♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we turn to politics. there was a rare instance of bipartisanship this week in washington. president trump blind-sided congressional republicans with a surprise deal with top democrats chuck schumer and nancy pelosi. agreed to raise the debt ceiling and finance the government through december. the announcement came a day after president trump's controversial decision to end daca. joining me now from washington is jonathan swan. he's a national political

reporter for axios. let's talk about the daca decision, or non-decision. put that into context. he did not do what the republicans wanted him to do. he threw it back to congress. the decision may now come sometime next year and could be a continuing controversy which republicans fear could hurt their reelection in 2018. speak to that for me. jonathan: i had a conversation with a source who had spoken to trump on friday of last week. this is today's -- two days before it was written his decision was made on daca, he was going to rescind the program but giving the six-month window for congress to act. this source came away from the conversation the president convinced his mind was not made up. daca has been something, i cannot speak to whether he

generally feels for these kids brought to america through no fault of their own by their parents and shielded temporarily by the obama administration or whether he understands the politics and media, the images of him getting rid of this program will be so bad. for one or other reason, he has grappled with this in a way he has not grappled with any other policy decision throughout the first eight months of his administration. he has been very reluctant to rescind daca. i think it is an open question what happens in six months. i think there is little chance congress will deal with this because congress cannot do with anything. if trump has to revisit it in six months time, who knows what he will do? we shouldn't assume he will rescind the program just because he has said he would. charlie: why is he hesitant? jonathan: in what sense? charlie: to rescind it.

jonathan: i think it's very clear. he is surrounded by people telling him -- there was a tweet from ivanka before he ran for president celebrating the story of an undocumented immigrant. some of the people he is closest two in the world are telling him about the stories of these young children, please protect these children. trump often talks about what he can and cannot sell. he knows this is a decision that will appeal to his base. but he also knows the news cameras and cable news 24/7 will be rolling on images of young americans who have committed no crime being rounded up and sent out of the country. the most heartrending stories will be put on the newspapers he reads every morning. he is aware this is what is inevitable if he does this. he ideally wants to kick this to congress so he does not have to

take responsibility for this. it may well end up on his desk in six months time. charlie: who is urging him to go ahead and rescind it now? jonathan: jeff sessions, the attorney general. their relationship will never be what it was, but it effectively died about four months ago or whenever it was that sessions recused himself from overseeing the investigation into the collusion between russia and the trump administration. sessions has been in the icebox. they have not been talking one-on-one. if you saw his face, all you have to do to understand, look at the picture of his face before he did the press conference. he has this boyish grin on his face. sessions has lived for this. stephen miller, a senior white house aide, has lived for this. he worked for jeff sessions. when they worked in the senate

working tohill, undermine the bipartisan immigration reform, they were in a working group with breitbart , where steve bannon was running the place, they were basically working together to push stories about illegal immigrant crime. they did whatever they could to kill the legislation. now it has come full circle. this is why sessions took that job, to do things like rescind daca. charlie: we will have to wait six months and see what congress does? jonathan: yeah. i think it is highly unlikely congress -- the democrats now have a lot more leverage going into december because donald trump has handed everything they want with the three-month debt ceiling. i assume the democrats will use daca as leverage in negotiations over the debt ceiling or government funding. it remains to be seen whether

they will accept the tough order -- and border protection measures republicans will demand an exchange for what they regard as amnesty. i still think it is a very heavy lift. charlie: where are mcconnell and ryan on this? jonathan: ryan particularly has been quite dedicated to immigration reform. he would like to see this codified into law in some way. again, they will not let anything pass without tough enforcement measures, border security, e-verify, things of that nature. charlie: let me turn to the debt deal, are you surprised? jonathan: yes and no. not only was i surprised, but all of trump's team was surprised. they had gamed this out before hand. they were under the impression trump and the administration were moving towards a deal of some description with mitch mcconnell and paul ryan. that is what you do when you are a republican president. you deal with your republican leaders on capitol hill. charlie: especially when they are in the majority.

jonathan: they are in the majority. but as it has been described to me by multiple people, inside the room, in the oval office, donald trump had a burst of inspiration. there's a lot that has laid the groundwork for this. on a personal level, he cannot stand mitch mcconnell. he is fed up with him. he views him as a failed leader, low energy, thinks he is past his prime. on a personal level, he cannot stand him. trump has never liked paul ryan. he has viewed him as dorky and he cameal, presented out against him after the "access hollywood" tape during the campaign. they had a thawing of the relationship earlier in the year, but it was never genuine. what people said today and yesterday, trump has been

gloating, giddy almost about how he has made ryan and mcconnell squirm. he is rubbing it in their faces. he is talking about this deal with chuck and nancy, sort of parading around this deal he struck with the two democratic leaders on capitol hill. as far as i can establish, and this is from multiple conversations with people around the president, this was not preplanned. this was something he saw in the room. he was frustrated with mcconnell. schumer was playing ball saying how about we do this? steve mnuchin, the treasury secretary, gave a pitch. trump cut him off and sided with chuck schumer. charlie: now you have the reaction from the pundits. some say trump loves the fact a lot of people like the fact he did this. he wants to be loved and he likes this response and it may open the way to the beginning of something new.

he has even suggested that. jonathan: i'm always reticent to herald new eras in trump. i have covered him for two years now. he is a day-to-day player. he is governed by his impulses and what is required to get him through the next day. what is expedient at that moment. there is not a lot of long-range, strategic thinking. i'm not aware of long-range, strategic thinking for a lot of his moves. however, one thing that has been consistent for 30 years is he adores, needs, has insatiable need for media and positive media attention. he does not mind negative media attention. he just needs attention. but better if it is positive. we know he reads "the new york times" and "the new york post" every morning. he was getting some really rough coverage after charlotte stone, rightly so, for saying there fine peopleople --

among the white supremacists marching with tiki torches. yes, people are mocking him for giving away the house to democrats. there is trump paving the path to bipartisanship. he gets to look like the big national leader at a time of national crisis with the hurricane. he gets to look above politics. and he has never identified with the republican party. he never felt like a republican. i went back and looked at his inaugural address today. he explicitly is presenting himself as an enemy of congress, running as the antidote to what is here on capitol hill. charlie: thank you so much. a pleasure to have you on the program. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie: "the deuce" is a new hbo series. the series chronicles the lives of the prostitutes, pimps, and police officers working around times square in 1971. here is the trailer. ♪ >> scary world out here. we could own this street. >> i don't need you or anybody else. >> frankie deals everybody in new york city.

>> we are going to get it and deliver. >> no late payments. >> understood. >> everyone against the van. >> if i was you, i would take any offer that moved your ladies off the pavement. >> been running women off the streets for a while now. the parlors are all paying us. >> this is not news. >> we have called out city corruption before. >> there has been a change. >> it's in the law. something about community standards. >> what about community standards? >> apparently, new york has none. >> pure innovation. we can turn a dime into a dollar just like that. >> i want to learn how to make movies. if they can sell it in europe, we can make and sell it here. >> how do you know? >> this is america, right? >> there's going to be an opportunity coming your way.

>> what am i looking at? >> the future. >> when do we start? >> ♪ charlie: joining me now are the creators and executive producers, david simon and george pelecanos. and the star maggie gyllenhaal. , james franco will join us in later in progress, we hope. [laughter] i am pleased to have all of them here at the table. where did this idea come from? >> we back into it. george and i were working on the show "treme," in new orleans. a guy on the crew had been researching this time in new york and had made contact with a guy who was a mob front on 42nd street, a barman who ran nightclubs and became involved in the massage parlors and other stuff including early pornographic film. as soon as we heard it, we were like, this sounds gratuitous, i am not sure i want to get involved. but mark was persistent and asked us to meet with the

fellow. we did. after about three hours, george and i walked out of that meeting . we pretended to go smoke a cigarette even though neither one of us smoked. we looked at each other and said , my god, we are going to end up doing a show about the rise of pornography. charlie: is that how you saw it? >> yeah, the characters were so rich, we just really couldn't ignore it. it fit into a lot of things we are interested in like labor and gender politics. the labor aspect of it is in this story. the people doing all the work, as is typically true, get the least out of it. they are not working in a factory this time, but selling their own flesh. that was interesting to us and touched on different themes. charlie: i'm sure maggie has things she wants to make sure it does and does not do. >> yes.

i think that was a part of every conversation we had from the first time we met. for me, it was interesting because i have never been involved in anything ready -- where the script was not written before we began. we had three out of eight, and they were incredibly well-written. when you are an actor and read a bunch of scripts, even then, they are sorted through and you're getting the best ones. all of a sudden, you read something like this, and it is like, this is exceptional. i had the impression we all wanted to say the same thing. but i did not know it for sure. charlie: what did you want to say? >> here is what i will say. i did not know exactly what i wanted to say going in. i knew i was interested on an instinctive level. this woman called to me, and the writing called to me. i also thought, aren't i just going right to the center of

things playing a sex worker and exploring misogyny? you can explore misogyny from any place. but to play a sex worker who gets involved in porn, and just in general being a woman in relation to sex, to making money, to art, to your own mind, playing a prostitute is an interesting way in. i guess i was a little nervous about it. in 2017, playing a sex worker is a very delicate thing. and we did not know each other. charlie: did you say if this becomes titillating, maybe i failed? >> exactly. if that is all it is doing and if it is doing it to any point of gratuity. i was worried about it slipping off on either side.

if it becomes puritan and victorian and preachy and we can only allude to what pornography and prostitution are, we don't make it plain and blunt, then we are leaning into "pretty woman" country of mythologizing and not being direct about what is being sold. on the other hand, if the camera lingers too long or if the point of view is skewed towards gratuity, you have fallen off the other side of the fence. landing it was important. maggie made a point. when she did it, i realized something. she came out with this and i thought that is smart. she saw it, not us. i think george and i were most concerned about not getting caught up in making porn. we saw that is the real

criticism of the show we wanted to address and avoid the premise of that. maggie said something, i should probably let you say it, you basically noticed if somebody starts to become titillated by anything onscreen, and these have become real people, these characters are now fundamentally real and human, and you are now engaged in that dynamic of the acquisition of commoditized flesh. that is a point of self reflection for a viewer. >> then you are viscerally involved if you are turned on. why not? who is not turned on by sex and sexuality? that is fair enough. if you are turned on and have to go home with that person and see them take care of their kids, see what their apartment looks like, see the consequences for that person of the work they do, all of a sudden, you have to take responsibility for what just turned you on. then you are really involved in the show.

charlie: this is also about economics. >> absolutely. when this fellow started telling us the stories, the one thing i heard, as george just put it, labor is the product. you have this industry that had suddenly become street legal, pornography. the laborers are the product. to this day, there is no regulation of sex work. you have this moment where this industry springs rapidly into being and these people are pioneers. the opportunity to make an allegory about unencumbered capitalism to me was really special. charlie: take a look at this. this is a clip in which maggie's character candy is telling a pimp that she does not need his support. here it is.

>> i take care of my own self. >> as well you should. >> are you looking for a date? >> i ain't been nothing but good to her. >> where you going, baby? >> scary world out here, baby. a girl could get her arm broke, or she could get cut. this one girl i knew thought she could handle it herself. got served a drano cocktail. >> are you threatening me? >> no. just the opposite. i'm threatening anyone who ever threatened you. >> nobody makes money off -- but me. i'm going to keep what i earn. i don't need you. i don't need anybody else. let me do my thing.

>> save money for me again. >> money, money, money, money. >> yes, ma'am. charlie: we welcome james franco. welcome. we started talking about what the series would be. what brought you to it and tell me about the characters you play. >> i have a long story about how i was brought to it. i was on broadway in "of mice and men" about three and a half years ago. i met with david about a different project that i ultimately could not do, but i said i am your biggest fan. i love "the wire." it is my favorite show. is there anything else in the pipeline? he said he had this show about new york in the 1970's, the rise of pornography. and then he said, but everybody wants to do a show about pornography, and they are going to expect sex, you know, gratuitous nudity, all the stuff.

i am not going to give it to them. i thought, true. knowing david, he and george are some of the absolute perfect people to do this show because they are uninterested in pornography in and of itself. i like to say david's pornography is exposing political corruption. that is like what gets him off. [laughter] >> it takes me a long time. 10 or 12 hours of television. [laughter] >> and i thought, ok, that is great. but what is so great about all of the shows they have done is that they show every different stratum intertwined in whatever subject they are focused on. charlie: always authentic and

real. >> right. despite not wanting to get into the grittiness of pornography itself, it would have to be part of the show. and i thought as a fan of gritty television and film that would balance out all of the political corruption. it would be a little entertaining along with the -- [laughter] charlie: television is a good place to go for both of you. maggie yeah, television is where : it is at. television is where the interesting content is. you can't make an independent movie -- i mean, you can. i made one this summer and we had nothing. i was literally changing my clothing on the staten island ferry. we had nothing. here you have what you need. you can tell really interesting stories. charlie: you are not confined to

an hour and a half. maggie: that's true. i don't think candy's story would work in an hour and a half. >> you would be using shorthand for everything. now the characters, the arc of the brothers, there is no character that cannot be made more human with time. charlie: wider and deeper. >> yeah, wider and deeper. james: the other thing that excited me about this is it was on television. there was a book called "difficult men," where they laid out what has been called the third golden age of television starting with "the sopranos" and , i guess starting with "the sopranos" and "the wire" and shows like that. it became so clear to me. as soon as they started doing fewer episodes because they are on cable or streaming networks, you could spend more money on

episodes. the writers were then able to arc a whole season because they were not encumbered with 20 plus episodes a season. they did not have to go episodically. they could plan everything out a season advance or a series in advance as they have done for this series. maggie: although the other , incredible thing which i had never experienced before, we had three scripts, we started to shoot, i know you had lots of ideas of how you wanted to tell the story. i also felt you guys responding to me. it changed. the ideas changed. who candy was changed. we were having a dialogue and relationship. charlie: is that rare? maggie: i don't know. i felt it really strongly. i have never done that before. i did "honorable woman." but that was completely different, all written and directed by the same person.

we shot it like it was a big movie. we would sometimes shoot episode one episode eight in the same day. it was entirely completed before we started. but this, i felt we were in conversation all the time. not explicitly, but i would read something that felt in direct relation to the way something had been played. i loved that. >> that is the way we work. don't get scared. if you thought about it too much, you have not written the shows yet while you are shooting, you would get shook up. i don't believe in over-outlining a novel either. i like the discovery and the ability to change. charlie: you want to know where you plan to go. >> we have a destination in mind. there are a lot of things to get there that we want to explore. we brought them in as partners first of all, which is also unusual. charlie: as producers. >> yeah. charlie: and directing a couple of episodes.

you are as well? >> no, i said he's directing beautifully i think. charlie: if someone said to you, tell me five reasons why "the wire" was so successful. and let's assume good scripts and good acting, directing, and are essential things. what else was it? >> i think the best stuff at hbo and maybe premium cable in general is about something more than the overt theme. you watch "the sopranos." "the sopranos," is magnificent not because it is a gangster story, it is actually about family. it is about the empty hole at the core of the country, this empty space that the "he who dies with the most toys" part of america cannot fill. and so, if you are watching it to see who got whacked on sunday night, you're seeing one level of "the sopranos." >> and so, if you are watching

it to see who got whacked on sunday night, you're seeing one level of "the sopranos." "the wire" was a critique of this divided america, of the fact that we have two separate americas traveling along the same path, but not really quite connected anymore. charlie: what does the critique induce? >> for us, right now, it is an opportunity to discuss gender politics, which we have done very little of. as we were filming this, we felt like there was something to be said about the culture of pornography and how it was almost this defining example of unencumbered capitalism. we thought that there is an interesting economic story. anyone who wants to save markets will determine the value of things and profit is the metric for measuring what kind of

society you build, take a look at this. watch this product get made. watch this product get marketed. we felt like that was there. the thing that got added while we were filming is we were filming during the election cycle with trump and clinton. and that was -- all of a sudden, i started to feel like "you know what? capitalism is one theme, but misogyny, the fact that this is so ingrained in the culture that, you know, the fact that he was able to run through that moment, through the pussy-grabbing moment and become president of the united states says all you need to know about who we are and how men and women -- charlie: what does this say about who we are? that, and what was directed at clinton and almost every woman in public life. my wife is a novelist. but if you are a essayist,

journalist, novelist, public figure of any kind, and you try to opine or assert in the public realm your ideas, what comes back to you in the comments sections, on twitter, it is how men got to the point where they felt even anonymously that they could talk about women this way. you cannot tell me that does not have something to do with the last 50 years of pornography and becominguitous more and more -- charlie: like a product? >> yeah. in some basic way, something has been transformed in terms of how men and women look at each other, especially how men look at women and what they feel entitled to. and i think this last election cycle really defined that in a way that surprised -- here i am working on a show about misogyny, and this is going on, and i am thinking , "man." charlie: in 2016-2017? >> yeah, we were all on set,

talking about it. >> yeah. i think we thought we were in a different place than my work, and after the result of the election, it was, you know, laid bare. it was all on the table, the level of misogyny we are living with every day. and you cannot make a show about porn without some aspect of it exploring misogyny. it is kind of an amazing time now that i think we have all been forced to take a look at where we really are. let's just talk right now about misogyny and sexism in america. it is an amazing time to be talking about this show and to be airing this show where that is such a major theme. charlie: is there any relevance to the idea of charlottesville and racism? >> well, if you asked me politically what is going on at

this moment in the country, i would say that is the backlash against women and people of color is distinctly linked in the most optimistic way i can imagine. i think we're looking at a moment which is the last primal scream of white males in this society, that last moment of "i just lived through eight years of a president of color. you are asking me to buy in on a female president? and i am going to go kicking and screaming, because what was mine, what i perceived to be my status and privilege within a culture is now being laid bare, entirely vulnerable, and i am fighting back." i don't think you can divorce that from the phenomenon that is donald trump. charlie: how do you write that? [laughter] >> well, if any character said what i just said, we would get him off the page. >> we come from an era when

pornography for us was a playboy, which is basically looking at a picture of a woman's breasts. the same kid today opens his laptop -- charlie: whatever he wants. >> everything, including violent images against women. it cannot help but permeate the psyche of the culture. and this is where we start, the beginning of it. >> but i think, can i say an example of how you wrote it? there is a scene in the second episode where i go to make a porn and instead of cum, they used potato soup and a turkey baster, and they sort of squirt it all over me and another woman's face. ok? it is campbell's potato soup. i can't actually think of a more degrading image.

kind of, likeny, an a sick way, totally explicated, and at the same time character is taking it because that is what she is used to, and she can handle it, and she is totally mesmerized by the lights that they are using to shoot the porn with and the frame of the camera, because she has never seen anything like it before, and actually, she is a filmmaker. in that one image, which is funny, which is awful, and actually kind of heartbreaking, and weirdly, strangely kind of like an opening up of this woman in this other way, you have actually said what we are talking about. without having to write like the political monologue you just gave. that is how you write it. that is one way. mom willt know if my watch this show, but she wanted watches "charlie rose." now i have to go home and explain to dorothy simon -- >> now, your mom is definitely

not going to watch the show, and neither is mine. >> that scene was written by richard price. i want to credit him. good old richard. >> my mom will definitely watch the show. charlie: because of you or me? >> because of the description. [laughter] charlie: because of what we're talking about, even better. tell me about your characters here. >> i play twins. they are identical twins. one of them were responsible of the brothers, and the other is just, you know, a guy who does not think about consequences and have never thought about them his whole life. charlie: always dependent on his brother? >> yeah. the irresponsible one basically gets in trouble, in debt to the mob, and the mafia goes to the responsible brother, they basically tell him "you better bail him out or something bad is going to happen." that starts the chain of events pulls the responsible

brother, vinson, and then frankie into this whole underworld that was opening up with -- it is kind of traced to the mayor at the time, mayor lindsay, who was trying to make the streets of new york look, you know, clean, because he was running for president and so he made some back room deal with the mob if they took the prostitution off the street and put it indoors, they would not be bothered, and so, vincent and frankie kind of get pulled into the world as a front man for that. charlie: here is a conversation between the two brothers right here. clip] >> boo! >> hey! how about a ginger ale? hey, baby brother. working stiff.

you still take my bets then? you still betting? >> let me see. >> i was sitting down at that barstool at that barstool couple of hours ago, looking for you. 30 large. >> who? he came to you? >> because you were in queens. >> no, frankie. this is going to buy your ignorant, degenerate -- i always said you was no fun, and you just proved it. >> yeah? charlie: well, there you go. what is the most interesting thing about your character, candy? >> i guess if i had to pick one thing, it is that she is a sex worker, and that is her job, but i think she is also really an artist, and surprised by being

an artist, and the way she finds out she is an artist is by going to someone's basement and making a porn, and it wakes her up in a way she cannot put back to sleep. >> there is a scene late in the run where you're trying to explain to the guy with the camera that he is doing it wrong, and she is basically throwing the truffaut-hitchcock dialectic of how the camera should move at the guy, but of course, she knows it instinctively. and we had a lot of fun with that. well, "nevermind, mr. truffle, or whoever." nevermind the textbook, i can see that is wrong. that is the artist. charlie: thank you. great to see you. pleasure to have you. >> happy to be back. charlie: "deuce" airs sunday nights at 9:00 p.m. on hbo. stay with us. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: reid hoffman is here. he is one of silicon valleys most respected and savviest investors. he cofounded linkedin, the social networking site. microsoft announced plans to acquire linkedin for more than $26 billion. the deal is expected to close later this year.

hoffman is a partner at greylock, the venture capital firm has backed some of tech's successes in the past decade, including bets on facebook, dropbox, and airbnb. let me turn to your company, linkedin. you sold it to microsoft for $26 billion? how long ago did you form this company? reid: so almost 15 years. it was late 2002, when we started working on it. it has been a labor of love, like all labors. charlie: ok, but at what place was facebook at that time? reid: facebook in 2002 had not been started yet. charlie: had not been founded yet? >> had not been founded yet. charlie: he was not in harvard at that time or whatever? reid: he either just got to harvard or was just getting into harvard. charlie: you started linkedin before facebook was a reality? you decided what are my needed

people needed was a place that a lot of people of a similar sort of interest in terms of their professional lives could communicate with each other? reid: yes. the thought was is that part of what the internet changes is we all have our identities online and having your professional identity online can make a difference for what kind of jobs you can find, what kind of economic opportunities you can find. the best way to improve a system is to enable people to help each other. that can be a great economic opportunity and that was the basic idea behind linkedin. charlie: how many people use it now? reid: over 430 million. charlie: over 400 and 30 million? >> yes. facebook has 1.3 billion or something like that? reid: it may be bigger than that. who knows. charlie: where can it go? what is the possibility of linkedin? reid: we hope to enable every professional. what we mean by professional is someone who can learn better skills at their job, not like lawyers and doctors. it is actually everyone. it can be a coffee store manager, anybody.

able to change their economic trajectory, to be able to make better of themselves in terms of what kind of economics they make, what kind of job. charlie: and other people may have ideas or connections? >> ideas, information, connections for business, learning opportunities. anything that allows you to invest in yourself and have a better economic outcome. charlie: so why did you sell it? >> we, both jeff and i, jeff weiner, the ceo, we both are in lead the same way, which is in service to the mission. how do we enable our members to have the best possible, you know, experience of investing in themselves? and it was a long, very thought out decision. we said combining with microsoft, microsoft's primary mission is making work productive. we care about individuals. so we thought actually, in fact, one plus one can be much greater than two. is it five, is it 10? that way we can add in our

missions, which are essentially friends, collaborators. and this could actually help us reach our mission. there are a ton of people who use microsoft products productively everyday. maybe we can be underlying office, windows. there are things we can do to make it much more helpful. charlie: when you look around at the big five, they seem like the best? >> yes. in order to get to -- for our mission. charlie: for your mission? >> for our mission. help individuals with their best possible economic opportunity, help them be more productive. those are the things we care about at linkedin. we are perfectly happy with people being entertained, with people, you know, kind of having a public discourse on funny cat pictures or anything else. that is great. that should be part of people's lives. it is awesome. that is not what we do. what we do is we help you get to the best possible ways of doing your job or the best possible -- charlie: has there been an

acceleration of growth in the last several years? or hasn't simply been steady? reid: it has been a light acceleration with big numbers. charlie: the mass is heavy, and therefore you -- reid: exactly. it took us 468 days to get to our first one million members. now we are over 430 million members. charlie: talk about virtual reality? >> there have been many cycles where people describe virtual reality as the next big thing. we are in another one of them. each time, virtual reality is better. if people have not checked out virtual reality, they should. it is now getting to the where point the science-fiction of maybe we will take our classes for our kids, maybe that will be in virtual reality. maybe all discussions and conferences, maybe "the charlie rose show" will be in reform virtual reality. there is a lot of prospects. before we really see there is kind of science fiction futures, we will begin to see more mass-market adoption of either a movie thing or an entertainment

thing. and i think the technology is definitely good enough for it. are we there yet? charlie: they would film a movie in virtual reality? reid: and the way you would show up to experience the movie -- charlie: i am sure we demonstrated on this program and i am sure everybody that watches this knows about it, but you would, if you are watching a movie major virtual reality, you would feel like you were on the set? reid: you would be a character in the movie. that would actually be the way you would experience it. i think we are certainly going to see it. the only question is when. three years? five years? seven years? 10 years? charlie: artificial intelligence, which i am enormously interested in -- give us the lay of the land, give us a sense of why everybody, whether it is facebook or google or whether it is anybody. reid: most of the techniques

being used are seeing amazing results, whether it is the world go, whether itha is these great results in radiology and being able to read cancer charts better than the vast majority of doctors and the ability to do self driving cars, all of these things, the techniques have evolved some, but there actually has not been a game changing new algorithm. that is the cloud, a lot of cpus and data. you can use techniques developed over the last decades and use them on a much bigger scale. that is essentially what has created the current ai revolution. and what it allows, the way to think about it is decisions that human beings can do in one second can now be, through large data set, trained to the massive server farms in the cloud, can now be done by computers. classification of images, driving,f language, those are all decisions under one second. all of that classification comes

essentially from these deep learning networks which allow the program, through integration of multiple human lifetimes of data, because that is how the computer does it is that it in gests so much data that it actually can make decisions in that kind of things like humans. that is the revolution we are seeing. everything from self driving to medical, parsing language, to -- literally, the sky is the limit. charlie: what it can do is because ofhow, algorithms it has in the development of the app, it can figure out how to analyze the information. reid: basically what happens is they are classifiers. is this an "a" or is this a "b?" left or right? it is making these classification decisions. there is supervised learning and unsupervised learning. supervisors are human, they go in and say "here are the cases

when you should decide this is an "a" and when you decide this is not an "a." unsupervised gives it is very broad, like a simple example is, "ok, a robot. i wanted to move from the side of the warehouse to that side of the warehouse. i am not going to teach you had to move, how to walk, how to roll, how to hop. i am simply going to give you a score with a gps locator moving toward the right thing." the robot will learn -- most of them learn to walk. some of them learn to roll, some of them learn to hop. you keep doing it. that is unsupervised learning. you are not teaching at the actual specifics other than giving it a high score. charlie: it teaches itself? >> yes. charlie: it teaches itself by doing what? trial and error? reid: what happens is these ai algorithms are smart enough that they build, essentially, a classifiers.

they realize that "when i moved my legs this way, my score of getting closer to my end goal went better, so that is good. so now i am teaching myself how to walk. how do i learn to do that better so that now i can walk?" that is the kind of thing that is the magic of what we are seeing with these algorithms and modern artificial intelligence. charlie: when you take all of these kinds of things -- is anything about this that worries you? reid: broadly, like many of my folks in silicon valley, i am a techno-utopian. i believe technology leads to great progress. there can be a lot of pain and sorting it out. it is not that it is 100% -- anything that happens technologically is good, that is foolishness. our notions of privacy change. if someone had described you facebook before it existed, he would have gone "that seems like an awful invasion of privacy," and yet over one billion people every day are using this, sharing experiences, and pictures. that being said, what i think is

key is to surface issues to pay attention to the issues and try to navigate the technology to get most of the benefits. it is like, you know, people have always been worried about the industrial revolution, manufacturing revolution information revolution, always , worried about the downsides. they should be. it is not wrong to be worried about it. but if we look back at our own history, we go "we are a lot better off when we deploy those revolutions and we figure out how to make humanity better." and we change things, we put in child labor laws. there are things that are really important. "let us make sure we solve privacy. i think we need to solve privacy of medical data and that kind of thing." theif we can get all medical data in some kind of computational way, we can lead healthier lives and

identify key diseases earlier and their pubic. those things are important. so broadly speaking, i am a utopian, but that is not -- like for example, let us take one of the classic ones around ai. witches, are we going to have great labor to translocutions? the short answer is yes. the short answer is we should be trying to do something about that. charlie: in other words robots will be doing jobs that people do today. >> that is already happening with many fracturing. it happens. the thing we need to do is come as a society, help the people who are being shifted to find other productive ways of being good members of society, and it is not welfare. my job here matters. i can do something fun. we should do that together. both as entrepreneurs and as government. we should all do that. the big one will be self driving. ♪ >> economic nationalism is what this country was built on. the american system. right? we go back to that and look after our own, our citizens, our

manufacturing base. guess what? this country is going to be greater more united, more , powerful. this is not astrophysics. by the way, that is every nationality, every race, every religion, every sexual preference, as long as you are a citizen of our country. as long as you are an american citizen, you are part of this populace, economic nationalist movement. by the way, that is 65% 70% of the country. we will get there. that is why clinton is so -- the smart guys in the democratic party get it. tim ryan gets this. the guys get this. the people around schumer get this. they understand it. they are trying to get the identity politics out. they are trying to run. the only question before us -- "is it going to be a left-wing populism or a right-wing populism? " that is the question that will be answered in 2020. ♪

♪ emma: i am emma chandra in new york and you are watching "bloomberg technology." irma has been downgraded to a tropical storm, but still caused significant damage. it crossed into georgia where it produced storm surges along the coast with south carolina. 800,000 people in georgia without electricity. in florida, more than 6 million were without power. officials in georgia say at least one person has been killed as a result of irma. irma has been blamed for two deaths in florida. the toll is expected to rise. the u.k. has defended its