>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS IS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

>> Lou: THIS WEEK ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS TWO COMPUTER SCIENCE EXPERTS EXPLAIN THE DANGERS OF USING AI IN GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING.

>> Moore: I THINK YOU, AS A CITIZEN IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, DESERVE A PRETTY CLEAR EXPLANATION OF WHY.

AND IT'S NOT OKAY FOR THE PERSON ON THE OTHER END OF THE PHONE TO SAY, OH, COMPUTER SAYS NO.

>> Lou: AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PUEBLO ACTION ALLIANCE DISCUSSES THE RECENT ELECTION, WHAT COMES NEXT, AND HOW THE LIBERATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IS LIBERATION FOR ALL.

NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS STARTS NOW.

THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK.

I'M SENIOR PRODUCER LOU DiVIZIO.

AS THIS YEAR WRAPS UP AND THE HOLIDAY SEASON APPROACHES, WE'RE LOOKING AHEAD TO STORIES THAT WE EXPECT TO BLOW UP NEXT YEAR.

AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HOUR, OUR LAND'S LAURA PASKUS SITS DOWN WITH JULIA BERNAL OF PUEBLO ACTION ALLIANCE TO CONSIDER THE INDIGENOUS LONG VIEW ON PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE AFTERMATH OF LAST WEEK'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES, I SPEAK WITH FCC COMMISSIONER ANNA GOMEZ ABOUT HOW HER AGENCY COMBATS ROBOCALLS AND FRAUDSTERS LOOKING TO SCAM PEOPLE AND HOW THE COMMISSION KEEPS THE FIRST AMENDMENT FRONT AND CENTER IN ITS WORK.

BUT FIRST, SOME EXPERT PERSPECTIVE ON THE GROWING PREVALENCE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

IN THE FIRST OF TWO SEGMENTS, KUNM'S MEGAN KAMERICK INTERVIEWS TWO COMPUTER SCIENCE PROFESSORS, EACH PUSHING LAWMAKERS TO CREATE STRONGER GUARDRAILS ON AI DURING JANUARY'S 60-DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

>> Megan: CRIS MOORE, DR. MELANIE MOSES, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR CONVERSATION TODAY, WHAT SORT OF AI HAS CAUGHT YOUR ATTENTION AND THE ATTENTION OF LAWMAKERS?

WHAT BENEFITS ARE THERE FOR NEW MEXICANS?

AND WHY ARE YOU BOTH RINGING THE ALARMS ON THE NEED FOR GUARDRAILS?

>> Moses: I'LL START BY SAYING THERE ARE A HUGE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS FOR AI THAT MIGHT BE QUITE BENEFICIAL.

I AM BOTH A COMPUTER SCIENTIST AND A BIOLOGIST, AND THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ABILITY TO DESIGN NEW DRUGS, NEW ANTIBIOTICS, NEW VACCINES, THINGS LIKE THAT ARE REALLY IMPRESSIVE.

I THINK DOWN THE ROAD WE'LL SEE SOME REAL SCIENTIFIC BENEFITS FROM AI.

BUT SOME OF THE NEAR-TERM USES OF AI ARE A BIT TROUBLING.

WE HAVE, HERE IN NEW MEXICO, A LAW BANNING DEEPFAKES IN ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

A VERY NARROW LAW THAT I THINK APPROPRIATELY BALANCES FREE SPEECH AND THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT'S REAL AND WHAT'S FAKE.

SO, DEEPFAKES ARE CERTAINLY ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT, RIGHT NOW, AI HAS SORT OF CROSSED THIS LINE WHERE IT CAN PRODUCE THINGS THAT LEAD PEOPLE TO NOT BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT'S REAL AND WHAT'S FAKE.

WHICH ALSO LEADS PEOPLE TO NOT TRUST WHAT'S REAL.

AND ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE SANTA FE INSTITUTE WROTE AN ESSAY ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH AI PRODUCING COUNTERFEIT HUMANS.

WE MAKE COUNTERFEIT MONEY ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT ERODES OUR TRUST IN SOCIETY.

COUNTERFEIT HUMANS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO REALLY ERODE OUR ABILITY TO EVEN COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER, TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE COMMUNICATING WITH.

THAT'S ONE OF MY BIGGER CONCERNS.

IT'S REALLY HEARTENING THAT THE NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE TOOK THAT STEP OF BANNING, OR REGULATING, ONE FORM OF DEEPFAKES THAT PARTICULARLY MAY BE ERODING TRUST IN ELECTIONS.

BUT THERE ARE A WIDE RANGE OF OTHER PLACES WHERE THIS TECHNOLOGY IS USED.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT CAN BE A REAL THREAT TO KIDS.

DEEPFAKE PORNOGRAPHY IS SOMETHING WE'RE STARTING TO SEE PRODUCED, WHICH CAN BE EXTRAORDINARILY HARMFUL, OBVIOUSLY, TO JUST GENERAL CITIZENS.

HAVING YOUR IMAGE OR YOUR LIKENESS OR A VIDEO OF YOU, SUPPOSED TO BE YOU, DOING SOMETHING YOU'VE NEVER DONE IS A REAL VIOLATION.

THAT'S AN AREA OF CONCERN RIGHT NOW.

>> Megan: CRIS, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ON TO THAT?

>> Moore: YEAH, WE'VE ALREADY SEEN IN THIS ELECTION LOTS OF DEEPFAKES USED AS PROPAGANDA.

I THINK THE PROPAGANDA HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUT THERE.

FAKERY HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUT THERE.

MY FEAR IS WITH AI YOU CAN REALLY MAKE IT AT SCALE IN REAL TIME.

AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A PERFECT STORM WITH SOCIAL MEDIA.

SO, SUPPOSE THAT I CAN DO MICRO-TARGETED PROPAGANDA SO THAT BASED ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA, YOUR PREFERENCES, FOR THAT MATTER YOUR CONSUMER BEHAVIOR, WHICH MAYBE I HAVE BOUGHT FROM AMAZON OR YOUR CREDIT CARD COMPANY, I TAILOR SOME PROPAGANDA TO YOU AND ONLY TO YOU SOMETHING THAT A CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION ISN'T EVEN PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR.

WE'VE SEEN SOME FAKES LATELY WHERE WE'RE BEING TOLD SOME VOTERS IN SOME ZIP CODES ARE BEING TOLD THAT A CANDIDATE IS STANDING WITH ISRAEL AND VOTERS IN OTHER ZIP CODES ARE BEING TOLD THAT SHE STANDS WITH PALESTINE.

THOSE THINGS ARE CAREFULLY DESIGNED TO PISS PEOPLE OFF IN BOTH OF THOSE ZIP CODES.

YOU KNOW, FACEBOOK DELIBERATELY ENABLES THIS KIND OF GEOGRAPHICAL MICRO-TARGETING.

THEY USED TO ENABLE DEMOGRAPHIC MICRO-TARGETING.

THEY GOT SOME PUSHBACK ON THAT, BUT -- SO THE COMBINATION OF AI AND SOCIAL MEDIA, I THINK, CREATES AS VERY DANGEROUS AND UNACCOUNTABLE SITUATION.

IT'S ONE THING TO HAVE THIS LAW, WHICH PROFESSOR MOSES DID A GREAT JOB WORKING ON, AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY THE GOVERNOR SIGNED, THAT AN OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE IS NOW REQUIRED TO SAY THIS IMAGE WAS MADE WITH AI.

BUT OF COURSE, NO ONE ON SOCIAL MEDIA IS REQUIRED TO SAY ANY SUCH THING, AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES HAVE SO FAR RESISTED ANY OBLIGATION TO SAY ANY SUCH THING.

>> Megan: I NOTICED SOMETIMES THEY WILL, ONCE IT GETS -- IT BECOMES CLEAR, THEY WILL HIDE A POST OR THEY WILL MAYBE TAKE IT DOWN, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM CONSISTENT.

>> Moore: BY THAT TIME A MILLION PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT.

>> Megan: RIGHT.

>> Moore: MAYBE 1% OF THOSE VIEWERS WHO ARE TECH SAVVY ENOUGH FIND OUT LATER THAT IT WAS FAKE, BUT IT'S ALREADY DONE ITS DAMAGE.

WHAT'S THE OLD ADAGE ABOUT A LIE RACES AROUND THE WORLD TEN TIMES BEFORE THE TRUTH GETS OUT OF BED.

OF COURSE, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN FAKERY, BUT THAT IT CAN BE MADE SO EASILY AND SO QUICKLY AND SO REALISTICALLY, I THINK THAT'S DANGEROUS.

I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE OF AI, WHICH IS MAYBE LESS ON PEOPLE'S RADAR, IS THAT A LOT OF ACTORS, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS, SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES, LANDLORDS, BANKS, ARE USING AI TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT PEOPLE.

CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS THAT REALLY AFFECT YOUR LIFE, YOUR LIVELIHOOD, YOUR RIGHTS, YOUR OPPORTUNITIES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU GET AN APARTMENT, WHETHER OR NOT YOU GET A LOAN.

AND THEY'RE INCREASINGLY USING AI TO DO THIS, AND I'M WORRIED THAT IT'S GOING TO BECOME HARDER AND HARDER TO EVEN TELL WHETHER DISCRIMINATION IS OCCURRING, TO EVEN ENFORCE THE CIVIL-RIGHTS-ERA, ACTS THAT WE HAVE LIKE THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ACT BECAUSE IF THESE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY A BLACK BOX, OR EVEN THE LANDLORD DOESN'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE TELLING, SORRY, YOU'RE NOT GET THIS APARTMENT.

WHY?

WELL, THIS SYSTEM THAT I USE SAYS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE A RELIABLE TENANT.

SO, IT'S A BLACK BOX TO YOU, TO THE LANDLORD, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT?

AND HOW DO WE PIERCE THAT VEIL AND IMPOSE SOME KIND OF LIABILITY?

>> Megan: I'M GOING TO RETURN TO THAT IN A MINUTE.

I WANTED TO ASK YOU, MELANIE.

AS WE RECORD, THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE ANNOUNCED PLANS TO ESTABLISH AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WORKING GROUP AND TO CREATE A CITY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE POLICY.

YOU'VE ADVOCATED FOR STRONGER PROTECTIONS AGAINST DEEPFAKES.

HOW ARE NEW MEXICANS AFFECTED NOW BY DEEPFAKES AND WHAT CONCERNS ARE THERE FOR THE FUTURE OF DEEPFAKES AS AI BECOMES MORE ADVANCED?

>> Moses: FIRST, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT STEP.

ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT EVERYONE RECOGNIZES IN REGULATING THIS TECHNOLOGY IS THE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES REALLY QUICKLY.

SO, A BILL THAT YOU PASS THIS YEAR MAY BE OUTDATED AND NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES FOR NEXT YEAR.

>> Megan: HOW DO YOU WRITE LEGISLATION AND POLICY WITH THAT IN MIND?

>> Moses: YEAH, I THINK THIS IS WHY HAVING, YOU KNOW, INFORMED EXPERTS, COMMISSIONS AT THE CITY LEVEL, AT THE STATE LEVEL, ARE REALLY IMPORTANT SO THEY CAN KEEP UP WITH THE TECHNOLOGY AND KEEP LEGISLATORS INFORMED ABOUT WHAT BE COMING NEXT AND WHAT CHANGES WE MIGHT NEED TO BE AWARE OF.

AS WE TALKED ABOUT DEEPFAKES, THERE USED TO BE THINGS THAT IF ONE PAID ATTENTION AND WAS SORT OF EDUCATED ABOUT WHAT TO LOOK FOR YOU COULD TELL THAT SOMETHING WAS FAKE.

AND THAT'S LESS AND LESS POSSIBLE, ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE, AT THIS POINT.

SO, I THINK THAT HAVING PEOPLE WHO ARE DEDICATED TO THINKING, WORRYING REALLY, ABOUT WHAT THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS COMING DOWN THE ROAD MIGHT BE, THAT'S IMPORTANT.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE ARE SOME REALLY POSITIVE USES AND HAVING PEOPLE THAT CAN IDENTIFY THESE ARE WAYS WE CAN USE AI, RIGHT, TO MAKE MORE EFFICIENT SERVICES AND THINGS LIKE THAT RESPONSIBLY.

I THINK THAT'S THE THING THAT IT REQUIRES A LOT OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW AND JUST PRACTICE WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S A REASONABLE USE, WHAT'S A USE THAT'S GOING TO BE SUBJECT THE KIND OF ABUSE OR SORT OF ACCIDENTAL DISCRIMINATION OR ACCIDENTAL MISINFORMATION PUT OUT IN THE WORLD.

SO, I THINK COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS THAT CAN INFORM GOVERNMENT DECISIONS, NOT JUST AT THE LEVEL OF MAKING BILLS, BUT JUST INTERNAL POLICY DECISIONS.

WHEN SHOULD WE USE AI, WHEN SHOULD WE NOT.

I THINK THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION JUST CAME OUT WITH A POLICY THIS MORNING FOR THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT ONE OF THE DECISIONS WAS AI SHOULD NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO LAUNCH A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

OKAY, THAT'S COMFORTING.

>> Megan: THAT'S COMFORTING.

>> Moses: THAT'S A FIRST STEP.

SO, THERE ARE LOTS OF SMALLER DECISIONS WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO THINK CAREFULLY CAN AI SAFELY MAKE THIS DECISION OR NOT.

CRIS MENTIONED BLACK BOXES.

WE HAVE ALGORITHMS MAKING DECISIONS FOR US ALL THE TIME RIGHT NOW.

OFTEN, AS CRIS POINTED OUT, A LANDLORD MIGHT USE SOME SERVICE THAT WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS PERSON DOESN'T SEEM CREDIT-WORTHY, THIS PERSON WON'T BE A GOOD RENTER AND THE LANDLORD MIGHT NOT KNOW WHY THE DECISION IS MADE.

BUT, OFTEN IN THE PAST, THE ALGORITHM WAS CLEAR.

IT PULLED THIS FROM YOUR CREDIT SCORE, AND THIS FROM YOUR PAST RENTAL HISTORY.

SO, ONE MIGHT HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE DECISION IS MADE.

BUT WITH AI AS IT HAS THIS MACHINE LEARNING THAT ARE FUELED BY THESE LARGE OPAQUE, DIFFICULT, IMPOSSIBLE-TO-UNDERSTAND NEURAL NETWORKS, EVEN THE DESIGNERS OF THE CODE COULDN'T EXPLAIN WHY A DECISION IS MADE.

SO, THAT'S A NEW LEVEL OF HUMANS NOT BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND BASIC FUNCTIONING OF OUR SOCIETY AND HOW IT MIGHT AFFECT YOU.

>> Megan: I JUST LIKE TO SAY AS A GEN XER WHO GREW UP IN THE '80s, WE ALL PREDICTED THIS.

ANYWAY.

CRIS, THIS SUMMER, YOU SPOKE WITH THE NEW MEXICO COURTS, CORRECTIONS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE ABOUT AI AND BIASED ALGORITHMS.

WHAT IS A BIASED ALGORITHM, AND HOW MIGHT THAT SHAPE HOW COMPANIES MAKE DECISIONS?

YOU ALLUDED TO THAT WITH LANDLORDS.

>> Moore: RIGHT.

SO, YES, WE'VE BOTH BEEN SPEAKING TO A LOT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES OVER THE SUMMER AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF INTEREST, I THINK, IN THE NEW MEXICO STATE LEGISLATURE ABOUT THIS AND IN MANY OTHER STATES AS WELL.

BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF REAL FEDERAL ACTION, STATE LEGISLATURES ARE STEPPING UP, WHICH IS GREAT.

>> Megan: THAT'S TRUE IN SO MANY AREAS.

>> Moore: IN SO MANY AREAS, YES.

SO, THE COLORADO STATE LEGISLATURE RECENTLY PASSED A BILL WHICH WAS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR UP THERE, SAYING THAT WHEN AN ALGORITHM IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED OR DEPLOYED, NAMELY USED, THAT IT SHOULD BE TESTED FOR BIAS.

BUT AS YOU ASK WHAT DOES THAT MEAN-- >> Megan: PEOPLE BUILD THESE.

PEOPLE HAVE BIASES.

>> Moore: PEOPLE BUILD THEM, BUT THERE'S A KIND OF MATHEMATICAL PROCESS WHERE THE PEOPLE SHOVEL A LOT OF DATA INTO THE SYSTEM.

AND TRAIN IT, AS IT WERE, ON DATA FROM THE PAST.

SO, SUPPOSE YOU'RE TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING WHICH WILL PREDICT WHETHER I WILL COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME IF YOU RELEASE ME FROM JAIL, OKAY?

SO, YOU'RE GOING TO USE A LOTS OF DATA ABOUT DEFENDANTS IN THE PAST WHO WERE RELEASED AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ARRESTED FOR SOME NEW CRIME.

WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORICAL BIAS IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

SO, IF YOU USE DATA FROM THE PAST, AND THEN YOU ASSUME THAT THOSE PATTERNS WILL PERSIST INTO THE FUTURE, THERE'S A DANGER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT BIAS.

MOREOVER, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT INSIDE A KIND OF BLACK BOX WITH THE APPEARANCE OF OBJECTIVITY, THE APPEARANCE OF MATHEMATICAL ACCURACY.

SO, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO CHECK TO SEE, FOR INSTANCE, IS AN ALGORITHM EQUALLY ACCURATE ON EACH PART OF OUR POPULATION?

THERE WAS SOME EARLY WORK ON FACIAL RECOGNITION, FOR INSTANCE, THAT BECAUSE THAT TRAINING DATA THAT WAS SHOVELLED INTO THE ALGORITHM HAD RELATIVELY FEW BLACK FACES IT MADE A LOT MORE MISTAKES ON BLACK PEOPLE AND SEVERAL PEOPLE HAD BEEN FALSELY ARRESTED BECAUSE OF THIS.

THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT CAN CREEP OUT WITHOUT ANY ILL INTENT ON ANYONE'S PART.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO INTEND ANY RACISM, SEXISM, OR WHATEVER.

THERE WAS ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE WHERE A HEALTH CARE COMPANY, AGAIN WITHOUT ANY ILL INTENT, BUILT AN AI THAT USED HOW MUCH MONEY YOU SPENT ON HEALTH CARE LAST YEAR AS ONE OF THE FACTORS IN ESTIMATING HOW SEVERE YOUR PNEUMONIA MIGHT BE.

>> Megan: IS THERE REALLY A RELEVANT MEASURE?

>> Moore: WELL, IF YOU HAVE MONEY, OR YOU HAVE INSURANCE AND IT IS THEIR MONEY, THIS IS, MAYBE, A GOOD INDICATOR.

SO, THE AI, IN ALL ITS MATHEMATICAL INNOCENCE, NOTICED A CORRELATION THERE AND STARTED USING THAT AS ONE OF ITS FACTORS.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY, OR YOU DON'T HAVE INSURANCE, THIS CLEARLY A LOUSY WAY TO PREDICT HOW SEVERE YOUR HEALTH ISSUES ARE.

SO AGAIN, THESE-- I THINK ONE REASON WHY WE NEED TRANSPARENCY IS TO LOOK UNDER THE HOOD AND TO SAY, WAIT A SECOND, THE ALGORITHM, THE AI, IT'S DECIDED TO USE THIS?

WAIT A SECOND, FROM A POLICY POINT OF VIEW, A MORAL POINT OF VIEW, IT SHOULDN'T BE USING THAT.

SO, WITHOUT THAT TRANSPARENCY THOUGH, IF YOU JUST HAVE AN AI A BIG DATABASE, IT'S GOING TO USE WHATEVER IT CAN FIND.

>> Megan: WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BLACK BOXES, AND YOU CAN'T-- WHAT IS BEHIND NOT HAVING MORE TRANSPARENCY?

IS IT BECAUSE IT'S A COMPANY CAN CLAIM THIS IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR YOU DON'T NEED TO SEE THE ALGORITHM, WHY ISN'T IT MORE TRANSPARENT?

>> Moore: THERE'S A BIG PROBLEM WITH THAT, EXACTLY.

FIRST OF ALL, I KNOW OF ONE OR MAYBE TWO COURT CASES WHERE AN ALGORITHM DESIGNER WAS FOUND EVEN POTENTIALLY LIABLE FOR DISCRIMINATION.

FOR THE MOST PART THEY'RE SAYING, HEY, WE'RE NOT A HOUSING PROVIDER, WE'RE NOT THE EMPLOYER, SO IT'S NOT OUR FAULT.

IT'S NOT OUR DECISION.

AND IF YOU ASK THE COMPANIES WHY DID YOU SAY NO TO THIS TENANT, FOR INSTANCE, THEY'LL SAY THAT'S A TRADE SECRET, THAT'S PROPRIETARY.

SOME OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT ALGORITHMS USED IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN OTHER STATES, I'M HAPPY TO SAY NOT IN NEW MEXICO, HAVE SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU-- WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT SCORE YOU WOULD HAVE HAD IF THIS INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD HAD BEEN CORRECTED.

SO, THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF-- WHAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF TRANSPARENCY?

OPACITY, OPAQUENESS.

ONE IS WHAT PROFESSOR MOSES IS REFERRING TO THAT THOSE SYSTEMS ARE SO COMPLICATED THAT EVEN THEIR DEVELOPERS MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND, AT SOME LEVEL, WHY THEY SAID YES OR NO.

BUT ANOTHER LEVEL-- >> Megan: SKYNET.

SORRY, MY GEN X IS COMING BACK.

>> Moore: YES, EXACTLY.

BUT ANOTHER LEVEL, FRANKLY, IS A LOT OF RELATIVELY SIMPLE SYSTEMS ARE BEING MARKETED AS AI AS, OH, THIS IS AMAZINGLY SOPHISTICATED AND ACCURATE EVEN THOUGH UNDER THE HOOD IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED, BUT THEN WHEN YOU ASK THOSE VENDORS AND DEVELOPERS TO LOOK UNDER THE HOOD THEY SAY, TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT DATA IT USES.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU HOW IT PROCESSES THAT DATA, WHAT THINGS ABOUT AN APPLICANT OR A DEFENDANT IT IS USING AND THAT, I THINK, IS REALLY NOT OKAY.

>> Bernal: I THINK INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ACROSS THE WORLD SHARE A VALUE THAT LAND AND WATER AND ANIMALS AND PLANTS ARE ALL PART OF OUR ECOSYSTEM AND WE'RE APART OF THAT ECOSYSTEM TOO.

SO, LIBERATING OURSELVES FROM THESE CONCEPTS OF VIEWING LAND AS PROPERTY OR PUTTING THINGS IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE CAN ALSO HELP US INCH TOWARD, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE BELIEVE COULD BE TRUE LIBERATION.

>> Lou: THAT INTERVIEW WITH JULIA BERNAL IS COMING UP IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES.

AND THE SECOND HALF OF MEGAN'S CONVERSATION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS JUST ABOUT 15 MINUTES AWAY.

ONE OF THE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS AROUND AI IS THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.

IT REGULATES HOW PEOPLE, POLITICAL CANDIDATES, COMPANIES INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER AND COMMUNICATE WITH YOU OVER THE AIRWAVES AND ONLINE.

I RECENTLY SAT DOWN WITH FCC COMMISSIONER ANNA GOMEZ TO DISCUSS HER WORK AND HER FIRST YEAR ON THE JOB.

FCC COMMISSIONER ANNA GOMEZ, THANKS SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.

>> Gomez: THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> Lou: ONE AREA THAT THE FCC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC MIGHT NOT REALIZE IS MAKING SURE INCARCERATED PEOPLE CAN MAKE PHONE CALLS AND VIDEO CALLS TO LOVED ONES, FRIENDS OUTSIDE OF PRISON.

JUST THIS SUMMER, YOUR AGENCY ISSUED A CAP ON THE COST FOR THOSE CALLS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE THAT CAP WAS INSTITUTED?

>> Gomez: YEAH, I'M VERY PLEASED THAT THE AGENCY WAS ABLE TO TAKE ACTION TO REDUCES THE COSTS OF-- FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS AND THEIR FAMILIES TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE.

WHAT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF EXTRANEOUS COSTS THAT WERE BEING PAID FOR USING THE PERMANENT COSTS OF A PHONE CALL THAT THESE INCARCERATED PERSONS WERE MAKING TO THEIR LOVED ONES OR TO WHOMEVER THEY NEEDED TO COMMUNICATE WITH.

WHAT WE DID WAS WE REQUIRED THE PRISONS TO NOT CHARGE THESE EXTRANEOUS COSTS, SO THAT THE FAMILIES AND THE INCARCERATED PEOPLE WOULD, IN FACT, HAVE REASONABLE RATES WHEN THEY HAD TO MAKE THEIR CALLS.

CONNECTIVITY IS SO IMPORTANT.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOUR MENTAL HEALTH.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ENSURING THAT THERE'S ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE INCARCERATED PEOPLE.

THAT'S WHY WHAT WE DID WAS SO IMPORTANT.

>> Lou: OKAY.

ROBOCALLS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE DEFINITELY ARE FAMILIAR WITH, FRUSTRATED WITH IN SOME CASES.

WHAT TYPES OF ROBOCALLS ARE YOU SEEING MOST OFTEN RIGHT NOW, AND WHAT'S YOUR AGENCY DOING TO EITHER SLOW THEM DOWN OR STOP THEM ALTOGETHER?

>> Gomez: SO, OUR AGENCY HAS BEEN REALLY FOCUSED ON ADDRESSING THE SCOURGE OF ROBOCALLS AND ROBOTEXTS, UNWANTED ROBOCALLS AND ROBOTEXTS.

IT IS THE NUMBER ONE CONSUMER COMPLAINT THAT WE GET AT THE FCC.

SO, WE HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF ACTION, OVER THE YEARS, TO TRY TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE REQUIRE THE CARRIERS NOT TO PASS ON ROBOCALLS ROBOTEXTS IF THEY'RE FROM ILLEGITIMATE MEANS.

WE ALSO PROHIBIT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO MASK OR DUPLICATE A VOICE BECAUSE WE HAVE A LAW, THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER ACT, THAT PROHIBITS THAT.

SO, WE HAVE DONE THAT.

WE HAVE TAKEN A VARIETY OF ACTIONS TO TRY TO ADDRESS BOTH WHERE THE CALLS ARE COMING FROM AS WELL AS THE ACTIVITIES OF SENDING THESE ROBOCALLS AND ROBOTEXTS WITHOUT CONSUMERS' CONSENT.

>> Lou: WHY DO WE GET SO MANY OF THESE CALLS?

WHAT DOES ENFORCEMENT LOOK LIKE?

>> Gomez: IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PERPETRATORS OF THESE ROBOCALLS AND ROBOTEXTS ARE CONSTANTLY ADJUSTING IN ORDER TO GET AROUND WHATEVER RULES AND REQUIREMENTS WE MIGHT HAVE PUT IN PLACE.

A LOT THEM COME FROM OVERSEAS.

SO, IT'S HARD TO STOP THEM WHERE THEY BEGIN.

BUT, LITTLE BY LITTLE, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THESE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES AND TO COME UP WITH WAYS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH INDUSTRY, TO BE ABLE TO TRACE AND CAPTURE THESE CALLS BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY REACH CONSUMERS.

BUT IT'S A CONSTANT ISSUE.

ANOTHER THAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE'RE PARTNERING WITH ATTORNEYS GENERAL THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GO AFTER THE FRAUDSTERS THAT ARE TRYING TO SCAM CONSUMERS THROUGH ROBOCALLS AND ROBOTEXTS.

>> Lou: OKAY.

TRUTH IN POLITICAL ADVERTISING.

IT'S ELECTION SEASON, OF COURSE, AND THAT MEANS WE'RE GETTING BOMBARDED WITH ROBOCALLS, ROBOTEXTS, MAILERS, YOU NAME IT.

BUT WHAT OTHER ATTEMPTS AT DECEPTION ARE OUT THERE THAT VOTERS SHOULD BE AWARE OF?

>> Gomez: I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT VOTERS, AND VIEWERS OF ANY KIND, BOTH OF TRADITIONAL MEDIA, AND SOCIAL MEDIA STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE HEARING, SO THEY CAN DISCERN WHAT IS ACTUALLY A TRUSTWORTHY VOICE AND WHAT THEY'RE HEARING IS NOT MIS OR DISINFORMATION.

ONE OF THE ACTIONS THAT WE RECENTLY TOOK IS WE'VE INITIATED A PROCEEDING TO LOOK AT WHETHER TO REQUIRE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS TO INCLUDE A DISCLOSURE IF THEY USE GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN ORDER TO CREATE A PERSON OR A VOICE.

IT'S SIMPLY TO MAKE SURE THAT VOTERS KNOW THAT WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT'S ORGANIC.

>> Lou: OKAY.

SIMILAR TO THE ROBOCALLS QUESTION EARLIER, WHAT DOES ENFORCEMENT LOOK LIKE IN POLITICAL ADVERTISING?

IF SOMEONE WERE TO POST A DEEPFAKE VIDEO OF A CANDIDATE ON A SOCIAL MEDIA SITE, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EITHER FLAGGING THAT OR TAKING IT DOWN?

>> Gomez: SO, IN TERMS OF SOCIAL MEDIA, THE FCC, MY REGULATORY AGENCY, DOES NOT HAVE ANY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OVER THOSE TYPES OF ADVERTISEMENTS.

SO, WHAT WE ARE ONLY LOOKING AT IS REALLY THE DISCLOSURES THAT THE BROADCASTERS, IN RUNNING THE ADVERTISEMENT, MAKE SURE THE ADVERTISEMENT ITSELF INCLUDES.

IT'S REALLY MORE ABOUT THE BROADCASTERS THAN IT IS ABOUT THE ONES THAT ARE GENERATING THE ACTUAL CONTENT >> Lou: SO, IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF DECEPTIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT THAT PEOPLE ARE SEEING, HOW DOES YOUR AGENCY ADJUST, AS YOU WERE MENTIONING EARLIER WITH THE ROBOCALLS, TO THESE CHANGES SO THAT THERE AREN'T LOOPHOLES WHERE CERTAIN BAD ACTORS COULD TRY TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE?

>> Gomez: SO, WE SEE ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CAMPAIGNS IN ORDER TO SEND MISINFORMATION OR DISINFORMATION THROUGH ANY MEDIA.

AND IN TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS OUR JURISDICTION, ONE THING THAT I SHOULD MAKE VERY CLEAR IS THAT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE DO NOT REGULATE OR TELL BROADCASTERS OR PRODUCERS OF ANY KIND WHAT EXACTLY THEY CAN PUT INTO THEIR BROADCASTS.

YOU DON'T WANT REGULATORS MEDDLING WITH CONTENT.

IT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL OF OUR DEMOCRACY IS TO UPHOLD THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

SO, ALL WE ARE DOING IS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY FOR THE VIEWER, SO THAT THE VIEWER CAN DISCERN FOR THEMSELVES THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S TRUSTWORTHY, OR THIS IS SOMETHING I NEED TO SECOND GUESS AND LET ME GO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER TRUSTED SOURCES THAT WILL TELL ME WHETHER THIS INFORMATION IS CORRECT OR NOT CORRECT.

THAT IS WHY I FEEL THAT MEDIA LITERACY IS SO IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW.

BECAUSE, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, WE HAVE SO MUCH INFORMATION AT OUR FINGERTIPS.

AND THAT INFORMATION MAY NOT BE TRUTHFUL, BUT IT MAY SPEAK TO OUR BIASES.

SO WE MAY BE MORE OPEN TO RECEIVING IT AND BELIEVING IT.

SO, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY TAKE A MOMENT, STOP, AND SAY THIS IS REALLY TRUE.

LET ME CHECK THIS THROUGH A VARIETY TRUSTED SOURCES, AND THAT INCLUDES JOURNALISM, TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT I'M HEARING IS CORRECT AND THAT I'M NOT ACTING ON SOMETHING THAT'S UNTRUE.

>> Lou: NOW, ONE OF YOUR AGENCY'S STATED GOALS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IS ENSURING CONNECTIVITY ACROSS THE COUNTRY, REGARDLESS OF GEOGRAPHY.

THAT'S A SERIOUS ROADBLOCK HERE IN NEW MEXICO.

WHICH COMMUNITIES ARE HIT HARDEST BY THIS LACK OF CONNECTIVITY THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?

>> Gomez: WE SEE LACK OF CONNECTIVITY IN ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.

WHETHER IT'S RURAL OR URBAN, OR ON AN ISLAND IN ALASKA, HAWAII, PUERTO RICO, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WE SEE LACK OF CONNECTIVITY.

THERE'S TWO REASONS FOR IT.

ONE IS THE ACTUAL DEPLOYMENT ITSELF.

SOME AREAS ARE VERY HARD TO REACH, AND THEY MAY BE HARD TO REACH BECAUSE OF THE GEOGRAPHY, THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE LACK OF POPULATION MAKES IT COSTLY TO SERVE.

SO, WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW, WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING RIGHT NOW, IS IT HAS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WERE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE LAW TO DEPLOY BROADBAND TO EVERY CORNER OF THE COUNTRY.

AS PART OF THAT AS WELL, THE OTHER ISSUE WITH CONNECTIVITY IS AFFORDABILITY.

YOU MAY HAVE ACCESS TO IT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF YOUR REACH BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT.

SO, THE BIPARTISAN LAW ALSO AUTHORIZED WHAT'S CALLED THE AFFORDABLE CONNECTIVITY PROGRAM, WHICH PROVIDED FUNDS TO HOUSEHOLDS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE DUE TO INCOME LEVELS OR OTHER REASONS TO SHOW THEIR NEED, A MONTHLY SUBSIDY FOR THE PROVISION OF BROADBAND.

THAT WAS A GREAT PROGRAM.

WE HAD 23 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS SIGNED UP FOR THIS PROGRAM.

HOUSEHOLDS WHO EITHER WERE NEVER CONNECTED BEFORE, OR MAYBE WERE PRECARIOUSLY CONNECTED.

THERE ARE HOUSEHOLDS THAT FROM MONTH TO MONTH HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION BETWEEN PAYING THE BABYSITTER OR PAYING THEIR BROADBAND BILL.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT PROGRAM HAS RUN OUT OF FUNDING.

SO, WE REALLY NEED CONGRESS TO REFUND THE PROGRAM BECAUSE OTHERWISE THESE 23 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS, MANY THEM ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FACE THE DIFFICULT CHOICE BETWEEN PAYING FOR THEIR BROADBAND BILL OR PAYING FOR RENT OR FOR FOOD.

AND THAT'S NOT A POSITION THAT ANYONE IN TODAY'S SOCIETY, WHICH IS SO CONNECTED, SHOULD HAVE TO FACE.

>> Lou: NOW, THERE IS A PROJECT THAT YOUR OFFICE IS INVOLVED IN RIGHT NOW ON TRIBAL LANDS THAT DOES NOT RELY ON INTERNET CONNECTIVITY.

KNME IS ALSO INVOLVED, AS A DISCLOSURE.

CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE NEW MISSING PERSONS ALERT PROJECT AND HOW IT WORKS?

>> Gomez: MANY PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH AMBER ALERTS AND SILVER ALERTS.

THESE ARE CODES THAT CAN BE USED TO SEND OUT, OVER BROADCASTS, OVER WIRELESS NETWORKS, OVER OTHER NETWORKS, IN ORDER TO ALERT TO A MISSING CHILD WITH AMBER ALERTS, OR A MISSING SENIOR ADULT UNDER SILVER ALERTS.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY-- ANY CODE, I'M SORRY, TO ADDRESS THE PERIOD IN BETWEEN.

THE MISSING AND ENDANGERED PERSONS ALERT CODE IS NOW HOW WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT.

IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE LOST OR ENDANGERED AND THE AMBER ALERTS AND THE SILVER ALERTS HAVE BEEN HUGELY SUCCESSFUL.

THE RECOVERY RATES FOR THOSE TWO ALERTS ARE ACTUALLY VERY HIGH.

IN THE PARTICULAR CASE OF THE MISSING AND ENDANGERED PERSONS ALERTS, WE'RE ALSO VERY HOPEFUL THAT IT WILL HELP TO ADDRESS THE MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS PERSONS CRISIS THAT WE'RE FACING IN THIS COUNTRY.

INDIGENOUS PERSONS ARE ACTUALLY HAVING MUCH HIGHER RATES OF ABUSE, OF DEATH, OF MISSING THAN WHITE CITIZENS.

SO, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'D REALLY LIKE TO CENTER SOME ATTENTION ON, SO WE'RE HOPEFUL THIS ALERT CODE WILL HELP WITH THAT.

>> Lou: OKAY.

IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, YOU VOTED TO RESTORE WHAT'S KNOWN AS NET NEUTRALITY AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS?

>> Gomez: NET NEUTRALITY IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MISNOMER, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY.

WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE IS IT HAS ADOPTED A FRAMEWORK FOR ENSURING THAT BROADBAND PROVIDERS PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET IN A FREE AND UNFETTERED WAY.

UNDER THE PRIOR LACK OF A REGULATORY REGIME AT ALL, WE HAD NO METHOD FOR PROTECTING CONSUMERS OF BROADBAND SERVICES.

SO, WHAT THIS DOES IS IT ENABLES US TO PROTECT CONSUMERS.

IT ENABLES US TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE GATEWAY PROVIDERS TO THE INTERNET CAN'T USE THAT POWER OF BEING A GATEWAY IN ORDER TO CONTROL WHAT CONSUMERS CAN DO WITH THE INTERNET.

>> Lou: MEDIA OWNERSHIP, THE FCC HAS SOME AUTHORITY IN THAT ARENA, RADIO, TV, AND PRINT.

WHAT ARE THE CURRENT RULES AS FAR AS HOW MANY PUBLICATIONS AND STATIONS CAN FALL UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP GROUP IN TERMS OF MARKET TO MARKET, BUT ALSO NATIONALLY?

>> Gomez: YES, WE DO HAVE RULES THAT LIMIT WHETHER ONE PARTICULAR OWNER CAN OWN TOO MUCH OF A PARTICULAR MARKET.

IT DIFFERS BY THE SIZE OF THE MARKET.

BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IS WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S A DIVERSITY OF VOICES IN EVERY MARKET.

NATIONALLY, YOU CAN'T HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A MERGER BETWEEN THE MAJOR NETWORKS LIKE CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX.

THOSE ARE THE CURRENT RULES.

>> Lou: OKAY.

ONE FOLLOW-UP ON THAT.

DO THOSE RULES CHANGE, AND WHAT INFORMS THE DECISION TO CHANGE THE RULES?

>> Gomez: SO, THE COMMISSION DOES, FROM TIME TO TIME, LOOK AT THESE RULES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE THEM TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY CHANGES IN THE MARKET.

AND WHAT DOES INFORM THOSE DECISIONS IS WHAT'S THE STATE OF PARTICULAR MARKETS AT ISSUE OR THE MARKETS GENERALLY.

WHY DO WE HAVE THESE RULES?

WE HAVE THESE RULES BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO PROTECT DIVERSITY AND LOCALISM IN LOCAL MEDIA.

LOCAL MEDIA PROVIDERS PROVIDE SUCH AN IMPORTANT SERVICE TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.

THAT IS WHERE CONSUMERS GO TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THEIR PARTICULAR COMMUNITIES.

IT'S WHERE THEY GO IF THERE'S A NATURAL DISASTER, AND THEY NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HELP THEMSELVES.

IT'S WHERE THEY GO AFTER THE NATURAL DISASTER.

IT'S WHERE THEY GO FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT.

SO, IT'S REALLY VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT LOCAL MEDIA PRESENCE IN EVERY MARKET.

>> Lou: FCC COMMISSIONER ANNA GOMEZ, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE ON NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS.

>> Gomez: THANK YOU.

>> Lou: THANKS AGAIN TO FCC COMMISSIONER ANNA GOMEZ FOR STOPPING BY THE STUDIO.

NEARLY 20 STATES, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, HAVE SCRAMBLED TO PASS LAWS PROTECTING CITIZENS PRIVACY FROM INVASIVE COMPANY ALGORITHMS, BUT AS WE'LL HEAR IN THE SECOND HALF OF OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE THESE LAWS WILL BE WHEN REGULATING TECHNOLOGY THAT'S STILL IN ITS INFANCY.

>> Megan: MELANIE, YOU'VE SPOKEN TO LEGISLATORS ABOUT HOW THE LACK OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY HAS CREATED LOOPHOLES IN SOME EXISTING AI LAWS OTHER STATES HAVE PASSED.

WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE THOSE LOOPHOLES CREATED, AND WHAT CAN ELECTED OFFICIALS DO TO AVOID THOSE SAME MISTAKES HERE?

>> Moses: SO, I THINK THIS IS REALLY EARLY DAYS.

SO, WE DON'T QUITE KNOW THE EFFECTS.

THE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE LAST WEEKS, MONTHS.

SO, I THINK WHAT THIS REALLY POINTS TO IS WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE LOOPHOLES AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT LEGISLATION.

AND I THINK A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE PUZZLE IS TO EVALUATE WHAT THE AI IS DOING, WHAT IMPACT IT'S HAVING ON PEOPLE'S LIVES AND WHAT THE LEGISLATION IS AND IS NOT PREVENTING.

AND HAVING THAT FEEDBACK SO THE LEGISLATORS ARE IN THE HABIT OF WE'VE GOT TO REEVALUATE, WE THOUGHT WE WERE PREVENTING DEEPFAKES IN ELECTIONS WITH THIS LEGISLATION, DID IT WORK?

AND IF IT DID WORK, OKAY, GOOD, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN?

IF IT DIDN'T WORK, WHERE WERE THOSE LOOPHOLES?

MANY OF THE LOOPHOLES WILL BE FOUND AFTER THE FACT.

THERE'S CERTAINLY LOOPHOLES THAT COMPANIES DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO BE TRANSPARENT, EITHER FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REASONS, OR FOR THE LABOR THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO SHOWING THIS IS OUR ALGORITHM WE HAVE TESTED IT AGAINST ALL OF THESE POPULATIONS AND SHOWN THAT IT IS FAIR AND ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS, THAT'S WORK THAT SOMEONE HAS TO DO.

>> Megan: THAT'S WHY THEY WOULD WANT TO KEEP IT SECRET.

>> Moses: SO, THAT WOULD BE A REASON TO NOT REVEAL IT.

SO, THAT'S ONE REASON WE HAVE LOOPHOLES.

ANOTHER IS THAT, AT THIS POINT, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO FULLY PREDICT HOW THESE THINGS WILL PLAY OUT IN THE REAL WORLD.

>> Megan: RIGHT.

>> Moses: SO, THIS TECHNOLOGY IS VERY NEW.

AS WE'VE SAID, IT'S VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THESE MACHINES ARE MAKING DECISIONS.

SO, IT'S EVEN HARDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WILL BE WHEN WE PUT THIS IN OUR COMPLICATED REAL WORLD WITH BUREAUCRACIES AND RULES ABOUT HOW WE DO, AND HABITS OF HOW WE DO AND DON'T DO THINGS.

>> Megan: PLUS, IT'S LEARNING.

>> Moses: PLUS IT'S LEARNING IN SOME SENSE.

MOST OF THE SYSTEMS THAT ARE THERE NOW ARE NOT LEARNING IN REAL TIME.

IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM WHETHER IT'S ABLE TO TAKE IN NEW INFORMATION IN REAL TIME OR DO YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT RELEASE OF GPT FIVE OR WHATEVER BEFORE YOU GET SOMETHING THAT'S NEW.

>> Megan: LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, A BILL WAS INTRODUCED THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ALL STATE AGENCIES TO TRACK ALL AI SYSTEMS THE STATE USES AND NOTE WHEN THE SYSTEMS MAKES A CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION, IN QUOTES.

CRIS, HOW CAN A TRANSPARENCY BILL LIKE THIS CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP THE STATE HAS WITH EXISTING AI SYSTEMS?

>> Moore: SO, THAT BILL, WHICH DIDN'T PASS, ALTHOUGH IT MADE IT THROUGH A COUPLE OF COMMITTEES IN THE HOUSE.

OF COURSE, IT WAS A SHORT SESSION, SO LOTS OF THINGS DIDN'T HAPPEN LAST YEAR.

THAT WAS A STRONG BUT NARROW BILL.

IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT GOVERNMENT USE OF AI.

AND WITHIN THAT NARROW CONFINE IT WAS PRETTY STRONG.

IT REALLY DEMANDED THAT WE KNOW HOW THE AI WORKS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT A LOT OF VENDORS DON'T WANT TO REVEAL THAT.

AND I THINK THE POINT IS THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT MAKES A DECISION ABOUT YOU THAT AFFECTS YOUR LIFE, THAT SAYS, NO, YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THIS SOCIAL SERVICE OR SOMETHING, OR MAYBE WE'RE GOING TO CARRY OUT SOME PUNITIVE ACTION ON YOU, I THINK YOU AS A CITIZEN IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY DESERVE A PRETTY CLEAR EXPLANATION OF WHY.

AND IT'S NOT OKAY FOR THE PERSON ON THE OTHER END OF THE PHONE TO SAY, OH, COMPUTER SAYS NO.

THAT'S NOT OKAY.

WE TOLERATE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR SOMETIMES.

WE DON'T LIKE IT.

IT INFURIATES US WHEN SOMEONE IN CUSTOMER SERVICE SAYS, WELL, THAT'S THE POLICY.

AND THE MODERN VERSION IS THAT'S WHAT THE COMPUTER SAYS, THAT'S WHAT THE AI SAYS.

SO, I THINK GOVERNMENTS DO HAVE ENOUGH PURCHASING POWER TO SAY TO VENDORS, HEY, WE'RE OPEN TO HAVING YOU BID ON ALL SORTS OF PROJECTS, BUT WE WANT A RELATIVELY TRANSPARENT PRODUCT.

I DON'T THINK, IN PRACTICE, THAT TURNS THE INDUSTRY AWAY.

IT'S A DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODEL, BUT IT DOES EXIST OUT THERE AND COMPANIES MAKE MONEY OFF IT.

I THINK IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, LIKE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BANKING AND HOUSING, I'M NOT SURE WHAT LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY IS POLITICALLY FEASIBLE.

I WOULD LIKE THE MORE THE BETTER.

OF COURSE, HUMAN DECISIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS TRANSPARENT AS WELL, RIGHT?

IT USED TO BE THE LANDLORD COULD JUST SAY NO BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE HOW YOU DRESS OR THE LENGTH OF YOUR HAIR.

AND THAT WASN'T OKAY, BUT FINE.

>> Megan: OR THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN, OR -- YOU KNOW.

>> Moore: RIGHT, OR THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN.

BUT IF THE WHOLE POINT OF AI IS THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE SOCIETY BETTER, DOESN'T THAT ALSO INCLUDE MAKING DECISIONS IN A MORE CLEAR AND ACCURATE AND FAIR WAY?

SO, IF WE CAN'T EVEN TELL HOW ACCURATE AND FAIR THEY ARE, WHY USE IT?

>> Megan: MM-HMM.

THIS YEAR, MELANIE, NEW MEXICO SIGNED INTO LAW A RULE THAT REQUIRES POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND CANDIDATES TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY USE FALSE INFORMATION GENERATED BY AI IN A CAMPAIGN AD.

HOWEVER, SOME ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THE GOVERNOR HAVE QUESTIONED HOW THIS RULE WILL BE ENFORCED AS THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE AI INVESTIGATORS.

WHAT MORE SHOULD ELECTED OFFICIALS DO TO EITHER STRENGTHEN OR EXPAND THEIR PROTECTIONS AGAINST HARMFUL POLITICAL DEEPFAKES?

>> Moses: SO, I THINK THAT HOW THIS IS PLAYING OUT RIGHT NOW IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMETHING IS SUSPECTED OF BEING A DEEPFAKE, RIGHT, THERE ARE THESE PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE WORLD ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHO INVESTIGATE IT AND WILL POINT TO IT.

WHETHER WE HAVE PROVABLE, VERY CLEAR ANALYSIS OF WHAT IS A DEEPFAKE AND WHAT IS NOT, THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S SORT OF A CAT-AND-MOUSE GAME.

THE DEEPFAKES ARE GOING TO GET BETTER, THE DEEPFAKE DETECTORS ARE GOING TO GET BETTER, AND THERE MIGHT BE PLACES, TIMES WHEN THINGS CAN SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS.

THIS IS, AGAIN, WHY HAVING SOME SORT OF A COMMISSION OF EXPERTS THAT'S ABLE TO DRAW FROM, YOU KNOW, THE BEST THAT'S TECHNICALLY AVAILABLE TO ADVISE ON THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO EVEN MAKE THE DETERMINATION WAS THIS A DEEP FAKE OR NOT.

I THINK, SO FAR, THERE HAVE NOT YET BEEN CONTROVERSIES.

I THINK MOST OF THE DEEPFAKES, MAYBE ALL OF THE DEEPFAKES, I GUESS BY DEFINITION ALL OF THE DEEPFAKES THAT WE'RE AWARE OF ARE EASILY DETECTABLE AT THIS POINT.

AGAIN, THAT MIGHT CHANGE.

SO, THIS IS A PLACE WHERE THE LEGISLATION HAS GOT TO KEEP UP WITH THE TECHNOLOGY, NOT BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN INTO LAW WE WILL DETECT DEEPFAKES USING THESE PROCESSES AND THESE TOOLS, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S AN ECOSYSTEM IN PLACE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR DOING THAT SORT OF WORK.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE STATE-- IT WILL BE IN THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE TO INVEST IN THAT SORT OF CAPABILITY.

WHETHER -- I'M A BIT MORE CONCERNED ABOUT DEEPFAKES IN ANY REALMS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE ANY LEGISLATION AT ALL.

>> Megan: YEAH, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT TOO.

I MEAN, IT COVERS CAMPAIGNS AND CANDIDATES, BUT WE'RE SEEING ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY SUCH LEGISLATION, CREATING FAKE IMAGES, VERY CONVINCING FAKE IMAGES, USING THEM TO DRIVE FALSE NARRATIVES ABOUT EVENTS LIKE THE RECENT HURRICANES AND THE FEDERAL RESPONSE.

SO, HOW WOULD REGULATION ADDRESS THAT?

>> Moses: THIS IS A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.

AND THE REASON I THINK THE LEGISLATURE MADE THE DECISION TO JUST FOCUS ON ELECTIONS IS THAT WAS A CLEAR, NARROW PLACE WHERE YOU COULD SHOW THE HARM.

AND IT'S NOT QUITE AS CLEAR WHERE IS OUR FREE SPEECH LINE, WHERE IS THERE HARM TO AN INDIVIDUAL.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THESE ARE POTENTIALLY INDIVIDUALS, IF A DEEPFAKE IS MADE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, THAT IS POTENTIALLY EXTREMELY DAMAGING TO THAT PERSON'S REPUTATION.

A PERSON COULD LOSE THEIR JOB, A PERSON COULD LOSE, EVEN IF IT'S SHOWN TO BE A FAKE, THEY COULD LOSE THE CONFIDENCE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS.

SO, THAT PROBABLY IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT.

DOES FRAUD AND DEFAMATION LAW ACTUALLY NEED TO BE UPDATED JUST TO INCLUDE THESE SORTS OF THINGS?

SO, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A LITTLE TOEHOLD.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT HAVING GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PASSING ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION, WHICH NEW MEXICO DID FAIRLY EARLY, IN PART, DUE TO OUR SHORT SESSION.

THAT BILL CLEARLY HAD TO COME OUT QUICKLY IN ORDER TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THIS YEAR'S ELECTION.

SO, THAT'S GOOD, AND I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO KEEP TAKING STEPS, YOU KNOW, FROM THAT INITIAL POSITION.

I THINK THAT ALSO APPLIES TO THE TRANSPARENCY LEGISLATION THAT CRIS HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S A REALLY NECESSARY FIRST STEP TO EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT AN ALGORITHM OR AI WAS USED IN MAKING A DECISION.

BUT THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS USED, OR EVEN THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT FACTORS WENT INTO IT ISN'T NECESSARILY THE FULL PROTECTION FOR A PERSON.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE SOME PROCESS THAT A PERSON CAN FILE AN APPEAL.

THIS IS WHY WE HATE IT WHEN THE CUSTOMER SERVICE PERSON SAYS, WELL, THE COMPUTER TOLD ME, OR THAT'S THE POLICY, AND THAT'S THE END OF THE CONVERSATION.

SO, I THINK BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY ABOUT HOW THESE TOOLS WILL AFFECT US, HAVING THAT FLEXIBILITY THAT ABILITY TO CHALLENGE WHAT THESE, YOU KNOW, AIs AND ALGORITHMS ARE PUT OUT THERE IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.

>> Megan: CRIS, I'M JUST ANTICIPATING FREE SPEECH CHALLENGES AROUND THIS.

>> Moore: FOR DEEPFAKERY?

>> Megan: YEAH.

I MEAN, WE TALKED ABOUT THERE'S ONE THIS PAST WEEK, A LITTLE GIRL IN A CANOE, VERY SAD, LIFE JACKET, PUPPY IN ONE OF THE HURRICANES AND IT'S TOTALLY FAKE.

>> Moore: WELL, I'M GLAD SHE HAD A FAKE LIFEJACKET TOO.

>> Megan: WHEN THIS IS BROUGHT TO BEAR EVENTUALLY THROUGH VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER THINGS, OR FACT CHECKERS, A PROMINENT PERSON FROM THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE FROM GEORGIA ACTUALLY SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, IT WAS AN NPR STORY, LIKE IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S NOT A REAL IMAGE.

IT'S SOMEHOW HIGHLIGHTING AN ESSENTIAL TRUTH.

>> Moore: RIGHT.

>> Megan: SO, FREE SPEECH SEEMS A PITFALL HERE.

OR PROTECTION?

>> Moore: YEAH.

ONE OF IT IS LIKE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO HER, WHAT HAPPENED TO HER PUPPY.

IT'S LIKE THERE WAS THE FAMOUS AD DURING THE COLD WAR OF THE LITTLE GIRL PICKING THE FLOWER AND THERE'S A MUSHROOM CLOUD IN THE BACKGROUND.

>> Megan: RIGHT, FOR LBJ.

>> Moore: BUT NO ONE THOUGHT THAT A REAL LITTLE GIRL WAS BEING NUKED IN THAT AD, RIGHT?

THEY UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS PROPAGANDA, THEY UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS STAGED.

IF YOU PAGE DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF GOOGLE NEWS, YOU'LL FIND, FOR INSTANCE, A LOT OF WAR FOOTAGE WHICH IS REPORTED TO BE FROM UKRAINE OR FROM THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, TURNS OUT TO BE FROM VIDEO GAMES.

BECAUSE VIDEO GAMES HAVE GOT SO REALISTIC THAT PEOPLE CAN OFTEN MISTAKE VIDEO GAME TANKS FOR REAL TANKS, AND SO ON.

SO, I THINK IT IS VERY CORROSIVE, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT THAT IT IS SOME LEVEL OF SPEECH.

AND I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW-- IT'S LIKE FREE SPEECH IS FINE IF I AM SPEAKING TO YOU, RIGHT?

OR IF I'M STANDING ON THE STREET CORNER, BUT WHAT IF I CAN DISGUISE MYSELF AS YOU?

IS THAT STILL PROTECTED FREE SPEECH?

WHAT IF I CAN DISGUISE MYSELF AS SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T EVEN EXIST LIKE THAT LITTLE GIRL?

THERE WAS NO LITTLE GIRL WHOSE CONSENT WAS VIOLATED BECAUSE THERE'S NO LITTLE GIRL.

SO, A LOT OF THESE LAWS, THERE'S A BIG LOOPHOLE THERE.

ALSO, WITH SOCIAL MEDIA, NOW WE HAVE THESE MEGAPHONES WE CAN USE TO AMUSE OR FRIGHTEN OR TICK OFF EACH OTHER.

THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF SPEECH THAT THE FOUNDERS OF THE NATION HAD IN MIND, BUT OF COURSE, I ALSO BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY IN FREE SPEECH.

SO, I HONESTLY DON'T HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO OR WHAT WE SHOULD DO, BUT I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE CORROSIVE EFFECT.

AND YOU REFERRED TO THIS, MELANIE, BRIEFLY.

IT'S HAD ALREADY HAPPENING THAT NOW REAL THINGS ARE BEING CALLED FAKE.

WE'VE ALREADY HEARD PEOPLE SAYING THAT THE ACCESS HOLLYWOOD TAPE, THAT WAS A DEEPFAKE.

NOW, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TRUST ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC OR ANY VIDEO EVIDENCE, ANY AUDIO UNLESS THERE'S SOME TRUSTED PERSON WHO-- MAYBE WE'LL GO BACK TO THE DAYS OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY.

I WAS STANDING BEHIND THE DOOR AND I HEARD SENATOR SO-AND-SO MAKE THIS DEAL WITH THAT EXECUTIVE.

ARE WE GOING TO GO BACKWARDS AND HAVE SWORN TESTIMONY FROM EYEWITNESSES?

I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE NOTION OF TRUTH AND DEBATE IN OUR SOCIETY.

>> Megan: I WISH WE COULD END ON A MORE HOPEFUL NOTE.

BUT THERE'S A 60-DAY SESSION COMING UP, AND NO DOUBT THAT WILL PLAY A PART IN IT.

AND, CLEARLY, THERE WILL BE MORE TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT ON THIS.

I WANT TO THANK YOU, BOTH, FOR COMING ON AND HAVING A REALLY ENLIGHTENING AND INTRIGUING CONVERSATION.

>> Moses: THANKS SO MUCH.

>> Moore: THANKS.

>> Lou: AS DESCENDANTS OF THE 1680 PUEBLO REVOLT, PUEBLO ACTION ALLIANCE TAKES THE LONG VIEW ON PROTECTING NEW MEXICO'S ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITIES.

AS PEOPLE CONSIDER HOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES AND PRACTICES WILL AFFECT THE STATE, OUR LAND'S SENIOR PRODUCER LAURA PASKUS INVITED JULIA BERNAL, THE ALLIANCES'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BACK TO THE STUDIO.

IN THEIR CONVERSATION, THEY TALK ABOUT INDIGENOUS ORGANIZING, LIBERATION, AND WHAT LEADERSHIP MIGHT LOOK LIKE >> Laura: JULIA BERNAL, I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU'RE BACK IN THE STUDIO.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

>> Bernal: YES, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

HAPPY TO BE HERE.

>> Laura: SO, ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT ON THE SHOW BEFORE, AND I'VE HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT IT, HOW THE LIBERATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IS LIBERATION FOR ALL.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

>> Bernal: SURE.

OF COURSE, I THINK THAT THERE'S-- IT CAN BE INTERPRETED MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT I THINK FOR US AND THE WAY THAT WE LOOK AT LIBERATION IS LIKE THESE ACTS OF SHIFTING PARADIGMS.

BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A PARADIGM NOW LIKE OUR DOMINANT PARADIGM, YOU KNOW, IS WITHIN AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT VIEWS THE NATURAL WORLD AS NATURAL RESOURCES, AS WAYS TO STIMULATE MARKETS, OR WAYS THAT SHOW WHAT TYPE OF WEALTH A NATION-STATE HAS.

IF WE THINK ABOUT LIBERATION IN THE SENSE OF DISMANTLING THAT TYPE OF PARADIGM OR WORLDVIEW AND RETURNING TO A WORLDVIEW OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES THAT WERE GIVEN ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS UPON CREATION TO CARE FOR LAND, TO CARE FOR COMMUNITIES, TO RESPECT WHAT THE NATURAL WORLD GIVES US AND WHAT THEY GIVE US WE CAN ALSO GIVE BACK CAN SHIFT THE WAY THAT WE VIEW NATURAL RESOURCES.

AND GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE RESPECT TO THOSE ENTITIES.

I THINK INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ACROSS THE WORLD SHARE A VALUE THAT LAND AND WATER AND ANIMALS AND PLANTS ARE ALL APART OF OUR ECOSYSTEM AND WE'RE APART OF THAT ECOSYSTEM TOO.

SO, LIBERATING OURSELVES FROM THESE CONCEPTS OF VIEWING LAND AS LIKE PROPERTY, OR PUTTING THINGS IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE CAN ALSO HELP US INCH TOWARD WHAT WE BELIEVE COULD BE TRUE LIBERATION.

>> Laura: YEAH.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WILL UNDOUBTEDLY AFFECT COMMUNITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN NEW MEXICO.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE MOST WATCHFUL OF?

>> Bernal: MM-HMM.

WELL, I THINK A LOT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY, OR THE CLIMATE COMMUNITY, CLIMATE JUSTICE COMMUNITY, ARE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE RULES THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY ROLLED BACK.

EITHER RULES UNDER EPA OR ANY TYPE OF LAND MANAGEMENT OR WATER MANAGEMENT OFFICE.

SO, WITH THAT BEING OUR REALITY, AND ALSO, HE DID VOW TO STEP OUT OF THE PARIS ACCORD AND CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT SPACE.

WHAT I THINK WE'RE SEEING SORT OF CONTINUED, EVEN FROM LIKE THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION, IS THIS AGENDA TO CULTIVATE DOMESTIC NATURAL RESOURCES TO SEVER DEPENDENCY FROM, LIKE, YOU KNOW, FOREIGN OIL OR WHATEVER.

WHAT THAT MEANS TO US, I THINK, FOR NATIVE PEOPLE, AND EVEN POPULATIONS THAT LIVE IN LARGER LAND MASSES, WE WILL START TO SEE THE ADMINISTRATION START TO EITHER INCENTIVIZE OR COERCE, WHATEVER THE TACTIC IS TO DEVELOP THOSE RESOURCES.

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS AT A PLACE WHERE I THINK THEY RECOGNIZE THAT MOST OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT ARE STILL, YOU KNOW, EXISTING IN THE U.S. ARE EITHER ON NATIVE LANDS OR NEAR NATIVE LANDS.

SO, THERE IS GOING TO NEED TO BE, LIKE, DUE DILIGENCE WITH TRIBES TO HELP THEM DEVELOP NATURAL RESOURCES, WHICH SCARES ME A LOT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I COME FROM A PUEBLO COMMUNITY AND SHARED VALUES WITH OTHER PUEBLOS THAT DON'T WANT TO DEVELOP OUR LAND IN THAT WAY, AND DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN THAT SYSTEM.

OF COURSE, THERE ARE TRIBES THAT DO DO THAT.

AND SOME COULD ARGUE THAT IT IS THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHT, BUT WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR WORLD VIEW, WHICH I FEEL COULD BE LIKE, YOU KNOW, COULD BE DANGEROUS.

>> Laura: SO, I WANT TO TAKE US BACK TO THE TAIL END OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PROTESTS AT STANDING ROCK.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE LESSONS THAT YOU FEEL CAME OUT OF THAT MOVEMENT, AND OUT OF THAT ATTEMPT AT RESISTANCE AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, EVEN A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION?

>> Bernal: YEAH, I THINK THAT WHAT -- AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF LOOK TOWARDS THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION.

WHAT WE WILL SEE IS HOW QUICKLY DECISIONS CAN BE MADE.

AND WE'LL SEE HOW THAT SYSTEM CAN BENEFIT A RIGHT AGENDA.

I THINK WITH STANDING ROCK A LOT OF WATER PROTECTORS AND TRIBAL MEMBERS KNEW THAT OBAMA COULD HAVE MADE THAT DECISION TO STOP THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE, BUT BLAMED IT ON BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS OR WHATEVER THE REASON WAS FOR, YOU KNOW, IT TO NOT HALT THAT PROJECT.

I THINK WE WILL SEE HOW QUICKLY THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION.

AND, TO ME, THAT JUST SHOWS THAT THIS SYSTEM CAN WORK FOR THE WEALTHY.

IT CAN WORK FOR THE RIGHT AGENDA.

AND, EVEN NOW, I THINK THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS ALSO TRYING TO ROLL THROUGH SOME NEW RULES BEFORE, YOU KNOW, NEXT YEAR.

AND SO, IT JUST SHOWS ME THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT REALLY WANTED TO MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING, IT COULD HAPPEN STEADFAST.

INSTEAD, YOU KNOW WE'RE, I THINK -- LIKE THE ROSE-COLORED GLASSES ARE GOING TO COME OFF IN THIS NEXT ADMINISTRATION.

>> Laura: YEAH.

SO, I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY FAIR TO SAY THAT THERE'S A CULTURE OF TOXIC MASCULINITY IN THIS COUNTRY THAT PERVADES POLITICS AND SYSTEMS AND JUST PERVADES OUR SOCIETY.

AND I'VE HEARD YOU TALK A NUMBER OF TIMES ABOUT PUEBLO FEMINISM WITH REGARD TO NATURAL RESOURCES, BUT ALSO COMMUNITY.

AND I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT LEADERSHIP, TRUE LEADERSHIP, MEANS WHEN WE THINK ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN TOXIC MASCULINITY AND WHITENESS.

>> Bernal: I THINK ONE THING THAT I'VE REALLY NOTICED, JUST WITH THE ELECTION, IS THAT THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM HAS REALLY POLARIZED POLITICS.

AND THAT, THEN, CREATES DIVISION IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

I, AS A GRASSROOTS ORGANIZER, BUT ALSO AS A PUEBLO COMMUNITY MEMBER, DON'T WANT TO FEED INTO THAT DIVISION.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE THAT FOR WHAT IT IS.

YOU KNOW, THESE DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER TACTICS ARE PLAYING MORE AND MORE OF A ROLE AND WE HAVE VERY POLARIZING POLITICS.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE DEPENDENT ON THIS TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.

I THINK, LIKE, WHEN I TALK ABOUT PUEBLO FEMINISM WHAT I THINK THAT ENCOMPASSES FOR ME IS LIKE THIS ACT OF REMATRIATION AND RETURNING BACK TO LIKE THAT VALUE THAT WE VIEW OUR MOTHER AS THE EARTH, AS THE RIVER.

AND SO MUCH OF A MOTHER'S ROLE IS CARE, NURTURING, LOVE, RESPECT.

THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF VALUES THAT I WANT TO ALIGN WITH MY PEOPLE ON.

NOT WHAT POLITICAL AGENDA THEY AGREE WITH OR DON'T AGREE WITH.

BECAUSE THAT, AGAIN, CAN CREATE THAT DIVISION THAT WE JUST DON'T NEED.

WE NEED ALIGNMENT.

WE NEED TO BE TOGETHER.

WE NEED TO BE A STRONG FORCE.

OF COURSE, THAT'S LIKE SOMETHING THAT WE LEARNED FROM THE PUEBLO REVOLT AS WELL, THESE STRONG ALIGNMENTS WITH OUR COMMUNITIES IS WHAT CAN MAKE CHANGE ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

SO, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF LIKE PUTTING THAT EXAMPLE INTO FEMINISM, IT'S REALLY MEANT FOR ALL OF OUR PEOPLE.

YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE UPLIFT THE ROLES OF OUR MEN IN OUR COMMUNITY, HOW CAN WE UPLIFT THE ROLES OF THE MOTHERS IN OUR COMMUNITY, OR THE CHILDREN, OR ELDERS, OR NON-BINARY TRANS COMMUNITY AS WELL.

EVERYONE'S IMPORTANT.

EVERYONE HAS A ROLE.

EVERYONE HAS A VOICE.

SO, AGAIN, LOOKING BEYOND WHAT TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION-- WHAT THAT AGENDA IS GOING TO BRING INTO THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, LET'S TRY TO LOOK BEYOND THAT, AND ALIGN ON THOSE VALUES THAT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO PROTECT IN THIS MOMENT TOO.

>> Laura: THANK YOU, JULIA.

I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

AND I APPRECIATE YOU.

>> Bernal: THANK YOU SO MUCH, LAURA.

>> Lou: THANKS AGAIN TO LAURA, AND JULIA BERNAL AND MEGAN KAMERICK, AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SHOW.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

>> FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO IN FOCUS IS PROVIDED BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.