We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Video
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Does Putin's upcoming visit with Xi Jinping signal a continuing “no limits” partnership between China and Russia?
The relationship is certainly becoming more strategic over time. Not so much because the Russians are changing their behavior. They have very few options at this point. North Korea and Iran are their top allies. Belarus, Syria. I mean, it's a rogues’ gallery, but China is increasingly finding that their ability to work long term in a stable and sustainable way with America's allies in Asia, with the Europeans, and with the United States itself becoming more constrained. And given all of that, willingness to be a closer ally with Russia is increasing over time. Just look at Biden putting 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle exports. All of this is sending a message to the Chinese that no matter who's elected in November, that the US is trying to contain them. And yeah, I think longer term, the more they see that from the US and their allies, the closer with the Russians they will eventually be.
Why is Europe alarmed with Georgia's “foreign agents” law?
Well, here it's because this is a law. that is, in principle. nothing wrong with it. In principle, just talking about publishing those NGOs, those organizations that get at least 20% funding from external sources. In reality, it's being put in place by a bunch of political leaders that are aligned with Russia. It is almost identical to Russia's own foreign agents law, and it has been used in Russia to chilling effect, to shut down anything that feels like pro-Western democratic opposition in government institutions that in Russia are authoritarian and Georgia are leaning more authoritarian. Keep in mind, this is a Georgia that has constitutionally enshrined that they want to join the European Union and NATO. But the reality is that political officials are moving farther away from that. Big, big demonstrations and potential for violence on the ground in Georgia going forward.
How will Biden respond if Israel continues to push into Rafah?
Well, he said it's a red line, but ultimately it's going to feel like as much of a red line, I suspect, as Obama was on Syria. Yes, they will reduce some level of offensive weaponry that can be used by Israel, in Rafah. But the reality is they're going to keep providing intelligence, keep providing the vast majority of the defense spending that Israel gets from the United States and the weaponry. And there are a lot of members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, that are really upset about the idea of suspending any support to Israel and are moving to try to block Biden legislation, which means he has to find a compromise with them in an election year. All of this puts him firmly in no man's land on the Israel-Palestine issue, not where Biden wants to be.
That's it for me and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- The limits of a China-Russia partnership ›
- Tbilisi clashes: Georgia government pushes "Russian" bill risking EU candidacy ›
- Russia invaded Georgia too, and it never left ›
- Biden threatens to cut off some weapons to Israel if Rafah invaded ›
- Putin needs Xi to win the war in Ukraine ›
- All eyes on Russia ahead of Putin-Xi meeting ›
In this episode of GZERO AI, Taylor Owen, professor at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University and director of its Centre for Media, Technology & Democracy, takes stock of the ongoing debate on whether artificial intelligence, like social media, will further drive loneliness—but at breakneck speed, or help foster meaningful relationships. Further, Owen offers insights into the latter, especially with tech companies like Replika recently demonstrating AI's potential to ease loneliness and even connect people with their lost loved ones.
So like a lot of people, I've been immersing myself in this debate about this current AI moment we're in. I've been struck by a recurring theme. That's whether will AI further divide us or could actually potentially bring us closer together.
Will it cause more loneliness? Or could it help address it? And the truth is, the more I look at this question, the more I see people I respect on both sides of this debate.
Some close observers of social media, like the Filipino journalist Maria Ressa, argue that AI suffers from the very same problems of algorithmic division and polarization that we saw with the era of social media. But instead, they’re on steroids. If social media, she argues, took our collective attention and used it to keep us hooked in a public debate, she argues that AI will take our most intimate conversations and data and capitalize on our personal needs, our desires, and in some cases, even our loneliness. And I think broadly, I would be predisposed to this side of the argument.
I've spent a lot of time studying the problems of social media and of previous technologies on society. But I've been particularly struck by people who argue the other side of this, that there's something inherently different about AI, that it should be seen as having a different relationship to ourselves and to our humanity. They argue that it's different not in degree from previous technologies, but in kind, that it's something fundamentally different. I initially recoiled from this suggestion because that's often what we hear about new technologies, until I spoke to Eugenia Kuyda.
Eugenia Kuyda is the CEO of a company called Replika, which lets users build AI best friends. But her work in this area began in a much more modest place. She built a chatbot on a friend of hers who had deceased named Roman, and she describes how his close friends and even his family members were overwhelmed with emotion talking to him, and got real value from it, even from this crude, non-AI driven chatbot.
I've been thinking a lot lately about what it means to lose somebody in your life. And you don't just lose the person or the presence in your life, but you lose so much more. You lose their wisdom, their advice, their lifetime of knowledge of you as a person of themselves. And what if AI could begin, even if superficially at first, to offer some of that wisdom back?
Now, I know that the idea that tech, that more tech, could solve the problems caused by tech is a bit of a difficult proposition to stomach for many. But here's what I think we should be watching for as we bring these new tools into our lives. As we take AI tools online, in our workplace, in our social lives, and within our families, how do they make us feel? Are we over indexing perceived productivity or the sales pitches of productivity and undervaluing human connection? Either the human connection we're losing by using these tools, or perhaps the human connections we're gaining. And do these tools ultimately further divide us or provide means for greater and more meaningful relationships in our lives? I think these are really important questions as we barrel into this increasingly, dynamic, role of AI in our lives.
Last thing I want to mention here, I have a new podcast with the Globe and Mail newspaper called Machines Like Us, where I'll be discussing these issues and many more, such as the ones we've been discussing on this video series.
Thanks so much for watching. I'm Taylor Owen, and this is GZERO AI.
- Podcast: Getting to know generative AI with Gary Marcus ›
- AI regulation means adapting old laws for new tech: Marietje Schaake ›
- AI and war: Governments must widen safety dialogue to include military use ›
- Yuval Noah Harari: AI is a “social weapon of mass destruction” to humanity ›
- AI explosion, elections, and wars: What to expect in 2024 ›
Gaza protests highlight the need to build cooperation vs. confrontation, says Eboo Patel
It’s time for college students to rethink how they protest, says Eboo Patel, founder of Interfaith America, a nonprofit that works with hundreds of campuses to foster healthier dialogue. In a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer for the latest episode of GZERO World, Patel criticizes the confrontational culture on campuses, urging a shift from romanticizing conflict to embracing cooperation. He challenges the dichotomy of oppressors and oppressed, advocating for a more nuanced approach to diversity that resembles a potluck of ideas.
“We absolutely need to change the default setting on campuses from confrontation is romanticized to cooperation is the norm."
College campuses are actually the perfect venues for this kind of dialogue, Patel says, and professors and administrators can leverage their intellectual backgrounds to foster the kinds of productive dialogue that students need more than ever. Everything else, like demanding the disbanding of campus police, Patel says, is nothing more than a distraction.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- US inching away from Israel on Gaza war ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Who is responsible for Gaza's enormous civilian death toll? ›
- Chaos erupts overnight on US campuses. What’s next for student protesters? ›
- How campus protests could influence the US presidential election ›
- Campus protests spill over into US political sphere ›
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week.
Of course, the Middle East is leading our concerns and the headlines right now. There is no deal despite Bill Burns, the most respected senior interlocutor the United States has to offer, director of the CIA, making a last-ditch effort last week in the region, including Israel, to try to get everyone to agree to a short-term cease-fire, in return for significant numbers of hostages being released. Did not happen. Lots of reasons for that. One is because it's hard to talk with Hamas, engage with Hamas. It is a terrorist organization. A lot of people refuse to negotiate with terrorists. And also because, by the time you get a message through to the leadership, it takes usually a minimum of a week, sometimes two, and things change quickly.
Secondly, Israel did not want any ambiguity on what was going to happen after the six weeks of the cease-fire. Prime Minister Netanyahu in particular, saying that they were going to go into Rafah, that they were going to continue and destroy the remaining battalions that Hamas has available to them on the ground in Gaza while the Americans were trying to say, “well, if you've certain further agreements were met, then it could extend and could become permanent. And that was the only way that Hamas was going to agree.” Well, the Israeli government didn't want that, particularly because the government would collapse in all likelihood. It would be very hard for the Prime Minister to maintain the support of his far-right coalition if he were to accept that in a deal. So he did his best to scuttle it.
And also, the fact that the United States pushing Israel as hard as they did publicly, gives Hamas more wiggle room, more support from the international community, more alignment with the international community, to say no. So now, the or else is that Israel is going in. What had been just the capture of the border controls, allowing in humanitarian aid, limited amounts be coming in is now going to become a full-fledged ground invasion.
Some 300,000 Palestinians of the 1.2 to 1.5 million that have been sheltering in Rafah have evacuated into areas with very limited facilities and aid, but certainly better than facing the onslaught which is coming. More will certainly evacuate, not enough to make the Americans comfortable, not including fighting age males among the Palestinians, irrespective of whether they are or not believed to be Hamas.
And there will not be adequate humanitarian support for those, either that have evacuated or those that remain there, which means this is breaching the red line as defined by President Biden, his administration, telling Israel do not attack Rafah or else. The or else at a minimum, being that the United States is going to boycott provision of offensive weapons, that would be used in these Rafah attacks. Biden spoke about that in an interview with Erin Burnett. probably not the way it should have been announced, really should have been a well prepared speech about US policy towards Israel, ideally should have been coordinated with American allies. Look, at the end of the day, when the war started, the US was not aligned on Israel policy with all of its allies out there. Increasingly today it is, with the entirety of the G7 and with allies in the Gulf, in the Middle East, and a US policy like its policy on Ukraine, where the US is leading but is coordinating security policy with everyone, is a much stronger policy than one where the Americans are by themselves. Biden is now in a position where he's increasingly by himself internationally, and he's also increasingly by himself at home.
This decision to cut off the Israelis from some of these offensive weapons opposed strongly by the entire Republican Party, certainly by Trump, even by people like Senator Mitt Romney, also by a number of independents and centrists on the Democratic right. At the same time, the left of the Democratic Party strongly opposed to Biden for continuing to support Israel, defend Israel, provide lots of military capabilities and intelligence in response to what they believe is a genocidal policy on the ground in Gaza.
So this is no man's land for Biden. This is going to hurt, and it's going to hurt at a time that Netanyahu is not going anywhere. He has looked stronger, certainly stronger in his ability to lead a defense of Israel against the 300 plus missiles and drones that were struck against it by Iran. Not a single Israeli military casualty there, but also not going anywhere because as long as this war on Gaza continues in a significant way, it is hard to call for a new election on the ground in Israel. Which means that when we're looking ahead to November, this Israeli government is very likely in place. Opposition of this Israeli government to Biden is growing more public. The Israelis saying they need to go it alone, which is certainly not what's happening. The reality is there's massive intelligence support, military support, defensive support continuing from the United States. But politically, it plays very strongly for the Prime Minister to say, I am the guy who is ensuring that we Israel are defended against Hamas, defended against Gaza, defended against an Iranian-led axis of terror across the region.
And that also means that this fighting is continuing in this US election cycle with more proxy attacks with over 100,000 Israeli citizens that continue to be evacuated from the north of the country, that's the equivalent of 4 million Americans. Imagine how important that would be in a post 9/11 environment, with them still not being able to live in their homes, have their children in their schools, all those things. That is an issue that certainly the Israeli government intends to address before the school year starts in September, which is of course before the US election in November. So a lot of ways that this gets a lot worse. And that's even before we talk about the potential for Iran-Israel to heat up again, before we talk about significant accidents from Iranian proxies to get through and kill American soldiers, on the ground in the region.
And of course, potential for terrorist activity, Islamic extremist terrorist activity gone way up on the back of all of this. So not great news. The worst week in the Middle East War for the United States, since it started back in October. And also the most challenging week for peace and stability in the Middle East.
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, shares his perspective on European politics from Arizona, US.
What's the outcome and the likely result of the North Macedonia parliamentary election?
A new government, more nationalist, more rightists coming in. And the problem with that is that North Macedonia has made a number of concessions in order to make its EU path possible. First concessions through Greece in terms of the names and the number of concessions through France and a number of concessions through Bulgaria on minority and related issues. And the new government has got to say no to a lot of these things. And that further complicates the EU process, which is highly regrettable because the country in substance really deserves to move forward on that process.
What was the result of Xi Jinping's much celebrated tour of Europe?
Well, the tour was really restricted to France, where he had the usual talks with President Macron and I think Macron was an alliance, was an alliance had the right words concerning what China is doing in terms of supporting Ukraine, which is supporting Russia in its war against Ukraine, which is creating problems in the relationship to Europe, whether it's sorted out any of the economic issues remains to be seen. And then, of course, he went on to Serbia and to Hungary, which are much more China-friendly countries and much publicity and new agreements of different sorts. But if you to talk about the overall relationship between China and Europe, the European Union, I don't think much was changed by this particular trip.
The past few weeks of student protests, counter-protests, and police activity at Columbia have been the tensest moments the University has seen in over 50 years. What’s it like to be a student and graduating senior during this historic moment?
When GZERO writer Riley Callanan began her senior year at Barnard, the women’s college within Columbia, she never expected it would end this way: thousands of student protesters, an encampment and takeover of an administrative building, the attention of the national news media, armed police officers swarming campus, and, ultimately, a canceled graduation ceremony. Now, as she tells colleague Alex Kliment on GZERO World, instead of senior galas and grad parties, Columbia students are having intense debates over the Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism, and free speech.
Callanan has been documenting it all—from the early protests on the academic quad to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson delivering on her library steps. GZERO correspondent Alex Kliment sat down with Callahan to hear more about what it’s like to be a college senior in 2024, what she saw during the protests, and what happens after graduation.“We absolutely need to change the default setting on campuses from confrontation is romanticized to cooperation is the norm."
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- With summer looming, where will student protesters turn next? ›
- From the inside out: Is Columbia’s campus crisis calming down? ›
- Chaos on Campus: Speaker Johnson's visit fans the flames at Columbia as protests go global ›
- Columbia & Yale protests: What campus protesters want ›
- Campus protests spill over into US political sphere ›
Something is happening here—on college campuses, that is. But what do we make of protests that turn violent, like what we saw at UCLA or even some of the Columbia conflicts? In a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, Eboo Patel, founder of the nonprofit Interfaith America, talks about his work on hundreds of college campuses to find common ground. His core message is simple: "Cooperation is better than division."
Patel advocates for a shift in focus from confrontation to cooperation on campuses, suggesting that universities should foster environments of civil discourse. He proposes initiatives like teach-ins and dialogues to explore constructive solutions to complex issues. "I think the problem here, the thing that universities could control, which I think that they have gotten wrong in many cases over the course of the past five years, is the default mode has been set to confrontation, not cooperation."
It's true that finding common ground can be easier said than done when tensions are high. But as Patel points out, the majority of college campuses have been able to debate the Israel-Gaza war without the kind of chaos or violence we've seen on certain campuses. "The media, for good reasons, covers planes that crash and not planes that land," Patel explains.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- From the inside out: Is Columbia’s campus crisis calming down? ›
- Crisis at Columbia: Protests and arrests bring chaos to campus ›
- Chaos erupts overnight on US campuses. What’s next for student protesters? ›
- How campus protests could influence the US presidential election ›
- Campus protests spill over into US political sphere ›
Latest
Campus protests over Gaza: Now what?
