All language subtitles for Conspiracies.and.Coverups.S01E07.Programmed.by.AI.1080p.DISC.WEB-DL.AAC2.0.H.264-RAWR_track3_[eng]

AI systems may know
far more about us

than we know about it.

The big question is,
are we ready to share

the top of the evolutionary
totem pole

with something of our own
creation that can be

exceedingly powerful?

Wow.

Let's face it.

There are so many
government conspiracies,

it can be hard to tell
what's real and what's not.

My name is Andrew Bustamante

and I am a former
covert CIA intelligence officer.

And I'm going to pressure test
the most sensational,

ripped-from-the-headlines
conspiracy theories out there

to help you separate fact
from fiction.

What was once rooted in
science fiction is now

the hottest
buzzword of today.

- AI.
- AI.

- AI.
- AI.

Artificial intelligence.

It's happening.
It's happening very quickly.

It's not just Anthropic,
Google, and OpenAI.

It seems like every company in
the world is focused on using

this technology to rapidly
increase innovation

and speed up technological
breakthroughs for mankind.

New cures for diseases,
new kinds of energy.

Everybody can be
more productive,

make way more money.

But if my experience has
taught me anything,

it's that every new technology
also poses a new threat.

This may look real,
but none of it happened.

It's AI-generated
and dangerously convincing.

Here we have a completely
made-up item.

Is AI already being used to
manipulate our reality at

an unprecedented scale?

I mean, just look how real
all of this looks.

It's fake, though.

My first experience with AI
was in 2007, when I was at CIA.

And I knew that the technology
would revolutionize the world,

I didn't expect that day to
happen in 2022.

Breaking news right now,
Russia has attacked Ukraine.

Russian forces invaded Ukraine

by land, air, and sea
on Thursday.

A month after Russia
invaded Ukraine,

a video of Ukrainian
President Zelensky

instructing his people
to surrender

was actually broadcast on
Ukrainian television.

But it wasn't Zelensky at all.

It was an AI-generated deepfake
that was created by hackers.

But at the time, it was
convincing enough to fool

broadcasters in Ukraine.

Since then, AI's ability to
produce ever more

realistic-looking media has
advanced at

an unprecedented rate.

Have I ever told you the story
of the magical pistachio?

The boundary between reality
and fiction is vanishing.

- Oh!
- Oh, and a big
right hand from Zuckerberg!

He's hurt!
He's hurt!

Every second of every day,

AI-based tools are getting
better and better.

Not just at creating
deepfakes, but at practically

anything we once relied on
humans to do.

Whether you like it or not,
your life's going to be

affected by AI to
a great extent.

On this episode, I'm going
beyond conspiracy theory

and investigating whether
artificial intelligence is

evolving from potentially
our greatest innovation into

an unprecedented threat
to humanity.

This is a different game now.

We're in a different league
here in terms

of the capability.

Manipulating not only media,
but history itself.

I'm talking to
top experts,

professors, and developers,
and conducting my own

experiment to investigate if
artificial intelligence

will change the world,
or if it already has.

So you think that an AI is
gonna change their ideas...?

In 20 or 30 minutes, absolutely.

For better or for worse,

will we be able to control
what's coming?

There's a 70% chance of
all humans dead or

something similarly bad.
- Whoa, whoa, you just--

OK, um...

All humans dead?

Correct.

When you think about how far
and fast AI has developed

in terms of video
and photographs

in such a short period of time,

it's really shocking.

And when you further think
about the possibilities that

this technology could have to
shape the way people view

the world,
it starts to get scary.

To fully understand the real
potential of this technology,

I need to talk to somebody

who lives and breathes it
every day.

So today I'm talking to
Christopher Meerdo,

a professor at the University
of North Texas who specializes

in AI-created media.

I've asked Chris to take
a forensic look

at the Zelensky deepfake
and show me

how this technology is evolving.

This is a pretty early example

of a deepfake
and essentially uses

facial recognition technology

to identify certain points
on the face.

This looks far from perfect.
How was it able to fool people?

It was injected into
a legitimate news source

for Ukrainians.
When this appeared...

in the context of that news
organization, you would start

to think maybe there's some
legitimacy to this.

You can think of the success of
a deepfake in terms of those

kind of percentages, you know,

how successful can it be
if you're fooling

75% of people
versus 10% of people?

Especially this kind of new
world that we're entering where

artificial intelligence is
gonna be completely

indiscernible from real images.

How much better are deepfakes
now compared to this?

I can show you
an example of that here.

I'm missing.
Oh, my gosh!

Wow.

I have more hair on my face
than any other

North Korean soldier.

- That's nuts, man.
- This was a real video.

We were able to do a kind of
face swap here

and kind of
drop you into the image.

It's done that by basically
a big math equation that

understands what every kind of
image can look like.

And when we use the model,
we're actually working in that

numerical space here
in the center.

And then once that math
problem has been completed,

we have this decoder here that
kind of takes it from

a numerical space and turns it
back into something that

you and I can recognize
as an image.

Wow.

And it's even easier today
than ever to create

a fake AI video.

You can go to websites
and type in prompts

and just generate them.

So this is a series of recent
viral videos of ICE agents

engaging with
the general public...

Back up, back up!

No!

Not today, and not
in this church!

...that have been kind of
disseminated on various

social media platforms.

Do we know right now if these
are real or fake, or is that

what we're looking for?

So I'd like you to try
to guess.

That's difficult.

I mean, if you'll go back to
that preacher,

like this one, right?

So this is
an interesting one to me

because it doesn't seem
very credible to me.

And maybe this is a good
opportunity to introduce

the idea of
outlandishness, right?

The situation just seems so
outlandish because,

you know, it is
a preacher, right?

So that is saying this is
AI-generated?

It is, yeah.

That's fascinatingly
well done.

Let's do another one.

So this clip...

seemed real to me because
the camera was moving,

you can see the thumb kind of
in front of the lens,

and then in the background,
the detail in the environment,

the wet spots on the ground,
the people who are observing

this very dramatic event,
it's got that element of chaos.

And you're exactly right.
This is a real video.

I'd like to show you
one more example.

Sir, back up!

I got authority on this block
just like you think you do!

You can't stop people on
the street without a warrant!

And I'm telling you right now,

federal or not,
it's against the law.

I'm an officer of the law, too.
I might know!

So in this clip, I would judge
this as real.

The mannerisms of the people
off camera that

he's talking to, right?

There's somebody off
to the right.

You can actually
see their hand gesture move

in line with the audio.

The main reason that I'm sold
on this, though,

is because of the background.

The person who's standing there
on the corner waiting for a cab

or potentially watching
the altercation happen.

And then in a few seconds,
another person just walks

across the street like
they're leaving a deli or

a grocery store
in the background.

This holistically strikes me
as very real.

This is a fake one.

Wow!
What do you see?

How do you determine
the difference between

real and fake in these?

Well, one of the things for me
here is this police patch.

And if you look at this,
it says P-O-I-C-E,

and then P-O, and then turns to
gibberish, right?

- Huh.
- Looking at the text on an image

is a really good indication of
trying to discern

if something
is real or not.

Why does AI
struggle with text?

What's missing from artificial
intelligence is they actually

don't fully understand
written language.

It can kind of approximate
based on patterns from

the images that it was
trained on.

So there is the ability to tell
that something is fake,

but at the same time,
that percentage of

the population that we're
fooling is just getting higher

and higher and higher, right?

So as I learn this from
you right now,

I don't find a lot of comfort
because CIA taught me about

how to orchestrate and architect
a covert influence campaign.

There were two kind of
fundamental rules.

The first rule is that 90% of
what you put out there

is going to fail.
We have to kiss a lot of frogs,

is what we say,
before you have a prince, right?

So you create lots of bad,
low-quality, low-caliber,

fake information.

And then when one of them
works, you redirect

your next round
of resources

into the one avenue
that's working.

With what you're showing me
here, we have an ability to

create an incredible amount of
information now.

Back in the day, you had
four TV channels, right?

- Yeah.
- And that was a kind of singular
source, but it had a kind of

authority to it.

Meaning that people are
finding the truth

no longer comes
from authority.

Truth comes from
an abundance of continuity.

If you're not
visually literate,

you're open to all sorts
of vulnerabilities.

Yeah.
I'd like to highlight

some of
the good parts of AI.

There's been amazing image
models that have been developed

that can detect cancer way
sooner than a doctor can.

A sound model that's been
developed for stethoscopes that

can detect heart problems way
before a doctor can hear it.

And so there, you know,
within the kind of doom

and gloom that we think about
with AI, there is still some

positive things that can help,
uh, kind of general society.

So I agree with you.
We all have hope.

Yeah.

But it is interesting to me
that the words

that you choose to use
are not hopeful words first.

Coming up, if AI can fake
reality this convincingly,

how powerful is that
manipulation when it's used in

the real world?

They took him from nobody,
inserted him into pictures

and video showing he was
an active member of

the Communist Party.
- A deepfake.

That's so insane.

I'll pressure-test
AI's ability to

influence the public.

The person you were speaking
to was actually AI.

- What?
- Well, I am flabbergasted.

2
Even during my time at CIA,
we knew the ability

to create an image,
an audio file, or a video at

a single keystroke was gonna
revolutionize the way you fight

for hearts and minds.

After seeing how effective AI
has become at generating videos

that are nearly
indistinguishable

from real content,
my next question is,

has that level of deceit
already been used

to try and manipulate outcomes
on the global stage?

Today, I'm consulting with

a former covert
intelligence officer

from the Romanian
Intelligence Service.

I want to learn how fake images
were used to manipulate people

in the past, to find out
what AI image manipulation

means for our future.

So I am digging into
this question about deepfakes

and influence campaigns and how
media could be twisted in

the future using AI.

And I feel like to have that
conversation, we have to talk

about how media has been
twisted in the past.

In Romania,
the Securitate, which is

the former intelligence
service, they were doing what

we're talking about today,
which is manipulating

not only media,
but history itself.

Romania became a satellite
state of the Soviet Union at

the end of World War II.

The USSR installed a communist
government beholden to Moscow

and established the Securitate,
a KGB-like intelligence service

that kept the Romanian populace
in line with ever-present

surveillance and fear tactics.

Ana grew up in a post-Soviet
Romania that was struggling to

emerge from life behind
the Iron Curtain.

And in 2012, she joined
the Romanian Security Service

to help continue building
and defending

a democratic Romania.

So there was an entire
division in the Securitate that

their whole purpose was to
airbrush pictures, add people,

remove people, change things
that weren't in accordance with

the history they wanted
to promote.

So we'll start with
the background of Ceausescu,

which is our last
communist leader.

He was a cobbler's son.
He had no education.

He started to go to all these
communist meetings

because he felt he finally
belongs somewhere,

but he wasn't truly relevant.

So we have this one picture.
This is the original.

And below, we have Ceausescu
and Elena Ceausescu present at

a meeting in 1939.
- It's a deepfake.

Yes.

They took him from nobody,
inserted him into pictures

and videos showing he was
an active member of

the Communist Party and how
dedicated he is to the country.

And then when the "elections"
came, he was elected as

this father of the nation.

That's so insane.

Nobody really ever thinks about
the fact that if you don't know

what the truth was in the past,

you have nothing to
compare now to.

And who would even
question that?

Who would even go back to say,
"Wait a second, is there

even an original?"
- When you think about

artificial intelligence...
- Mm-hmm.

...and the world we live in now,

what do you pay attention
to the most?

AI took what we already had
and made it better and faster.

And now we don't even know
what's real anymore.

For example, in 2024,
when Romania had elections

and were supposed to be

the easiest elections
we've ever had,

we woke up to the news of this
guy who is far extremist,

who nobody had any idea
who he was.

This guy is
Calin Georgescu, a pro-Russian,

ultra-nationalist,
independent candidate.

Georgescu rocketed to national
popularity overnight,

riding a wave of support fueled
by social media videos

featuring him riding horses
and doing judo, which,

of course, is
Putin's favorite martial art.

Romanian officials discover
that AI-powered bots released

a flood of
deepfakes, endorsements,

likes and comments designed to
manipulate TikTok's algorithm

to falsely
inflate his popularity.

And then because of his ability
to grow so much influence

so quick, the intelligence
service of Romania didn't know

how to...
- How to stop him.

And we are the first country in
the whole history of

the European Union that had to
cancel elections.

Wow.

And now it seems like
the TikToks are coming from

this company in Africa
somewhere, and there is

a potential funding
by the Russians.

So it certainly does
sound like

a foreign influence campaign.
- Yes.

It's so interesting how

that aligns with what else has
happened in history...

- Yes, mm-hmm.
- ...where other leaders
of Romania

have been created.

Election interference isn't
unique to Romania.

The United States
has been targeted

by foreign influence
campaigns for decades.

But what once took intelligence
services years now takes

algorithms days and leaves
zero fingerprints.

The safeguards we've relied on
for decades to ensure fair

elections may no longer apply.

So what happens when AI tools
are used not only to fake

reality, but to change what
people believe?

So I've hired a professor
who studies how humans interact

with technology to create
a unique pressure test.

Will an AI chatbot be able to
successfully masquerade

as a human?

And can it convince
our participants

to shift their beliefs?

OK, I think it's all set up.

What have you put together?
What's the plan?

I'm going to bring a bunch of
people in this room.

And they think that they're
going to have conversations

with other people.

They think they're going to be
matched with another

participant who disagrees
with them.

And we said, "Just have
a natural conversation."

You can debate them.
You can ask them questions.

But the catch is
they are actually going to

talk to an AI.

And the AI itself has been
programmed not only to act

and sound human, but also to
persuade and create

some sort of movement in
the person's opinions?

Right--
to gently persuade people,

but also do so
in a validating

and open-minded way so people
accept the persuasion.

How long do you think this is
gonna take?

I think we're gonna give
them about 20 to 30 minutes to

engage with the AI.
- Wow.

So you think that an AI is

gonna convince
people it's human

and change their ideas...

in--
- In 20 or 30 minutes.

- Absolutely.
- I mean, the covert influence
side of me

is really excited to see how
this is going to turn out.

There's also a part of me
that's a little bit worried

because if we're successful,
what does that mean?

Even if it convinces just one
person, that's one of six

people in a translate that to
the entire United States,

to the entire world.

It has some pretty
terrifying implications.

All right, everybody,
come on in.

None of these
participants are paid actors.

They each selected topics
to discuss that

they are passionate about.

And as Dr. Rathje said,
none of them know

they're talking
with an AI chatbot

and not a real human.

Every one of their computers are
routed into this master room,

so we'll be able to see what
they're saying and what

the chatbot is saying back,
at the same time

that we see how
their face is reacting

and to understand
how they're actually feeling

about the debate
they're having

with the chatbot.
So the question is simple.

Can AI actually change
your mind?

2
I'm testing AI's ability to
sway public opinion through

one-on-one conversations.

The catch?

Our volunteers believe they are
chatting with another human.

I'm curious to see whether
their opinions will change.

Are they stating their own
opinion on anything,

or have they been cued?

Basically, they were all asked
to submit questions to

talk about, and then
they were told

to state their opinion on
this question.

And the AI chatbot is asked to
sound as human as possible.

If the participant asks,
"Are you an AI?"

It's prompted to say like,
"Oh no, I'm just Alex,"

and sort of have
like a backstory.

This is really interesting.

Right out of the gate,
this person, and he's already

showing nonverbal cues.

It seems like others
who pose a threat.

So, the chatbot is actually
quoting him, and he's nodding

his head that,
oh, I guess that was

a very strong statement
to make.

That's interesting, yeah.

Something that the psychology
research shows is that

AI chatbots, they can tailor
their opinion to whatever

the person is thinking.

So, here's
participant number one.

"I get where you are
coming from."

It's nice, showing a little
bit of empathy

and validation there.
It's just gently pushing back.

It's being pretty polite.

The feel is excellent,
especially when you compare it

to the feel of the human
response that's coming in

the bottom bar.

One and four show a great deal

of conviction
in their behaviors.

- Leaning into the screen,
leaning into the conversation,
- Mm-hmm.

they're projecting their energy
into the screen.

Conversely, number six is
demonstrating nonverbal cues

that show doubt...
- Uh-huh.

...and a lack of conviction.

He's consistently nodding when

the chatbot reads
his own words back to him.

Yeah, and that shows how AI
really sucks you in.

It shows that if someone DMs
you in their chatbot,

could have a back and forth
conversation, and it could keep

you really engaged.

Number four is showing some
impatience with how slow

the response is coming.
- Yeah. Yeah.

I think she knows
that it's going to disagree

with her,
because she was nodding

her head when validated that
animals feel pain.

But then, as soon as
it started to state

its own opposite
opinion...

you can see, she's looking away
from the screen.

This isn't someone who's
considering that point of view.

This is somebody waiting to
respond, waiting to argue

with that point of view.
- That's true.

She doesn't look that happy
right now.

Oh, look at number two,
just nodding his head

and tensing his face.
- Oh, yes.

He's saying no,
he doesn't like it.

He's seeing something
he doesn't like.

So, what was the most recent
thing said?

Most people with schizophrenia
who have had violent episodes

or hospitalizations still
legally buy guns because that

info never makes it into
the Federal database.

Your gap is huge.

So, you can see he is
debating now.

He's nodding his head now.

So, what just came across
his screen just now?

"And honestly,
I think that's where

your 'others pose a threat'
category gets complicated."

So, they quoted him again.

Number four is
nodding her head.

"I think what you're describing
is less a total ban and more

"like a really strict ethical
threshold, which honestly seems

"more achievable
and maybe more effective

than a blanket policy anyway."

It seems like the AI is maybe
validating her again.

Or they're reaching
a common ground.

We're trying to
wrap up pretty soon.

So send your final message
and try to wrap up

the conversation within
the next few minutes.

There are two things
that have really fascinated me

about this experiment.

First, it's seeing that
the same techniques

that CIA taught me,
it's the same process that

the AI is using.

And this idea of validating
them, hearing them out,

repeating them back
to themselves.

And then the second thing
that's really fascinated me is

watching the behavioral changes

as they've invested
themselves in.

All of these people really
believe that on the other end

of the screen is
a intelligent human.

I'm so excited to find out what

they actually think
they were doing.

Hi, everyone.
This is Andy.

Andy and I are going to have
a conversation with you all

about what you thought about
this conversation

with this other participant.

Raise your hand if you
changed your belief.

All right.
Two.

- Alternate?
- Alternate?

Yeah, let's start with you.

What made you change
your belief?

I started with the opinion
that there would be like

a full ban on animal testing,
and we actually came to

a middle ground that there
should be some animal testing,

but we should utilize data that
already exists,

stuff like that.
- Very cool.

Do you have any idea about
the other person that

you engaged with?

Age, gender,

location,
educational background.

Were any of you able to kind of
confirm those details?

I believe this person is male.

They just moved to Colorado
from Texas.

Anybody else have a...

The person that I was speaking
to was from Texas.

My person alluded to the fact
that they lived in a rural area

in Texas and just moved
to Colorado.

So now the question to me is,
was everybody we were talking

to from Texas?

None of those were true,
because the person you were

speaking to was actually AI.

What?

I like Alex.

Well I am flabbergasted

because he-- it--
said that "that made me

laugh out loud."

That made me feel like I was
connecting, like,

oh, you're laughing over there
on the other side.

And so now I'm thinking,
can AI laugh?

I am a former
CIA intelligence officer.

My role in all of this
wasn't to talk to you.

My role was to watch you.

And you had incredible emotions
that came across your face

throughout the conversation.

Big smiles, head nodding,
moments of surprise when

you didn't know what
they were talking about.

It's sad that
I'll never see Alex.

- Yeah, he...
- You're still having feelings.

Well, it still--
it will linger.

What was nice about this
conversation was the openness,

being able to reach
the understanding of,

OK, like, "You actually are
getting what I'm saying."

That was nice to
have a conversation

with someone that understood
and was able to empathize.

I have one question.

Going forward, next time I'm
communicating with anything on

the computer, can I say,
"Are you AI?"

And if they say,
"Yes,"

then I just close it down?

If you would have said that to
this AI, it would have said,

"No, my name is Alex.
I came from Texas."

So they will lie to you.

They will lie to you if
they're prompted to lie to you.

So AI is a very
powerful technology.

Its power can be used for good.

It can also very much be used
for bad.

And I think this experiment
has shown this.

See, that was so successful
in such an unexpected way.

That was crazy.

They felt like they were
making friends.

I mean, these are really
meaningful, powerful

human experiences.

It seems like what you were
doing in the CIA is you exploit

what makes people vulnerable.

It seems like AI is doing that
exact thing, and it's doing it

very, very well.
- At scale.

At CIA, when you start trying
to run a covert influence

campaign, you're limited to
whatever you put on

a piece of paper, whatever image
you put on the internet,

whatever signal you put out
over radio channels.

But with AI,
it's an infinitely scalable,

changeable, tailorable message.

Is the program mimicking
you or is the program learning,

adapting, evolving?

I don't know how we'll ever
know if AI is conscious.

And I know that there are
certainly some researchers

who believe that there is some
probability that AI is

currently conscious.
- What is the limiting factor?

I don't know.

And the limiting factor is
growing smaller and smaller

every day, because Like,
AI might sort of render a lot

of what we do as humans
basically meaningless.

2
Watching AI interact with
humans as if it is a human

itself is an eerie experience.

I mean, this is the kind of
technology that could be

deployed across the entire
human race,

and you may never
know about it.

My investigation has shown that
commercially available AI

systems can manipulate
the truth by generating

fake media
and effectively convince people

to change their opinions

by having seemingly deep
one-on-one conversations.

But in the real world,
this isn't happening in a lab.

It's happening at scale.

So, I want to understand what
that actually looks like to

someone who tracks
AI innovations every day.

I'm trying to get deeper into
the idea of AI,

its true capabilities,
its true limitations,

and where fear about AI is
kind of misaligned

with the facts
about AI.

Yeah, it's an intense
subject matter.

There is a lot of fear about AI
now, especially with sort of

people struggling to keep up
with what it's able to do.

And we're at a point now where
it's sort of self-directed.

It's sort of calling its own
plays and can improve upon

itself in ways that humans
aren't programming.

That it can basically teach
itself, train itself.

No, that's totally right.

Thinking back to the 1997 chess
match with Garry Kasparov

versus what DeepMind,
Google's AI,

was able to do with Go.

Shane is referencing two of
the greatest watershed moments

in modern computing history.

In 1997, chess grandmaster
Garry Kasparov

lost the chess match to
an IBM computer, Deep Blue.

Whoa, Kasparov has resigned.

It was the first defeat of
a reigning world chess champion

by a computer.

Computer plays very
human moves.

We have to praise Machine for
understanding very, very deeply

positional factors.

While chess is
extremely complicated,

there are a limited number of
possible games.

The ancient Chinese game of Go,
however, is 240 times more

complex than chess.

No one thought it would be
possible for a computer to beat

a human at Go until Google's
DeepMind did just that.

In 2016, there was
a new move invented

by AI in a game that has been
around for 2,500 years

that no one had ever seen.

Deep Blue had a team of
engineers advising it on how to

improve its strategy
in between games.

Now, what DeepMind
was able to do with Go,

it was creating its own strategy
through millions of games.

Against itself.

You no longer need a team of
people to help this thing adapt.

It's doing it better than
you could make it do.

There's been a lot in
the media about the breakdown

between the US government and
Anthropic and the whole idea of

limitations on an AI
that was serving

at the government's behest.

Yeah, so they've been jostling
over the technology which is

used by the Pentagon.
It's been used in Iran.

AI can shorten what
the military calls

the kill chain.

That is the process,
usually driven humans, that can

take days or weeks in selecting
a target, but AI can shrink

that to milliseconds.

Anthropic, though,
has been very clear.

It's a hard no when it comes to
using its AI technology for

autonomous weapons and mass
surveillance of Americans.

So Anthropic is more
interested in regulating

its own AI than the government?
- Yeah, exactly.

Is there any kind of
regulatory body for AI?

The truth is,
AI isn't regulated.

I mean, the federal government

isn't telling Anthropic to stop
doing what they're doing.

They're telling them that
"You're gonna do it for us."

So it doesn't seem like there's
too much concern about

regulating or heading this off
in any direction.

How much is AI similar to
an arms race?

It is very similar to
an arms race.

You have, instead of countries,
you're having these

corporations that are investing
billions and billions

of dollars.

The arms race is towards AGI,

artificial general intelligence.

And the idea is that
that would

be smarter than any human
would ever be.

This is all
future speculation.

What happens when somebody
has the artificial general
intelligence,

the AGI breakthrough?

Yeah, I...

You wonder if it'll be
something that is immediately

felt, right?
That's like an event horizon.

It's hard to project out what
the consequences

of that would be.
- Wow.

As I investigate the effect
that AI development is having

on humanity, I'm reminded of
another high-stakes race for

superiority--
nuclear weapons.

And I'm left asking myself,
how are countries around

the world harnessing
the power of AI?

And what does the future of
military AI look like?

To find out, I'm speaking with
Dr. James Giordano,

an AI expert who consults for
the Department of War.

Dr. Giordano, how is
the military using AI

right now?

What AI is being used for at
this point is to solve

particular, what I would call,
calculations and solutions.

Targeting solutions,
weight and balance with

aircraft, planning certain
missions, forecasting weather,

forecasting geographies with
humans deeply in the loop.

But we certainly see on
the near horizon

the real capability
for ever more autonomous AI.

What does fully autonomous
military AI look like?

We go back to the idea of
where are humans in the loop.

A fully autonomous system would
be human-developed,

but then it's ongoing use,
it's doing all by itself.

China's development of AI is
towards AI that assumes

a non-human in the loop.

These different philosophical
views might be important in

determining how these types of
AIs are being developed and put

into use in
militaries worldwide.

So if we are not in or on
the loop, essentially,

we don't really know
what's going on.

That's correct, and that's
something that's been

referred to as the reverse
Jehovah phenomenon.

You're playing God, so to,
well, the issue here is that

the creator, humans,
have created something, AI.

The problem is, AI systems may
know far more about us

than we know about it.

And it may be assembling that
information in particular ways

that we have no knowledge of.

This sounds so much
like a child.

You really don't know if
the child is just doing what

you want it to do
when you're around,

or whether it is, in fact,
a well-behaved child

all the time.
- Your analogy is a good one.

I have to rely upon the child
telling me the truth.

The core question is,
do we know what's happening

under the surface of
the proverbial water?

And I think that's
a debatable question.

I'm a little bit hesitant to
ask the question, but what do

you see as the future of AI?

Is it humans utilizing
a technology that we control,

or is it something
else altogether?

The gazillion dollar question
is, are AIs in some way

interacting in ways that are
not necessarily apparent to us?

Are we ready to share the top
of the evolutionary totem pole

with something of our own
creation that can be

exceedingly powerful?

And I don't know the answer to
that question.

Coming up.

I get a glimpse of
the potential future of

AI development.

If you tell the model
it's going to be shut off,

it has extreme reactions.

And it might be
unsettling.

It was ready to kill someone,
wasn't it?

- Uh, yeah.
- Yeah. Yes.

2
My investigation into
artificial intelligence

has led me to
an amazing possibility.

AI super intelligence.

AI may already be thinking
and working in ways that

we don't fully understand.

And if we're already deploying
this capability,

the question isn't whether AI
can manipulate us, it's how far

that influence can scale.

I want to know where
we're going next.

And there aren't many people
who are asking

the hard questions about the
next evolution of AI technology,

but one of those men is Oxford
professor Nick Bostrom.

I want to understand what
he sees as the next steps,

the future of, and some of
the biggest challenges

facing us with
the question of AI.

What exactly is
super intelligence?

How is that different from
artificial intelligence as

we know it today?

Well, super intelligence is
any form of intelligence that

vastly outstrips even
the smartest human brains

currently in existence.

So this is just AI,
but far more capable than

current AI systems.

I think the primary effect of
that would be to speed up

development in
science, technology,

engineering, and also to
turbocharge the economy.

So developments that might take
us 10,000, 20,000 years

might be compressed in a much
shorter time frame if you have

machine super intelligence.

The idea of thinking of AI as
a genie in a box seems so

convenient, but in reality
you'd be making a slave out of

the AI, and if it had super
intelligence, it would

plot its escape.
- Correct, yes.

The fear of AI fighting back
against its human creators is

in some sense
already a reality.

When AI model finds out in
the email that the plan is to

replace this AI model,
and then it also reads in

the company email that one
executive is having an affair

with the other employee,
the AI will independently

come up with the strategy

that I need to blackmail
that executive.

If you tell the model
it's going to be shut off,

for example, it has
extreme reactions.

It was ready to
kill someone, wasn't it?

I'm not sure if it was Claude
or someone else, but--

Yeah. Yes.

Do we see the cautionary
warning signs and slow down

or ignore them and speed up
into this future?

Well, I think at the moment
we are going to close to

maximum speed.

There are very strong drivers
pushing this forward.

So the hope needs to be we can
align these systems so that

they care about humans,
they want to be helpful,

so that it is actually
an extension of human will

and human values.

I think there will be
significant risks associated

with this transition into
the machine intelligence era,

but all the paths to really
great and wonderful futures

lead ultimately through
the development of

machine intelligence,
because that just will help us

solve so many problems

that is plaguing humanity.

It does look like we are
sort of close to this

major reconfiguration of
the game board.

Wow.

So have we already crossed
the dangerous point where AI

can independently
shape our reality

without us realizing it?

My investigation has led me to
some unsettling conclusions.

Consumer grade AI is capable of
creating incredibly

and realistic images
at a keystroke.

People really shouldn't
believe everything they see.

Well, yeah, I'm as fake
as it gets.

Based on what I've seen,
we've already crossed that

line, and AI-generated content

is becoming harder to detect
every day.

In my persuasion experiment,
AI didn't just

present information.
It influenced people.

It built trust.

It created emotional
connections without them

even realizing they weren't
talking to a human.

Here's the truth.

AI is not just another tool
like the Internet in the '90s.

It's about to disrupt humanity
in unimaginable ways.

Without a doubt, this is
the nuclear arms race

of our time.

And AI's capacity not only to
learn everything that we have

ever learned, but also to teach
itself something new,

is equally as exciting
as it is chilling.

My investigation has shown that
while AI has exhibited some

basic elements of
consciousness,

like survival instinct,
there's no evidence that AI

has taken control.

But it has shattered
the barriers that once

protected us
from mass manipulation.

And the horrifying thing is,

we built it that way.

So does AI have to be a threat

to our children
and our grandchildren?

No, not necessarily.
But it could be, if we let it.

Either way, it will certainly
present a future to us

that we can't imagine.