WEBVTT - White House AI Czar David Sacks Talks Trump's AI Executive Order

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.880 --> 0:00:11.680
<v Speaker 2>President Trump signed an executive order aimed at limiting state

0:00:11.760 --> 0:00:15.040
<v Speaker 2>level regulation of AI. The move is supported by tech

0:00:15.160 --> 0:00:19.360
<v Speaker 2>leaders who have argued local rules could stifle innovation. We're

0:00:19.440 --> 0:00:22.479
<v Speaker 2>joined by David Sachs, the White House AI and Crypto

0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:25.800
<v Speaker 2>zah Or, Senior Advisor, and David, I think it is

0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:28.520
<v Speaker 2>a really good place to start in your work with

0:00:28.560 --> 0:00:32.960
<v Speaker 2>the President in consulting and advising on the formulation of

0:00:33.000 --> 0:00:37.159
<v Speaker 2>this executive order. What was the problem that you were

0:00:37.200 --> 0:00:40.440
<v Speaker 2>trying to solve for and what is it that you

0:00:40.560 --> 0:00:43.879
<v Speaker 2>said to the President about why this EO was the

0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:46.880
<v Speaker 2>right approach to focus on state level laws?

0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:49.599
<v Speaker 3>Well, thanks for having me.

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:51.960
<v Speaker 4>The problem that we see is that you've got one

0:00:52.000 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 4>thousand different bills going through state legislatures right now to

0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:59.000
<v Speaker 4>regulate AI, and over one hundred measures already passed. Some

0:00:59.040 --> 0:01:01.440
<v Speaker 4>of these bills are country victory, and you've got fifty

0:01:01.480 --> 0:01:03.400
<v Speaker 4>different states running in fifty different directions.

0:01:03.760 --> 0:01:05.240
<v Speaker 3>That type of compliance.

0:01:04.800 --> 0:01:07.560
<v Speaker 4>Regime is going to be very hard for small companies

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:11.640
<v Speaker 4>and startups, especially innovators, to comply with. And so what

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:16.319
<v Speaker 4>we need is a single federal or national framework for

0:01:16.400 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 4>AI regulation and that's what the President has supported, and

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:20.839
<v Speaker 4>by the way, he supported this for a long time.

0:01:20.880 --> 0:01:23.959
<v Speaker 4>If you go back to his July speech on AI

0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:27.240
<v Speaker 4>he called for a single national framework then. And what

0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:29.800
<v Speaker 4>we've done with the SEO now is to make clear

0:01:29.840 --> 0:01:33.040
<v Speaker 4>that is the administration's policy and to task members of

0:01:33.040 --> 0:01:35.760
<v Speaker 4>the administration to work with Congress to try and enact

0:01:36.160 --> 0:01:39.520
<v Speaker 4>that framework through legislation, because ultimately this needs to be

0:01:39.520 --> 0:01:42.400
<v Speaker 4>a law, and in the meantime create tools that the

0:01:42.400 --> 0:01:46.000
<v Speaker 4>administration can use to push back on examples of the

0:01:46.040 --> 0:01:48.480
<v Speaker 4>most onerous and excessive state regulations.

0:01:49.600 --> 0:01:52.160
<v Speaker 2>David, there is of course some pushback you know, on

0:01:52.200 --> 0:01:55.960
<v Speaker 2>the executive order from the states themselves, from other Republicans,

0:01:56.720 --> 0:01:59.840
<v Speaker 2>you know, as you know, like I studied the July

0:02:01.560 --> 0:02:05.040
<v Speaker 2>speech and strategy closely, a big part of it, you know,

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:09.800
<v Speaker 2>was infrastructure related and about deregulation. The concern about this

0:02:10.000 --> 0:02:13.520
<v Speaker 2>latest executive order is that while it addresses your concerns

0:02:13.600 --> 0:02:17.359
<v Speaker 2>about many different pieces of state regulation, it does not

0:02:17.480 --> 0:02:20.200
<v Speaker 2>provide for a single federal framework.

0:02:22.280 --> 0:02:24.480
<v Speaker 4>Well, at the end of the day, that single federal

0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:27.600
<v Speaker 4>framework has be enacted through law, and we need Congress

0:02:27.639 --> 0:02:30.000
<v Speaker 4>to do that. And so the President has asked Congress

0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:32.000
<v Speaker 4>to do that, and these task members of the administration

0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:35.880
<v Speaker 4>to work with Congress to produce that framework. In the meantime,

0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:37.959
<v Speaker 4>what we've done here is articulated set of principles. We

0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:41.560
<v Speaker 4>said what values are important to us. We said that

0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 4>we want to protect child safety, that's important. We want

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:48.560
<v Speaker 4>to respect copyright, we want to preserve the ability of

0:02:48.600 --> 0:02:53.320
<v Speaker 4>local communities to choose what infrastructures and their communities. We're

0:02:53.360 --> 0:02:56.960
<v Speaker 4>not seeking to preempt the states in any of those areas.

0:02:57.000 --> 0:02:59.840
<v Speaker 4>So this is an important set of principles that we

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:03.080
<v Speaker 4>have put forth. And at the same time, the EO

0:03:03.160 --> 0:03:05.839
<v Speaker 4>provides for a number of tools that can be used

0:03:05.840 --> 0:03:09.600
<v Speaker 4>to push back on excessive state regulation. And let me

0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 4>just illustrate why I think this is so necessary. What

0:03:12.840 --> 0:03:16.040
<v Speaker 4>we're really talking about here is regulation of AI models

0:03:16.080 --> 0:03:20.560
<v Speaker 4>and algorithms. Well, think about how an AI model is developed.

0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:23.840
<v Speaker 4>You can have developers in one state of multiple states

0:03:23.919 --> 0:03:26.640
<v Speaker 4>writing the code. It can then be trained in a

0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:29.679
<v Speaker 4>data center in another state. You then can have inference

0:03:29.760 --> 0:03:33.200
<v Speaker 4>happen in another state, and the entire service is provided

0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:37.560
<v Speaker 4>over the Internet using national telecommunications infrastructure. So you're dealing

0:03:37.600 --> 0:03:39.440
<v Speaker 4>there with at least four different states and all of

0:03:39.520 --> 0:03:43.600
<v Speaker 4>them can lay claim to regulating those AI models, and

0:03:43.680 --> 0:03:46.720
<v Speaker 4>those regulations can be in contradiction with each other. Even

0:03:46.760 --> 0:03:49.520
<v Speaker 4>Democrat governors have admitted this as a problem. So just

0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:51.800
<v Speaker 4>the other day, Kathy hoklel the governor of New York

0:03:52.120 --> 0:03:56.520
<v Speaker 4>It basically said that she might prefer to enact California's

0:03:56.600 --> 0:03:59.120
<v Speaker 4>SB fifty three, which is a regulation that they just

0:03:59.160 --> 0:04:01.960
<v Speaker 4>passed in California, rather than the bill that her own

0:04:01.960 --> 0:04:04.840
<v Speaker 4>assembly gave her, the Raise Act, because she sees that, wait,

0:04:04.840 --> 0:04:07.280
<v Speaker 4>do we really want to create this patchwork in different regulations.

0:04:07.440 --> 0:04:10.200
<v Speaker 4>So even democratic governors are realizing this is a problem,

0:04:10.280 --> 0:04:12.800
<v Speaker 4>and if they all run in different directions, then we're

0:04:12.840 --> 0:04:15.280
<v Speaker 4>going to end up with a patchwork or a mismash

0:04:15.680 --> 0:04:18.120
<v Speaker 4>of regulations that are impossible for companies to comply with.

0:04:18.160 --> 0:04:21.360
<v Speaker 4>What the President is calling for here is just common sense.

0:04:21.600 --> 0:04:25.000
<v Speaker 4>We want to get to a single national framework of

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:28.240
<v Speaker 4>compliance as opposed to fifty states running in different directions.

0:04:28.560 --> 0:04:31.200
<v Speaker 1>Meanwhile, Kathy Hokle actually is getting a bit of criticism,

0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:34.920
<v Speaker 1>perhaps for narrowing and what some are saying is bowing

0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:37.840
<v Speaker 1>down to business. David, I'm really interested in how you

0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:41.360
<v Speaker 1>oppose that view, because there is anxiety in the population,

0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:45.680
<v Speaker 1>AI versus jobs, AI versus energy bills. How are you

0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:48.960
<v Speaker 1>giving them the sense that we haven't seen federal government

0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:51.560
<v Speaker 1>and indeed now state governments just handing over the reins

0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:54.000
<v Speaker 1>to big tech billionaires as people call them.

0:04:54.839 --> 0:04:55.039
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:56.960
<v Speaker 4>No, I understand there's a lot of fear out there

0:04:57.040 --> 0:04:59.920
<v Speaker 4>about AI and job los specifically, and a lot of

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 4>those fears have been drummed up. Let me just say

0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:04.320
<v Speaker 4>on the job loss question, because I think this is

0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:07.120
<v Speaker 4>really important that Yale just released a study and it

0:05:07.240 --> 0:05:09.880
<v Speaker 4>showed that in the thirty three months after the launch

0:05:09.920 --> 0:05:13.080
<v Speaker 4>of chat GPT, there was no discernible disruption to the

0:05:13.160 --> 0:05:16.640
<v Speaker 4>US job market none. They said, no discernible disruption. And

0:05:16.680 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 4>in fact, if you look right now, more jobs are

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:21.200
<v Speaker 4>being created than being lost. So this whole idea of

0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:23.599
<v Speaker 4>job losses just isn't true. There was an article on

0:05:23.600 --> 0:05:26.280
<v Speaker 4>the Wall Street Journal just last week talking about the

0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:31.160
<v Speaker 4>construction boom that's happening that's benefiting construction workers like electricians,

0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:34.800
<v Speaker 4>like plumbers, like workers who pour concrete or hang drywall.

0:05:35.000 --> 0:05:37.159
<v Speaker 3>Their wages are up thirty percent.

0:05:36.800 --> 0:05:39.279
<v Speaker 4>Because this infrastructure boom that's happening right now, and there's

0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:42.719
<v Speaker 4>actually a job shortage in many of those trades, meaning

0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:45.720
<v Speaker 4>we need more workers going into those trades. So what

0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:48.160
<v Speaker 4>we're seeing right now is an overall AI boom that's

0:05:48.160 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 4>benefiting the economy. You know, the GDP growth rate was

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:55.560
<v Speaker 4>tracking about four percent, and half of that up to

0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:58.479
<v Speaker 4>half of it's been attributed to AI. So I just

0:05:58.520 --> 0:06:01.720
<v Speaker 4>think that this narrow about job loss has been blown

0:06:01.760 --> 0:06:05.120
<v Speaker 4>out of proportion. Certainly there could be job displacement in

0:06:05.160 --> 0:06:07.440
<v Speaker 4>the future, but we haven't seen any of that so far.

0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:09.560
<v Speaker 3>It's been quite the opposite. It has been job gains.

0:06:10.360 --> 0:06:13.400
<v Speaker 2>David final one on the EO, if I may, you

0:06:13.440 --> 0:06:17.080
<v Speaker 2>know what this EO allows for. Is it the sort

0:06:17.080 --> 0:06:20.560
<v Speaker 2>of hope that it will lead to the DOJ sewing

0:06:20.760 --> 0:06:24.599
<v Speaker 2>states like New York and California. And if that's the case,

0:06:25.080 --> 0:06:28.039
<v Speaker 2>you know the President and the administration's confidence that you'd

0:06:28.080 --> 0:06:29.480
<v Speaker 2>win them.

0:06:29.960 --> 0:06:31.800
<v Speaker 4>Well, that is one of the tools that is in

0:06:31.839 --> 0:06:34.719
<v Speaker 4>the EO is that the DOJ has been tasked to

0:06:34.760 --> 0:06:38.600
<v Speaker 4>form a litigation task Force that would have the ability

0:06:38.640 --> 0:06:43.000
<v Speaker 4>to push back on excessively burn some state laws, laws

0:06:43.040 --> 0:06:46.440
<v Speaker 4>that may be unconstitutional, violate the First Amendment, things like that.

0:06:46.440 --> 0:06:48.919
<v Speaker 4>By the way, the DOJ already had that power, so

0:06:49.000 --> 0:06:51.680
<v Speaker 4>this is not a novel power. But what's being done

0:06:51.720 --> 0:06:53.960
<v Speaker 4>here in the CEO is we're marshaling all the resources

0:06:53.960 --> 0:06:56.599
<v Speaker 4>of the federal government behind the strategy of the President

0:06:56.600 --> 0:06:58.760
<v Speaker 4>to create a national framework. Now, in terms of what

0:06:58.880 --> 0:07:01.160
<v Speaker 4>laws would go after, that's a decision that has been made.

0:07:02.360 --> 0:07:05.440
<v Speaker 4>We haven't decided whether California and New York should be

0:07:05.480 --> 0:07:08.600
<v Speaker 4>targets in that way. The one that I think is

0:07:08.600 --> 0:07:12.400
<v Speaker 4>probably the most successive is this Colorado law that seeks

0:07:12.400 --> 0:07:15.960
<v Speaker 4>to prohibit algorithmic discrimination. What that basically says is that

0:07:15.960 --> 0:07:18.280
<v Speaker 4>if an AI model has a disparate impact on a

0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:22.760
<v Speaker 4>protected group, then that model is violating the law. Model developers,

0:07:22.760 --> 0:07:24.160
<v Speaker 4>by the way, I have no idea how to comply

0:07:24.280 --> 0:07:26.960
<v Speaker 4>with this because they're not aware of all the downstream

0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:29.320
<v Speaker 4>uses of their model. I mean, if a business decides

0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:32.240
<v Speaker 4>to use an AI model in a hiring decision, for example,

0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:34.840
<v Speaker 4>that business is already on the hook for discrimination. So

0:07:34.840 --> 0:07:37.920
<v Speaker 4>how would the model developer know that it was being

0:07:38.000 --> 0:07:39.920
<v Speaker 4>used in that way? But what Colorado was trying to

0:07:39.960 --> 0:07:43.840
<v Speaker 4>do there is get their ideology inserted into the model.

0:07:43.880 --> 0:07:45.000
<v Speaker 3>That's very concerning to us.

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:47.160
<v Speaker 4>We think there's a first amendment issue there, But look,

0:07:47.200 --> 0:07:49.360
<v Speaker 4>we haven't made any decisions in terms of how that

0:07:49.600 --> 0:07:51.040
<v Speaker 4>litigation task for US to be used.

0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:53.680
<v Speaker 1>David Briefly, all of this is set in the context

0:07:53.680 --> 0:07:57.440
<v Speaker 1>of US versus China and a deemed to run forward

0:07:57.680 --> 0:08:00.960
<v Speaker 1>on AI development. Meanwhile, a busy week and eight two

0:08:01.000 --> 0:08:03.880
<v Speaker 1>hundreds might indeed be able to get to China. How

0:08:03.920 --> 0:08:05.600
<v Speaker 1>many do you think you'll do in volumes and what

0:08:05.680 --> 0:08:07.280
<v Speaker 1>do you think the appetite is of China to buy

0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:08.960
<v Speaker 1>in videos more sophisticated chips.

0:08:10.160 --> 0:08:11.000
<v Speaker 3>Well, it's interesting.

0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:13.080
<v Speaker 4>I just saw an article that said that China was

0:08:13.120 --> 0:08:15.640
<v Speaker 4>rejecting the H two hundred, So apparently they don't want them,

0:08:15.880 --> 0:08:17.680
<v Speaker 4>and I think the reason for that is they want

0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:20.840
<v Speaker 4>semiconductor independence. The same way that the United States wanted

0:08:21.000 --> 0:08:23.960
<v Speaker 4>to be energy independent. They want to be semiconductor independent.

0:08:24.200 --> 0:08:26.800
<v Speaker 4>So they're rejecting our chips. And that's part of the

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:30.240
<v Speaker 4>calculation that goes into the decision of what we authorized

0:08:30.280 --> 0:08:32.679
<v Speaker 4>to be sold to China. The US policy has always

0:08:32.720 --> 0:08:35.240
<v Speaker 4>been that we don't allow the leading edge chips, and

0:08:35.320 --> 0:08:35.640
<v Speaker 4>we're not.

0:08:36.160 --> 0:08:37.640
<v Speaker 3>This is this H two hundred chip.

0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:39.640
<v Speaker 4>It was state of the art a couple of years ago,

0:08:39.720 --> 0:08:42.320
<v Speaker 4>but now it's been superseded by the new or Blackwell

0:08:42.400 --> 0:08:45.280
<v Speaker 4>architecture and the Ruben architecture that's coming out next year.

0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:48.040
<v Speaker 4>So this is now a lagging chip, not a leading chip.

0:08:48.080 --> 0:08:50.440
<v Speaker 4>But what you see is China is not taking them

0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:53.600
<v Speaker 4>because they want to prop up and subsidize Wilwey.

0:08:53.640 --> 0:08:55.480
<v Speaker 3>They want to create a national champion.

0:08:55.840 --> 0:08:58.400
<v Speaker 4>And that was part of our calculation of selling not

0:08:58.559 --> 0:09:00.719
<v Speaker 4>the best but lagging chips tochch is you can take

0:09:00.800 --> 0:09:03.199
<v Speaker 4>market share away from Walwig. But I think the Chinese

0:09:03.240 --> 0:09:06.280
<v Speaker 4>government's figured that out and that's why they're not allowing them.

0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:09.240
<v Speaker 1>David Sachs, we always wish we had more time White House,

0:09:09.280 --> 0:09:11.720
<v Speaker 1>AI and cryptos Are We thank you for joining us

0:09:11.760 --> 0:09:12.880
<v Speaker 1>today on the executive Order