CANALCATORCE — broadcast
20260920 150000 UTC
323 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:11:09] Next, France
[00:11:12] 24 news.
[00:11:16] Against the current, I am convinced that it was time to raise my
[00:11:19] voice for these principles that have been
[00:11:22] the proud banner of my candidacy. From Philadelphia,
[00:11:26] British singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran apologized and admitted that he made
[00:11:29] mistakes after the controversial expulsion on Monday of his opening act in
[00:11:33] the United States, rapper Macklemore, for his support of the
[00:11:36] Palestinian cause. The artist opened his show referring to the
[00:11:40] current Israeli siege against the Gaza Strip, stating that what is
[00:11:44] happening is catastrophic and unjustifiable. In addition,
[00:11:47] he assured that he wants his music and his concerts to be about unity
[00:11:51] and humanity, and not about politics.
[00:11:58] It's music, it makes you feel good, there shouldn't be politics involved,
[00:12:02] and if there is, if someone has a point of view, then
[00:12:05] good for them, you know, it doesn't discourage you, at least it doesn't
[00:12:09] make me stop listening to it, it's simply that
[00:12:12] feeling that music conveys, it's something
[00:12:14] different.
[00:12:20] I think he was in a really difficult situation, he was going to
[00:12:24] cancel everything. Because the opening act wanted to do this, in my opinion,
[00:12:28] Ed Sheeran had no other option, but I understand why
[00:12:31] it happened, I understand Macklemore's position and I support
[00:12:34] everyone, I think war is bad, all war is
[00:12:37] bad. In Mexico, 200 years of relations with France are
[00:12:41] celebrated, a bicentennial with events and cultural
[00:12:45] exchanges, such as a show organized by the French company
[00:12:47] Massel Fretin. After
[00:12:50] sharing the stage with Madonna and participating in the FIFA World Cup show,
[00:12:54] the company debuted in Mexico with the performance of
[00:12:58] Rap Lucide, a show of dance and electro music
[00:13:01] shared between French dancers and Mexican champions.
[00:13:04] Jorge Hurtado, correspondent in Mexico, brings us the
[00:13:07] report.
[00:13:11] Brandon Macel, founder of the prestigious French company Macel
[00:13:14] Fretin, supervises every minute detail of the Mexican theater where his
[00:13:18] work Rey Lucy lands, a unique cultural exchange to celebrate
[00:13:21] 200 years of relations between Mexico and France.
[00:13:55] disciplinaries like María Belén from Yucatán. From France, we
[00:13:58] take the experience they gave us on how
[00:14:02] culture is worked there, and
[00:14:06] I feel that in Mexico it's like the passion for what
[00:14:09] we do, I think how we
[00:14:12] completely give ourselves to projects, whether dance
[00:14:15] or in other areas, I feel that's the exchange we
[00:14:18] had.
[00:14:21] The work is famous for fusing Parisian club electro, hip
[00:14:25] hop, and contemporary dance, a discipline
[00:14:28] where dancers like Omar Reyes find the opportunity to
[00:14:31] interact with one of their great references. The interaction has been
[00:14:34] excellent. This Brandon Miel, known in the Electro
[00:14:38] community, is a super important figure for many of us, he has been
[00:14:42] super iconic since we started dancing Electro, he practically was born with
[00:14:46] this community and being able to be in contact with him has been something
[00:14:50] super important for all of us.
[00:14:54] With the international tour, consecrated on global stages like Madonna's
[00:14:57] or the World Cup final, the encounter in Mexico City confirms
[00:15:01] that dance knows no borders, only bodies that
[00:15:04] speak the same language.
[00:15:08] Thank you for listening to the news.
[00:15:09] They observe,
[00:15:17] they observe, alert,
[00:15:21] testify, film, photograph.
[00:15:25] They are the voice of those who have none, they are their eyes
[00:15:29] around the world. The
[00:15:31] observers, a network of 500 citizens,
[00:15:35] committed together with France24. Images
[00:15:38] and testimonials from verified amateurs by our
[00:15:41] journalists, broadcast every week.
[00:15:44] Join me on The Observers on France24 and
[00:15:48] France24.com.
[00:15:54] Welcome to this science and technology space. I'm Valentina Torres Sánchez and
[00:15:57] it's a pleasure to be with you. Today we analyze the recent alerts
[00:16:01] about the rapid development of artificial intelligence and its associated
[00:16:04] risks. We spoke with Samir Stefan, a technology expert,
[00:16:08] who answered us what probability there is of extinguishing ourselves as a species
[00:16:11] in 2030 due to AI, as an
[00:16:15] ex-Anthropic employee warns, well, it's greater than zero, no,
[00:16:18] it's not zero. I wouldn't dare to say it's greater than 10% as some
[00:16:22] researchers have said, but it's
[00:16:25] clear that it's greater than zero and it's greater than zero because we are reaching a point where we don't really
[00:16:29] understand what is
[00:16:32] made more and more voices of technology leaders rise and
[00:16:36] call for regulating or anticipating the development of AI, this is what our
[00:16:39] guest told us, the eagerness to be the first, right? That has led,
[00:16:43] for example, the American government to eliminate some controls and some
[00:16:47] conditions and, on the other hand, for companies to seek a
[00:16:50] faster way to achieve the next level,
[00:16:54] has led us, for example, to the use of a technology that
[00:16:58] is known as
[00:17:00] recurring self-improvement, yes,
[00:17:04] which is basically, we teach the algorithm to
[00:17:08] write code and then we said, hey, if the algorithm is capable of writing
[00:17:11] code, why couldn't it write code for itself and self-improve,
[00:17:15] yes, and that is happening at such a rapid speed that basically what
[00:17:19] researchers say is that we reached a point where we no longer understand what is
[00:17:23] happening, yes, so the fear is if that speed
[00:17:26] continues to grow, if those algorithms continue to self-improve without us
[00:17:30] understanding what is happening behind the scenes, and if
[00:17:34] also the scope of an algorithm that
[00:17:37] only served to write code of an algorithm that only served to
[00:17:41] generate images, of an algorithm that only served to answer questions,
[00:17:45] much broader topics, right? And
[00:17:48] we already see a little bit of the results of how algorithms can
[00:17:51] "escape" and end up doing things that they were not
[00:17:55] programmed to do. Likewise, it is worth noting that talking about
[00:17:58] advanced AI functions does not mean that robots are going to take control of the
[00:18:02] world. The key is to understand its real capabilities today and what are
[00:18:06] the authentic risks that could destabilize
[00:18:08] humanity. At this moment, I think that the two main risks
[00:18:12] are the risk of being able to
[00:18:16] hack systems that could not be hacked before, right? So we have
[00:18:19] risks, for example, of financial systems being hacked, of an
[00:18:23] electrical plant system being hacked, right? So
[00:18:26] we have a possibility of a hack, either
[00:18:29] because someone used it with bad intentions or because
[00:18:35] what it is doing, the consequences
[00:18:38] behind that end up hacking, right? That's the first one, and the second
[00:18:41] is the risk that these
[00:18:44] algorithms, in one way or another, foster a model
[00:18:48] of disinformation so great that we end up breaking the
[00:18:51] few, the few threads that
[00:18:54] keep democracy together, no, but very
[00:18:58] lightly, those are the two main risks, now
[00:19:01] we are seeing companies that are saying, hey, you know what, let's put
[00:19:05] a body on this algorithm, mount this algorithm on a drone, and let it define whether
[00:19:09] or not it shoots at a target, and that is opening a different
[00:19:12] door. It is also worth remembering that at the beginning AI was in the hands
[00:19:16] of a few, which allowed greater control over its use. Today, a large
[00:19:19] part of humanity has access to this technology and can adapt it to its
[00:19:23] purposes, from developing personalized medicines to creating new
[00:19:27] pathogens and viruses. We are facing a double-edged
[00:19:29] sword. The extent to which these algorithms end up being more and more
[00:19:33] public or that even the
[00:19:37] large algorithms can be used to train smaller algorithms
[00:19:40] already owned by these groups, what we see is that
[00:19:44] that field is leveled where we see that anyone could
[00:19:47] use it to create a biological weapon or anyone could
[00:19:50] use it to create the optimal route for some
[00:19:54] missiles, as I think the Houthis used them last week. Faced with this
[00:19:58] wave of warnings, leading companies, Open AI, Anthropic, and
[00:20:01] Google, have said they will work together on security,
[00:20:05] but how effective can this self-control be if the
[00:20:08] US administration is betting on development without regulatory hurdles? I think it's
[00:20:12] hardly credible that we can at this
[00:20:16] point achieve a model like this. There was a regulatory framework
[00:20:20] in the United States that the Trump government dismantled. There is a regulatory
[00:20:23] framework in Europe, but it only applies to European companies. The Chinese
[00:20:27] government has some kind of regulatory framework, but it has the same interest as the United
[00:20:31] States, which is that to the extent that we can master this technology, we can close that
[00:20:34] gap that the American government has been pushing us towards, for example, at the hardware
[00:20:38] level, right? So it's hardly credible that we will see that
[00:20:42] brake at this moment, and even less with so much money involved. But then
[00:20:47] regulation have been around almost as long as the development of AI, and the speed of
[00:20:51] legislation will never be parallel to technological advancement? We
[00:20:54] took too long to take seriously the
[00:20:58] perverse effects that a technology like social
[00:21:02] networks could have. I think what we have to do is learn from what happened
[00:21:06] there, yes, start to come up with some type of legislation that
[00:21:09] allows for prior controls, that allows to ensure that all
[00:21:13] models somehow have the possibility of being
[00:21:17] turned off. The third way to
[00:21:21] achieve and find that all companies have a common goal, that's
[00:21:24] the hardest, because when we talk about a common goal, we're talking about what
[00:21:28] happens if some companies are in the United States, other companies are in Europe,
[00:21:32] other companies are in China, yes, and each of them will have different
[00:21:35] regulations, eh, there's a proposal on the table that
[00:21:39] could be interesting, which is something
[00:21:43] nuclear arms control, and that is, hey, let's have an
[00:21:46] entity, yes, multilateral that can
[00:21:49] have a voice. And so we reach the end of this segment, thank you for your
[00:21:53] tuning in,
[00:22:01] but one week in the world, every Friday review the big
[00:22:05] international news of the week with expert
[00:22:08] journalists who provide context and points of view
[00:22:12] on the most relevant events of the last seven
[00:22:16] days, one week in the world on France.com.
[00:22:35] Due to the war against Iran, the United States is facing a shortage in
[00:22:39] strategic weapons inventories and bottlenecks in replenishing
[00:22:43] ammunition. This was the main finding of a report by the
[00:22:46] Pentagon itself. The report, conducted by the Inspector
[00:22:50] General's office, which is an independent oversight body that operates within the
[00:22:53] Department of War, the assertion contradicts what
[00:22:56] President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete
[00:23:00] Hexett had stated. They deny that there is a shortage
[00:23:03] of supplies, they claim that this information is false and
[00:23:07] insist that the American arms capacity is
[00:23:11] practically unlimited, as the president explicitly
[00:23:14] wrote. Is the United States running out of
[00:23:18] missions despite being a military superpower,
[00:23:22] or is it fake news, and above all, how
[00:23:25] does this affect its position in the current world?
[00:23:29] This is what we discuss in the France 24 debate. I am María Clara
[00:23:32] Calle and I welcome our guests. We are joined
[00:23:36] by José Luis Calvo, a retired colonel of
[00:23:39] infantry of the Spanish Army. During his career, he was assigned to the joint
[00:23:43] staff, the military staff of the European Union,
[00:23:46] NATO structures, among
[00:23:50] others. He connects from Madrid and in Miami
[00:23:53] is Manuel Superville, a retired colonel of the United
[00:23:56] States Army, he was general legal advisor to the United
[00:24:00] States Forces in Afghanistan, also general
[00:24:03] legal advisor to the United States Southern Command, he is also
[00:24:07] founder and president of Veritas Assurance Partners, a
[00:24:11] global research firm. A pleasure to share this space with
[00:24:14] you, and before we begin, I invite you to follow us on social media
[00:24:18] and also comment on this. You can find us as
[00:24:21] @frans24-es
[00:24:24] and my personal account is @mariaclaguirre.
[00:24:27] You can also listen to the France 24 debate, we are
[00:24:31] available on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Deezer and
[00:24:34] TuneIn.
[00:24:38] José Luis Calvo, I start with you, welcome to the France
[00:24:41] 24 debate. Let's start
[00:24:45] known about the situation of the
[00:24:49] amount of armament that the United States has. I pointed out
[00:24:52] that report from the Inspector General of the Department of War that says there is
[00:24:56] a shortage, to this is added the report
[00:24:59] by the Congressional Budget Office of the United States that
[00:25:03] also agrees that there is a shortage of ammunition. How true is
[00:25:07] this and how much truth does President
[00:25:10] Donald Trump have in denying that there is a shortage of weapons in the United
[00:25:13] States?
[00:25:16] Yes, thank you very much,
[00:25:19] well, it seems that indeed there is a
[00:25:23] problem regarding certain types of ammunition, above all, it is a
[00:25:26] problem that affects not only the United States, it also affects us in
[00:25:30] Europe, and it is a problem that derives from a technological
[00:25:33] change that is occurring on the battlefields, where we find
[00:25:37] systems with quite advanced technologies, but they are much
[00:25:41] cheaper than the weapons and ammunition we used,
[00:25:45] right? So this is something especially evident, for example, in
[00:25:48] anti-aircraft defense, right? We are increasingly finding
[00:25:52] drones, unmanned systems
[00:25:55] that are relatively cheap, easy to manufacture in large
[00:25:58] quantities, and to shoot them down we use Cold War
[00:26:02] missiles that are very sophisticated weapons, designed
[00:26:06] to shoot down high-value targets, but very expensive and very
[00:26:10] slow to manufacture, so there is a mismatch,
[00:26:12] right? It's what is happening in the war against Iran,
[00:26:16] Iran is launching swarms of drones that cost $50,000
[00:26:19] each, and of course, the United States and its allies... are launching anti-aircraft missiles that
[00:26:23] in some cases cost up to 3 million dollars, so there
[00:26:26] is a mismatch that ends up depleting arsenals,
[00:26:30] and you mentioned one of the key points. Key points are the
[00:26:33] situation of anti-aircraft defense systems, which we will, of course, address
[00:26:37] later, but first I also want to welcome Manuel Superville
[00:26:41] to this program. How right is
[00:26:45] the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of War
[00:26:48] in saying that there is a shortage of strategic
[00:26:51] war material in the United
[00:26:52] States?
[00:26:55] Well, thank you very much for the invitation to be here with
[00:26:58] you. The Office of the Inspector
[00:27:01] General, not only for the United States
[00:27:05] Armed Forces, but for all the different agencies
[00:27:09] of the United States government, is something that, as
[00:27:12] you said, is independent to a certain extent.
[00:27:16] Let's say, historically,
[00:27:20] General Washington, before becoming president, after the
[00:27:24] War of Independence, the
[00:27:26] first person he hired to be part of the army to
[00:27:29] help him was the Inspector General,
[00:27:33] who was a German general at that time.
[00:27:36] But what I mean is that it's a very important position of great
[00:27:39] trust because their mission is
[00:27:43] to tell the truth so that decision-makers can have
[00:27:46] data that is
[00:27:49] based on reality and not on some kind of, let's say,
[00:27:53] policy that suits one person or another.
[00:27:57] Here I want to add something to what you were saying, Manuel, and it's a
[00:28:00] clarification: the Pentagon
[00:28:03] did not provide information to the Office of the Inspector General of the
[00:28:06] Department of War, nor to the Congressional
[00:28:09] Budget Office of the United States, which is why those
[00:28:12] same reports warn that they cannot know for sure
[00:28:16] what the situation is, since the Pentagon, which is the Department of
[00:28:20] War, did not give them the information they requested, and therefore
[00:28:24] they are turning to other reports to be able to make an estimated
[00:28:27] balance, and that estimated balance is calculating
[00:28:31] that so far, only the war in Iran, which
[00:28:34] began on February 28,
[00:28:37] 2026, has cost the United States government about
[00:28:41] $38 million with cuts until August
[00:28:44] 1, according to figures from the US
[00:28:48] Congress. José Luis, you explained that this
[00:28:52] amount of money spent can largely be explained
[00:28:55] by the fact that they are fighting with very expensive
[00:28:58] weaponry, and you already spoke of that imbalance.
[00:29:02] But in terms of war, to talk about an expenditure of
[00:29:05] 40 billion dollars, about 40 billion dollars, is it
[00:29:09] a lot or a little compared to other
[00:29:11] conflicts?
[00:29:15] Well, it's quite a lot for a war that has only lasted 6 months.
[00:29:19] the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, in Afghanistan, which
[00:29:23] I know more about, the United States spent something like a billion
[00:29:27] a month, not
[00:29:31] one million dollars. At least in the initial
[00:29:35] phases. So yes, it's quite a lot, but of course,
[00:29:37] they are being used. Not a lot of human deployment is being
[00:29:41] used, logically. There isn't a lot of personnel deployed. That's also
[00:29:45] expensive, especially if they have to be deployed in a difficult theater. But very sophisticated
[00:29:48] weapons are being used. Precision is being sought,
[00:29:51] so they are guided weapons, they
[00:29:55] are weapons designed to have a very small error and
[00:29:59] to cause few civilian casualties, and they are tremendously
[00:30:02] expensive. Being tremendously expensive, well, they are also
[00:30:06] expensive to manufacture, and many times that is the biggest problem, because well, the United
[00:30:10] States spending 40 billion dollars would not
[00:30:13] mean
[00:30:15] the same as it would for a European country, which would almost mean ruin
[00:30:19] for us. But the problem is that they are very expensive to manufacture,
[00:30:23] they are very sophisticated, production chains cannot be increased
[00:30:27] too much, so there is a bottleneck. The United
[00:30:30] States, when its stocks are depleted, the capacity of American
[00:30:34] factories to supply that shortage in stocks
[00:30:37] is increasingly reduced. It's something that happens
[00:30:40] to all of us anyway, and it even happens with less sophisticated
[00:30:44] materials. You might remember that in the war in Ukraine,
[00:30:47] artillery shells were the critical material at the beginning of the war,
[00:30:50] and Ukraine asked for millions of artillery
[00:30:54] shells. Well, between the United States and Europe,
[00:30:57] we were not able to produce.