(Tina Quigley) We are winning, obviously.

The fact that we've got these major studios interested at the same time in coming here is indicative of the fact that something is going to happen here.

(Amber Renee Dixon) Two powerhouse film studios want to set up shop in Southern Nevada.

That's if the state provides certain perks.

What they are, that's this week on Nevada Week.

♪♪♪♪♪ Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hernstadt.

Welcome to Nevada Week.

I'm Amber Renee Dixon, and the woman you just heard from was Tina Quigley, President and CEO of the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance.

At Caesars Forum is where the Regional Development Authority recently held its 44th annual Perspective.

That's Southern Nevada's largest economic development event, and it's where the CEO of Sony Pictures explained his plans for Las Vegas.

(Tony Vinciquerra) For lack of a better term, it's a no-brainer, because talent, directors, talent all want to come here.

Everybody I talk to--producers, talent, directors--in Los Angeles, most of whom live in Los Angeles, say they'd much rather come to Las Vegas because they can go home on weekends instead of having to stay in the location where they would be for three or four months to do a TV or film show.

In Atlanta, for instance.

The plan is to build about 31 acres, 10 stages, 10 soundstages, office space, woodworking shops, metal working shops.

It's about 65% of the size of our facility in Los Angeles.

This will be the only other facility that Sony Pictures has to produce film and television.

-But Sony Pictures now has competition.

Just two days before Sony's CEO is set to speak at the Perspective event, Warner Brothers Discovery announced its plans to operate and fully occupy Nevada Studios at UNLV's Harry Reid Research and Technology Park.

Like Sony, Warner Brothers says this is all contingent on Nevada's legislature approving a certain amount of film tax credit.

So what's the State to do?

For insight into that, we bring in April Corbin Girnus, Deputy Editor of Nevada Current; and McKenna Ross, Reporter for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Welcome, ladies.

And help me understand, April.

Can the State have both of these film studios, or do they have to decide between one or the other?

(April Corbin Girnus) They could do both.

In the 2023 legislative session, there was a bill for a film tax credit program that involved two studios.

At the time, Warner Brothers wasn't attached to the project.

It was just UNLV and Birtcher Development.

But there were two studios in that bill.

That bill did not pass, which I think a lot of people are reading into being like, probably not both.

It is looking more and more like it'll be either/or.

Right now we know that Sandra Jaurequi is an assemblywoman, and she is sponsoring a bill for Sony.

And then there's a State Senator, Roberta Lang, who introduced it last session.

She's coming back and doing another bill for Warner Brothers.

It's looking like there will be two paths and two different bills, one for each studio.

But technically, the legislature could do both of them, but it probably seems unlikely is the sort of rumblings.

But they can do whatever they want.

-And McKenna, I'm guessing that's because of the amount of film tax credits that are being offered.

(McKenna Ross) Exactly.

Yeah, you know, two years ago in the first bill, it was as much as $190 million annually for those film tax credits.

This next go around, they're saying it could be about 95 million.

So nearly half cut down.

And with half, that seems to cut down the number of studios that could be possible.

I imagine that both of those projects will need every dollar that they can get from the state, or at least want every dollar they can get from the state.

And so compromise might be a challenge.

-And one of the things to remember is that it is-- the current film tax credit program is $10 million a year.

So that's a huge jump, even to 95 or 100 is the numbers that are being thrown around now, let alone the sort of 190 that was first pitched in this.

It's a massive leap.

-A major expansion.

So the legislature, when it convenes in 2025, is going to have these two plans.

And we asked Sony's CEO why their plan with the Howard Hughes Corporation is better.

Here he is on that, followed by the CEO of Howard Hughes.

-And what would you tell lawmakers about why your plan is better than Warner Brothers?

-Well, I don't know that it is better.

It's just ready to go, and we're-- we want to invite other studios to come work in Las Vegas as well.

The plan that we have doesn't preclude others from producing here.

From what I've seen of the Warner Brothers plan, it would take all of the incentives for them, and no one else would be able to enjoy the incentives here in Nevada.

(David O'Reilly) This is very unique, this bill, because it requires the construction and development of permanent facilities before you're able to access the credits.

You don't get the credits just for production.

You have to have local talent working on the site.

You have to build permanent facilities.

And we have a long-term commitment to make sure those permanent facilities are going to be used and that we will diversify the local economy here in a meaningful way.

-Been working on it for three years.

It's shovel ready; it's ready to go.

I don't know that that one is.

We are.

We're just waiting for the legislature to approve the incentive program, and we're ready to start digging dirt in Summerlin.

-McKenna, what stands out to you as the key differences between-- should we say two plans or two bills?

Because, I mean, the legislature is not in session.

-Right.

I mean, I think either could kind of work, because right now they're presented as different bill draft requests in the legislature.

And that just means, you know, there's an Assembly version sponsored by Sandra Jauregui, and there's the Senate version sponsored by Roberta Lang.

And so two plans to build-- -And plans have been submitted already?

-Well, they've been submitted as bill draft requests.

We can't see the full text of, you know, what it'll be until it goes into, until we go into session in the winter.

-Got it.

Okay.

So what are the key differences between these two plans?

-Right now, that money that went down from the previous proposal, that's a big difference.

But between Sony's plan and between Warner Brothers' plans, they're very similar.

You know, about 30-something acres in the Southwest Vegas, in Vegas area, just in different development spots, and both try to incorporate educational components and vocational components of some kind.

That's a really big component of these proposals, because these state legislators understand that they need to keep these film studios in Nevada, investing in Nevada and actually staying.

You know, film credits have a reputation around the country of not really being worth the investment that they seem to be in the beginning.

And so I think these legislators are trying to propose alternatives that would show that the studios are investing in Southern Nevada for the long term.

-April, how would you describe the response to that critique, that film tax credits haven't been all that helpful to other states' economies, so why is Nevada different?

-Yeah.

Sony and Warner Brothers have both suggested that what makes-- what sets apart their proposals in Nevada is that it is tied to the direct building of the studio.

So if you think of the film tax credit in places like Georgia and Atlanta, where we know that there's a lot of stuff filmed, that's usually sort of temporary sets or things that are done.

So what both of these studios are proposing is an actual facility, an actual campus, which I think shows bigger buy-in and more permanent jobs, and kind of that's the argument there.

And the Sony CEO, when he was asked that question at the Perspective event, said, Hey, if it wasn't working in other states, they wouldn't do it.

I think the pushback to that is a lot of people think that the State, particularly Nevada, has no problem wasting money in that sense.

So I think there is whether or not you agree with that sentiment is debatable.

That's the sort of general idea, is that, Hey, if it wasn't working, people wouldn't be clamoring to do this, but they are.

So that's the kind of-- that's their argument in a nutshell.

-When you talk about actually building facilities, Tina Quigley, President and CEO of the LVGA, echoed those same sentiments.

And as you heard earlier, said, Las Vegas is the winner in all of this.

Let's hear the rest of that sound bite from her now.

-We are winning, obviously.

The fact that we've got these major studios interested at the same time in coming here is indicative of the fact that something is going to happen here, and it is going to help diversify our economy.

I don't know if you heard, but Tony mentioned the average salary of these jobs is over $100,000.

That is a big deal to a community like ours, where the average wage is about 50-, 60,000.

-So big deal for Southern Nevada.

What about Northern Nevada, because their lawmakers are going to have to approve this as well?

-Yeah.

There isn't any, as far as we know right now, any component of including Northern Nevada in this.

When this question came up during the 2023 legislature, there was sort of a minor push to include Jeremy Renner, who lives in Northern Nevada.

Came to the legislature, was like, Hey, we should do something for Northern Nevada in this.

And people sort of listened, but it was never incorporated into that proposal in any sort of meaningful way.

Again, the whole thing didn't even pass.

It hasn't really come up again this time around.

And it's important to note also, when we were having those conversations in 2023, Roberta Lang made comments basically saying, This is a project and a proposal for Southern Nevada, and that is okay.

Like the argument is, the Nevada State Legislature did a lot for Northern Nevada through the Tesla deal and through TRIC, their sort of, you know, warehouse manufacturing thing up there, billions of dollars spent in there in public subsidies and development, and that's been a boon for Northern Nevada.

So she's saying, This is our version of your Tesla plan.

This is something that is for Southern Nevada.

It makes regional sense it's in Southern Nevada.

Reno is really far from LA.

So this is for Nevada, for Southern Nevada, and it should stay that way, I think is the vibe.

-The 2023 proposal, how far did that get?

It obviously didn't become law.

And why was that?

-You know, the sponsors behind it said that it just came up too late.

They really started discussing it in the late spring, and the legislature wraps up in June.

So I don't believe it even made it to a floor vote.

So there was not really an opportunity to take it too much more, take it farther, but the advocates really pushed for it.

As April said, there were actors up there trying to get the attention on it.

So Northern Nevada lawmakers definitely heard the plan.

Whether or not that they would have voted for it, though, is a totally different story.

-Was that a tactic, to introduce it kind of last minute, do you think?

-I don't think so.

I don't think we ever confirmed whether or not it was sort of planned.

It was introduced, as McKenna said, within the last month of the legislative session.

And if you don't recall that, that was also around the time when they were, the legislators were still discussing the A's stadium.

So there was a lot going on in terms of legislative push and lobbying and stuff like that.

So that might have been two major projects that there was not enough bandwidth to hear both of them anyway.

And I think behind the scenes there may have been, you know-- we got rumblings that originally the project was for Sony, and then UNLV and Birtcher came in, knowing they would probably bring in another studio.

That sort of tension we're seeing now between the studios was probably there in 2023.

We just weren't apparent with it.

I think there were a lot of factors involved there, but we'll see.

-How are you aware of that tension?

-I mean, it's obvious.

I mean, there are rumblings.

People talk about it.

And obviously, when you talk about legislative stuff, there's a lot that happens behind the scenes and a lot of people willing to share their opinions about things, sort of off the record or on background and things, and they have opinions about it.

But it is hard for people to speak publicly, especially right now early in the process, because, obviously, it's August right now.

The legislative session doesn't start until February.

That's a long, long time for things to change, and all of that.

-Because, McKenna, what has Sony's official kind of response to Warner Brothers jumping in been?

-You know, the Sony CEO last week at Perspective, he was kind of-- he shrugged it off a little bit.

He was like, I don't know if there's really capacity for two studios, but we'll see.

And, you know, he was very polite, didn't try to push back and say that the Warner Brothers plan was, you know, worse in any way.

"Just different" was how he phrased it.

But certainly he believes that his project is the best one and would want all of the incentives that he could get.

-Yeah.

He used the term "shovel ready" how many times?

I mean, I think that's how he distinguished his plan was, We're ready to go; whereas, I'm not so sure Warner Brothers is.

Where do you see-- I mean, how will legislators pick between these two, then, if they don't have that many differences?

-If I knew the answer to that, I'd make a lot of money from state lawmakers.

It's going to be a battle, for sure.

It's definitely going to be.

As you just mentioned, Sony is ahead of the game in terms of the already-- both of these studios already have land, because, you know, Sony has Howard Hughes developer, and they have that plot of land in Summerlin.

They've already been approved by Clark County Zoning for use of that land.

So that pretty far-- that's why he's saying, We're shovel ready; we are ready to go.

The Warner Brothers is with UNLV.

UNLV owns that plot of land over in the southwest, so they already have that sort of space, which is obviously a big issue there.

But it's going to come down to sort of legislative muscle, you know?

And these are big players in the legislative-- Sony and Warner Brothers, are huge names and have a lot of money and background.

They could fill the-- they could fill Carson City with-- like with celebrities, you know, to pitch their projects.

And they're going to spend a lot of money, I think, on this.

At the same time, Howard Hughes is a developer, obviously built Summerlin, very well known in Las Vegas, even if they're not actually based here anymore.

You know, they have a lot of might in there.

UNLV is obviously a huge institution that people want to see succeed and want to do well.

There's going to be a lot of players in there.

How it shakes out, I don't know.

We'll see.

-You brought up the A's stadium, and Sony's CEO did as well at that Perspective event.

The differences in funding between how the A's stadium is getting funded versus these film tax credits?

-They have emphasized that they won't get these film tax credits until there's a studio built.

And so, you know, they say it could be around $500 million to build some sort of, you know, stage, sound space, and all of the ancillary buildings that go along with it.

So-- but they won't get those tax credits until the development of the project is done.

And I think maybe that was the argument he was making-- -Yeah.

--that it's different from the A's stadium, and that A's get some funding up front, right?

-I think that's a general response to try and separate it from that, because the A's session, I mean, the A's bill passed the legislature.

But I think through the public perception, there's a lot of pushback on that.

And the appetite towards giving public subsidies, whether or not they are raising a room tax rate for something or indirectly through a tax abatement program, I think those types of public subsidies are getting a big pushback from people.

I think people in Nevada are feeling strained in their own families and in their wallets and economically, and they're wondering why the State is helping businesses that are profitable, like, because-- and I think that's the pushback he's trying to get.

I don't know that the argument necessarily stands up, but that's certainly why he's trying to distance himself from that, because that has proven to be fairly unpopular in the public when you talk to them about it.

And we've seen that more and more with Tesla and all of these big deals that we've done.

-Ladies, thank you so much for joining Nevada Week.

And we move now to artificial intelligence and its impact on elections.

Last week, we talked with AI Ethics Consultant Reid Blackman about deep fakes, those digitally altered videos and images.

We first met him last year at the artificial intelligence conference Ai4.

And for Part 2 of our discussion, we're talking about chatbots.

That's the type of AI that Nevada's Secretary of State, Francisco Aguilar, says he's most concerned about.

You'll hear from him first, followed by Blackman.

(Francisco Aguilar) This is the first election where artificial intelligence will have a presence.

I had the great opportunity to participate in a test with several of the chatbots.

I was able to ask them questions related to Nevada elections, and it was really concerning.

I'm not concerned-- yes, I'm concerned about deepfakes and the information we actually see in real time, but we have an ability to respond to those situations and to deal with them.

It's the information being given by the chatbots and AI that we don't know is being given.

For example, we know that young people are more likely to adopt that technology than others.

And if they're a first-time voter, they may ask, When do I need to register to vote?

And the information the chatbot gave was "Three weeks in advance of the election," which is wrong.

In Nevada, we have same-day voter registration, which means we just turned away a potential young voter from participating.

That's a big issue, because we don't know it's occurring, we don't know how often it's occurring, and the youth vote could be a strong determinator in who the President of the United States is, because our margins are so slim.

And if a certain number of people are using this as information, they're not going to participate.

-Okay.

So can you simply explain what a chatbot is and then your reaction to what he has experienced?

(Reid Blackman) Yeah, sure.

A chatbot is-- I mean, most of our viewers probably have interacted with a chatbot in some way.

They've been online in some little pop-up box that says, Can I help you?

And it's not a person, it's a computer program.

It's a piece of software.

You say, Yeah, I want to return my item.

Or, you know, How long do I-- how long is the refund policy?

You interact with it, talk to it like a person.

-A lot of government institutions are utilizing these.

-Right.

Now, importantly, there's two different ways, or there's, broadly speaking, two different ways of doing a chatbot.

There's called the old school and the new school way.

The new school way is using like a ChatGPT.

So this is large language model.

It's ChatGPT.

There's another company called Anthropic that has Claude.

Google has-- Do they call it Bard?

No, I think now they call it Gemini.

So there's all these large language models.

This is the most cutting edge large language model chatbot technology.

That stuff-- so that's in one bucket.

One thing that's important about that bucket is that it's well known for generating what gets called hallucinations or some people call confabulations.

In short, it just outputs false information.

So if it doesn't know the answer, it'll just make it up.

Some people call it-- it's a BS machine.

-Oh, my!

-It doesn't just say, Oh, here's the answer.

It does so confidently in many cases.

So that's large language models, and they can be used as chatbots.

The danger is that they can output false information.

So-called old school chatbots, what I'm calling old school chatbots, they don't have that kind of flexibility.

You, like, preprogram it with the questions and answers, and so it can't go off the rails, because it's just on very specific rails.

If you say, you know, When is Election Day?

If it's not programmed to say, It's on this day, then it won't say it.

If it says, It's on this day, it'll say that day.

So it's very clear-cut.

It can say this; it cannot say that.

If you're using a large language model of that first-bucket variety and there's crucial information--When's Election Day?

When do I have to register by?

Whatever it is--that's dangerous.

That seems quite dangerous, because it can hallucinate.

It can make up false information.

And then you have people misguided, not through any fault of their own, and then they either they don't wind up voting or they vote for people that they didn't want to vote for because they falsely believed what the beliefs of the person or the policy positions were.

If we're talking about an old school chatbot, that's fine.

I don't see any reason why you would use a large language model for this kind of case.

If it's just purely information about, you know, things like When is Election Day and Where can I vote, things like that, there's no reason to use this large language model stuff.

-Well, I think the idea is that young people, for example, are going to say, Hey, ChatGPT, tell me when the election day is, or When can I register to vote?

You're saying that's not that common?

-Well, I don't think we have any reason to think that Google has been unseated.

If it were the case that young people were flocking to, say, a ChatGPT, not using Google Search and using ChatGPT instead, we'd see a lot more headlines about it.

Google would be very worked up about it.

And they are worked up about Search to some extent, but it's more it's a fear.

It's a proactive thing, as opposed to what we're seeing right now is the youth flocking to large language model chatbots to do their search, instead of, say, Google or Bing for whoever uses that.

So I don't see it as a problem yet.

It's a scale issue.

Look, are there-- might there be some people, young or old, who go to ChatGPT to get information and turn out to be false information?

Yeah, that's-- I'd be surprised if that weren't the case.

But what's the scale here?

If we're talking about, you know, a dozen people, no big deal.

If we're talking about 100,000 people, big deal.

I don't think we have a sense of what the scale is of people using large language models to ferret out information of high importance like, How do I vote?

But if we do see that, yeah, that's a real worry.

-And similarly, you can get on Google and find false information.

-Exactly, right.

Plenty of people will Google stuff, and they'll find fake news websites.

They'll find just bad advice, and they'll follow that, and that's a bad idea too.

-Earlier you-- Oh, I'm sorry.

-No.

So then just the question is, is the rate at which people are getting false information from a ChatGPT relevant to election cycle or election requirements?

Is it so outpacing the false information that people get, say, from a standard Google search?

And I haven't seen any research to indicate that there's a big delta there.

-Earlier, you talked about watermarks as a potential regulation.

How would that even come to be?

Would that be federal legislation?

I mean, would there be consequences if it was found?

Who would regulate this in the first place?

-Nobody really knows.

There's not-- so there's two things.

One is, who's going to regulate it?

And the short answer is, could be federal, probably unlikely, although they're trying to push for it.

And there could be state legislatures that do it.

So that's plausible that they could pass such a thing.

But then there's a technical problem.

Can we actually create these watermarks in a way that's reliable?

Can we create watermarks that don't get hacked?

And we don't have that yet.

Researchers are working on this sort of thing.

There's also debate, Should we be watermarking fake content, or should we be watermarking the true content?

Maybe what we do is, instead of trying to figure out what all the fake stuff is and watermarking that, maybe we have like, a stamp of approval, a stamp of verification for things that come from PBS Nevada or the New York Times or CNN or whatever it is.

So let's try to watermark the stuff that we have verified the source of, as opposed to watermarking the stuff that we can't verify the source of.

So there's also this sort of strategic debate about which way should we go.

And that is, in part, a technical question.

-Where would you start in regulating AI?

-Oh, man, where would I start regulating?

So the way that I like to think about it is there are some things that are illegal and some things that are unethical.

And a lot of stuff is already illegal.

So discriminating against people of color, for instance, is illegal.

Those questions about how to take antidiscrimination law and apply it to cases in which AI may discriminate against people, as an example.

But at least there's strong foundation for, Here's the foundation of antidiscrimination law.

Here's how it should or does apply to AI now.

Some of that stuff is-- and then you have some things that are unethical but not illegal.

You have some things that are unethical but we don't want to regulate against.

I know this is sort of a long answer, but some things are unethical that you don't want to regulate against.

So for instance, it's unethical to cheat on your spouse, let's say, right, but we don't want it to be illegal.

That would be too much government power to put people in jail or impose fines on people for cheating on their spouses, though it is unethical.

So when I hear the question, something like, How do you want to regulate AI?

The thing that comes to mind is, Okay, so what are the things that are already not illegal?

Notice that fraud is illegal already, right?

So if you're conducting fraud or discrimination by AI, that's likely going to be illegal as it is.

So what are the things that are unethical with AI that are not currently illegal that should be legal?

-Should be legal or illegal?

-Sorry, you're right, should be illegal.

What are things that should be illegal that are not already?

-Okay.

-It can't just be, Well, this is unethical, so it should be illegal.

That's not the case.

And so that's a really hard question to answer, and it's not clear.

My general stance towards regulation probably has evolved since the last time we spoke a year ago, which is that I think we're jumping a little bit too quickly into most regulation.

I'd like to see more, Let's take the law that we have now and see how it applies, like antidiscrimination law.

There is speculation by various parties about what the capabilities of AI are, what people are going to do with it, and we don't have a ton of evidence about what are the actually bad things that are going down.

We have fear, but not a lot of good evidence of, Here's all the bad stuff that's going on right now that's having really bad impacts.

And in the presence of that fear and in the presence of that ignorance, that's a bad place to start creating wise regulations from.

-Reid Blackman, maybe we'll have you back next year and see how much has changed.

Thank you for joining Nevada Week.

-Thanks for having me.

-And thank you for watching.

To see Part 1 of that interview, go to vegaspbs.org/nevadaweek.

That's also where you'll find the Guinn Center's report on "Artificial Intelligence and Elections."

For now, I'm Amber Renee Dixon, and I'll see you next week on Nevada Week.