The US just doesn't put enough emphasis on getting the world to run on US AI rails. Who's ahead when it comes to AI, biotech, quantum sectors? Is it the US or is it China? You cannot not have a commercial relationship with China. China is not our friend. It fundamentally threatens our way of life, our economy, our place in the world. But isn't this the existential question of our time? Hello and welcome to One Decision. I'm your guest co-host Sabrina Singh. Hello Sir Richard. Hello, I'm Sir Richard D'Ello, the former head of MI6. You're in regular house now. And as you know Sir Richard, we have a brilliant guest joining us this week, Secretary Gina Riemando. So subscribe to One Decision on YouTube or wherever you listen so you don't miss out on any of our fascinating interviews. But first it's time for in brief, where we make sense of the biggest geopolitical news. So Sir Richard, there was a lot that has happened in the past week. I think first off, I wanted to ask you about this visit by the FBI director, Cash Patel. Reportedly he's going to Russia in October. I know Robert Mueller when he was the last FBI director in 2013 visited Russia. But I'm just curious, like what are your thoughts on this? What's the reasonable rationale for the FBI director to travel to Russia right now, you know, in the middle of a war in Ukraine? Well usually these sorts of visits are pretty discreet. They aren't necessarily announced. I certainly was aware that my friend Bob Mueller had made visits to Moscow. I wasn't clear on the dates, but I could last one was 2013. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there have been other visits since then unannounced. But it isn't so unusual for the head of a service like the Bureau or CIA to go to Moscow for discussions that well we'll never really know the content. It could be all sorts of things. There could have been some operational misunderstanding between the two services, which is causing embarrassment. There could be something to do with let's say a prisoner exchange. There are all sorts of topics that people don't want dealt with on traditional diplomatic channels. For example, I went to Moscow myself in the early days when Putin was president. I went there on my own account several times. I went with Blair and had meetings the contents of which I probably won't die well. We're a professional. It isn't quite so surprising. In a way, surprise has been such a long gap since 2013. That's a long time. I would speculate that probably there'd been other private visits in between. There are often things which are difficult other channels to discuss, which come up with a result like that or at least sort of proved or examined. I'm not surprising really in this instance is the cash betel's announced. That was odd. I remember when I was in the Biden administration, certainly a visit like this would definitely not have been announced. I know when the CIA director would travel, there was really a comment on their visit. I guess just one more question that I have for you on this. Do you think the timing of this visit has. Is there anything that stands out about it to you given that it's in October? It's right before the midterms that are coming up in November or in the United States. I'm just curious if you think there's anything about the timing that we should be watching for. It could be. It could be something to do with the election interference midterms. I don't know. We all know about Trump's allegations in the past and the problems around the first election. It may have something to do with that. As I said, it's surprising if it is to do with that. There's been an announcement about the visit to talk because normally you would want that kept out of the public eye and it's quite easy to do. I mean, the times I went to Moscow, it was never publicized. Some of the other visits I made to former Soviet dominated countries like Bulgaria did leak in the press, but that was the Bulgarian press playing political games in terms of their own internal politics and making a story out of the fact that someone did leak that I was there. Yeah, it's unusual. Speaking of unusual or maybe not so unusual, last week we saw a US Saudi nuclear deal and it seemed like everything was finalized. It took many people by surprise that the United States was entering into this deal with Saudi Arabia. And then all of a sudden, I think it was on Thursday, the president put out a truth social that this deal would not go forward unless Saudi normalized ties with Israel and entered the Abraham Accords. I'm just curious on your take on all of this. What do you think this deal means? Do you think the deal is on? Do you think the deal is off? What are your thoughts? Well, it's very interesting. That's my first observation because there have always been rumors which don't really have any basis in fact. Saudi Arabia has been interested in having some sort of nuclear capability, whether it's a domestic energy capability for the days when fossil fuel begins to diminish and supply. Or whether it's an interest, of course, in their weapons capability eventually. Now, what's interesting about this background is that I'm sure you're aware that AQ Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear program, nuclear weapons program, at a point in his career, misbehaved and sold the capability or the technology to Gaddafi. And then this was way back when I was still in office and we took steps along with the Americans to remove that capability from Libya. And there was a negotiation with the Libyan subordinate because basically we court about that. There is a concern that a QAQ Khan could possibly have sold the technology as well to Saudi Arabia. And that a lot of that stuff is locked up in a warehouse somewhere and that the Saudis wouldn't develop it or exercise it unless there was a direct threat to them from the nuclear program in Iran. So there is a background in the story which only a few people at myself would know about the rumors. There was never any hard information about this. It was very speculative. And therefore I sort of interpreted in this particular context which is very unusual, slightly worrying. And I mean the thing that I would say is that there's no way really that at the moment Saudi Arabia needs a civilian nuclear program because of the wealth that it has in fossil fuels which are far from being exhausted. Okay, they will become in short supply one day. But that's a long way off. So there's a sort of peculiarity about the story and I would have thought on the issue of non-proliferation and the non-proliferation treaty. If the US were to do this with Saudi Arabia there would have to be massive guarantees and controls imposed. It's surprising, it's worrying and it does have a sort of slightly unnerving background that I partially described to you. When I was talking to folks about this deal, I think many of the questions that people were raising which I think are the right ones is why now and why were some of the, you know, this was a deal that was being negotiated during the Biden administration and one of the things that was being emphasized was the idea of these safeguards being put into place and being able to monitor how they would potentially go about when it came to nuclear, you know, potential uranium and enrichment. And think just given the war right now and pulling off some of those safeguards, left a lot of people with more questions than answers and I know I heard that from members of Congress as well on both sides of the aisle which, you know, you don't hear a lot of bipartisanship these days but I think there was a lot of concern from both sides about this. Yeah, it's a risky step to take. It's a slightly peculiar step to take in terms of timing. I suppose in relation to the crisis with Iran, you can understand that the context has changed but then on the other hand, you know, to increase the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Middle East at the moment, even for civilian news because if you have a civilian program, it's easier to weaponize later on. It is worrying. Yeah. Ukraine has obviously been coming up in the news more and more but it's not just about the war. There's been more reporting on, you know, President Zelensky making significant changes to his cabinet and there were in fact protests last week about some of the changes that President Zelensky made particularly when it came to
his Minister of Defense, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and Ukraine, what do you make at the timing of that of these changes? We've seen Zolinsky make changes before, but given that Ukraine is actually making some pretty significant advancements on the battlefield and conducting pretty successful long-range strikes. Why do you think he's changing up some of these people in his cabinet right now? Well, I think the answer in part is we don't have insight into the complexity of the interrelationships of the people around Zolinsky, but all I would say is the scenario is very complex and there are all sorts of hidden problems, particularly in relation to corruption and procurement, and we ought to pay more attention to that. But then on the other hand, the removal of Fedorov, the Minister of Defense was the thing that stirred the most opposition to Zolinsky, because he had been an extremely inventive and sort of original leader in the defense field, and that obviously had was partly responsible for the sophistication of the drone attacks that the Ukrainians are now conducting deep inter-russian territory. And so Fedorov's removal was due, I think, to partly affording out with the very traditionalist general leading the Ukrainian military, it was deeply unpopular because of his disregard for the life of his soldiers, the feeling in Ukraine that he was putting them in unnecessarily exposed positions and their losses were higher than it should have been. But there may have been other dimensions to this that we don't fully understand. What's happened is that the new general that's come in to Aptaivniy, I think, is how I would pronounce it just fantastically. There's a rather extraordinary individual, as a fantastically strong reputation, is a very popular appointment with the military, and that's gone down very well with sort of Gen Z, who are the people demonstrating. So that's a big plus, and the new minister of defense, I believe, is called Kamara, and I think he's from actually the Ukrainian Security Service. So probably Zolinsky is maneuvered himself out of a pretty tough position by making two reasonable appointments. But I think there are other figures involved in this, particularly in Burdanov, former head of military intelligence, Nautilus from Stafters, Zolinsky, who is quite strange figure. Oh, really? Yeah, why do you say that? I mean, I know about him, but I'm just curious your take. He pulls along the power strings. Does it in the sline? He's sinister, but very effective way. I cannot believe that Burdanov in some way isn't involved in this, and the other problem is that a lot of the corruption in Ukraine, and we shouldn't be open about this, is to do with procurement around military, and that's an area which doesn't have a very happy picture attached to it. The stuff going on, which we should be more open about in the West, and we should be critical, and we should be pressing Zolinsky very hard on cleaning up his action, which is done to an extent, but never seems to carry through thoroughly. Next week on One Decision, we will be talking to analyst Michael Kaufman about Russia and Ukraine. So if you have questions for him, I suggest you write into One Decision so that when we do the podcast, we can test him with your questions and hear his analysis. Well, Sir Richard, I think looming over everything is the larger war in Iran. We had 13 consecutive days of strikes between the U.S. and Iran, and then last week, right before the weekend, we had a pause. And I'm curious if you think that means that there are some diplomatic negotiations taking place that are moving forward, and they are working towards some type of potential peace deal or temporary ceasefire, or if you think that the military campaign that the United States launched has just run its course at this point, and that military bombings are just not going to yield the results that the president is looking for when it comes to Iran. There's a rhythm now about, it's terrible to say that, but there is a rhythm about the way that the U.S. administration is approaching Iran. What's caused the pause is an omani initiative to explore the reopening of negotiations. I think what the administration in Washington is doing is sitting back for 48 hours, maybe 72, had the continued assaults on the Iranian infrastructure had any beneficial effect. Are the Iranians likely to be more compliant in a negotiation? The amanias will find that out. My expectation is probably will go back to where we were before, because I think there's an intransigence amongst the faction, and I advised the U.S. the word faction in the IRGC that are driving the conflict, whereas those in a different position in Iran who would be willing to compromise are not necessarily in control. I think this is all about what's going on inside the Iranian regime, whose dominant, whose voices are on top, and we'll know within three or four days whether the conflict will continue or whether it was a serious restart in negotiations, but that would require Iranian concessions, and at the moment we don't see any evidence of that, but maybe the amanias have heard something, or they've been an approach to them. I think that to have a full picture, we would need to be able to read, which of course we can't be intelligent, somewhat happening, inside the Iranian regime. It is not, in my opinion, cohesive, it's not a single voice. I think there are separations and divisions, and this is what reflects this sort of stark, stark conflict. I agree with you, and I think the other thing that I'm watching is, if the Houthis really do engage in a more forceful way, right now, we've seen them target, Saudi Arabia, we've seen them target some of the tankers moving through the Red Sea, but they have significant capabilities that they have retained over the course of even when the Biden administration was conducting strikes against them. I think if the Houthis get involved, that's a much larger regional war with profound consequences for the region. I don't think that's what this administration is looking for right now, but it could happen. Yeah, if the Houthis clays off the Babel Mande, at the base of the Red Sea, then the other exit, Fassali oil, which pipe land across the country, to the Red Sea port, is closed. That has a much more profound effect. So if you've got the Hormuz Straits clays, the Babel Mande closed, then the situation is much, much more serious. We can have an escalation of the right's way at our 100. And yeah, it will be a significant escalation, you're absolutely right, but Houthis for the moment, they carried out one or two attacks, threatened to, but they haven't yet jumped feet first into this conflict. Well, thanks to Richard, and now it's time for our interview. China is competing aggressively to dominate trade and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. With international security and global supply chains at risk, the United States and European allies can't afford to fall behind. Today, we are joined by former US Secretary of Commerce, Gina Romando. Under the Biden administration, she led efforts to strengthen America's competitiveness through job creation, innovation, manufacturing, and national security. She was also the former governor of Rhode Island. Secretary Romando joins us to explain where America places in the race for the economy of the future and how the West can edge ahead. Well, Secretary Romando, it's great to see you. Thanks for joining us today. It's wonderful to be here and thank you for the opportunity. We will just get started and jump right in. So just cutting to the chase, you recently said that the strength of a nation is no longer judged solely by its military, but by the strength of its economy. And a task force that you share found that the Chinese government is spending heavily on AI, quantum, biotech. I think it's $900 billion over the past decade. China's making rapid advances. And so today, in your opinion, who is ahead when it comes to AI, biotech, quantum sectors, is it the US or is it China? Wow. So we're not messing around. We're going right for the key question off the bat. It's a complicated question. Okay. I'll give you my view.
On the one hand, the easy answer is the US, because we design and make better semiconductors, more sophisticated compute. Our models are in fact ahead of Chinese models in terms of capability and power. So you know, on the one hand, an easy answer would be the US. However, I don't think that would be the right answer, because it leaves out a few, what I think are very, very critical elements to what it really takes to lead the global AI competition. And in particular, two things. One is diffusion. Anyone who knows technology knows that over time, the companies that win are the ones that defuse. Like, you know, more people use it. It gets better and better. China is why I had a US on diffusion. A lot of that is because people in the US are afraid of AI. They are afraid they're going to lose their job. There's this debate over electricity prices and data centers. And so that's all causing the average American and frankly, the average American company to be a little bit slow. And the same is true for AI sentiment. You know, Americans don't like it. When they hear AI, they hear distrust of big tech and I'm going to lose my job. So on diffusion, China's winning. The other, I think, very significant component and I'll just name it and, you know, we can talk about it as you like is the United States has an amazing technology strategy for AI. But we don't have a people strategy and we don't have an allies strategy. What do I mean by that? The reason the average American doesn't want to use AI is because they fear they're going to lose their job. And the US government hasn't really done anything to allay those fears. That's not true in China. There's all kind of securities that China is giving to the average person so the less to create them and obviously it's a communist controlled economy. But that's whether or not China government does it is it on the matter, but it's causing people to become the second thing is the US. You know, candidly, particularly into this administration just doesn't put enough emphasis on getting the world to run on USAI rails and China's obsessed with that. You know, I think a lot about Huawei, for example. The rest of the world uses Huawei. We've lost the global 4G 5G race to China in lower wealth countries. And that's happening right now. So I think that makes America, frankly, Europe the whole world less safe if all of Africa half of Europe, all of Latin America run on Chinese AI infrastructure. So anyway, it's a very long way of saying, I don't know. I don't know. It's complicated. We appreciate the candor there. I mean, you've talked principally to begin with the US relationship, but I mean, in a way, we're even more vulnerable in Europe, I think, if you, as it were, pursue your thesis because there seems to be greater penetration of our industries by China. And particularly amongst the EU member states in the UK, less coordination in responding to this sort of economic threat from China. And from what you're saying also, it seems to me that you would favor a much better US European coordination in meeting the China threat. I mean, how do you see that situation at the moment? Because I think we're very vulnerable. I agree. You're very vulnerable. I have had many tense conversations with CEOs of German manufacturing companies where I say a version of China's not your friend. You can't compete with Chinese companies because it's not a fair fight. It's not that German engineering manufacturing is in its good. It's just the Chinese government massively subsidized. I think extremely vulnerable. Also, my own view is that I don't think anyone can really compete effectively with China alone. They are too big and too determined. And they're actually pretty good at drawing countries to them. So my strongly held view is that the United States must do a much better job of connecting with Europe, with the UK, with India, with New Zealand Australia to have secure supply chains, to have an AI strategy, because I don't think you could compete with China otherwise. And I think that we're not doing a great job, you know, the US. And I'm probably not European either. It's not helpful that you have to begin the discussion with many member states explaining to them why China is not their friend. And picking up on that note, can you explain a little bit more on what's at stake if European nations do not take a more proactive role in remaining competitive with China? I mean, what could that look like for the future? I think quite a bit could be at stake. You know, China's not our friend. If we become overly dependent on China, as we have done, for example, with chips, with critical minerals, with rare earths, they just have so much leverage over us. So, you know, maybe it will never be that they want to overtake our country, etc. But man, will they have leverage on us? You actually saw a glimpse of this, which means we're not strong. It fundamentally threatens, I think, our way of life, our economy, our place in the world. When President Trump put a year or so ago, put out the triple digit tariff on China, China immediately played their rare earth critical mineral card, and Trump immediately folded. Now, one could say that Trump administration should have thought that through and know what card was playing next. Believe that aside, the reality is China has a lot of leverage, and that makes us all less secure. But isn't this the existential question of our times? I mean, we have intertwined economies with China. We've just got way beyond that point, US, Europe, UK. But on the other hand, China are using this as a weapon. They're great at creating dependencies. I mean, you mentioned Huawei. We have a huge battle in the UK to get China out of our 5G, which I'm pleased to say that some of us feel we want the argument to the end, but it took several years of battery while I had government on this issue. So I mean, what vision do you have for managing this relationship so that it works in a beneficial way to both nations, and we don't allow China this extraordinary hostile leverage, which are exercising almost continuously, not just on our economies, but on our politics and on our social structure. That's an excellent, excellent point. We need to be stronger because we cannot negotiate with them from our current position of relative weakness on certain issues. I think it is possible for us to have a continuous managed competition with China. China doesn't want war with America. War with America is not in their interest. Certainly we don't want that. The world cannot handle any kind of really kinetic battle between the US and China. They know that. We know that. So it has to be what you say, like a managed competition, which is absolutely possible if we're strong, if we're close to our allies, if we have secure supply chains, and if we get quite a bit more depth at our diplomacy and nuance, we don't want a decoupling. We want this managed competition from a position of strength, de-escalate wherever possible, and have an agreement that a hot war with China and the US is just bad for them and us. Going back to AI and the challenges of AI, I've listened to a number of your interviews recently, and you are more optimistic about the future of AI that it can create new jobs, industries, products, and services over time. Yet, there are people out there whose jobs are already being replaced by AI. Can you talk to us about the benefits of AI? Why is this a net good for global economies and its potential for the future? Yeah. First of all, the genie's out of the bottle, or whatever you prefer. The truth is, it's out of the tube. Take your analogy, it can't be put back in. It's out there, it's happening, it's out there, it's in the world. Secondly, my friends or colleagues who are truly expert in bioterrorism, cyber security, et cetera, say that the nature of this technology is such that the only way to really protect yourself is to be ahead, to have a more capable technology. We got to be in it to win it. We are where we are, we have to be in it to win it. Also, I think it's a good thing. I mean, I have two kids, I want them to grow up in a world with the benefits of AI. Everything we know about the last 200 years of history, when we have a new general purpose technology that comes out over some time, it does lead to new
new innovations, new inventions, et cetera. So I don't know for sure, but I think everything we know leads us to believe that we will get there. I work at the transition. That's my worry. I think in some period of time, I don't know, five years, 10 years, there'll be new jobs, new industries. I'm worried deeply that they will be winners and losers. And if we have a concentrated group of people in the US, who are all put out of work. Your concerns are being well expressed. And I think you've written about a grand bargain between public and private sectors in order to, as it were, facilitate, let's say, the social adaption of AI. I mean, can you explain that a bit further? How do you envisage that sort of arrangement? Because at the moment, if you take the situation of the United States, it seems to me pretty anarchic. There's no evidence of any public private bargain to facilitate the arrival of this technology. And yet if you spend time in the States, which I do, people actually talk about AI more than they talk about Trump, which is pretty extraordinary, if you think about it. And Trump's maybe an anxiety for some. But AI seems to be the primary anxiety among the same people that they're wearing. This is true. You have nailed it. Maybe you should come to the US and get into politics. Put your flag on. I played rugby when I was at Oxford. And I said, that was the best training for US politics. Rugby. Yeah, yeah. And I'm a small person. So rugby was brutal. It's quite physical. It's very physical, quite physical. You get bruised every match. But that's perfect training for the US politics, getting bruised and getting back up. Look, you are a current. We don't have any plan for how we are going to transition to an agentec economy without a period of high unemployment. And that's why Americans are anxious. Americans like AI less than they like President Trump. My thesis is that the United States will not be able to lead in AI competition until we show the American people a credible plan for a job's transition, such that everyone can have a job in an agentec economy. You have to put yourself in the American mindset. We are creating the world's first trillionaires because of AI. So the average American has tremendous anxiety that AI will mint a few trillionaires, and the rest of us will be unemployed. And until we put forth an actual plan where we provide incentives for companies to redeploy people instead of just laying them off, where we commit to every American to train them on AI so that they can have an effective job, where we provide some social insurance for Americans to transition from one job to another. I don't like our chances because the American public will continue to reject it. And you cannot win unless you convince people that this is going to be good for them. And the reality is the job loss comes closer in time to the jobs will be created. And so we have to get our act together, which is what I'm spending all my time working on. - On that note, you are the co-founder of an organization that is devoting resources in time to this. And one of the things that you've talked about when you've talked about a transition is that the US is essentially a one and done system that essentially we have someone go to high school, then to college, and then you're done with your education. But that's just not gonna work in an AI economy. So is that what you're talking about when you talk about a transition period, it's about retraining people to work within this new economy that is growing and adapting. And how do you do that while mitigating the potential job loss of people going back in for skills training? - I think that's a big part of it, what you said. I mean, if you are a 50 year old person who has spent 25 years of your career working in a call center or any kind of administrative job and a big US company, your job probably will be automated. And you also need to work, you're too young to retire. And presently, the United States has really no, nothing to help that person. You have unemployment insurance, which is a payment from the state for a period of a handful of months. So yes, we need to get much more creative around things like wage insurance, incentives for companies to retrain people, options to retrain people. So it's just a moment that we need to hugely rethink how we do, how we have a purposeful workforce system instead of just shoving everyone to college. But the other dimension of this AI advance, obviously the social one that you've mentioned is potent. But the other one, which I think is so worrying, is the regulatory issue. And unless China and the US actually get together and can agree the regulatory formula, which is internationally applied, I mean, it's rather like nuclear disarmament talks. At the moment, I don't see any evidence at all that either the US or Chinese government are thinking about that, maybe I'm wrong. It tends to sort of worrying, avoid that we're sitting here, where AI is advancing fast and there's no consensus internationally about writing the algorithms in a manner which is finite rather than open ended. You're certainly correct. Every single thing you say, do not say a little bit like a nuclear detente, and we have to write the rules of the road and we have to get it done quickly. I do think there are some efforts underway though in the US to do that with China. I feel quite sure of that, whether they're big enough going fast enough ambitious enough, probably not. But from everything I know, for conversations I've had, even for work back when I was in the administration, China wants that. They know, as you say, just like nuclear weapons with Russia, both sides have to look strong, but there's no way around the fact that for things like safety, cybersecurity, bioterrorism. The US and China, first of all, when we need regulations, ASAP, number two, the US and China should get together. When I was in the administration, we started that work and I think this administration's continuing it. It's not in China's interest to have terrorists or non-state actors have sophisticated AI capacity to conduct a bio terrorist attack. China doesn't want that either. So I think it's happening too slowly and I agree it has to happen. - Well, Secretary Ramanda, wanna be mindful of your time. And so the question that we always ask our guests is what is the one decision that you're watching for this week? Look, the thing that I'm watching every day and every week is what is gonna go on with this around war? What does the administration do as it relates to Iran? I'm so concerned about that situation. It seems like there's no easy way out and no clear from the beginning, it didn't seem like there was a clear goal, at least that I could say. I have not trippy to all the intelligence, but it's not clear to me like, what were we trying to get done from the beginning? What was our goal? So I mean, that's what I'm watching. I will watch that every minute of this week. - I think that's probably what Sir Richard and I are also watching for this week. So we agree. Thank you so much for joining the podcast today. We so appreciate it was always, it's a lovely conversation. I feel like I learned something. So thank you so much. - No, thank you. And thank you for doing it. Keep pounding the table on these issues on your side of pond and I will here. We will. Thank you. - Thank you. Thank you, Secretary. - Well, Sir Richard, Secretary Ramondo certainly gave us a lot to think about. What was your takeaway from the conversation? Anything that surprised you? - Nothing that surprised me now. The difficulty is I largely agree with her. I agree with her about the predatory nature of China's economic approach. At the moment, I agree with her about the concerns with regard to AI. I think it's quite encouraging when she says that the US are ahead. - Uh-huh. - It's not scientifically and in terms of the application of AI. But on the other hand, you know, she made that point about the sort of diffusion of AI socially in China and the much higher degree of acceptance and adaption to an AI society, whereas in the States, you know, one's going through this period of extended anxieties.
So she talks a lot of sense and I think makes some crucial points. It's quite reassuring that someone like her clearly is expressing such concern over the problem and clearly in her own circles working on it quite vigorously. So I think it's hugely important. In a way, I think that question I asked her about, you know, how you actually live with China, how do you trade with China? How do you have a relationship which is positive for both parties without getting into this confrontation and conflict? But the thing I do find reassuring, which I think she inclined, you know, China is a mercantile society, it's not a military society and it's raison d'être his business and trade. Okay, it's building up massively, it's military power. Well, one established superpower of the other emerged super power. Just from listening to some of the interviews, the Secretary of Riemwanda recently gave and the conversation today, she strikes me as one of the more optimistic people about AI, which I think is a good thing. I mean, she's right. Like the cats out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube. AI is here to stay. So, you know, we can't go back. It's more how do we make it work? And I think her concerns around the transition period for people potentially being out of work as we work through this new economy were good concerns, but she was optimistic about the future, which I thought was quite heartening. So I really enjoyed the conversation. I learned something and it was just, you know, she's obviously a leader in this space. She was someone that worked on this during her time in the Biden administration and helped implement the chipsacks. So she's, it was great to get her insights for today. Yeah. And the other thing, she has a very grounded style. She doesn't over-grammit us. She's very down to her, very pragmatic, almost pre-zei, but has clearly got a fantastically strong grit on the issues and understanding of the issues. So I admire her, but she gave us a very good expose out of this problem. I agree. Thank you, Sir Richard. It's always good to be on with you. Yeah, it's great, Sabrina. I love it to see you again. Yes, you too. And interesting discussion, which I hope our listeners will find also insightful. That's all for this episode. Join us every Thursday for more exciting conversations about world events that go beyond the usual headlines. You can email us at
[email protected], send us your questions, comments, insights, thoughts, we want to hear it. Subscribe to One Decision on YouTube so you never miss out on a conversation putting the global news into context. For more conversations with leading decision makers and thinkers, check out OneDecision.com where you'll find additional commentaries, conversations, and explainers. I'm Sabrina Singh, and thank you for listening.
PodcastTranscript AI