Christiane: hello, everyone and welcome to "Amanpour & Company."

Here's what's coming up.

>> this is the largest conservation agreement in the history of the Colorado River.

Christiane: a landmark deal to protect water access for millions.

But experts warn it likely will not be enough.

The governor of Wyoming tells me about how his state is trying to save this vital resource.

>> this is not perfect, we want to see a good closer to the time it woman is pregnant.

>> we do not have the right to make decisions for someone else.

Christiane: as an abortion limit is signed into law, I speak with one of the female senators fighting against the near total ban.

>> the morale of troops, weapons systems, contracts, all of it will be impacted.

Christiane: what would a debt default due to national security?

I asked Peter Bergen.

>> you can take the average student and make them an exceptional student.

Christiane: could AI revolutionize how kids learn?

We talked to someone about his AI powered tutoring platform.

♪ >> "Amanpour & Company" is made possible by the Anderson fund.

Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III.

Candace King Weir.

Jim Attwood and Leslie Williams.

The family foundation of Leila and Mickey Straus.

Mark J. Blechner.

Seton J. Melvin.

Bernard and Denise Schwartz.

Koo and Patricia Yuen, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

We try to live in the moment, to not miss what is right in front of us.

At mutual of America, we believe taking care of tomorrow and help -- can help you make the most of today.

Mutual of America financial group, retirement services and investments.

Additional support provided by these funders.

And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

Christiane: welcome to the program.

I am sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

>> in the western U.S., a landmark deal to protect and import of has finally been reached.

The Colorado River serves more than 40 million Americans across multiple states, but it is drying up.

This is what its largest reservoir looks like last year.

Drought, overuse and climate change are to blame.

The lower basin states, Nevada, California and Arizona will temporarily cut water usage.

In exchange, they will get over a billion dollars worth of federal grants.

It will be about a 13% reduction of total demand, but experts are warning it is not a long-term fix.

Wyoming is one of the upper basin states that will also see the benefits of the deal.

The governor joins me from KC, Wyoming to talk about this.

Governor, thank you for joining us.

I'm sure this is a big relief for you.

Tell us what it means for the state.

>> It's very positive news.

I will say we do not know the details yet, there is still a lot to be worked out, so we are analyzing what this means.

As you pointed out, it is a lower basin state issue.

And they are working through the details.

And it's a little bit uncertain with the debt ceiling topic coming up in Congress, whether the pay for the reduced use will actually happen.

But the point you made earlier about how we have had a two decade-long drought, and that has really challenged the system, is an important part of the conversation.

>> I was going to get to the debt ceiling.

Let's talk about it.

Would you support funding from the inflation reduction act to help support part of the deal, because the federal government, as I noted, stated in exchange they would get federal funding, the states cutting water usage.

Would you support that?

>> I would.

It is a complicated agreement.

The nuances of consumptive use, how we judge that, the modeling exercises -- all has to be updated.

And I think that this buys us a little bit of time.

It has been a great winter for runoff, but it has not changed the long-term challenge.

>> and maybe you have won a couple months or perhaps a year, but this deal would expire in 2026.

So give us other insight into longer-term solutions that maybe the private sector or federally are working on that you are inspired by.

>> I think that our states, all seven of them, have a tradition of working together.

It's known t that there is less water coming into the system that we originally modeled the agreement on, the 1992 model on, so there is model work to be done.

It's encouraging the lower basin states have reached this initial agreement.

There is good conservation work being done.

One thing I really want to stress is that there is no real silver bullet in this process.

It will take a lot of negotiation.

In Wyoming, we have been looking at demand management.

There's curtailment's being considered.

There's still upper basin water that has been used to make sure that we keep the power pool in Lake still.

At that is the challenge.

What happens if we run out of the upper basin reserves.

And, that is what we are all happy about at that time to look at this again more carefully.

But there is still a work to be done -- still work to be done.

>> it is commendable of these estates were able to reach an agreement, nonetheless.

I'm curious to get your thoughts on connecting that to what we are seeing in Washington, the negotiations over the debt limit.

It's coming down to the wire.

Unfortunately, this is not a big surprise given the political climate today, but there does appear to seem like there is a deal in reach.

Reports suggest there is a difference of about $70 billion.

The deal reportedly under discussion now caps nondefense discretionary spending over two years.

That is considered a win for Democrats.

Republicans were looking at 10 years.

More than 30% of that spending goes to states and localities, like you and your constituents.

So, are you concerned or ready to tell constituents that they should anticipate cuts from the federal government in terms of funding?

>> I think that Wyoming is a very conservative state.

And we have dealt with real challenges before from the federal government.

We have to stop spending as much money on delegation.

And making sure where Wyoming position is, and we will continue to work on that.

But your point about taxes, payments, and your point about what happens to towns and communities, that is a substantial hit.

Wyoming has been very forward thinking in making sure we have adequate reserves.

But those can only last so long.

What we really need to do is make sure this country gets back on track with energy production.

We have not seen leasing on federal lands that has been done in a productive way over the last years, so that means a reduction in payments coming from private companies, who go through the federal government.

A reduction of -- grants.

And those are significant.

It's a way to increase revenue to states and to the federal government.

Christiane: I know -- >> I know you have been critical of green energy investment by this administration.

The president has been linking this to generating new jobs, jobs of the future, connectin it to climate change, which goes back to the topic we started the discussion with.

And that is what is happening with the rivers and the water supply is somewhat attributed to climate change.

So, why are you so against the investment in green technology?

>> what I am against is the mandates like esg.

Our investment strategy is for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

LOOK, for Wyoming we are the first state to lean into climate.

We said we wanted to be climate negative, not neutral.

But actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Wyoming has a tremendous amount of energy resources.

We have some of the best wind.

It's only taken 15 years to get this done.

The largest domestic windfarm is starting to be constructed now in Wyoming.

And we just had Bill Gates out to Southwestern Wyoming to talk about advanced nuclear reactors.

Which will be necessary to have, dependable electricity.

It we have taken the lead for the last couple decades on carbon capture.

So, it is -- whe you look at the west -- when you look at the west, we are aligned.

The governor of New Mexico and I have had a couple opportunities to talk about what transition actually means.

Are the jobs the same?

Do they pay the same?

And, so I think that what we really need to have is an honest discussion about energy production.

That there's a balance.

Many of our companies actually have put a tremendous amount of effort into environmental stewardship.

So, my problem is when we have the simple sort of calculus that ESG is good, we often miss some excellent work being done.

>> ESG, we should let the various know it is environmental, social governance.

If so I want to ask you about your abortion restriction laws, because they are some of the toughest.

It will be speaking with a Republican legislature -- legislator in South Carolina, posing the six week abortion ban that has been just put on hold in that state by a judge there.

You signed it the first date began on abortion medication, despite the fact that has been legally approved for over 20 years in this country into has been proven to be safer than Viagra and even penicillin.

You signed a total abortion ban, which is currently blocked in the courts right now.

Here is how one Republican state senator interpreted these bans.

She said once a woman becomes pregnant, she becomes of the property of the state of South Carolina.

What do you say to the women of Wyoming?

Is that how they should be interpreting the bans?

>> I am a pro-life governor.

We have a very pro-life legislature in Wyoming.

That case, and at the chemical abortion bill, is also being brought into that.

So I have to be circumspect about how we talk about the ongoing case.

But what I will tell you is we have focused in Wyoming on making sure that as a pro-life state we provide resources to young mothers.

We provide better educational opportunities.

We provide, you know, though.

Network for young parents.

It is important that we broaden the discussion to talk about mothers' needs and a support we can provide for mothers and families moving forward.

>> what about women's rights in general?

AWoman's right to choose what to do with her body?

The issue is a matter of weeks in South Carolina, some people have proposed 12 weeks.

These are people against abortion.

They just do not think that this law should be enacted and women should be told and dictated by their state appointed elected officials as to what they should be doing with their bodies.

>> I think that that is the very substance of the case before the Wyoming courts, the district courts.

And I am sure it will be fully exercise and that discussion will happen.

From my point of view, we love children.

We want to make sure they have a good start.

We love families.

It is a family-friendly state.

And we want to make sure that young mothers have all the resources they need to make sure that their children have the opportunity to start life.

>> governor, thank you for your time.

We appreciate it.

That is Governor Gordon and Wyoming.

As we mentioned, a South Carolina judge has temporarily blocked new abortion restrictions 24 hours after it went into effect.

The legislation was signed into law yesterday.

TThe heartbeat is detected aroud six weeks, and before many women know they are pregnant.

There are exceptions, when an abortion is needed to save a life.

There's also exceptions for victims of rape and incest up to 12 weeks.

Five female senators in the Senate who have become known as the sister senators all voted against it.

They say what the law is really about is controlling women.

State Senator gust of sin is joining us now.

Thank you for joining us.

I do not know if you are able to listen to my conversation with the governor of Wyoming when I asked about the points you have been making, the rights of women.

His answer referred it to the rights of children and babies.

So, I am curious to get your response to what you heard, and then follow-up with the news that just came out blocking the bill.

>> thank you for having me back.

I contend and have always supported the rights of the baby and the rights of the mother.

Balancing these rights, that is where the conundrum is.

That is where the biggest difference or spasm lies -- sc hasm lies, between those.

We have to have a balance because both rights are important.

They both have to be considered.

>> your reaction to the judge, the state judge temporarily blocking the six week abortion ban?

Do you and the sister senators, as you have become known, famous for that filibuster that put off that bill from initially coming forward.

It was signed yesterday, now we have the news from the judge.

What is your reaction?

>> it is very expected.

The bill that was actually passed was not the original bill the Senate came up with and wrote.

The South Carolina house changed it quite a bit, adding whereas and fact-finding causes, the very thing that hurt us with S1 and it was deemed unconstitutional by the South Carolina Supreme Court.

So I am not surprised there is an injunction of grants -- against this law.

It is unfortunate because we know that there are causes for the problem, yet the house reinserted them.

And that was one of the main reasons I voted against it.

I do not think it can be upheld.

The longer we extend this debate, and the more that this legislation is put off, truly the more abortions will take place.

Knowing that would be -- I was upset about that.

>> we should let viewers know that you do not support abortion but you have become the face many have come to recognize in the country of people who are opposed to this bill.

Can you explain why?

>> I will tell you.

I'm a Christian woman.

I am a mom.

And I am a Republican.

I've always stated I am pro-life, pro-mother and pro-women.

What I have not been is an abortion activist in any way.

I do not like them and I do not support them as they exist, but they do.

And -- how do I put this?

Can you rephrase the question a little bit?

>> I am curious how given you are not a proponent of abortion, I mean, the last time I had you on you or against one of the other sister senators who was calling for a 12 week ban.

And you did not support that.

What does it feel like to be the face of this movement now, at least in your state, to be against this particular bill?

>> I think it is very important that we do have female leaders who can talk respectfully and calmy to the issue.

And also address the elephants in the room.

To be able to speak above a stigma.

And be heard.

That is the great thing that has come out of this.

We had this wonderful voice, and I am very aware of what I am saying.

And I am trying so hard to do the right thing and keep the discussion balanced and going.

And not divide anyone in the process.

I think that is possible to do.

That is what I am trying to show people everywhere, that you can lead, you can be a politician without trashing everyone in your wake.

>> the last time I spoke with you and your fellow sister senators, I was struck by what Senator Katrina Shealy said in terms of why she was being so outspoken about protecting women's rights.

And giving women a platform to speak.

Here's what she said that shocked me so much.

>> we a 12 week abortion ban with all of the exceptions, and they would not even hear our bil l in medical affairs because they said a woman should not introduce it, that they needed a man to introduce it for it to get heard.

I thought that was just the utter insult to women, that we could not introduce the abortion bill, the abortion ban bill because we were women and they did not think we would get the respect we needed on the floor to introduce a bill that had something to do with our bodies.

>> there are few things that surprised me when it comes to politics, but that shocked me.

It is 2023, and the ridiculous notion that men think that women could not introduce legislation, specifically legislation that affects women more than anyone else, is shocking.

What is the response?

>> Oh, I was completely shocked.

And I found out kind of after-the-fact, after it happened.

I knew that we had introduced a bill.

And it was not taken up.

But I did not hear the rest of the conversation until fairly recently.

And it is shocking.

It really is.

I do not know another word, startling?

It is time that we have more than five women in our state Senate.

46 members, only five of them are women.

And the discussions, the debate and everything else, will not display our perspective until there are more of us.

And having 14% of the General assembly be women and if that is all, we need to do better.

And we need to support our good female candidates, not just any FEMA candidate, but good ones -- female candidate, but good ones.

I am committed to doing that.

I have helped people in the past.

To think a bill would not be taken up based on sex alone, in 2023 like you said, uh -- it's awful.

>> State Senator Sandy sent is another one of the sister senators who voted against the bill.

She said fellow Republicans, many of whom are running for reelection, will face a reckoning at the ballot box for their support of the ban.

Do you agree with her sentiment there, especially given what we have heard from your male counterparts who some think that women do not have the right or authority to bring bills forward?

>> well, we can bring bills forward, but as long as they are within a certain dynamic or structure, evidently.

The women of South Carolina are going to show up and vote.

This issue has woken up people.

Maybe some walked away because there has been so much craziness in the last couple presidential elections.

But they are going to come back and they will be voting.

And I think it is a mistake to underestimate any peoples, especially women.

You know?

So, I think that there will be a lot of people voting this upcoming year.

And I am happy to hear that.

Probably a lot more women.

At the same time, four at a five of our Republican Senate women are being challenged in a primary by house Republican male members, if you can believe that.

Four members in our South Carolina house are challenging four women in the Senate.

And, we need good government.

We cannot be dividing ourselves and further dividing within parties, within groups.

It just doesn't make for good government.

We need to good people to run.

And we need more women, that is for sure.

>> you talked about state elections.

I am curious, we know in terms of presidential elections, Former President Trump has suggested in his view abortion is a losing issue, although he has not given a definitive stance on where he stands on it and legislation he would put forward.

But we know that two other candidates who have entered the race Ron DeSantis and Tim Scott, , have offered their views.

>> I am 100% pro-life conservative.

As President, I would sign the most conservative legislation bill that could get to my desk.

>> Dobbs returned the issue to the elected representatives of the people, so I think that there is a role for the federal and the states.

>> will those hard-line takes help or hurt in the election?

>> all I know is abortion is one of the most dividing issues of our generation.

And whatever review that -- view that one takes, it must be done with empathy and kindness, wherever you stand.

Senator Scott, I think that he is trying to find consensus and middleground with South Carolinians.

I know that former Governor Nikki Haley has made a formal opinion and statements about abortion.

So has Nancy Mase, our congresswoman of South Carolina.

And I have said previously the federal government needs to stay out of this, since Roe v. Wade was overturned and made the decisions go back to the state.

Each state has a right to do our own decision-making.

And that's what the Supreme Court of the United States has called us to do.

So, I am not sure.

I am not sure how that will work out with the federal government, a federal mandate, for restrictions or parameters.

Again, agreeing -- coming to a consensus seems to be really tough.

>> the State Senator, never a dull day.

We will continue to follow this case in South Carolina, temporarily blocked by a state judge.

We appreciate your time.

>> can I possibly add one more thing?

>> of course.

>> I just want to say a quote from Ronald Reagan, who all Republicans and conservatives revere.

The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% trader.

-- trait or.

We have got to keep our common ground and work from that point.

Thank you for having me.

>> thank you for joining us.

America may be days away from defaulting on its debts.

The White House and Republican lawmakers say they are getting close to a deal that would bring cuts to discretionary spending.

As negotiations continue, top experts are warning of the dangers of playing politics with the bank balance.

Peter Bergen is a national security analyst, and in his new podcast he is digging into one of the toughest choices for U.S. security with the people who help make them.

Peter is joining me from Washington.

It is always good to see you.

Let's start with the debt ceiling crisis.

It looks like a deal is somewhat within reach, but we have already seen the consequences.

We have been here in the past, but once again we have seen President Biden cut short a G7 trip and the world is watching.

You have talked with foreign policy experts, who are really focused on whether this could mean for our standing in the world.

-- what this could mean for our standing in the world.

What are you hearing?

Peter: China and Russia are always observing our domestic politics.

But I think that often American rivals mistake our contentious politics for weakness.

And I have lived in Washington for three decades and I have seen this movie many times.

I look back and I see that since 1960, whether it is Republicans or Democrats in charge committed the debt ceiling has been raised 78 times.

It is in nobody's interest for this not to work.

From a national security point of view, one of the immediate effects is veterans benefits and other benefits to civilians.

$12 billion is due June 1.

Do you really want to be harming our nation's veterans by not making a decision?

So, I am optimistic but -- because not making a deal would be so stupid.

>> we are cutting it close.

Janet Yellen said it could be something where it's days from now, June 1, when the country cannot pay its bills.

I was struck by many conversations.

We do not have enough time to get through your podcast, but I enjoyed your conversation with General David Petraeus.

He talked about China.

We'll get to Russia as well.

In the context of China, he compared the U.S. to a plate spinner and it said China was the biggest plate of all.

I was curious to hear that phrase.

What was your take from his interpretation on how the U.S. is balancing or not balancing so well all the challenges it is facing, specifically from China?

Peter: yeah, David Petraeus was on our podcast in the room, aud ible, and the general has done a lot of thinking.

He's now part of a big investment company, so he does speak with people and to think about the issues.

He said China is the big one.

He hopes there is not a decoupling.

But one thing that I think is striking, beyond if you look at the Donald Trump administration that took a skeptical approach to China for all the reasons you know well, like stealing of intellectual property, not having a fair playing field for American companies in China, et cetera.

They put up tariffs, they had more freedom of exercises in the China seat.

But they tariffs are still there now.

There has been more aggressive posturing in general.

From Washington, there is not a lot of common agreement, but there is agreement on China.

The big problem is nobody wants a conflict with China and Xi has said that the liberation Army should be prepared to take Taiwan by 2027.

We have had a four-star American General say that we may be in a conflict with China by 2025.

At would obviously be bad.

When we had the Cold War, the Soviet economy was flatlining.

Here, we are the largest economy in the world, also the second.

So whatever the tension is, we need to make sure nothing really happens.

>> do you get a sense that China is perhaps more deterred from any kind of conflict with Taiwan, given what is transpiring right now in Ukraine?

Not only with the U.S., but the Western alliance's strong response in support of Ukraine.

Or do you think that this could perhaps leave president Xi in a position where he feels he has to act sooner rather than later?

>> if I was the Chinese, one of the takeaways is the U.S. and NATO took a long time to respond.

If they can get inside our collective decision cycle, meaning if they can quickly take the island or much of it in a few days, then I think that that would be their goal.

On the other hand, another lesson they may have learned is it did not go well for Russia in Ukraine.

Taiwan is a different matter.

Here was Putin crossing a land border.

China would have to cross water.

That is one of the hardest things you can do, innovation from the water.

So it might cut both ways.

They might say, that is a tough deal, we should be careful.

On the other hand they might say, if we can do this relatively quickly the West will not get its act together sufficiently to kind of challenge what we are -- what essentially would be --.

>> and they have not been tested in decades.

Putin was bullish on his military until we saw what took place over the last year in Ukraine, and perhaps president Xi is also having doubts.

Who knows.

I was in York -- interested in your conversation over the future of the battlefield, in particular with AI, a subject we are talking about quite frequently these days on a number of platforms here.

But I am curious in terms of warfare.

Your response to his take on it.

Let's play it.

>> at the point where it is machine on machine, and the slowest machine loses.

If you have a human at the final moment, your machine is going to lose because it will be slower than the machine enabled by AI.

>> do you get a sense of how soon that could be the reality?

I ask that as we see a time more play out in Europe that is being described as a war over the past.

Peter: in Ukraine, it has been trench warfare.

But it has been enabled by an American defense contractor that is cutting edge, using machine learning and AI.

So some of these tools are already being deployed.

The point is which machines will fight machines, the Chinese are already in the space in the sense that they have shown they have autonomous swarms of drones governed by AI.

And the United States, we hear a lot in the U.S. about the issue of AI generating disinformation, and you know, possible loss of jobs, but from my point of view -- think about the question of the launch of nuclear weapons, where AI might be involved.

AI, generally speaking, will make faster and better decisions than humans on many things.

But it is a dystopian future when AI might be in the decision loop with something as serious as launching nuclear weapons.

It is already there for armed drones.

It used to be you wanted a human being to make a decision to kill another, but I think we are at the point where that has been overtaken.

>> that is for sure.

You are right to describe it as dystopian.

I have to ask, what made you interested in devoting an entire episode to UFOs?

[LAUGHTER] Peter: this is before they Chinese balloon came across the U.S..

The Pentagon has had a schizophrenic approach to UFOs, so it has been sometimes useful to promote them because it could disguise programs like the SR-71 for stealth aircraft.

The Pentagon has also been a source of information on them.

We are about to get a new report, 650 unexplained sightings and that they are looking into, mostly by the U.S. Navy and military pilots.

And they have set up a new office to investigate.

With national security, even if you do not believe aliens are coming to visit us, if unidentified flying objects are in our airspace that is a national security problem.

And that is a good reason to explore every siding and get a better understanding of what they are.

Many still remain unexplained.

The most recent, they looked at 500 cases, 177 they could not give a good explanation for.

Some of them turned out to be balloons, trash, foreign enemy activity.

So.

>> we are short on time, but it was one of my favorite of all episodes.

Like you, I am a skeptic.

But listening to the people that you spoke with, maybe I can be convinced after all.

Fascinating conversation.

Peter, thank you.

Congratulations on the new podcast.

Well, as we have been discussing from deepfake images to voice scams, the danger of artificial intelligence has prompted calls for regulation.

Our next guest a season upside it it says it could be the biggest positive transformation education has ever seen.

He is the founder of the nonprofit Kan Academy, that recently piloted a tutor and a teaching assistant power to buy AI.

He tells us how he thinks it could supercharge world-class education.

>> welcome back to the show.

>> thank you.

>> we have heard about the promise and peril of artificial intelligence, but one of the amazing things that it seems to be doing, and you are leading the way on this, is creating a personal tutor so that every kid on the planet can have a personal tutor to tutor them in math, writing, history and everything else.

Explain how you are trying to do that.

>> educators have known for millennia that one-on-one tutoring, working with a student at their own pace, is the best way to learn.

That is what Alexander the great had with Aristotle.

Fast forward, we had a utopian idea of mass education, but we had to compromise.

We did not have the resources for personal tutor's, so we put students together and would have somebody lecture.

That is what we have been doing.

Over the last many decades, there has been tons of efficacy research that it is great to have 30 kids in a classroom but it would be better to have one-on-one tutoring.

If you do that commute could take the average student and make them an exceptional student.

Take a below average student and make them an above average student.

Many folks in technology over the last several decades have thought about how to use technology to emulate what a tutor would do.

That is what we have been doing for the last 15 years at the Academy.

Our not-for-profit mission is free education everywhere.

When OpenAI reached out to us last summer, we are under an NDA until only a few weeks ago, and they said, we want to do positive use cases.

We said, we think it is ready to actually hit the holy grail of education, which is can we create -- can we create a tutor for every child?

We launched in March.

And what we started piloting is our artificially intelligent tutor powered by AI.

And there has been news about using ChatGPT.

This does not allow you to cheat.

If you ask a question, it will say, how would you approach it?

It asked like Eric -- ask like Aristotle -- acts like Aristotle would.

It works across every subject.

Has all the context of the student would normally have.

And it does act as a teaching assistant for teachers.

>> give me an example.

Take history.

Suppose it is in American history course.

You and I have done some together.

How would it help us figure out how the Constitution was written?

>> we did user testing with many students.

We have a lab school, we have an online school, and we did research with these students.

And one of the students was looking at a part of AP U.S. government on judicial review, or judicial confirmation.

She asked the AI.

She watched a video and asked, why it is this relevant to right now?

And it immediately brought up recent confirmation hearings, Merrick Garland, that situation and all that.

The student said, wow, this just brought it to life in ways I could have never imagined.

It also allows students to do things that would have looked like science-fiction a year ago, where they can actually talk to simulations of historic characters.

You can debate federalism with Madison or with Hamilton.

>> school boards in the country are being rattled by all kinds of controversies about what is getting taught, about inclusivity or diversity or history or reparations or sexuality, gender issues.

How do you think a tutor, an AI tutor, would deal with such controversies?

>> you know, I might be nalïve, but I feel like 95% of Americans are reasonably consistent on these issues.

And many of the polarizations happen on hearsay.

I heard of that is not in the classroom.

It gets folks triggered and angry.

One of our strategies has always been to just be hyper transparent.

If somebody tells you there is a video that is biased at the Academy, or are artificial intelligence is, show us and to show somebody else.

It is a secret.

It's tehere for anybody to try.

We will add just if we feel like there is a bias.

Or if it is trying to give a point of view that may not be fair.

I know folks at OpenAI, Google and other places are trying hard to make the underlying engines unbiased.

We have had actually some of the content you and I have done together, there is an appellate court judges that is skeptical of the Academy coming out of California.

He looked at our product on the Constitution and it said this is the way it should be taught.

And had another civil rights leader who said, have you papered over certain aspects of history?

He looked at the content and said, no, this is a full treatment on American history.

I believe when both sides can see it in its totality and did they say it is academic, not biased, I think most folks get behind it.

>> let's talk about math.

When somebody gets a math problem wrong, there are 100 different ways they can have it wrong.

Let's say there is a piece of algebra where you do not understand the distributive process.

How does a one on one tutor help you in that way?

>> as many folks know, the AI coming out, these are language models.

People have been skeptical about how good they will be at mathematics.

Even when we saw some of the first examples with GPT, it was doing well in the humanities, well in the science and conceptual knowledge, but not so well with math.

We have been working closely into spending time internally, also with researchers at OpenAI, to try to get the math right.

So, people are surprised by how good it is at math.

It is not perfect.

But if a student -- if they ask how to do the problem, it will not tell you, it will ask you what is the next step.

If the student does not distribute a property correctly, it will -- we have a concept called AI thoughts, where it will think about how it would have approached the problem or how the student could have a personal problem.

It does not share that but compares the student's response to that.

At that is what a tutor would do , think about it.

If the student did something different than what the AI thinks is a reasonable path, the AI will say I have something different.

Can you explain your reasoning?

That is a very good pedagogical thing to do.

When the student explains, they can understand it better.

So this is what a great tutor would do.

I have something different than you.

Instead of saying this is how you do it, say explain your reasoning.

Then 80% of the time the student will say, this is where I messed up.

Or the AI might say, that was actually a better approach.

>> for it to be transformative it has got to be equitable.

It cannot help increase the divide between rich and poor.

So how do you think about that?

What extent do you hope and invasion it might be free for every kid on the planet?

>> this is the core issue.

One of the major sources of an equity -- an equity in education is you could have two students that go to the same classroom, but one student whose parents understand the system, who have access to resources, they might get real tutoring when they go home.

Or their parents could tutor them while the other student does not have access to resources.

The idea of having a scalable tutor is to level the playing field.

So, we think already, even with the computation costs, it is far more accessible than traditional tutoring.

And then, if the cost per student keeps going the way it looks like it will, we think in the coming years it will truly be something we can give to every student and every teacher as a teaching assistant.

>> you talk about personalization.

It fascinates me because when Aristotle was tutoring Alexander the great, it was personalized.

He knew what Alexander was having trouble with, what he had difficulties with a year ago.

To what extent will this thing remember you throughout your entire school career, and be personalized for you?

>> that is what we are literally working on as we speak.

If you were to use it right now, it remembers the conversation and it remembers some of the more traditional work you have been doing.

By back to school, we hope it will remember its conversations it has had with you.

It will remember if you told it I prefer this kind of tone, or it knows your reading level.

So, this is not some science fiction even three or five areas out, it is more like three months out that that will be there.

And we will continue to make it more and more personalized.

And we will be running ethics studies.

We have done studies on the core of the Academy, but now we will see adding a layer of artificial intelligence can really accelerate students, not just learning, but likely their engagement.

>> that sounds awesome, but there is one possible DarkSide to it remembering everything about you and being totally personalized, which is privacy.

Do you have a guardrail or guard rails so that I could not subpoena or nobody will be able to get the private data it has?

>> yeah, that is core to who we are.

15 years ago, when I set it up as a not-for-profit, and I did not envision that AI would advance this quickly, but one reason we were not is be recognized student data is a sensitive thing.

And we wanted, amongst other things, our true North to never use data for anything that could be counterproductive.

It should only be used to improve learning for the student, personalize it, or improve the efficacy of the platform.

These are things we have taken seriously.

Even with the current AI, we are not using that information to train artificial intelligence.

Some of the questions, I think for students there is a different context.

This is one of the safety mechanisms, that everything a student does is monitored by the teacher and parent.We have another artificial intelligence monitoring conversations with the first artificial intelligence to flag conversations and notify parents and teachers.

To your point, we definitely come over the coming years, especially as it gets knowledge of the student, make sure that it is only used for positive use cases.

>> we recently had Jeffrey Hinton on the show and he said that there could be sort of an existential threat of AI.

What's your perception of that?

>> I think it is hard for us to predict exactly what will happen, but the thought experiment I run in my mind is there is the more conservative stance on AI, where we say we do not know where it is going, let's regulate it before we actually see it cause problems.

The problem with that is the only people who will follow that are the good folks, the rule followers.

The criminal organizations, the authoritarian states, they will not slow down.

In my mind, the most dystopian scenario is one where criminal organizations have better artificial intelligence than the rule followers.

I do not think it is a viable path to act with fear and try to slow things down.

The other path, folks will say this will work out, like the Industrial Revolution.

It will create more jobs than it destroys.

May be, but I do not think it is enough to hope.

And use it as a strategy.

I think it is important for actors like our nonprofit and others to be very proactive and to say, what are the risks?

How do we mitigate them?

What are the benefits and how do we maximize them so AI becomes a massive positive as opposed to a negative?

>> how do you envision 10 years from now education?

>> I think you will be able to talk to a tutor, an artificial intelligent tutor, like we are having a conversation right now.

It might even happen in five years.

It will be able to draw things out, like a real time personalized video.

It will happen in any language.

And you might sometimes engage with it on your phone, laptop, or through virtual reality so you feel like you are in the same room with it.

It will be immersive.

I thank you also see changes to other parts of -- think you will also see changes to the other parts of the system.

How you can grade, where you have multiple-choice, and that is what the educational system got focused on, things you could assess in a low-cost way.

But now artificial intelligence can't assess riding, thoughts can you can have a simulation or dialogue with it.

You can have an oral exam with it, which is the gold standard for a thesis defense.

You can do that on demand.

In five or 10 years, assessment will be looking a lot richer.

I think that the teacher's role in this artificially intelligent world, a lot of administrative tasks will be taken away and they will be able to focus on the one to one personal attention.

They will always have the artificial intelligence to help advise.

We have another nonprofit called schoolhouse.world and we are already leveraging artificial intelligence to give the tutor feedback on how they can tutor better based on the transcript.

And we are about one year away from in real time being able to give the tutor feedback on, hey, you did not call on this student lately.

Here is what they are actually asking.

So it will really be something where it is not humans versus artificial intelligence.

It will be artificial intelligence allowing the humans to be more human.

>> should colleges, when they decide to admit students, should they be allowed to submit all of that so a college can say, this is how a person works.

What about job applications?

Is that in invasion of privacy or is it something that would be useful so college admissions would be more fair?

>> anything is reasonable as long as the people who are affected by it bought into it.

I could imagine a world where a student interacts with conmigo over many years, maybe their entire k-12 experience.

Then they could ask conmigo to write a recommendation for them.

It is the student asking for it.

I would not want to do it behind the scenes.

I would not be surprised if University admissions, going back to your question, if they have to sift through 30,000 applications.

They have readers.

It will be inconsistent depending.

But they will be.

using this kind of technology As well as people know how they are using it, testing it for bias.

As long as it is more perfect than what we are doing today it is a step in the right direction.

>> thank you for joining us.

>> an optimistic take on the future of education.

Finally, we want to end with a sweet moment from a friend of the show.

Serena Williams, who needs no introduction, sharing big news with her five-year-old daughter, Olympia.

>> we went to the doctor.

And it turns out I am -- I have a baby in my belly.

>> are you kidding me?

>> you are going to be a big sister.

>> eeeek!

[LAUGHTER] >> do you want to see?

Do you want to see mama's belly?

>> oh my gosh.

I am so excited.

>> we thought you would be excited.

>> eeeek!

Ahhh!

>> a special moment in any family.

We wish them all the best.

That is it for our program tonight.

If you want to find out what's coming on, sign-up up for our newsletter at PBS.org/Amanpour.

Thank you for watching.

Join us again next time.