President Trump's Las Vegas tax policy trip previews a Washington Journal featuring Mike Flood and Maxine Dexter, while HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. details a $50 billion rural health investment and AI integration to combat maternal mortality, correcting Medicaid fraud figures from 5 million to 450,000. Dr. Oz argues public health improvements could add a trillion dollars to the economy, yet Senator Mark Warner warns AI could spike graduate unemployment to 30%, criticizing bipartisan regulatory failures and opposing data center moratoriums in favor of taxing large language models for retraining. Ultimately, the broadcast highlights the urgent tension between accelerating innovation and preventing economic dislocation without concrete workforce solutions. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
Nearly 90 Million Viewers00:02:03
Trump is I can't imagine, but we're out of time, so we'll have to pick that up.
Thank you, Steve.
Well, coming up, President Trump is traveling to Las Vegas.
He's expected to talk about tax policy and his initiative to remove taxes from tips and overtime pay.
Now set for 7 p.m. Eastern.
We'll have it live when it gets underway here on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up Friday morning, we'll discuss the latest on the Iran War and other congressional news of the week, first with Nebraska Republican Congressman Mike Flood, and later with Democratic Oregon Congresswoman Maxine Dexter.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Friday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
On Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is on Capitol Hill for a second day this week, testifying on the policies and priorities of his department.
Watch the House Education and Workforce hearing live at 9 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-SPAN.org.
In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
AI's Role in Rural Care00:15:19
A couple of conversations now from today's semaphore meeting here in Washington.
First up, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Director Dr. Mehmet Oz talks about the future of the U.S. healthcare system.
After that, Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner talks about artificial intelligence.
Thanks for joining us at the Semaphore World Economy.
We have a lot to talk about, but I want to start with robotics and AI because this is the Powering the Future panel.
You've been a pretty big proponent of integrating AI and robotics in healthcare, especially when it comes to things like ultrasounds and rural America.
I first wonder how would that work?
Should women in rural America prepare for robot prenatal care?
Yes.
And the reason is that their governors who know that their entire counties, for example, in LA, which means lower Alabama, if you live in Alabama, don't have obstetrics care.
And so we have a maternal mortality problem, as you know, in this country.
And one of the reasons is it's very mediocre prenatal care in many situations.
So you catch the problem at the delivery and you'll often save the baby, but not the mom.
So the idea that you don't have those services at all versus a robotic run, ultrasound, or now I'm seeing actually just wands that a lay person could run over the belly of a pregnant woman and feed that data back for AI analysis and obstetricians and experts in the area could look at it as well.
That's an uplifting opportunity.
And these technologies, they're used in other countries as well.
It's just an opportunity for us to catch folks who otherwise fall through the system.
But I'll give you an even better case use.
You have a lot of mental health care issues in rural America where life expectancy is almost a decade shorter than many other parts of the country.
And their ability to access health care services is devastatingly low.
And we can't pay enough money to get people to help those individuals.
So we're going to have to use remote solutions.
And those are exciting opportunities because if we can get these programs to work better in rural America, we can use those same insights in urban America.
And that's why the president and Congress wisely decided to invest $50 billion in rural health care.
That's, by the way, 50% more money than Medicaid normally puts into rural health care systems.
And so you don't put that kind of extra money in every year for five years just to pay the bills.
You do that because you want to transform the system, allow it to work differently than it's ever worked before.
And these kinds of novel approaches will be there.
But can I make two preamble statements, Shelby?
Sure, if you don't mind.
The first thing is, I came here to recruit you.
We need more people at CMS and Healthy Human Services.
This organization obviously has been able to attract some of the top people in the country for good reasons.
So many of you are probably thinking about how you can make a difference because you're in the change business and you might find it entertaining to be in government, especially at this generational opportunity.
And the second big message that I want to deliver, because you've asked about AI already, is we can't do any of this unless we have access to data.
So problems that cause friction in the healthcare system are profit centers for some companies.
And those companies are not in the right business anymore.
We're going to de-risk a lot of the changes that are required to allow data to flow freely.
Some of those problems are with us at CMS.
I don't know how many of you know COBOL programming, but we need engineers who know COBOL programming because in 1979 when the system was built at CMS, which has not been changed since, that's how it was created.
And so we are upgrading for the first time the fundamental architecture for how we do billing at CMS.
We're also going to adjust not just for Medicare, but for Medicaid services as well.
We have in budget, you know, getting money from Rustvot and OMB is not so easy.
And because they're appropriately tight-fisted with taxpayer money, but they are asking and encouraging us to invest in these areas because they know the downstream benefits are huge.
Now, some of them I think are going to be uplifting, like our ability to deliver AI-supported services for the first time to the American people with tools like the Access Model, which just launched, which is a CMMI back.
Abe Sutton runs CMMI, brilliant young man who's crafted a beautiful way for us for the first time to support technology advances so the tech industry can get off the sidelines and come work with us and build apps to connect with the American people.
And we have lots of other ideas along those lines.
All of that's going to be possible now because of AI, which is again why many of you or your families or people who work for you or people you work for should be thinking about coming into government for this unique opportunity to make a difference.
What would you say to Americans who are hearing about the idea of integrating AI and robotics more into healthcare and are concerned about the potential for job loss as a result?
The bigger concern, I think, is the possibility that AI doesn't To do what's best for you as it gives advice.
That it gets manipulated, it loses its way, hallucinates, forces take control of how you get advice that may not be actually serving you.
There's going to be obviously debates about the impact on jobs.
I actually think it'll create lots of opportunities for people because they're going to be healthier.
It's a very different scenario, I envision, but just before, you know, even in the next few years before our administration is complete and has finished its tasks.
Because if we can get the average American to get access to the care that they should want, it will allow them to reach a higher level of success in what they want to do in their lives, including, by the way, participating in the workforce.
And just to put a number on it, because I think it's a shockingly large benefit to have a healthy population, if America is doing its best for its people and our workers are feeling so healthy, so vibrant, so with it that they want to stay in the workforce for even one more year, that's worth almost a trillion dollars to the U.S. economy.
A trillion dollars.
$300 billion in tax revenue.
It starts to deal with a lot of the things we're worried about in just our basic management of budget.
Plus, there's the human value of you being able to be vibrant enough to walk your daughter down the aisle or participate in raising your grandchildren, all the things that happen when we have a healthy, older society.
AI unlocks that because right now, I have trouble talking to the 170 million people we cover with government health care.
Think about that.
170 million people, and I have tens of millions of email addresses, but I really can't talk to folks in a way that's able, that empowers us as the folks paying the bills to help them use the money more wisely and get the most out of the health care system.
Medicare and Medicaid are beautiful, the crown jewels of the social safety net system of the country.
And if I could just connect with folks and get them to do things that are in their own best interest objectively, we would be benefiting all of us.
I give you one concrete example, Shelby.
So we give an annual wellness exam to every American on Medicare.
68 million people are allowed to go to a doctor once a year with no out-of-pocket expense.
It's all yours.
Why do we do that?
It's so important for us to make sure that you're taking care of some basic preventative issues.
What percentage of Americans actually take us up on that free visit to a doctor?
Less than half.
Why don't they go to a doctor?
Well, they're healthier than the other people.
Or so they claim.
But we actually have claims data.
I know that they're getting sick.
And I know they're getting sicker more often than the people who go to a doctor.
So ignorance is not bliss.
They're given a free exam, they don't take it for whatever reason.
They're actually sicker than the cohort that does go to the doctor.
If I can engage them, meet them where they are, if our brilliant folks at CMS can build digital tools, AI-based, sometimes with robotics as well, it'll make a big difference.
Robotics offer a lot of promise because there are some places that I know we have staffing issues that are hard to overwhelm, like nursing homes, where although we would love to have more people in nursing homes to take care of our seniors, all great societies take care of their elderly, they're vulnerable, and we're great people who are going to do it.
You just don't have enough nurses.
And so if we can use robotics to take care of some of the rote material, delivery of food, maybe some transport issues, things that I'm encouraged by from what I see, it also will provide us opportunities.
So I want us to think about it from the context of the folks who have nothing versus AI or robotics, as opposed to is it better than what we currently have?
And I also want to talk about Medicare Advantage.
CMS recently decided to boost Medicare Advantage payments for 2027 by 2.48%.
That's a big jump from its initial proposal to almost flatline those payments.
One estimate I had seen pegged the extra money for insurers from that at $13 billion.
Are you working to make Medicare Advantage plans more attractive?
I wonder what's the logic here.
Well, the economy is growing it faster than 2.4%.
The health expenses in our system are growing dramatically faster than that number.
You know how you've done a good job as a regulator?
Both sides hate you.
Just the right amount.
They're not stoning you, but they're not happy with you.
And I think that's what Chris Klump and the Medicare team did quite well.
It's hard to imagine not paying anything more because clearly there's inflation.
And we don't want to chase the private companies involved in Medicare Advantage out of the system.
We want them to stay in Medicare Advantage.
We think the programs can be made better, but they're inherently a good idea to use value-based programs.
We want to do that in original Medicare as well.
You will get better quality care if the people managing you are paid for the benefits you get from the program, the value you obtain, as opposed to the number of times they do things to you.
Because there is no way for me to guarantee that doing an extra operation on you makes you better, and so people will just do more operations on you.
And a lot of what prior authorization, which is a program that has been misused terribly and is appropriately disliked by many Americans and certainly almost all doctors, because it wastes time and effort and doesn't result in kinds of improvements that you see.
But on the other hand, without some types of quality control and value, you end up with difficult situations where procedures are overused.
And so one good way of just dealing with the whole problem, not getting into the pry-roth elements, is to have value-based systems where everyone's doing what they think is bringing value to the system, getting paid more for that.
I'll give you a concrete example, skin substitutes.
Did you know what they are?
Skin substitutes are little patches, little postage stamps they put on wounds.
It was historically about a $250 million business.
Last year we spent $15 billion.
$15 billion.
This year we were predicted to spend $25 billion on a product that costs $25 to $30 in Europe and is $5,000 sometimes here because you pay doctors a percentage of the product that they use.
We had people in nursing homes getting a million dollars of skin substitutes.
Million dollars.
So if you have a value-based system like Medicare Advantage, they never let that happen because there's no value to putting a million dollars of skin substitutes in a woman in a nursing home with a decubitus ulcer.
There are other ways of taking care of that problem.
But in original Medicare, there was no easy way for us to deal with that.
In fact, in original Medicare, we're trying to support as much as possible the growth of value-based systems like affordable care organizations.
And on Monday, I was at an event here in Washington where we launched the LEAD model.
The LEED model is a more updated, more robust, more effective way for us to encourage doctors to join these ACOs and affordable care organizations.
We hope to make as much as possible the entire U.S. public taken care of by people who are paid because they're making you better, not because they're doing things to you.
And before we go, I want to have you be able to talk about this.
Last month, you had said that New York's Medicaid provided around 5 million people with personal care services.
You noted that's an unheard of level of use.
Your agency more recently noted that that was a mistake.
The real numbers are around 450,000.
Does that undercut your argument about mass fraud or does your argument about mass fraud as it pertains to New York's Medicaid still stand?
No, it's 100% still a valid argument.
Think about these numbers.
We're quibbling about whether it's half a million people or 450,000 people getting personal care services.
I just want to put this in perspective.
That is the number one occupation in New York State.
The most important, biggest job, arguably, at least by the state of New York, in New York State, is personal care services.
You know what that is?
That's people carrying your groceries up the stairs.
And those people who carry the groceries up the stairs often live in your house or near you.
And so I look at those numbers and I think these are unlicensed people in a very unmonitored setting where it's become a jobs program.
The criteria for getting access to these services used to be, if you don't get the service, you'll go to a nursing home.
If that's the way that they're used, that's a valid investment of societal resources.
But the way that we now think about these services, we're basically doing things for you that your family used to do for you.
Transporting you to a doctor's clinic visit, bringing your groceries to you from the store, taking care of bouncing your checkbook or things that aren't classically, you know, I want to pay for hernie operations, right?
And you want to have your tax dollars used for cancer cures that will save lives, not throwing at a program that doesn't seem to be focused on the original purpose of it.
And I'll highlight a few other things about this.
If you have the number one job in New York State being personal care services, by the way, the numbers are even bigger of personal care services in California.
You have to ask yourselves, why would anyone let that happen?
If you're a governor of these states, would you want to have the number one job in your state, personal care services?
Is that really the best way to run and shepherd the taxpayers' money in your state?
Then you start to wonder if there are other reasons why they're allowing these things to happen.
And I want to just open your eyes to the possibility that there are other benefits that accrue to some of these leaders because they allow these programs to grow so wildly out of control.
And if you ask yourself those questions, you realize for some people, these are not a flaw of the system, they're a feature of the system.
And I'll leave you with one good example because we started with technology and information and AI.
We're using these same tools to catch some of the fraud.
Because when I look into these programs, like the ones in New York you mentioned and California, California, I'll give you a concrete example.
Paying Nurses Over Business Majors00:15:31
You know what hospice is?
At the end of your life, if you have cancer and you're going to die, we allow you to go with dignity, to move out of Medicare.
You give up your Medicare and you go into hospice.
There are 5,800 hospice facilities or companies in this country.
1,800.
One-third of all hospice in the entire country is in Los Angeles.
Not California, Los Angeles.
How many people are actually dying in Los Angeles?
So you look back and think, there's no way you thought that was legitimate.
I have news for you.
We've now shut down payments to over 400 hospices in California just in the last 10 weeks.
So if you really want to deal with the fraud and you use technology and beta data analysis to find these bad apples with lots of red flags showing that they're taking and stealing money, you can do it.
But you have to actually want to stop the fraud.
And I would argue this is a moral challenge because this is corruption of the fabric of our society.
During COVID, it became evident you could steal from the federal government and people just wouldn't come after you.
People looked the other way in the last administration in Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
I treasure these programs.
The president has said over and over again, he loves and cherishes Medicaid and Medicare.
During the State of the Union, I asked that the vice president lead a task force on fraud, waste, and abuse that's government-wide, brings us all together, and it's working effectively.
And under the vice president's leadership, we actually shut down a bunch of fraudsters just a few weeks ago in Los Angeles in footage that I think captured the attention of the nation because it shows we're taking these problems seriously.
But if you're going to allow people to steal money from our social safety net programs, you have to be honorable and honest with yourself because these bad people will not just steal your money, they will steal your health, they will steal your life.
And that's why this administration will not tolerate this level of fraud.
We'll have to have you back next year for an update on that.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Senator Warner, welcome.
Good morning.
Are you talking about some light, enjoyable topics this morning, like AI dislocation?
Nothing better to cheer everybody up.
8:30.
So how do you use AI?
Pardon me?
How do you use AI?
I don't use it as well as I should.
You know, I remember on one of the programs, if you're using AI as just kind of an extended Google search, you're not using it up.
So I'm trying to get better.
I try to pose more problems.
I have tried to pose, you know, how should we deal with economic dislocation?
I'm not sure I got the right answer, but I'm trying to get better.
But I do think it's, I've gone from, as a former technology guy, you know, interested, concerned, think it's a big thing, to late last year, oh my gosh, to now literally hair on fire.
Cannot believe what I think is going to be dislocation.
I think there's three pieces of this.
I mean, one is how we deal with the data centers.
That's relatively easy.
You know, you have to make sure there's not misuse on the power, not passed on to consumers, water, you know, setbacks.
I think there's security issues with what's happened with Mythos.
The ability for that tool to literally break in to almost any of our most secure systems, that's a holy heck moment.
And I'm glad that they have put together the group to try to look at testing.
I think it raises a bigger issue about what should be the protocol before any of these new tools are released because this is just Mythos and what's next.
And then the one I'm just shocked at is economic dislocation.
Now, I am an AI optimist.
I do think there's going to be great innovation.
I do think there will even be great job creation long haul, six to eight years.
Short term, next two to four years.
I've gone to literally terrorize.
I know one of the major telcos had talked to me.
My background was in telcos.
41,000 customer service agents, they think they can get by with a couple hundred.
Major law firm didn't hire a single first-year associate.
I think the traditional, you know, what's the default major for most kids going to university is business, business administration.
I think those BA degrees are, frankly, not going to be worth that much.
And I have yet to talk to somebody who has said, all right, this is the solution on how we get through it.
You know, we mentioned backstage.
If we went way, way back in time, four years ago, we would have thought maybe the right choice was to teach everybody to code.
That's not going to be the answer.
We may need, you know, one of the things I thought at least to provoke a response is maybe we ought to be paying all those freshmen in college to switch from being a business major to being a nurse or in healthcare fields.
But I think we're going to need a pretty radical transformation.
And if we simply do a traditional government training program, we're going to screw it up.
So I want to get into why you are, quote unquote, terrified about what's going to happen in AI in the labor market.
But first I want to talk a little bit about the polarization within the parties around the AI issue.
And I mean, when you look at usage of AI, Republican staffers are more likely to report having used it.
The DNC this week, Axios, reported that its staffers are barred from using CLOD or ChatGPT, though strangely, they're allowed to use Gemini for some tasks.
I don't really know what the reasoning for that is.
But what do you make of this sort of partisan difference?
You know, I'm not really sure I buy the partisan difference.
I mean, well, the RNC isn't banning its employees.
The RNC is not banned, but I think it has been fascinating to watch, at least at the Senate level.
I remember when we first started having these AI sessions and we had 35, 40 senators show up.
I still remember when Schumer did the one where we had all the big AI guys and everybody raised their hand saying they wanted a tech regulation.
Having lived through a totally unsuccessful effort to put any guardrails on social media, I do think my tech friends, they all raise their hand on regulation until you put words on the page.
But I saw from like 35, 40 senators participating.
I had a series of bipartisan efforts.
The crowd went from 35 to 40 to 10 to like three because it's a really, this is really hard to kind of grasp, get your arms around.
I don't think it's partisan.
I think it's more future past rather than left-right.
So the DNC is stuck in the past?
Yeah, I think, well, that's not breaking news.
You know, but I wish I had run into someone, and again, there's very few people, and maybe somebody in the crowd's got the answer, but we all kind of describe how we make jobs AI adjacent.
I've yet to see the they're there on that.
And again, I think there will be productivity.
I think there'll be job increases.
I think there'll be innovation.
But boy, oh boy, this short-term next couple of years, you know, the stat I use, recent college grad unemployment is about 9%.
I believe it'll go to 30% within the next two years.
And that will have a dual effect of not only making that age cohort appropriately concerned, but an awful lot of parents and grandparents who helped finance that education pretty pissed off.
So how we get this right and what I've been trying to implore, we need the tech community, the hyperscalers, to both help us through the transition and also help pay for it.
So 30% is a big number.
I know you're restricting yourself to recent college grads there, but that's still really, really high.
How did you get to that number?
I got that number simply because I think most CEOs are not being, what they say to me privately about the amount of job elimination that they're looking at is not what they're saying publicly.
I think they're hesitant to literally say the full truth because they think they're afraid it's going to freak people out.
And I think it will come less in the form of we're going to go out and fire EPS number.
I think it's just the incoming, I don't know a single firm where their incoming class of new hires is not a half or a third of what it was even a few years back.
So as a journalist, I will often come across people telling me that the issue they're working on is the most important issue.
It's extremely important that I pay attention to this.
I spent hundreds of my time working on it.
And with AI, similarly, I observe this often this strange gap between the rhetoric that I hear and the actions that are being proposed.
And you yourself refer to the legislation that you've been working on on AI and job dislocation as being small incremental steps.
Right, I mean, it's like we've got a commission similar about the Cyber Solarium.
We've got efforts to try to correct with Josh Holly, for example, I've got a bill.
Let's get the good data.
You know, BLS doesn't really collect the appropriate data.
We need all those things.
But I think at least I have yet to see an effort that I think meets the moment.
Now, I do think I would urge for those of us who follow it, what's playing out right now at the state budget level in Virginia, since we are data center capital of the world, could be a precursor of what's happening everywhere.
There is a readjustment.
I don't want Virginia to go back and take away the tax breaks because I don't think we should break the rules.
But I do think the industry is already literally offering in the hundreds and hundreds of millions.
My goal would be to make sure those funds, or try to urge my friends in the legislature and the governor, not to simply put whatever comes out of that into the general pot.
But we really need to have this funding, what this job retraining effort could and should look like.
But on AI and jobs, what would it look like to take more than small incremental steps?
What would it actually mean to meet the moment here?
What kind of legislation would be proposed?
What would you want to see?
Well, I think it would start with potentially, you know, what are the jobs not going to be disrupted.
Now, I know it's like elevator crane operators or something.
You know, I get a little frustrated with particularly some of the folks from our top-tier universities who always say, and this is going to be such an injection in the traditional trades.
I believe there will be an upswing in plumbers, electricians, et cetera.
But if you ask that same audience, like a smart one like here, how many of you are sending your kids to trade school right now?
Grandkids to trade school.
So, you know, the rhetoric sounds good.
It's not where we think we are sending our own children.
And I do believe part of the reason we've got to get this right is: if we go way back, you know, 30 years ago with globalization, the jobs that we're losing, and like my state, were the old textile jobs.
What we're talking about now are our kids who've done everything we've asked them to do: study, work hard, go to a good school.
And I think the fear level and the concern level is huge.
And again, I come back to my opening comment.
I've yet to have somebody say, here's the solution set.
I do think a radical thinking in terms of redirecting people, for example, into a healthcare field, lots of caregivers, lots of needs there, not exactly the careers that we've necessarily would have planned for, but I think ought to be out there.
I do think there are easy ways to think about funding this.
For example, if you simply got rid of accelerated depreciation on most of the data centers, you could generate a lot of revenue.
And the question, again, even if you define the problem, who pays, should it be Navidia and Jensen in terms of making the bullets?
Should it be the large language model?
Should it be the companies that are using these tools?
I think where probably will result the place to extract a toll or something, maybe the data center, since that's already where a lot of the pushback is coming.
But I think it's going to be so much more radical.
And the reason being, just looking at what Claude has done in first quarter of this year, what it's done to the software industry, what it's done to the HR industry, a major top, top brand name, VC that's a friend of mine, said he is preparing to write all of his software investments down to zero.
And that's 35, 40% of his portfolio.
So that may not be the case, but if he's even 50% of that being the case, I think we're looking at this dislocation.
And there would not be this literally trillions of dollars if people didn't feel there was going to be enormous productivity gains.
And our record of getting people through transitions, again, go back to globalization, you know, it's been pretty pitiful.
We completely got caught off guard on, not caught off guard, but the fact that we couldn't even get guardrails on social media doesn't give me a lot of hope that we're going to sort this out.
But the immediacy of this problem and the challenge of if we get it wrong, my fear is if we get it wrong, you could have populism from both the left and the right come together and try to shut off this innovation.
That would be the worst.
This is clearly a place where, as somebody that believes national security is actually technology competition, this is not a place where you want China to win.
So I want to ask you about this reaction to data centers, because, I mean, you're from Virginia, as you mentioned, data center capital in the world.
My father lives in Leesburg.
I see them when I go visit him.
The Senator Bernie Sanders and a representative AOC put out a data center moratorium.
And many observers, if you're terrified of what AI is going to do, if you're terrified that it's going to lead to 30% unemployment amongst recent college grads, dislocation likes you've never seen in the labor market, left and right populism potentially upending the American political system.
Frontier Researchers Terrify Us00:02:46
It doesn't seem that crazy to say, okay, well, why don't we just pause this?
You called it idiocy.
Well, I probably shouldn't use that term.
No, it's fun.
No, no, no, I just think it's, I don't think it's going to solve.
The idea that we can stop this innovation, the idea that we can put the genie back in the bottle, that is not going to happen.
Why not?
Because these tools are already unleashed into the world.
They're not going to be taken back in.
I do think the Mythos effort coming out of Anthropic, the fact that they were responsible enough to, on their own, say, time out and then put this coalition together to say, you know, we ought to test a little bit more.
I do think the notion of whether government or independent researchers having some testing pattern before the tool is released or the next model is released, because, you know, I know from what Anthropic's working on, Mythos will soon be surpassed with a tool that is exponentially more powerful.
So again, I think we have to think about this.
Data center is relatively easy, but that's where a lot of the heat is right now.
How we do put some constraints in making sure they don't pass on, for example, utility costs.
I think the security piece of trying to have, you know, somebody invented, I claim that I invented cell phones the way Al Gordon did the internet.
I did start in Excel, but is that that security piece?
There are, as I talk to folks on the frontier researchers, they do terrify me at times.
And the number of frontier researchers who are deciding, well, I'm not going on to the next job.
I'm going to go study poetry and spend time with my kids.
That's a fairly frightening indictment.
And then we've got this dislocation issue.
And I do think many of the companies realize they can't just sit back and say, not our problem.
So how we get them to the table in a group, maybe on a revenue source that we could agree on jointly, but what the there there is going to be in terms of how we make, you know, work truly AI accessible, adjacent, whatever terminology we want to use.
You know, I think we have to put all our heads together and really have a sense of urgency to this that I'm not sure we've seen yet.
Senator, I could talk to you about this forever, but I'm getting the signal.
We have to go.
Democracy Unfiltered Live00:02:17
So thank you for your time.
Well, thank you.
Thanks, everybody.
You're watching C-SPAN.
Democracy Unfiltered.
C-SPAN brings you democracy unfiltered in real time.
Democracy doesn't take sides.
Neither does C-SPAN.
In a world full of opinions, C-SPAN gives you direct access to the people and institutions that shape our nation.
Unfiltered coverage of Congress as laws are debated and decided.
Live proceedings from the United States Supreme Court.
Presidential speeches, briefings, and historic moments as they happen.
No commentary, no spin, no agenda.
Just the democratic process presented in full without interruption so you can watch the debates, hear every word, and make up your own mind.
C-SPAN's respected nonprofit service has offered Americans unfiltered gabble-to-gabble coverage of their government in action.
C-SPAN bringing your democracy unfiltered.
C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as a public service.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up Friday morning, we'll discuss the latest on the Iran War and other congressional news of the week, first with Nebraska Republican Congressman Mike Flood, and later with Democratic Oregon Congresswoman Maxine Dexter.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Friday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
On Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is on Capitol Hill for a second day this week, testifying on the policies and priorities of his department.
Watch the House Education and Workforce hearing live at 9 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
C-SPAN now our free mobile app and online at c-span.org