTHER KINDS OF A.I.s FROM IMITATING A POLITICIAN OR EVEN PROMOTING OR ADVOCATING FOR SOME POLITICAL PARTY OR AN IDEA.

A.I.

SHOULDN'T BE PARTICIPATING IN OUR ELECTIONS.

>> AS YOU KNOW, LIES TRAVEL FASTER AND STICK MORE STICKIER THAN THE TRUTH OFTEN.

PEOPLE ARE JUST SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIES, TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES, TO THAT KIND OF THING.

AND AS YOU ALSO KNOW, AND I WONDER WHETHER IT WORRIES YOU, YOU JUST SAID A.I., AND I'M GOING TAKE THE TECH BROS, PUT THEM IN THAT BOX.

THEY HAVE NOT REGULATED THEMSELVES.

THEY HAVEN'T.

WHY SHOULD WE TRUST ANY MORE THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO REGULATE AND FIGURE IT OUT BEFORE YOU GET REGULATED?

AS YOU KNOW IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD, THEY REGULATE.

THEY WANT TO REGULATE BECAUSE THEY KNOW, YOU KNOW, LEFT UP TO THE CREATORS, IT'S THE PROFIT MOTIVE.

>> SO I THINK WE NEED REGULATION.

I JUST THINK THAT REGULATION IS GOING TO TAKE A WHILE, AS IT ALWAYS DOES, AND OFTEN MISS THE MARK, AS IT OFTEN DOES, UNFORTUNATELY.

IT TENDS TO BE REGULATING THE LOST WAVE OF TECHNOLOGY.

AND WE NEED AGILE, TECHNICAL, BALANCED REGULATORS THAT ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED AT THE CUTTING EDGE OF A.I., AND WE AS A COMPANY HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY FORWARD IN TRYING TO EDUCATE REGULATORS, ADVOCATE WITH THEM.

THE DOWNSIDE, THAT'S GOING TAKE SOME TIME.

IN PRACTICE, I THINK IT IS A SENSIBLE THING FOR GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK, TIKTOK AND THE BIG TECH COMPANIES TO JUST DECLARE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER.

THEY'RE GOING TO DO EVERY BEST EFFORT THEY CAN IMAGINE TO TRY TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF IMITATION ON THE PLATFORM.

THEY'VE DONE IT BEFORE.

WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE.

AFTER, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS REAL-TIME STREAMING OF MASS SHOOTINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CHRISTCHURCH MASSACRE IN NEW ZEALAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PLATFORMS GOT VERY GOOD AT DETECTING WHEN THAT WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN.

AND WITHIN SECONDS CAN NOW SHUT IT OFF AND PREVENT IT.

SO THIS IS THE SAME.

>> IF THEY WANT TO DO IT.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE, AS IT ALWAYS, BUT DO YOU WANT TO DO IT.

I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, THE TAYLOR SWIFT STUFF, YOU KNOW, THE DEEPFAKES WHICH EVERYBODY IS NOW TALKING ABOUT ON X I GUESS IT WAS, TWITTER, ELON MUSK.

WHAT WORRIES YOU ABOUT THAT?

AND PLUS THESE TECH PEOPLE BEING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS BECAUSE PARENTS ARE COMPLAINING THAT SO MUCH OF THIS STUFF IS SENDING THEIR CHILDREN INTO TERRIBLE MENTAL HEALTH SPIRALS UP TO THE POINT OF SUICIDE.

>> I THINK THAT THIS IS A MOMENT WHEN TECH COMPANIES HAVE TO ACT PROACTIVELY.

I CAN ONLY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TOOLS THAT I PUT OUT IN THE WORLD.

WE'VE DESIGNED AN A.I.

PI, OUR PERSONAL INTELLIGENCE WHICH IS GENUINELY WARM AND EMPATHETIC AND BALANCED.

IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO GET PI TO SAY SOMETHING OBNOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE OR BE REALLY BIASED IN ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER.

IT'S PATIENT.

IT'S NONJUDGMENTAL.

IT WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT ALL KINDS OF THINGS YOU COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO CREATE THE KINDS OF A.I.s WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IN OUR WORLD THAT MAKE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE AND WARM LIFE.

AND SO I THINK THAT ALL WE CAN DO IS TRY AND BRING TO BEAR MORE AND MORE PRESSURE ON PLATFORMS THAT DON'T TAKE THOSE KINDS OF APPROACHES.

>> ANOTHER THING THAT PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT, UNIONS ARE WORRIED ABOUT IS THE LOSS OF JOBS TO A.I.

SO YOU CAN BE AS EMPATHETIC, WARM, CUDDLY AS YOU WANT, BUT THE IMF FUND SAYS THE A.I.

IS SET TO AFFECT NEARLY 40% OF ALL JOBS.

AND UPS IS AXING 12,000 JOBS.

THIS IS WHAT THE CEO SAYS.

"TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED SO MUCH IN THE PAST YEAR WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE ADVENT OF GENERATIVE A.I.." SHE IS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE CHANGES WILL MEAN.

THEY WANT TO LAY OFF 12,000 PEOPLE AND BE VERY EXCITED.

HOW DO YOU REASSURE PEOPLE IF IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE WHOLESALE LAYOFFS?

I MEAN 40% ACCORDING TO THE IMF.

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE PEOPLE?

>> I THINK MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF CEOs INTERVIEWED AT DAVOS A FEW WEEKS AGO CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION, THAT THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY A LABOR REPLACING TECHNOLOGY IN THE LONG-TERM.

IN THE MEDIUM TERM, OVER THE NEXT DECADE, IT'S GOING TO BE LABOR AUGMENTING.

IT WILL MAKE PEOPLE SMARTER, MORE PRODUCTIVE, MORE EFFICIENT WITH THEIR TIME, MORE ACCURATE WITH THEIR ENGAGEMENTS IN WORKING IN AN EVERYDAY OFFICE OR ORGANIZATION.

BUT IN THE VERY LONG-TERM, THAT SAME A.I.

IS GOING TO LEARN TO DO THOSE TASKS MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN A REGULAR HUMAN.

AND THAT ON ITS FACE SHOULD DRIVE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF VALUE THAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY.

WE'RE GOING SEE THE MOST PRODUCTIVE DECADE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR SPECIES.

WE'RE ABLE TO DO MUCH, MUCH MORE WITH LESS.

THE QUESTION IS HOW DOES THAT VALUE GET REDISTRIBUTED.

AND THAT'S THE AGE OLD CHALLENGE.

IF WE LEAVE THAT JUST TO THE MARKET, TO ITS OWN DEVICES OVER THE NEXT TWO OR THREE OR FOUR DECADES, THEN WE WILL SEE WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST FIVE DECADES, WHICH IS THE RETURNS THE CAPITAL COMPOUND FAR MORE QUICKLY THAN LABOR'S WAGES CAN GROW.

IN FACT, WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN A STAGNATION OF WAGES OVER THE LAST FOUR DECADES.

AND WE'VE SEEN MASSIVE GROWTH AND CONCENTRATION IN CAPITAL.

AND THIS IS A TOOL THAT SHIFTS VALUE FROM LABOR TO CAPITAL, BECAUSE AN A.I.

IS ESSENTIALLY A CAPITAL FORM OF LABOR.

IT'S AN INTELLIGENT INTERACTIVE DYNAMIC INTERFACE THAT GETS THINGS DONE JUST LIKE A PROJECT MANAGER OR AN ASSISTANT GETS THINGS DONE.

>> SO YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS, IT WILL BE VERY, VERY PRODUCTIVE.

THERE WILL BE A LOT OF NEW JOBS CREATED.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO A.I.

WILL CREATE NEW JOBS.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE PEOPLE?

WHAT SHOULD THOSE PEOPLE EXPECT IF AFTER THAT DECADE OF PRODUCTIVITY THEY ARE REPLACED BY THIS A.I.

BECOMES CAPITAL?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO START THINKING ABOUT IS HOW TO ASK EMPLOYERS TO DO JOB SHARES, FOR EXAMPLE.

OR TO BY DEFAULT INTRODUCE A.I.s THAT ARE COMPANIONS AND AIDES, SUPPORTS TO AN EXISTING ROLE, OR HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CREATE NEW TASKS IN THE WORKPLACE THAT ACTUALLY AUGMENT, YOU KNOW, AN A.I., WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY USE AN A.I.

AS IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU DO RATHER THAN A REPLACEMENT.

THOSE ARE GOING TO BE DECISIONS THAT WORKERS HAVE TO ENCOURAGE OWNERS OF CAPITAL TO MAKE, AND THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO BE DECISIONS THAT REGULATORS HAVE TO START THINKING ABOUT.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE AUTHORITARIAN LEADERS, OR ACTUALLY ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO PLAY A DESTRUCTIVE ROLE IN SOCIETY AND ON THE WORLD STAGE.

SO IF THE LAST ELECTION WAS THE, YOU KNOW, THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE USING SOCIAL MEDIA AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER BOTS AND THIS AND THAT IN THE ELECTION, THIS YEAR IT LOOKS LIKE PRESIDENT PUTIN, HE FULLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S AT STAKE.

IN HIS END OF YEAR PRESSER, HE DEMONSTRATED THE DANGERS.

AND HE WAS ASKED -- OR HE ASKED HIMSELF A QUESTION.

"DO YOU HAVE A LOT OF DOUBLES?"

APPARENTLY THIS THING SAID TO HIM.

TO WHICH THE REAL PUTIN SAID, "ONLY ONE PERSON MUST BE LIKE ME AND SPEAK WITH MY VOICE, AND THAT WILL BE ME."

SO HE IS BASICALLY LAYING DOWN THE LAW, RIGHT?

HE IS SAYING DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IMITATING ME, FOLKS.

HOW DOES THAT SIT WITH YOU?

>> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY FOR HIM, HE'S GOT NO CHANCE, BECAUSE THESE TECHNOLOGIES BY DEFAULT PROLIFERATE.

THEY SPREAD FAR AND WIDE BECAUSE THEY'RE USEFUL AND EVERYBODY DEMANDS THEM.

SO PEOPLE REPRODUCE THEM IN OPEN SOURCE MODELS, SOFTWARE AND CODE THAT CAN BE REPRODUCED FOR FREE, COPIED AND MADE WIDELY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET.

RIGHT.

AND SO UNCHECKED, THAT IS THE DEFAULT TRAJECTORY OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE CHANGED A SIMILAR COURSE MANY TIMES BEFORE IN HISTORY.

CONSIDER ONLINE MUSIC, FOR EXAMPLE.

FOR A WHILE, TORRENTING BACK IN THE 2000s AND '90s WAS THE DEFAULT WAY PEOPLE WOULD ACCESS MUSIC AND FILM.

PEOPLE WOULD PEER TO PEER SHARE THAT KIND OF CONTENT.

WE HAVE THE SAME THING GOING ON AT THE MOMENT IN OPEN SOURCE.

WHAT WE NEED TO SEE IS THE ARRIVAL OF MUCH MORE CONTROLLED SYSTEMS THAT REGULATE THE SPREAD OF THIS KIND OF VALUE.

IT CAN'T JUST HAPPEN COMPLETELY UNCHECKED.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE IN THAT MOMENT RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY IMAGINE A TIME IN FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS WHERE THESE TOOLS ARE JUST SO, SO POWERFUL THAT LEFT UNCHECKED, THEY COULD CAUSE ENORMOUS INSTABILITY.

>> YOU READ HEADLINES, THE ONE ABOUT OPEN AI CHANGING ITS USAGE POLICIES TO REMOVE ITS BAN ON USING CHATGPT FOR MILITARY AND WARFARE.

THAT WAS REPORTED IN THE INTERCEPT.

WHEN WE GET TO THOSE KINDS OF LIFE AND DEATH ISSUES, WHAT WORRIES DO YOU HAVE, AND HOW CAN THAT BE CONTROLLED?

>> PERSONALLY, I'VE LONG CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THE USE OF A.I.

FOR LETHAL AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS.

WHEN DEEPMIND WAS INQUIRED, WE MADE IT A CONDITION OF OUR ACQUISITION THE TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPED AT DEEPMIND COULDN'T BE USED BY GOOGLE FOR STATE SURVEILLANCE PURPOSES OR FOR MILITARY OR THE LETHAL FORCE PURPOSES.

AND I'M STILL A GREAT BELIEVER IN THAT.

I THINK PEOPLE WILL END UP USING THESE TOOLS FOR THOSE PURPOSES, BUT WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL, BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY, VERY POWERFUL.

AND IF THEY'RE WIDELY AVAILABLE, AND IF MILITARIES START INTEGRATING THEM INTO THEIR SYSTEMS, IT WILL REDUCE THE COST OF GOING TO WAR AND MAKE CONFLICT I THINK MUCH MORE LIKELY.

>> WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST HOPE IN THE THING THAT GIVES YOU THE GREATEST SORT OF, YOU KNOW, EXCITEMENT FOR THE POSITIVE USE OF A.I.?

YOU'VE SAID IN THE MIDTERM IT WILL CREATE A LOT A LOT OF JOBS.

BUT WHERE WILL WE SEE IT USED TO ITS MAXIMUM AND POSITIVE ADVANTAGE?

>> YOU KNOW, WE ARE REDUCING THE BARRIER TO ENTRY TO ACCESS PERFECT INFORMATION.

EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE A PERFECT TUTOR IN THEIR POCKET THAT CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT IS INTERESTING AND ENTERTAINING AND INFORMATIVE TO YOU IN YOUR STYLE, IN YOUR LANGUAGE.

EVERYONE IS GOING TO GET MUCH, MUCH, MUCH SMARTER BECAUSE OF THIS INTERACTIVE INTERFACE.

OUR A.I.

PI IS REALLY GOING TO BE LIKE A CHIEF OF STAFF FOR YOUR LIFE.

IT WILL BE A SCHEDULER, A PLANNER.

WHO LIKES ORDERING THE GROCERIES AND PLANNING YOU A VACATION AND DOING YOUR ADMINISTRATION?

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PERSONAL ASSISTANT IN YOUR POCKET TO HELP ORGANIZE YOUR LIFE.

>> AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT WILL MAKE US DUMBER AND LAZIER?

LIKE THE CONVERSATION AROUND ALGORITHMS RIGHT NOW, JUST TRAINING US ALL TO GO INTO EVER LESS DEMANDING THOUGHT PATTERNS?

AND CHOICES?

>> I ACTUALLY THINK IN A WAY IF YOU COMPARE US AS A SPECIES TO WHO WE WERE BEFORE THE SECOND WORLD WAR, OR WHO WE WERE IN THE '70s, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOW A MUCH MORE TOLERANT, A MUCH MORE OPEN-MINDED IN GENERAL SPECIES.

YOU LOOK ON EVERY FRONT, RACE, AND SEXUALITY AND GENDER.

WE'RE FORGIVING.

WE'RE RESPECTFUL.

I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE WE'VE HAD MASS ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

WE'RE AWARE OF ONE ANOTHER AT HUGE SCALE.

AND THAT'S REALLY CHANGED OUR VALUES.

I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE NO DIFFERENT.

WE DIDN'T GET DUMBER BECAUSE OF THE CALK LATER.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING GET DUMBER BECAUSE OF A.I.s.

>> MR. MUSTAFA SULEYMAN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING.

>> THANKS.

>>> TO A DIFFERENT KIND OF FAKE, A GOOD OLD-FASHIONED LITERARY HOAX THAT TAKES SHAPE IN THE HIT NEW MOVIE "AMERICAN FICTION."

A BITING SATIRE ABOUT THE FLATTENING OF BLACK VOICES.

IT'S BECOME ONE OF THE DARLINGS OF THIS YEAR'S AWARDS SEASON, WRAPPING UP FIVE OSCAR NOMINATION, INCLUDING BEST PICTURE AS WELL AS BEST ACTOR FOR JEFFREY WRIGHT.

HERE IS A CLIP FROM THE TRAILER.

>> THEY WANT A BLACK BOOK.

>> THEY HAVE ONE.

I'M BLACK AND IT'S MY BOOK.

LOOK AT WHAT THEY EXPECT US TO WRITE.

>> WOULD YOU READ AN EXCERPT?

>> YO, SHARONDA, WHERE ARE YOU GOING IN A HURRY?

>> IF YOU'VE GOTS TO KNOW, I'M GOING TO THE PHARMACY.

♪ >> IF THEY WANT STEREOTYPES, I'LL GIVE THEM ONE.

>> WHAT IS THIS?

>> DEADBEAT DADS, RAPPERS, CRACK.

THAT'S BLACK, RIGHT?

>> NOBODY IS GOING TO PUBLISH THIS.

>> I JUST WANT TO RUB THEIR NOSES IN IT.

>> WE LOVE IT.

>> WHAT?

>> JEFFREY WRIGHT JOINED ME HERE IN THE STUDIO TO DISCUSS THE MOVIE AND HIS ROAD TO THE ROLE OF A LIFETIME.

JEFFREY WRIGHT, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I'M SO PLEASED TO BE HERE.

>> WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO HAVE YOU.

THIS IS THE BREAKOUT FILM OF THE MOMENT.

AND I KNOW YOU'RE HERE PROMOTING IT FOR THE UK RELEASE.

>> YEAH.

>> WHICH IS THIS WEEKEND.

DID YOU ENJOY PLAYING THIS ROLE, THELONIUS MONK.

>> I HAD THE BEST TIME WORKING ON A FILM SIMPLY BECAUSE WE MADE THIS WITH SUCH PASSION.

WE ALL FELT VERY CLOSELY RELATED TO THE ISSUES OF THE STORY.

WE ALSO FELT THIS IS A STORY THAT WANTED TO BE TOLD, THAT WAS A STORY FOR THE TIMES.

AND SO WE DOVE INTO THIS.

IT WAS SMALL FILM.

WE SHOT IN 26 DAYS.

>> THAT I COULDN'T BELIEVE WHEN I READ THAT.

>> BUT WE INVESTED A LOT OF OURSELVES IN IT.

>> GIVEN THAT YOU ALL LOVED IT SO MUCH AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES AND THE STORY FOR OUR TIME.

JUST IN YOUR WORDS, DESCRIBE IT.

GIVE ME A SYNOPSIS.

WE'VE BEEN SAYING SATIRICAL, THIS AMAZING SORT OF SATIRE ON THE STEREOTYPES OF RACE.

>> IT IS THAT.

IT'S SATIRICAL SOCIAL COMMENTARY, A LOT OF LAUGHS.

BUT THERE IS A THROUGH-LINE OF EMOTION THAT I THINK IS SURPRISING FOR AUDIENCES.

IT'S A FILM ABOUT A MAN WHO IS A WRITER, ALSO A PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH.

BUT HE TENDS TO WRITE FROM A PERSPECTIVE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY MARKETABLE, AT LEAST IN HIS CASE.

HE WRITES BOOKS THAT ARE A BIT ESOTERIC, YOU KNOW, REWORKINGS OF GREEK MYTHOLOGY AND THINGS LIKE THIS.

AND THE PUBLISHING WORLD SAYS TO HIM THAT'S NOT QUITE BLACK ENOUGH.

WHY ARE YOU WRITING ABOUT THIS?

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BLACK EXPERIENCE.

SO OUT OF FRUSTRATION HE WRITES A NOVEL THAT HE THINKS WILL MEET THEIR SATISFACTION.

>> I WANT TO JUST TAKE THIS MOMENT TO EXPRESS YOUR FRUSTRATION AS THE CHARACTER WHEN YOU GO TO A BOOKSTORE.

>> SURE.

>> AND YOU SEE WHERE YOUR BOOK HAS BEEN STACKED IN THE BOOKSTORE.

>> SURE.

>> HERE WE GO.

>> YEAH.

WAIT A MINUTE, WHY ARE THESE BOOKS HERE?

>> I'M NOT SURE.

I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THIS AUTHOR ELLISON IS BLACK.

>> THAT'S ME.

ELLISON.

>> YEAH.

>> HE IS ME, AND HE AND I ARE BLACK.

>> OH, BINGO.

>> NO BINGO, NED.

THESE BOOKS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES.

THEY'RE JUST LITERATURE.

THE BLACKEST THING ABOUT THIS ONE IS THE INK.

>> I DON'T DECIDE WHICH SECTIONS THE BOOKS GO IN.

NO ONE HERE DOES.

THAT'S HOW CHAIN STORES WORK.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO IT'S CONSTANTLY THIS, RIGHT?

IT'S NOT MY FAULT, IT'S NOT MY FAULT.

BUT THERE YOU ARE, AND THIS IS THE FIRST STEREOTYPE YOU'RE CONFRONTING IN THIS FILM.

>> YES, YES.

AND OUT OF FRUSTRATION, HE DECIDES TO WRITE A BOOK THAT HE THINKS WILL APPEAL TO THE PUBLISHERS' TASTES, A BOOK FOR THE MASSES.

HE WRITES UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME, THIS CARICATURE THAT HE CREATES IN HIS HEAD, AND HE IS FORCED NOW TO LEAD A DUAL LIFE BECAUSE THAT BOOK BECOMES THE BEST-SELLING OF HIS CAREER.

>> LET'S GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING.

BECAUSE YOUR FRUSTRATION START, MONK'S FRUSTRATION STARTS WITH AN INCIDENT IN THE ENGLISH LITERATURE CLASS.

I THINK IT'S AN ENGLISH LITERATURE CLASS YOU'RE TEACHING.

>> YES.

>> AND A WHITE STUDENT GETS ALL BENT OUT OF SHAPE.

>> YES.

A SOUTHERN LITERATURE CLASS.

AND THERE IS A WORD ON THE BLACKBOARD BEHIND HIM THAT THIS YOUNG WOMAN FINDS TO BE OFFENSIVE.

SHE IS A BIT OVERLY SENSITIVE.

>> I CAN'T REMEMBER THE WORD.

CAN WE SAY IT?

OH, IT'S THE N-WORD.

OH, YEAH.

>> IT'S FROM A BOOK CALLED "THE ARTIFICIAL [ BLEEP ]" BY FLANNERY O'CONNER.

>> WE'RE GOING HAVE TO BLEEP YOU.

>> BUT THAT'S THE NAME OF THE BOOK.

IT'S AMERICAN SOUTHERN GOTHIC.

SO WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THAT HISTORY, HE'S TEACHING THIS BOOK AND THE WORD'S ON THE BOARD BEHIND HIM.

THAT WAS THE FIRST SCENE OBVIOUSLY THAT I READ.

IT'S THE FIRST SCENE IN THE SCRIPT, AND I WAS HOOKED IMMEDIATELY, BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A FLUENT CONVERSATION THAT THE FILM IS HAVING ABOUT A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION AROUND RACE, CONTEXT, LANGUAGE, AND HISTORY, A CONVERSATION THAT'S HAPPENING IN CLASSROOMS ACROSS AMERICA, ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

IT'S REALLY AT THE CENTER OF THE NATIONAL DISCOURSE IN MANY WAYS, THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

BUT IT'S NOT A CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE VERY WELL.

>> NO.

IN FACT, WE HAVE JUST HAD THIS CONVERSATION WHICH GOES TO THE HEART OF THE ACTUAL ISSUE, BECAUSE I CAN'T USE THE WORD THAT YOU JUST USED.

SO I HAVE ALSO GOT TO BLEEP IT OUT TO AVOID, YOU KNOW, SENSITIVITIES BY AUDIENCES AND PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE NAME OF THAT ACTUAL BOOK THAT WAS WRITTEN ALL THOSE MANY YEARS AGO.

>> WELL, THERE WAS A LINE IN -- THAT WE CONSIDERED IN THE MOVIE, A LITTLE SECRET WE FORGOT TO PUT IT IN.

DON'T TAKE IT UP WITH ME.

TAKE IT UP WITH FLANNERY O'CONNER.

I'LL GET YOU A OUIJA BOARD.

THIS IS THE HISTORY.

AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE FEAR TALKING ABOUT NOW.

THERE IS A SEGMENT OF OUR SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T WANT -- THAT WANTS TO PRETEND THAT CERTAIN PART OF OUR HISTORY THAT NEVER EXISTED.

THERE IS ANOTHER PART OF OUR SOCIETY THAT'S TRAUMATIZED BY THESE CONVERSATIONS.

AND SO HOW DO WE COME TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THESE STRANGE DYNAMICS HAPPENING TO HAVE PRODUCTIVE DISCOURSE AND PROBLEM SOLVE AROUND RACE AND REPRESENTATION AND IDENTITY IF WE -- IF WE ARE AFRAID OF THESE THINGS?

AND SO OUR FILM IS NOT AFRAID.

WE DIVE INTO IT.

WE DO WIT A GOOD SENSE OF HUMOR ABOUT OURSELVES AS WELL.

AND SO IT PROVIDES MAYBE A LITTLE RELIEF, MAYBE A BETTER SPACE, A MORE PRODUCTIVE SPACE TO CONSIDER THESE THINGS.

>> SO AFTER THAT CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE, YOU ESSENTIALLY GET SIDELINED, PUT ON SABBATICAL, OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

>> CANCELED.

>> THEY TELL YOU GOODBYE, CANCELED.

THEN YOU TURN UP AT AN INTERVIEW, AN ONSTAGE INTERVIEW ABOUT THE LATEST VERY, VERY POPULAR BLACK WRITER, A WOMAN.

>> YES.

>> WHO HAS WRITTEN A BOOK.

>> "WES LIVES IN THE GHETTO".

>> ALL YOUR RADARS ARE ALERT, BECAUSE YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING.

THAT THERE IS A BOOK ABOUT A BLACK EXPERIENCE THAT IS APPARENTLY VERNACULAR, BUT IT ISN'T REPRESENTATIVE, YOU DON'T THINK.

>> RIGHT.

>> OR ENTIRELY REPRESENTATIVE.

>> IT'S NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE.

IT'S A KIND OF NARROWING OF THE BLACK EXPERIENCE THAT IS PALATABLE TO A CERTAIN AUDIENCE.

AND OUT OF FRUSTRATION WITH THAT, MY CHARACTER DECIDES TO WRITE A BOOK OF HIS OWN TO KIND OF SHINE THE LIGHT ON THE HYPOCRISY OF THE PUBLISHING WORLD AND MISPERCEPTIONS AND ALL OF THAT.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S THE BOOK THAT BECOMES HIS BEST-SELLER.

BUT, YOU KNOW -- >> CALLED?

>> HIS BOOK IS CALLED "MY PAFOLOGY".

>> AND ANOTHER BOOK.

>> WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY.

THE F-WORD.

>> THAT ASPECT OF THE FILM IS ABOUT A GUY WHO'S NOT ABLE TO BE HIS AUTHENTIC SELF, OR NOT RECEIVED FOR HIS AUTHENTIC SELF.

HE WANTS TO BE INDIVIDUAL, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CREATIVE, CREATIVELY FREE AND INTELLECTUALLY FREE.

AND THE EXTERIOR WORLD IS KIND OF STUNTING HIM.

BUT IT'S NOT SIMPLY LIMITED TO THE BLACK EXPERIENCE.

I THINK ALL OF US WANT TO BE SEEN.

ALL OF US WANT TO BE FREE.

ALL OF US WANT TO BE SEEN AS OUR AUTHENTIC SELVES.

AND THERE IS RESISTANCE TO THAT.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I'VE HAD MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE FILM NOW WHO RELATED TO THAT STORY WHO WEREN'T BLACK MEN, BUT SAID YEAH, I GET THAT.

I GET THE PRESSURES FROM THE OUTSIDE THAT WANT TO FORCE ME TO BE SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT.

THAT KIND OF LIMIT THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF WHO I AM.

SO THERE IS A UNIVERSEALITY TO IT THAT IS WELCOMING.

>> "MY PAFOLOGY.

>>" IS TURNED INTO THE F-WORD BOOK.

YOUR AGENT IS HILARIOUS.

THE SCENES BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR AGENT AND THE PUBLISHERS, IT JUST CRYING FUNNY.

AND I AM GOING TO PLAY PART OF THE AN EXCERPT OF THE PUBLISHER WHO DECIDES TO TAKE YOUR BOOK AND WANT TO PUBLISH IT.

>> YES.

>> WE'RE BOTH VERY EXCITED TO DISCUSS THOMPSON WATT'S OFFER.

>> FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY ALL OF HERE AT THOMPSON WATT ARE THRILLED WITH "MY PAFOLOGY.

>>."

IT IS ABOUT AS PERFECT A BOOK AS I'VE SEEN IN A LONG, LONG WHILE.

JUST RAW AND REAL.

MR. LEE, IS THIS -- IS THIS BASED ON YOUR ACTUAL LIFE?

>> YEAH, YOU THINK SOME [ BLEEP ] ASS COLLEGE BOY CAN COME UP WITH THAT?

>> NO, NO, NO, I DON'T.

>> AND THEN HE GOES ON AND ON AND ON.

>> YES.

>> SO YOU AS I GUESS A MIDDLE CLASS.

>> PROFESSIONAL CLASS.

>> PROFESSIONAL CLASS ARE HAVING TO TAKE ON THIS ROLE.

AND IT'S -- IT'S REALLY INTERESTING, BECAUSE THEN YOU TALK TO ACTUALLY THIS AUTHOR SINTARA, WHO DID WRITE THIS OTHER BOOK.

>> PLAYED BY ISSA RAE.

>> AND SHE PUSHES BACK ON YOU EVENTUALLY IN THE FILM.

WHY ARE YOU BEING SO, YOU KNOW, AGAINST THIS KIND OF WRITING.

>> WELL, THAT'S A CENTRAL SCENE FOR OUR FILM.

IT KIND OF REPRESENTS A TYPE OF THESIS ARGUMENT IN THE FILM.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CORD JEFFERSON AND I TALKED ABOUT, WHO DIRECTED OUR FILM AND ADAPTED THE SCREENPLAY FROM A NOVEL BY PERCIVAL EVERETT CALLED "ERASURE" CORD AND I TALKED ABOUT NOT MAKING A FILM THAT WAS SOME CLASSIST DISMISSING OF WORK THAT WAS BENEATH US, BUT RATHER TALKING ABOUT THE BROADENING OF REPRESENTATION IN FILM, IN LITERATURE.

AND GENERALLY.

SO WE WERE CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT MONK, MY CHARACTER MAY NOT BE THE MOST RELIABLE NARRATER.

HE MAY NOT BE SPOUTING THE ABSOLUTE GOSPEL.

AND SINTARA'S CHARACTER IN THAT SCENE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHECKS HIM.

>> YEP.

>> AND HE FINDS OUT GRADUALLY THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE FILM, DESPITE HIS OBJECTION TO HER WORK, HE BEGINS TO REALIZE THAT SHE IS AS CLEVER AS HE IS.

SHE IS AS SAVVY AS HE IS.

AND IN THAT SCENE, WE'RE LEFT WITH A THESIS ARGUMENT, BUT IT EXISTS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THEIR PERSPECTIVES, SOMEWHERE ON THE TABLE THERE, MAYBE IN THE SYNTH SYNTHESIS OF THE TWO IDEAS IS SOMETHING THAT APPROACHES CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

SO IT'S A WONDERFUL MOMENT FOR HIM BECAUSE HE'S NOT THE SAME MAN AT THE END OF THE FILM THAT HE IS AT THE BEGINNING.

HEAVY HAS GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF BEING SELF-REFLECTIVE, OF BEING CHALLENGED, AND ALL OF THE FORCES THAT ARE AROUND HIM HAVE CAUSED HIM TO ACTUALLY TAKE ON BOARD THESE THINGS, PROCESS THEM, AND TRANSFORM TO SOME EXTENT.

HE GOES THROUGH A HEALTHY KIND OF PERIOD OF EVOLUTION OVER THE COURSE OF THE FILM, WHICH IS HOPEFUL, I THINK.

>> IT REALLY IS.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO SPOILER ALERTS ABOUT THE END, BUT THE END IS REALLY FASCINATING, VERY UNEXPECTED, REALLY INTERESTING.

BUT IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS, THE REASON YOUR CHARACTER MONK WRITES THIS BOOK IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO -- YOU'RE NOT EARNING MUCH OTHERWISE.

>> YES.

>> AND YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR MOTHER'S IN THE FILM, HER CARE, BECAUSE SHE IS GETTING INCREASINGLY INTO DEMENTIA.

>> YES.

>> SO THAT PART IS REALLY SO FULL OF PATHOS.

THAT'S REALLY THE SAD PART, THE DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY, THE LOVING FAMILY, HOW YOU HAVE DONE ALL THIS THAT YOU'RE DOING, A FAKE YOU REALLY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR HER CARE.

>> YEAH.

HE IS NOT ENTIRELY CYNICAL.

HE IS NOT ENTIRELY HYPOCRITICAL OR SELLOUT.

HIS MOTHER IS AILING, AND HE FINDS HIMSELF REALLY AFTER A SERIES OF CRISES WITHIN THE FAMILY HAVING TO BE THE ADULT IN THE ROOM AND TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING CARETAKER TO THE WOMAN WHO WAS HIS CARETAKER.

THAT FOR ME WAS THE -- WAS THE THING THAT REALLY HOOKED ME INTO THIS STORY WHEN I READ IT THAT WAS THE THING THAT I FELT MOST CLOSELY ALIGN KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY, BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT.

I HAD BEEN LIVING THAT REALITY WHEN I RECEIVED THIS SCRIPT FROM CORD.

MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY ABOUT A YEAR OR SO BEFORE I GOT THE SCRIPT.

SHE PASSED OF CANCER.

IT WAS VERY QUICK.

BUT I HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE OF BEING RAISED BY TWO WOMEN, MY MOTHER AND HER ELDEST SISTER, MY AUNT, WHO IS NOW 94, WHO CAME TO LIVE WITH US IN NEW YORK.

MOM, AND THEN HAVING TO BE CARETAKER TO MY AUNT.

I HAVE TWO CHILDREN, THE PANDEMIC SET IN, ALL OF THOSE PRESSURES.

SO IT WAS REALLY A VERY CHALLENGING TIME.

AND IT KIND OF DISABUSED ME OF THE YOUTHFUL IDEA THAT LIFE GETS EASIER AS YOU GET OLDER.

THAT'S WHERE OUR CHARACTER FINDS HIMSELF.

AND AGAIN, THAT SIDE OF THE FILM IS, AS YOU SAY, IT'S FILLED WITH EMOTION.

>> IT'S FILLED WITH EMOTION.

IT'S REALLY SAD.

>> AND THERE IS A WONDERFUL SIMPLE HUMANNESS TO IT.

AND AGAIN, A UNIVERSEALITY TO IT, AND MANY OF US KNOW THAT IN OUR LIVES AND WHO WILL.

AGAIN, IT'S AN INVITATION TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE ACROSS BACKGROUNDS TO FIND THEMSELVES WITHIN THE STORY.

AND IT ALSO PROVIDES IN SOME WAYS THE ANSWER, IF YOU WILL, TO THE ABSURDITY OF THE SATIRICAL SIDE, THE KIND OF TRAGIC ABSURDITY OF THIS PERCEPTION OF THIS MAN WHEN REALLY ALL ALONG HE'S JUST LEADING THIS ORDINARY LIFE INSIDE AN ORDINARY MAD FAMILY LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

>> LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, YES.

CAN I JUST ASK YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN MANY, MANY REALLY WELL RECEIVED FILMS AND SERIES AND BROADWAY, PLAY "ANGELS IN AMERICA."

"THE HUNGER GAMES."

JAMES BOND.

THIS IS YOUR FIRST OSCAR NOMINATION.

SOME PEOPLE SAY WHAT TOOK SO LONG.

IT'S ABOUT TIME.

DO YOU FEEL THAT?

HOW DO YOU FEEL?

>> WELL, MY AUNT FELT THAT.

I CALLED HER.

HER EYESIGHT IS NOT SO GREAT ANYMORE.

SO SHE HAS DIFFICULTY DIALING THE PHONE.

AND I CALLED HER THAT MORNING.

I SAID HEY, I HADN'T HEARD FROM YOU.

DID YOU TAKE IN ANY NEWS THIS MORNING?

SHE SAID YEAH, I HEARD THAT.

YEAH.

YEAH.

CONGRATULATIONS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED A LONG TIME.

YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED FOR BASQUIAT.

SHE SPEAKS PLAINLY.

HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT IT?

I FEEL REALLY GRATIFIED.

BECAUSE IT'S A FILM THAT I'M PROUD OF.

I'M PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE ALL DID.

THE FILM WAS RECOGNIZED IN MULTIPLE CATEGORIES.

AND IT'S COMING FROM OUR PEERS WHO ARE SAYING HEY, WELL DONE.

AND THAT'S A WONDERFUL THING.

>> IT IS.

IT'S A WONDERFUL FEELING.

I JUST WANT TO A LAST QUESTION.

DO YOU CHOOSE CERTAIN ROLES?

SOME ARE IN THE MODERN HISTORY REALM, IF YOU LIKE.

SOME ROLES, WHETHER IT'S BASQUIAT IN ART OR ANGELS IN AMERICA ON AIDS CRISIS.

THIS WITH THE RACIAL STEREOTYPES.

DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU WANT TO BE RELEVANT IN CONVERSATIONS IN PARTS OF HISTORY THAT ARE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW OR NOT?

>> YEAH.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE POINT, TO TELL STORIES THAT -- >> I MEAN "THE HUNGER GAMES" ISN'T.

>> IT IS AS WELL.

>> OKAY.

>> YEAH.

I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE FOUND THEIR WAYS INSIDE THOSE STORIES FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE.

>> OKAY.

>> ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO POWER, TO GOVERNMENT, AND IN MANY RESPECTS, A YOUNG WOMAN KIND OF EMERGING AS A HERO THAT HAD A REAL SIGNIFICANCE TO MANY YOUNG WOMEN.

BUT, YES, I THINK THE BEST -- MAYBE THE BEST PERIOD OF FILMMAKING IN AMERICA WAS THE '70s WHEN THESE GRITTY FILMS MADE BY SYDNEY AND ALLEN KOALA AND FRANCES FORD COPPOLA THAT WERE RELEVANT TO THE TIMES.

>> YEAH.

>> WERE STORY-DRIVEN BUT RELEVANT CHARACTER-DRIVEN FILMS THAT TALKED ABOUT THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN WAYS THAT ADDED TO THE DISCOURSE.

AND I'M HOPING THAT OUR FILM MAYBE THROWS BACK TO THAT ERA IN SOME WAYS AND DOES SO TOO.

I SAW MEL BROOKS HONORED AT AN EVENT THE OTHER DAY.

HE SAID, YEAH, ALL MY STUFF WAS SATIRE.

WE THROW SOME WINKS AT THAT TYPE OF SATIRE.

HE SAID YEAH.

BUT SATIRE DOESN'T WORK IF IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT THE TIMES.

IF IT'S NOT POLITICAL, IF IT'S NOT SOCIALLY RELEVANT, WHAT'S THE POINT.

I MEAN, ESCAPISM IS GOOD.

BUT, YEAH, I LIKE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE MEANINGFUL TO PEOPLE AND MAYBE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF COMFORT, A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF, A LITTLE BIT OF VALIDATION.

AND I THINK OUR FILM MAY DO THAT.

>> WELL, EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT.

THAT'S FOR SURE.

CONGRATULATIONS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> "AMERICAN FICTION" OUT HERE IN LONDON THIS WEEKEND.

>>> AND NEXT TO UKRAINE.

AS WE'VE MENTIONED, A MUCH NEEDED LIFELINE FOR THE BELEAGUERED NATION CAME FROM THE EU TODAY.

BUT NO SUCH HELP FROM WASHINGTON, WHERE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS UNDER PRESSURE FROM DONALD TRUMP ARE HOLDING UP A BIPARTISAN DEAL ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER THAT'S LINKED TO UKRAINE AID.

OUR NEXT GUEST WARNS THIS IS A DANGEROUS MISCALCULATION.

"THE WASHINGTON POST" NATIONAL SECURITY COLUMNIST MAX BOOT TELLING WALTER ISAACSON THAT PROTECTING UKRAINE ALSO PROTECTS THE UNITED STATES AND ITS ALLIES.

>> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE.

I'M MAX BOOT.

WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.

>> GOOD TOBAC.

>> YOU KNOW, THE UKRAINE COUNTEROFFENSIVE AGAINST RUSSIA THIS PAST YEAR SEEMS TO ME AT LEAST TO BE A DISAPPOINTMENT.

IT GATHERED SOME TERRITORY, BUT THEN IT WAS OFFSET.

>> IT SEEMS TOO THIS MEANS IT COULD GO ON FOR FIVE, TEN MORE YEARS OF BACK AND FORTH LIKE THIS.

WHY SHOULD AMERICANS CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THIS WAR IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE RESOLVED?

>> WELL, WALTER, I THINK THIS WAR IS ACTUALLY THE BEST INVESTMENT WE HAVE MADE IN OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR.

WE'RE SPENDING LESS THAN 5% OF OUR DEFENSE BUDGET.

AND IN RETURN, THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES ARE DECIMATING THE RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES.

THE RUSSIANS LOST ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR PRE-WAR TANK INVENTORY.

THEY'VE SUFFERED MORE THAN 300,000 CASUALTIES.

SO THIS IS DIRECTLY DECREASING THE THREAT TO OUR NATO ALLIES AND TO THE UNITED STATES.

AND IT'S ALSO UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERALISM, DEMOCRACY, AND THE RULE OF LAW THAT WE HAVE STOOD FOR SINCE WORLD WAR II.

IT SET A HORRIBLE PRECEDENT FOR THE WORLD OF RUSSIA WERE TO GET AWAY WITH ITS UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION THAT WOULD BE A GREEN LIGHT FOR CHINA TO ATTACK TAIWAN, FOR NORTH KOREA TO ATTACK SOUTH KOREA.

WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN THAT KIND OF WORLD.

THE UKRAINIANS ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR VALUES WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF AID.

WE ARE HELPING THEM TO KEEP THEIR NATION INTACT.

AND EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTER OFFENSIVE FAILED, RUSSIA HAS ALSO FAILED IN ITS ATTEMPT TO DESTROY UKRAINE.

8 % OF UKRAINIAN TERRITORY REMAINS IN UKRAINE HANDS.

IT'S VERY MUCH IN OUR MORAL AND STRATEGIC INTERESTS TO CONTINUE HELPING UKRAINE TO DEFEND ITSELF WITHOUT RISKING A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER.

>> AND YOU SAY THE RUSSIANS HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO CAPTURE MUCH TERRITORY.

THE UKRAINIANS HAVEN'T.

WE'VE SEEM ALMOST TO BE FROZEN IN PLACE, WITHIN 100 KILOMETERS OF THE LINE WE HAVE NOW.

WHY CAN'T WE GET TO A TRUCE OR A CEASEFIRE IN PLACE?

>> WELL, PUTIN HAS SHOWN NO INTEREST IN GENUINE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS AND WIDESPREAD SPECULATION AS HE IS WAITING TO SEE IF DONALD TRUMP WINS THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.

BECAUSE TRUMP VERY HOSTILE TO UKRAINE, VERY FRIENDLY TO PUTIN.

HE ACTUALLY RECENTLY SAID HE WAS THE APPLE OF PUTIN'S EYE.

THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE SOON TO BE.

SO PUTIN HAS NO INCENTIVE TO NEGOTIATE AS LONG AS HE THINKS THAT TRUMP WILL COME ALONG AND CUT OFF UKRAINE.

IN FACT, RIGHT NOW EVEN THOUGH IT'S JOE BIDEN IN OFFICE AND NOT TRUMP, RIGHT NOW THE REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE ARE IN FACT CUTTING OFF UKRAINE.

AND SO THAT TAKES AWAY ANY INCENTIVE FOR PUTIN TO MAKE ANY KIND OF CONCESSIONS BECAUSE HE THINKS THAT IF HE JUST HOLDS ON, HE CAN WIN THIS WAR.

AND, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THERE IS A CHANGE OF COURSE IN WASHINGTON, HE MAY WELL BE PROVEN CORRECT.

>> AND SO WHAT HATCHES IF THE HAPPENS IF THE REPUBLICANS DON'T APPROVE THIS AID PACKAGE?

YOU SAID AT ONE POINT IT WOULD MAKE YOU ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN.

>> IT WOULD MAKE ME ASHAMED TO BE AMERICAN.

CUTTING OFF UKRAINE RIGHT NOW WOULD BE THE EXACT EQUIVALENT OF CUTTING OFF GREAT BRITAIN FROM AMERICAN AID IN 1940 WHEN THE BRITISH WERE STANDING ALONE AGAINST THE NAZIS.

AND REMEMBER, A LOT OF PEOPLE WANTED TO DO THAT, INCLUDING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

THEY WERE ACTUALLY ADHERING TO AN AMERICA FIRST FOREIGN POLICY BEFORE THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT AMERICA FIRST FOREIGN POLICY IS BACK.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT EXEMPLIFIES THE BEST OF AMERICA.

THE BEST OF AMERICA IS STANDING FOR OUR ALLIES AND HELPING TO PROTECT THEM FROM UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION.

AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE DOING THAT.

IF WE DON'T DO THAT, UKRAINE COULD VERY WELL LOSE THE WAR.

PROBABLY NOT THIS YEAR, BUT CERTAINLY WITHIN A FEW YEARS FROM NOW.

AND I THINK THAT WILL LEAVE US ASHAMED TO BE AMERICANS.

AND IT WILL -- IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CUTTING OFF AID TO UKRAINE, THEY'RE GOING HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THIS GEOPOLITICAL CATASTROPHE.

>> AT THE MOMENT, THE SENATE IS PRETTY CLOSE TO NEGOTIATING A DEAL.

SENATOR LANKFORD OF OKLAHOMA, MANY REPUBLICAN AS WELL AS THE DEMOCRATS THAT WOULD TIE THIS AID TO BORDER SECURITY.

TO A MUCH STRICTER SOUTHERN BORDER WITH MEXICO SECURITY PLAN.

YOU WROTE "WHICHEVER GENIUS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICAN CAUCUS DECIDED TO CONDITION AID TO UKRAINE ON THE PASSAGE OF A COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION OVERHAUL DESERVES A MEDAL FROM THE KREMLIN."

WHY IS IT SO BAD TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO SECURE OUR BORDER IF WE'RE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS WAR IN UKRAINE?

>> WELL, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WANTING TO SECURE OUR BORDER.

BUT THE TWO SITUATIONS ARE NOT LINKED.

WE ARE NOT BEING INVADED BY THE MEXICAN ARMY.

WE'RE DEALING WITH A LOT OF MIGRANTS AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE SITUATION UKRAINE IS FACING WITH THE RUSSIAN INVASION.

AND I DON'T MIND LINKING THE TWO IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET AGREEMENT ON A BORDER DEAL.

BUT REMEMBER, WALTER, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION BILL PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS SINCE RONALD REAGAN'S PRESIDENCY IN THE 1980s.

AND NOW WE'RE SEEING WHY IT'S SO HARD TO DO THAT.

BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON A COMPROMISE BILL, TRUMP IS SAYING THAT IT NEEDS TO FAIL.

BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY, TRUMP CARES MORE ABOUT HOLDING ON TO THE BORDER AS AN ELECTION ISSUE THAN HE CARES ABOUT ACTUALLY CONTROLLING THE ISSUE.

SO THE ODDS ARE THAT THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS WILL TANK THE IMMIGRATION COMPROMISE IN THE SENATE.

THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES WHAT HAPPENS TO AID TO UKRAINE AND BY THE WAY AID TO ISRAEL AND TAIWAN.

IS THAT GOING TO GET A SEPARATE UP OR DOWN VOTE OR NOT?

AND IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT CONGRESS DELINK THESE TWO ISSUES SO EVEN IF THERE IS GRIDLOCK ON IMMIGRATION, UKRAINE CAN'T WAIT FOR US TO SETTLE OUR DIFFERENCES.

THEY NEED AID RIGHT NOW.

THEY'RE UNDER ATTACK RIGHT NOW.

UKRAINIANS ARE DYING EVERY SINGLE DAY.

THEY NEED OUR HELP DESPERATELY.

>> YOU SAID THAT TRUMP LOOKED UPON PUTIN, TALKED ABOUT THE APPLE OF MY EYE.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN IF TRUMP IS RESTORED TO THE PRESIDENCY.

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE A CATASTROPHE FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD.

I THINK THIS WOULD REALLY BE A RETURN TO THE PREPEARL HARBOR FOREIGN POLICY ISOLATION THAT WE SHOED AFTER WORLD WAR II.

EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT FROM FDR ON HAS BELIEVED THAT AMERICA HAS TO EXERCISE GLOBAL LEADERSHIP.

THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS DONALD TRUMP, WHO ADOPTS THE SLOGAN OF AMERICA FIRST THAT WAS ALSO USED BY THE ISOLATIONISTS OF THE PRE-PEARL HARBOR PERIOD.

SO IT'S VERY HARD TO PREDICT EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP WILL DO BECAUSE HE IS MERCURIAL AND UNPREDICTABLE AND CAPABLE OF GOING OFF IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT OFTEN CONTRADICTORY DIRECTIONS.

BUT HE HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR THAT HE IS A BIG FAN OF VLADIMIR PUTIN.

HE IS NOT A BIG FAN OF ZELENSKYY OR UKRAINE.

HE'S CONSTANTLY TALKED ABOUT DESTROYING NATO, ABOUT TAKING AMERICA OUT OF NATO.

HE'S EVEN SAID THAT HE MAY NOT DEFEND TAIWAN.

SO I THINK ALL OF THOSE THINGS PUT TOGETHER SHOULD BE A VERY LOUD ALARM BELL.

THAT IF VOTERS CARE ABOUT EXERCISING AMERICAN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP, IF VOTERS CARE ABOUT TRYING TO SAFEGUARD THE AMERICAN-LED GLOBAL ORDER THAT HAS EXISTED SINCE 1945, THEY NEED TO VOTE FOR BIDEN RATHER THAN TRUMP, BECAUSE TRUMP HAS NOTHING BUT HOSTILITY TO THE PACS AMERICANA.

>> YOU IS A THEY AS SOMEBODY I ALWAYS SAY BEING CENTER RIGHT AND PROBABLY MORE REPUBLICAN IN THEIR SYMPATHY.

SO YOU THINK PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE FOR BIDEN?

>> OF COURSE.

TO TALK ABOUT MY OWN HISTORY, WALTER, I WAS A LIFE-LONG REPUBLICAN, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER TO JOHN McCAIN, MITT ROMNEY, AND MARCO RUBIO.

THE VERY FIRST TIME I EVER VOTED FOR A DEMOCRAT WAS IN 2016 WHEN I VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON OVER DONALD TRUMP.

BUT THE DAY AFTER TRUMP WON THE ELECTION, I REREGISTERED AS AN INDEPENDENT, BECAUSE I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WAS GOING.

AND I'M FAR LESS COMFORTABLE TODAY THAN I WAS IN 2016.

IT'S VERY ALARMING TO SEE WHAT WAS ONCE A CONSERVATIVE PARTY TURNING INTO THIS ETHNONATIONALIST POPULIST PARTY OF GRIEVANCE AND XENOPHOBIA AND ISOLATIONISM.

I THINK FOR A TRUMP-LED PARTY TO COME TO POWER WOULD BE A CATASTROPHE.

WHEREAS ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT WAS NIKKI HALEY, I WOULD SLEEP COMPLETELY STRONGLY AT NIGHT.

EVEN THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH HALEY ON A BUNCH OF THINGS, I DON'T THINK SHE WANTS TO DESTROY U.S. DEMOCRACY.

I DON'T THINK SHE WANTS TO DESTROY U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

BUT TRUMP I FEAR DOES.

>> YOU HAVE A BIOGRAPHY OF RONALD REAGAN COMING OUT LATER THIS YEAR, PARTLY BIOGRAPHY AND PARTLY AN ANALYSIS OF ALL OF HIS POLICIES.

AND HE WAS IN YOUR BOOK A VERY CONSERVATIVE LEADER.

HOW DID THE PARTY GET DIVERTED OR CHANGED BY TRUMP FROM BEING A CONSERVATIVE PARTY TO I THINK YOU CALLED IT ETHNONATIONALIST?

>> RIGHT.

ETHNONATIONALIST PARTY.

THAT'S A LONG STORY THAT REALLY DATES BACK TO THE 1960s.

I THINK TO SUM IT UP VERY BRIEFLY, I THINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS ALWAYS HAD CONSERVATIVE ELEMENTS, BUT IT'S ALSO HAD THESE ETHNONATIONALIST POPULIST ELEMENTS WHICH WERE A LOT OF THE GRASSROOTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, UP UNTIL RECENTLY, REPUBLICAN LEADERS DID NOT INDICATOR TO THAT FAR RIGHT BASE.

THEY SOMETIMES THREW RED MEAT TO THEM DURING THE COURSE OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AS RONALD REAGAN AND MANY OTHERS DID.

BUT THEY TENDED TO GOVERN IN A MUCH MORE CENTRIST AND RESPONSIBLE FASHION, MAKING DEALS WITH DEMOCRATS AND BASICALLY UPHOLDING U.S. INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

TRUMP IS THE EXCEPTION.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT REAGAN, THEN.

WHAT WOULD REAGAN BE DOING IN THIS SITUATION, DO YOU THINK?

>> I MEAN, YOU KNOW, RONALD REAGAN WAS THE GUY WHO BELIEVED IN FUNDING FREEDOM FIGHTERS TO FIGHT AGAINST THE EVIL EMPIRE.

IT WOULD BE A NO-BRAINER FOR HIM I THINK TO SUPPORT THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE IN THEIR RESISTANCE AGAINST RUSSIA.

THAT'S A TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

WHAT TRUMP IS ADVOCATING IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY DIFFERENT.

>> PRESIDENT BIDEN JUST CUT OFF NEW LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS, LNG, EXPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES, FROM NEW FACILITIES.

OR HE PUT IT ON PAUSE.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S A GIFT IN SOME WAYS TO PUTIN AND A BLOW TO OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?

>> WELL, I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE STILL PUMPING MORE -- MORE OIL AND GAS TODAY THAN WE EVER HAVE IN OUR HISTORY, AND MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY HAS I BELIEVE IN U.S. HISTORY.

I THINK BIDEN NEEDS TO FIND A BALANCING ACT BETWEEN PRESERVING OUR SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC SECURITY AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE LONG-TERM THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE BALANCE HE IS TRYING TO SEEK.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A HUGE BENEFIT TO RUSSIA BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY PUMPING A LOT OF OIL, AND THE PRICE OF OIL IS ALREADY PRETTY LOW IN THE WORLD MARKET.

AND OUR SANCTIONS ARE BITING RUSSIA, ALTHOUGH NOT AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE.

>> OUR SANCTIONS ARE BITING RUSSIA, YOU SAY.

BUT RUSSIA'S ECONOMY SEEMS TO BE DOING JUST FINE.

HOW COME OUR SANCTIONS AREN'T WORKING?

>> WELL, IT'S THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY CONTINUES TO FUNCTION, BUT THEY HAVE VERY HIGH INFLATION, MUCH HIGHER THAN OURS.

AND THEY HAVE BASICALLY GONE TO A MILITARY WAR-TIME FOOTING WHERE THEY'RE DEVOTING MOST OF THEIR ECONOMY OR AN INCREASINGLY LARGE SHARE OF THEIR ECONOMY, AND CERTAINLY MOST OF THEIR GOVERNMENT BUDGET TO DEFENSE PRODUCTION IN THE MILITARY.

>> BUT BY DOING SO, THEY'RE BEING ABLE TO PRODUCE MORE MUNITIONS THAN WE ARE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEIR AMMUNITION FLOW AND PRODUCTION IS HIGHER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR UKRAINE.

ISN'T THIS GOING TO BE A NOT A PRETTY SIGHT IF THIS THING KEEPS GOING ON?

>> WELL, THEY ARE.

I MEAN, THEY ARE CERTAINLY MANAGING TO REV UP THEIR AMMUNITION PRODUCTION, BUT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE WHAT THEY NEED EITHER.

THEY'RE HAVING TO BUY FROM IRAN AND NORTH KOREA, THE ONLY ROGUE STATES THAT ARE WILLING TO SELL WEAPONS TO THEM.

AND BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE, WE ARE ALSO RAMPING UP OUR AMMUNITION PRODUCTION, ARTILLERY PRODUCTION, ALL KINDS OF WEAPONS PRODUCTION.

I THINK WE CERTAINLY HAVE -- I MEAN, THE U.S. AND EUROPE ARE MANY, MANY TIMES LARGER THAN RUSSIA IN TERMS OF ECONOMIES, IN TERMS OF POPULATION.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO OUTPRODUCE THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY.

AND I THINK CERTAINLY KEEP UKRAINE ABLE TO DEFEND ITSELF, AS LONG AS THE UNITED STATES CONTINUES TO PROVIDE THE AID THAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING.

>> YOU'VE ALSO WRITTEN A BOOK ON PROXY WARS, SMALL WARS.

AND WE'RE SEEING THIS PLAY OUT IN THE MIDDLE EAST NOW, JUST IN THE PAST WEEK THREE AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED BY I THINK -- I GUESS I WOULD SAY THE PROXY FORCES IN SYRIA THAT ARE SOMEWHAT PROXIES OF IRAN.

AND EVEN WITH HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH, AND OTHERS, THEY'RE PARTLY SUPPORTED AT LEAST BY IRAN.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE A PROXY WAR THERE.

SHOULD WE RETALIATE, WE BEING THE UNITED STATES, SHOULD THE U.S.

RETALIATE AGAINST IRAN, OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU REALLY DON'T DO IN THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS?

>> I THINK PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS TO WALK A VERY FINE LINE.

I THINK HE DOES NEED TO RETALIATE.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE IRANIAN-BACKED MILITIAS CROSSED A RED LINE BY KILLING THREE AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF ABOUT 160 ATTACKS ON U.S.

BASES IN THE REGION SINCE THE HAMAS ATTACK ON ISRAEL ON OCTOBER 7th.

SO I THINK PRESIDENT BIDEN DOES NEED TO RETALIATE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK HE IS VERY COGNIZANT HE DOESN'T WANT TO GET INTO A WAR WITH IRAN.

THAT WOULD NOT BE IN ANYBODY'S INTEREST.

SO I DON'T THINK HE IS GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO THESE UBER HAWKS LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JOHN CORNYN WHO ARE SAYING BOMB TEHRAN.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT UNHINGED AND VERY, VERY DANGEROUS.

BUT CLEARLY, WE NEED TO ALSO SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO IRAN THAT THEY CAN'T ATTACK U.S.

FORCES OR THEIR PROXIES CAN'T IMPUNITY.

SO I'M SURE THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS MILITARY AND FOREIGN POLICY ADVISERS ARE LOOKING AT TARGETS THAT THEY CAN GO AFTER TO SEND THAT MESSAGE TO IRAN WITHOUT GETTING INTO AN ESCALATORY SPIRAL THAT WOULD PRODUCE A MASSIVE WAR THAT NOBODY WANTS.

>> YEAH, I ALWAYS THINK OF YOU AS VERY MUCH A REALIST IN FOREIGN POLICY.

AND IT SEEMS THAT THESE DAYS WE'RE VIOLATING THE GRAND PRINCIPLE OF REALISM, WHICH IS NOT TO FIGHT ON TOO MANY FRONTS AND NOT TO HAVE OUR ADVERSARIES END UP JOINING TOGETHER AGAINST US.

AND YET WE'RE DOING THAT WHERE WE'RE PUSHING AGAINST RUSSIA, PUSHING AGAINST CHINA.

NOW PUSHING AGAINST IRAN AND THEY'RE ALL BECOMING CLOSER TO EACH OTHER.

DO YOU THINK WE'RE MAKING A MAJOR STRATEGIC ERROR IN FOREIGN POLICY?

AND IF SO, SHOULD WE BE OPENING UP TO CHINA OR IRAN AND TRY TO NOT HAVE OUR ADVERSARIES ALL GROUND AGAINST US?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I WOULD NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT ALL OF OUR ADVERSARIES ARE GROUPED AGAINST US.

THERE ARE SOME OVERLAPPING INTERESTS BETWEEN IRAN, CHINA, AND RUSSIA.

BUT THEY'RE NOT CLOSE ALLIES.

AND IN FACT I THINK THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB OVER THE LAST YEAR OF IMPROVING RELATIONS WITH CHINA.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, CHINA IS NOT PROVIDING WEAPONS TO RUSSIA AND UKRAINE.

I THINK THAT'S HUGELY IMPORTANT.

AND CHINA SEEMS TO HAVE ADOPTED A SOMEWHAT MORE CONCILIATORY APPROACH TO THE U.S. AND THE WEST, AND I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE THING.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD CERTAINLY TRY TO RATCHET DOWN TENSIONS WHERE WE CAN.

IT'S HARD.

THERE IS NO WAY TO RATCHET DOWN TENSIONS WITH RUSSIA AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO INVADE AN INNOCENT COUNTRY NEXT DOOR.

IT'S VERY HARD TO RATCHET DOWN TENSIONS WITH IRAN AS LONG AS THEIR PROXIES ARE ATTACKING U.S.

FORCES.

CERTAINLY, WE SHOULD TRY TO AVOID GETTING EMBROILED IN MULTIPLE CONFLICTS, BUT REMEMBER, THIS IS KIND OF THE HISTORIC FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES GOING BACK TO 1945 IS TO TRY TO PRESERVE THE PEACE IN THE KEY CENTERS OF GLOBAL POWER, IN EUROPE AND EAST ASIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST.

AND SO I THINK WE STILL HAVE A VITAL ROLE, AN INDISPENSABLE ROLE AS MADELEINE ALBRIGHT SAID IN TRYING TO UPHOLD GLOBAL ORDER.

AND THAT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY AND SOMETIMES DANGEROUS.

BUT I THINK THE FAR GREATER DANGER WOULD BE TO ABANDON OUR INTERNATIONALIST ROLE AND RETREAT INTO THE KIND OF PRE-PEARL HARBOR ISOLATIONISM THAT DONALD TRUMP SEEMS TO ADVOCATE.

>> MAX BOOT, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> AND FINALLY, A NAPKIN FOR WHEN THINGS GET MESSY.

LIONEL MESSI, THAT IS.

A PAPER NAPKIN CONTAINING THE AGREEMENT TO SIGN THE LEGEND TO FC BARCELONA WILL GO ON AUCTION.

STARTING PRICE, $380,000.

THE DEAL WAS SEALED IN 2000 WHEN MESSI WAS JUST 13 YEARS OLD.

IT WAS THE BEGINNING, OF COURSE, OF A BREATHTAKING CAREER AS HE BECAME ONE OF THE GREATEST PLAYERS IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME.

AND SINCE JOINING THE AMERICAN CLUB INTER MIAMI LAST YEAR, HE'S HAD A MASSIVE IMPACT ON THE PROFILE AND POPULARITY OF THE SPORT IN THE UNITED STATES THAT NAPKIN CONTRACT, A DEAL CERTAINLY WORTH MUCH MORE THAN THE PAPER IT WAS WRITTEN ON.

THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW EVER NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING AND GOODBYE FROM LONDON.