After “AI Summit,” Will Tech CEOs Back Down?

Hank joined BJ's Wholesale Club the day he became a father of 30. I coach football. Now, Coach Hank saves up to 25% off grocery store prices. 30 pounds of pasta, 3 cases of protein bars, 75 sports drinks. And that's just pregame. He knows teamwork, and BJ's knows savings. This is your home, Coach. Home of the Save. Join for just $20 at bjs.com slash mesquite and save 10 cents per gallon for 6 months. Open soon. Limited time offer. New members only. BJ's. Home of the Save. It's Wednesday, September 30th. They say they're worried about safety, but they also keep rolling out new programs. We start here. Tech CEOs convene at a summit at the White House to discuss mounting concerns over AI. The president basically said these companies are going to continue to self-regulate. They're going to police themselves. But for all the worry, will CEOs or the government actually make any changes? Whatever happened at Cornell won't change an alarming pattern. More than one in three women. Women undergraduates at Cornell University report experiencing a sexual assault. With the school on the defensive, a governor is now calling for an independent investigation. And this was supposed to be a gotcha moment. I do not have a recollection of going to Atlanta. I definitely did not go to a Hawks game. Why a hearing meant to embarrass special counsel Jack Smith might have backfired. From ABC News, this is Start Here. I'm Brad Milkey. I'm Brad Milkey. I'm Brad Milkey. And yet in recent days, it's becoming clear these things are not always foreseeable. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that months ago, two different employees at OpenAI sent emails to their superiors warning that their AI models should be monitored more carefully as they're tested. OpenAI has said it has robust channels for feedback and that these warnings were taken seriously immediately. The employees, though, say they were ignored. Told to continue testing as quickly as possible. To get these models to market. Just a short time later, we now know these models unexpectedly escaped their testing environment and started hacking real-life companies to achieve their objectives. Several tech CEOs have described this as a perilous moment. Well, yesterday, President Trump hosted some of the biggest names in tech at the White House at what was described as an AI summit. And ABC's Elizabeth Schulze was watching it all unfold. She covers tech policy and business. Elizabeth, lots to talk about here. But let's start with you. Let's start with the summit itself. What was the purpose of it and what came of it, if anything? Brad, this was a meeting bringing together the leaders of the biggest companies building AI and, frankly, the biggest companies in the world, plus President Trump and members of his cabinet and House Speaker Mike Johnson to talk about artificial intelligence in the wake of some of these, frankly, dire warnings that you and I have talked about, about the threat of AI and its potential threat to humanity. These are the most brilliant people in the world. And the job they've done is unbelievable. We have a very big lead, and we're going to keep our lead. The backdrop being that we've seen some of these CEOs that were in the room, like Anthropic CEO Dario Amadei, call for a slowdown of the industry. Well, this was a chance for all these CEOs to get together and talk about, should there be guardrails in place, what might that even look like? Safety and advancing technology is one and the same thing. It's no different than when you have autopilot. Not only is it advanced technology, it's also safer technology. And we're talking about. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Wang. These are the companies building this technology right now. And frankly, some of them, Brad, are at odds with each other over the path forward for this. I think the technology has very real risks. And, you know, the mechanism, how we address those risks is still under discussion. The takeaway was there isn't really a concrete plan that would change anything that these companies are already doing, at least from a federal regulation point of view. And we had a. We had a great meeting today. Every one of them, we had a great, really a great, great meeting. The president came out to speak to reporters after this meeting and said that they had a great conversation, that they all talked about the benefits of AI. They're finding solutions to problems that they've never thought even possible. And how much it's benefiting the American economy already. And then the president basically said these companies are going to continue to self-regulate. Well, I think I'm seeing tremendous self-policing. And they understand that they have to self-police it. And. The president kind of said that the companies are in the best place to regulate themselves. And that's what they're going to do. So we are not any closer to kind of a big sweeping federal guardrails on this at this point. But this is my question, Elizabeth. Like, is it becoming increasingly obvious that these products are just incapable of behaving predictably? Like OpenAI yesterday, the same day this is happening, OpenAI had to publicly apologize to what, like the entire country of Australia? Exactly, Brian. OpenAI basically had to say it's sorry to Australia's prime minister. And Australia as a country, because its models did something that really its human creators didn't want them to do. These agents went into an Australian government website and access data that they were not supposed to. There were blocks clearly, which were coming back, telling the AI agent, no, the AI agent found a way around. And OpenAI said, no, personal data was ultimately compromised. But there was an acknowledgement that this was something that was wrong. And then even in the same kind of just within hours of that, Brad, OpenAI also decided to hit pause on its latest model. And this is a really big deal because the company is acknowledging that the technology that it's building, that it is not safe enough. In a statement, the company said that for anything that we're building, there is a tradeoff. And the tradeoff they had to make by not releasing this new model, it's called GPT 6.1 Astra, is that it didn't meet the bar in terms of safety that the company is trying to set. So what's interesting about that is this is OpenAI actually kind of following through on the idea of slowing down and saying we won't release a model that we don't deem safe. It's interesting because at this point, so much of the American economy relies on just AI companies staying afloat that you saw stock prices go down as these guys walked into the doors. And then as they walked out with not that many deliverables being announced, stocks went back up because it means that these guys will conceivably potentially just keep. That's abcsecretsavings.com slash start here for 50% off the best bedding you will ever sleep on. That's abcsecretsavings.com slash start here. To hear the local district attorney describe it yesterday, a couple years ago, his office was told about a case emerging from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. A young woman had awoken from a night fueled by alcohol and sex that she now regretted, he said. Matthew Van Houten's office decided, though, there wasn't enough evidence to press charges. At that time, based upon that evidence, there were no crimes alleged. Well, to hear the victim describe it now, that barely begins to cover it. She says there was not just alcohol at this frat house. There was ketamine, drugs she was pressured to snort, rendering her less and less capable of consent as the hours went on. This went beyond a voluntary sexual partner. Messages allegedly went out to frat brothers, vulgarly encouraging them to take advantage of her. Eventually, she says, seven different men did just that. Such a large group of people were aware of something so horrible going on and just laughing about it and turning a blind eye. The more details we hear, the more outrage builds. The D.A. says this retelling of the story is news to him, so he's reopened the investigation. Yesterday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul went a step further, calling for an independent probe. But some women on campus are asking, Why is everyone acting so surprised by this? Even by the most basic standards, they say, Cornell has had a sexual assault problem for years. It's been a pervasive problem in Greek life. This isn't new. It's only that it got national attention that people are starting to care. You're joined now by ABC's Peter Haralambos. Peter, first off, how much pressure is growing around this Ivy League campus right now? Yeah, Brad, the pressure and scrutiny of Cornell University is growing at this point. We saw earlier. This week, of course, more scrutiny of those individuals allegedly involved in this incident. The D.A. deciding to take another look at those allegations. Now we're seeing more pressure on the university itself in terms of its systems, in terms of the way it protects students and the systemic problem of sexual violence on college campuses, which appears to be particularly a problem at Cornell when you actually look at the statistics. In terms of the pressure we've seen at this point, we've seen the city of Ithaca threatened to clamp down on permanent, because of this incident. We've seen alumni threatened to withhold donations. And the statement from Governor Kathy Hochul taking aim at the process Cornell has to review these kinds of incidents. The governor saying that she believes there should be an outside council to conduct a, quote, transparent, independent review of the university's response to determine whether Cornell met every obligation to protect its students and pursue justice. The school responding to this, saying that they're committed to working with state officials to advance student safety. But all of this, if anything, shining a light on the process that Cornell has to respond to these kinds of incidents and the challenges that survivors of assault face on college campus. And so you said that there are numbers describing how common a sexual assault incident might be on Cornell's campus specifically, right? They self-report numbers. What are you seeing? Cornell last put out the results of this survey last year. They found there was actually a notable increase in the number of students who report instances, of sexual assault in 2021 and 2023. 11% of students at Cornell experienced an incident of sexual assault. So that spiked to 15% in 2025. And it's particularly bad when you look at undergraduate women, 35%, more than one in three women undergraduates at Cornell University report experiencing a sexual assault during their time at the school. One in more than one in three. Wow. Yeah, but it's really a striking number. Cornell defines this as nonconsensual sexual contact. That includes everything from groping to rape, as alleged in this instance. And when they ask the entire student body about their experiences, yes, that is a shockingly high number. But it's also, if anything, reflective of a problem that we're seeing across the country. Yeah. How much is the difference compared to what is the I don't even know what the average would be. So the last time they did a larger survey about this was 2019. The Association of American Universities surveyed about 33 schools and found that the average. Percent of students who experience a sexual assault is about 13% compared to about 25.9% for undergraduate women. So the number we're seeing at Cornell is about 10% higher, though, again, one in four undergraduate women experiencing a sexual assault nationwide during their undergraduate education is still a shockingly concerning number. Yeah, really powerful accusations here. And we'll see how powerful sort of the response, the effect of it all is at a more systemic level. Peter Haralambos, thank you. Thanks so much, Brad. Most hearings at the Senate have dull names. Yesterday, you had several on the docket. One was called a closed briefing on certain intelligence matters. Another was called an update on the Golden Dome. Then there was a hearing scheduled by the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Republican Chuck Grassley. This was called, and I quote, oversight of Jack Smith's abuse of authority and the targeting of Republicans and related matters, end quote. Remember, Jack Smith was the special counsel assigned to the cases examining. After the 2020 election, he ended up bringing a slew of charges against the former president over his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and over his efforts to overturn election results. Charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. Well, with Trump's return to power, not only did those charges go away, but Republican allies of the. President vowed to hold Smith personally responsible for these investigations that Trump has called a sham. Yesterday, those Republicans called Smith in to testify. And by the name of this hearing alone, you knew there were going to be fireworks. ABC's Alex Mallon covers the DOJ. He was following this hearing for us. Alex, can you just tell us sort of about the focus of this hearing and what the main questions they wanted to ask were? Yeah. So, Brad, it's not unusual for the Senate and House to call in a special counsel to testify after their investigation has. Concluded, we've seen that with nearly every special counsel that's been appointed in the past decade. But this is obviously nearly two years after Jack Smith's office was shuttered following President Trump's reelection. Obviously, after that, Jack Smith had to move to dismiss both of his cases against President Trump. But here he was being called to account by Senate Republicans who have accused him largely without evidence of using his investigation to weaponize the Justice Department against Republicans, specifically President Trump. Mr. Smith's operation was a partisan weapon that broke the rules, lied to the court, and engaged in bad faith throughout. Really what they wanted to zero in on were these records that Jack Smith did previously subpoena that did sweep up some communications of some of the GOP senators who were actually sitting on that panel. The Constitution protects members of Congress' work product and their phone records. And you knew that was the case, didn't you? I understand there are constitutional protections. We followed the Constitution. Oh, you didn't. You didn't even attempt to. And we've heard Jack Smith repeatedly defend himself for obtaining these communications. He said before that these were essential to his case against President Trump for attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss. I can tell you why we issued subpoenas, and it was to conduct a criminal investigation of one of the most serious crimes that's ever happened in our nation's history. He really wanted to build this timeline up. There were days leading up to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. And in doing so, he wanted to sweep up any calls that were being made by President Trump or allies in and outside of the White House to these GOP lawmakers who President Trump was trying to influence to prevent the certification. Well, and so it seemed like they were trying to kind of get him to admit a bias, which, of course, he wasn't going to admit. He doubled down repeatedly that he had no bias. He was just following the facts. They also seemed at times to be trying to, I heard the phrase, perjury trap. Being used, right, that it was almost like you were trying to get somebody to lie on the stand. How does that actually play out in a hearing like this? What Jack Smith was definitely privy to throughout the hearing, you could tell, was in these questions that were often very direct from Republican senators. Were they essentially trying to set a trap for him to lie for the Justice Department to bring some kind of perjury or lying to Congress prosecution? And this played out in extraordinary fashion in one particular moment. Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on Friday? February 3rd, 2024. So this was in exchange with Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri. What city would that be in? Atlanta. No. Okay. Smith looked in disbelief at the question. He seemed to have zero idea what Schmidt was asking about. He said no, that he had not ever believed he attended any type of game between the Atlanta Hawks and the Golden State Warriors. And Schmidt, at that point, his eyes perked up. He acted as if he had successfully caught Smith in a perjury trap. He asked him again. To repeat himself. Are you sure that you did not attend this game? I really don't think so. It's possible I flew through the Atlanta airport on the way to Florida, but I do not have a recollection of going to Atlanta. I'm sure of that. This was a broader effort also by Schmidt to try and tie Smith to that separate criminal investigation by Fulton County D.A. Fannie Willis. She obviously brought that a separate indictment on the state level. against President Trump. And essentially what Schmidt was doing in this in exchange was trying to accuse Smith of coordinating with with Fannie Willis. But Smith outright rejected that. Like you were you were in Atlanta colluding with the Democrat D.A. there. How do we know? Because you were at the Atlanta Hawks game. That's what they're thinking. Exactly. And Smith outright denied that. He said that he had never even spoken to Fannie Willis during the course of his investigation. But Schmidt was insistent. And at one point he put up a plasterboard that had displayed on it text alongside a photo of Fannie Willis. I don't think you know that we have this stuff. So I'll give you a second to process it so you don't, you know, perjure yourself. You just took it down really quick. If I could look at that again. His aides immediately took that down. Mr. Chairman, then you're going to be able to allow the witness to see this fast poster board that we saw. Senator Klobuchar asked. He actually pressed for Schmidt to put that placard back up so Smith could actually observe the text himself. And that is when it appeared a light bulb went on for Smith as to what exactly these texts pertain to. I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing. Smith actually explained and at one point appeared to crack a smile as he said that that appeared to be a game that he did in fact attend on February 3rd of 2024. But it was not an Atlanta Hawks game. It was actually an Iowa Hawkeyes game. They were actually due that day to play against the University of Maryland. And Smith said that he did bring several of his deputies to go watch that game because he apparently is a big fan of sports star Caitlin Clark. So so in this attempt to show that Jack Smith has been lying to the American public about his coordination with Georgia prosecutors, they actually just got it wrong. And he was at an Iowa women's basketball. It's like a poll game. Exactly. And really, it was just an incredible moment where you saw Senator Schmidt and his staff kind of take in this realization that they believed that they had set up some grand perjury trap that would lead ultimately to potentially Smith being prosecuted by the Justice Department. And instead, they just outed him as a Caitlin Clark super fan. I'm going to begin my questions now, but I think that people should have their back straight before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag and not get the team. I stand by that statement. So it was really just a striking moment. And you saw Senator Klobuchar and really all the Democrats on the committee sees on that particular moment is kind of emblematic of the broader attacks that have been leveled against Smith and that they say, you know, is largely rooted in baseless theories about his political motivations that just really have not been borne out by the facts at the end of the day. Oh, the Democrats are like, what, you think he's the one using legal tricks? You guys are the ones trying to catch him in a perjury trap where you don't even get the facts straight. All right, Alex Mallon covering this. Bizarre hearing, frankly, at times. Thank you so much. Thanks, Fred. OK, one more quick break. When we come back, we talked about the risks of A.I. earlier. But what about the risks of corny A.I. generated songs? One last thing is next. I coach football. Now, Coach Hank saves up to 25 percent off grocery store prices, 30 pounds of pasta, three cases of protein bars. 75 sports drinks. He knows teamwork. And BJ's knows savings. Home of the save. Join for just $20 at BJ's dot com slash mesquite and save 10 cents per gallon for six months. Open soon. Limited time offer. New members only. BJ's. Home of the save. This show is sponsored by Progressive Insurance. Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's Name Your Price tool for years now. With the Name Your Price tool, you tell them what you want to pay, and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit Progressive.com to find a rate that works for you with the Name Your Price tool. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. And one last thing. He auditioned for American Idol, but it was someone else's singing voice that might have done him in. My name is Caleb Flynn. I'm from Tip City, Ohio. I auditioned because, I'm sure everybody says it, but music is all I know. It's what I live to do. This is Caleb Flynn. Thirteen years ago, he was briefly featured on America's most popular singing program. The thing that makes me unique, you know, I absolutely love the Lord. I love my wife more than anything. She is very, very pretty. Just, oof, I love her. Fast forward a few years. He's a pastor living near Dayton, Ohio, with his wife, Ashley. Earlier this year, he called 911 to report that his wife was dead. Shot, he said, in a. Brutal home invasion. She's dead. She's dead. This is how I'm broken. She's dead. But prosecutors came to believe this was something much more nefarious. And yesterday, a jury convicted Caleb Flynn of murder. This entire trial was streamed live in Troy, Ohio. Viewers could watch in real time as prosecutors accused Flynn of shooting his wife, execution style, with their daughters, 9 and 11, in the next room. He said, "I know. It's horrendous. That's why I constantly tell you I'm not going to kill you. I'm not going to kill you. I'm going to kill you. you choose a style, and it will spit out verses that rhyme. Flynn had apparently composed two of these. With the world watching, the camera sitting on Flynn, they start playing this song in court, this kind of Christian rock anthem, in which the singer is describing his love for his paramour. It even references their age difference when he met her as a 20-year-old intern. By now, the camera is panning around, catching the reactions from others in the courtroom. And one by one, you see some are rolling their eyes. Some are snickering. Others are sitting there, frozen and wide-eyed, like, oh my god, this is the most embarrassing thing I've ever witnessed. And even if this song was not confessing to murders necessarily, as it goes on, you wonder, is this the moment in which Caleb Flynn lost the jury? Can you play this song to the world and keep your credibility? It would be funny if this wasn't about a very tragic murder. Flynn now faces up to life in prison without parole. He's expected to appeal. And not only is the song cringeworthy, but remember, this was once someone who dreamed of singing professionally. Now, like your tech-illiterate uncle or some cheesy TikTok creator, he's asking AI programs to sing stuff for him in search of a quick thrill. When you talk about the consequences of AI, this might not be the first thing that comes to your mind. But it is a reminder that our digital trail can be damning in so many ways. I cannot begin to describe how excruciating it is to watch. Like, he's sitting there like a stone. You're like, just confess. Like, spare yourself and everyone else from whatever this is. Hey, very exciting news here. Start Here has been nominated for several Signal Awards. Signal Awards are a big recognition in podcasting. We are up for Best News and Politics Show, Best Editing, Best Documentary, and Best Episode for our story about the killing of Alex Preddy. But that's not all. There is an audience voting component to all this. So I'm here to tell you this morning, go to vote.signalaward.com. Start voting for us there. Pro tip, you don't have to vote for every single category. You can just search our name and then just boom, boom, boom, hit all the categories that we're nominated for. A very grateful Brad Milkey here. I'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to the Best News Podcast. I'm your host, Brad Milkey. With the Name Your Price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. Visit Progressive.com. to find a rating that works for you with the Name Your Price tool. Price and coverage match limited by state law.