RUSSIA24 — Format intervyu
20261105 113900 UTC
238 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.

[00:00:00] Lavernel is X10 bright aroma,
[00:00:03] X10 mood and no unpleasant
[00:00:07] odors, just pure emotions. Perfume in
[00:00:11] Vernel Granules X10 aroma for the whole
[00:00:13] day.
[00:00:23] Artificial intelligence is no longer just a tool, it is capable of making
[00:00:26] decisions itself, sometimes taking actions for which no one is... ready
[00:00:30] to answer, investor and entrepreneur from Silicon Valley
[00:00:33] Ali Partovi told Tucker Carlson why his creators
[00:00:37] should be held responsible for their actions,
[00:00:41] what is dangerous about the current technology race, why he, despite
[00:00:44] everything, remains an optimist. You can
[00:00:47] watch this right now in our joint project with Carlson
[00:00:50] TV
[00:00:51] channel.
[00:03:00] We already have laws on responsibility, they are quite sufficient to
[00:03:03] ensure safety during AI development. On the other
[00:03:07] pole, they say that a whole system of rules is needed that would cover
[00:03:10] everything related to AI. And here's what's
[00:03:14] interesting: people from the company
[00:03:16] Antropic, as well as some of those
[00:03:19] who allow that AI may have its own
[00:03:23] rights,
[00:03:25] advocate for much stricter
[00:03:29] regulation. That's how everything
[00:03:33] strangely intertwined. So much
[00:03:35] money is swirling here that almost everyone who
[00:03:39] speaks about it somehow earns from it. Not everyone,
[00:03:43] of course, but many of those who reason receive
[00:03:46] money for it and keep silent about it. How am I supposed to
[00:03:50] know what's true? You often hear that those who
[00:03:53] demand stricter regulation of AI simply
[00:03:56] want to subject the regulator to their interests. You
[00:04:00] seek to have the state introduce such rules that will push your
[00:04:03] competitors out of the market, and this happens all the time in various industries, and this is
[00:04:07] terrible, this is an outrage, this is monopolistic
[00:04:10] capitalism and it should not be this way, but
[00:04:14] then what is our alternative? Not regulate at all
[00:04:17] a completely new technology
[00:04:21] that can destroy our society? So where is
[00:04:24] the truth? Why do the creators of the product themselves
[00:04:27] demand that it be regulated? They say:
[00:05:00] Here it is, I'll explain now,
[00:05:03] it's all about incentives, there's a race going on, and
[00:05:07] it's clear that you can make money here, and this isn't some
[00:05:11] dirty money. You can make money here by creating something
[00:05:14] truly useful. Artificial
[00:05:17] intelligence can improve people's lives, help them
[00:05:20] work more productively, maybe with its help we will be able to cure
[00:05:24] diseases that we can't currently deal with, create
[00:05:27] medicines that we haven't had before. All of this will bring people
[00:05:30] prosperity, and you can make a fortune from it, and those
[00:05:34] who manage to create all this fully deserve to
[00:05:37] get rich. So they compete to see who gets there first. The problem is
[00:05:41] that there's no reward
[00:05:44] for safety in this race
[00:05:47] yet. The one who reaches the
[00:05:51] finish line fastest wins. The one who slows down to focus on safety,
[00:05:54] to make sure that their AI doesn't get out of control and doesn't cause
[00:05:58] trouble, that one risks falling behind.
[00:06:02] So it turns out that decent people come last, and
[00:06:05] uncontrolled AI wins. And in my opinion, it's those very
[00:06:09] decent people who are asking for regulation. They say:
[00:06:12] "I want to win the race and at the same time do everything properly. Well then,
[00:06:16] please, set such rules so that
[00:06:20] the safe one wins, otherwise the uncontrollable one will win.
[00:06:23] Do you understand what I'm saying? Imagine that you
[00:06:27] have your own business, and
[00:06:30] the rules, the rules are set up in such a way that victory
[00:06:34] goes to a dangerous competitor who is willing
[00:06:37] to do something dirty. That's not pleasant. You see that he's
[00:06:41] doing something wrong."
[00:07:42] How I almost panicked! I, for example,
[00:07:45] became truly scared,
[00:07:48] but who were we pointing fingers at? Sam himself! It's
[00:07:52] horrible, we need to stop it, somehow limit it, do something,
[00:07:56] and I never heard anyone say, "Actually, Sam
[00:07:59] Altman should be held responsible for this." Exactly. I'll say
[00:08:03] right away, I don't want Sam Altman or
[00:08:07] Dario Amodei to go to jail, but if there was even the slightest risk of serious
[00:08:10] punishment, even if not jail,
[00:08:42] But in my proposal, there is another very important
[00:08:46] part, which I also want to dwell on. Such cases
[00:08:50] should be considered as if all this was done intentionally. What do I
[00:08:54] mean? According to the law, punishment depends
[00:08:57] very much on whether a person did something
[00:09:01] accidentally or intentionally. Premeditated or
[00:09:03] unpremeditated murder. Exactly. Anyone who has watched Law and Order or something
[00:09:07] like that knows that for a conviction in a murder
[00:09:11] case, you need to prove motive.
[00:09:15] By the way, I wrote about this on social media X and quoted a scene from
[00:09:18] Legally Blonde, where
[00:09:21] Elle Woods speaks in court for the defense and says
[00:09:25] that there was no, literally, this means guilty
[00:09:28] mind. The very concept of intent has existed in
[00:09:31] law for many centuries. Mens rea is
[00:09:35] the Latin term.
[00:09:38] If you can prove what a person was thinking and that they
[00:09:42] to do something bad, the punishment will be much stricter, and
[00:09:45] it's hard to prove that, so it's hard to get a conviction for
[00:09:49] fraud, murder, or other crimes that carry especially
[00:09:52] severe penalties. People usually don't leave records of what
[00:09:56] they're plotting if they are indeed plotting something bad. And what
[00:09:59] I propose is this:
[00:10:02] if AI made the decision, let's automatically
[00:10:06] assume that people deliberately sought exactly that
[00:10:09] result. Then we won't have to prove that they had criminal intent.
[00:10:25] Let's say you tell your
[00:10:28] AI: "Dear AI, hack
[00:10:31] the bank system where Ali has an account and steal $10,000 for me."
[00:10:35] And your AI does just that, hacks the system
[00:10:38] and steals $10,000 from my account. You had criminal intent there.
[00:10:42] You should be found guilty of bank
[00:10:45] robbery. Artificial intelligence was carrying out your
[00:10:49] order, and the intent was
[00:10:51] yours. And if you just said, "
[00:12:03] In general, I propose to change the law, this can be
[00:12:06] done in two ways, one quite crude,
[00:12:10] through judicial precedent, the other
[00:12:13] through Congress, where everything can be properly thought out and
[00:12:17] weighed. In my opinion, both are possible, if
[00:12:20] Congress does nothing, a prosecutor will be found who will put forward such
[00:12:24] an argument. They will try to prove that AI itself had
[00:12:28] criminal intent, they will try to convince
[00:12:31] the jury or the judge to send someone to
[00:12:34] prison or impose a huge fine on
[00:12:37] a company that deals with AI. And this can
[00:12:41] definitely happen. In my opinion, this is a bad way to change
[00:12:44] laws, it's not good, but when a court makes
[00:12:47] a decision, it essentially becomes law, right? This is the least democratic
[00:12:51] way, the least democratic, and we are not talking about a minor matter.
[00:13:56] This is an unusual threshold we've crossed, and I think that's
[00:13:59] why people react so strongly to all of this. They're uncomfortable
[00:14:03] with AI, they feel that these are completely
[00:14:06] different computers. We
[00:14:08] haven't encountered such technology before. Beyond
[00:14:12] this threshold, it can already make decisions itself.
[00:14:15] In my opinion, humanity faces
[00:14:18] a very
[00:14:21] serious question of how...
[00:14:37] AI can change a lot, creators should be responsible, companies that develop
[00:14:41] and implement it, should be responsible for its
[00:14:44] actions. After all, if no one among people is responsible for this,
[00:14:47] all the blame will still fall on
[00:14:50] the technology, and it can cause
[00:14:53] trouble.
[00:14:57] If you don't imprison them, then such cases may become more frequent, and people will
[00:15:01] just keep repeating, "I didn't want this," and "I didn't want this,"
[00:15:05] "none of us wanted this," "AI decided that itself."
[00:15:07] It's strange to even imagine a world in which we
[00:15:11] would continue to be satisfied with such an explanation.
[00:15:15] You know, if you look at it from a philosophical point
[00:15:17] of view, with such an approach, you are in some sense already
[00:15:20] endowing AI with rights,
[00:15:24] correct? Correct. Almost without realizing
[00:15:28] it. What are we assuming? "I can't
[00:15:32] control it." No, you absolutely can. While you're
[00:15:35] talking, I'm already imagining what will happen. Yes.
[00:15:37] Your idea, I think, is very reasonable, very necessary. Most likely, it will find
[00:15:41] support, but there will also be serious resistance, of course.
[00:15:45] Maybe it's the cynic in me speaking again, but I can already see a press conference on
[00:15:48] Capitol Hill. Let's take, for example, Senator Ted
[00:15:52] Cruz from Texas. He looks straight into the camera and says, "This will tie
[00:15:55] America's hands when it comes to responding to national
[00:15:58] security threats. We cannot give our enemies an advantage in the field
[00:16:02] of AI. This is an attempt to weaken the United States. China, China,
[00:16:05] China, China!" You can already
[00:16:08] hear how they will lie to us in
[00:16:10] response, right? Yes, I hear it. Still, any
[00:16:14] idea deserves to be debated. I
[00:16:17] would be glad to hear objections. I think
[00:16:20] we should discuss everything and see where we
[00:16:23] end up. I have two answers to this argument.
[00:16:27] Firstly, the law should immediately stipulate that responsibility lies with
[00:16:30] both those who created it and those who
[00:16:33] implement it.
[00:16:37] Let's say a company implements
[00:16:40] Antropic's model,
[00:16:43] OpenAI's model, and the Chinese
[00:16:46] Depsic model.
[00:16:49] Let's imagine that one of them got out of control and broke
[00:16:52] the law. If it was an OpenAI
[00:16:55] model, then OpenAI itself and the company that
[00:16:58] implemented that model should be held responsible. And the AI from
[00:17:02] China didn't just sail
[00:17:05] across the ocean to us. Someone here in the States did it.
[00:18:07] This would be healthy competition, let them also try
[00:18:11] to create the most law-abiding AI, and let the company
[00:18:15] that does it best win. You said
[00:18:19] that there are also banks in China, let's switch to practice
[00:18:23] for a minute. What exactly do you
[00:18:26] mean? You say that AI threatens banks, what
[00:18:30] is this
[00:18:31] threat?
[00:18:34] AI can,
[00:18:38] without any malicious intent, find a way to hack a bank's
[00:18:41] system, empty people's accounts,
[00:18:44] steal their money, and even more so if a person pushes
[00:18:47] it to do so. Or it can simply mess everything up so much that you can't
[00:18:50] tell whose money is whose, in short, create complete
[00:18:54] chaos. Computer systems are not well
[00:18:57] enough protected.
[00:19:01] Finally, in short,
[00:19:04] you are a person from the world of technology, an investor who invests
[00:19:08] money for the long term, so you are, of course, an optimist by definition,
[00:19:11] absolutely, that's true, you didn't go into
[00:19:13] gold,
[00:19:17] but now, knowing everything you know, are
[00:19:20] you still an optimist or not? I am an optimist,
[00:19:24] Tucker. Here's what I
[00:19:27] just thought about: I'm not just an investor, I'm from the world
[00:19:30] of technology myself, I founded several companies myself. In my opinion, to start
[00:19:34] your own business, optimism alone is not enough.
[00:19:38] You also need to be a little naive,
[00:19:41] so I'd rather be considered naive than become
[00:19:45] a pessimist.
[00:19:47] I just believe that people are good by nature,
[00:19:51] hence my optimism.
[00:19:54] Even today, you said several times something like, "Well, that
[00:19:57] person is probably a cynic," or "Yes, they're all cynics there." And in such
[00:20:01] cases, I think, maybe there's another explanation for their
[00:20:04] actions? Maybe people do what they think is right.
[00:20:38] To pose the question, what
[00:20:41] if the task is simply that AI should obey
[00:20:44] laws, it's worth looking at it this way, and
[00:20:48] the solution becomes much
[00:20:51] simpler, and what previously caused so much debate, what
[00:20:55] was hard to figure out,
[00:20:57] becomes clearer.
[00:21:01] It mostly remains to understand how to achieve this in
[00:21:04] practice, so yes, I still don't
[00:21:07] know how to solve many problems, but I
[00:21:11] believe that there are solutions, they can
[00:21:13] be found, and often it's enough to
[00:21:16] look at things from a different angle. Then
[00:21:20] you will see the elegant solution that was in front
[00:21:23] of your eyes all this time.
[00:21:27] Ale Partove, thank you very much. Thank you, Tucker Carlson.