Zuck's AI Safety Pitch, Canada Turns to Europe, and Kash Patel on Bestiality

Summary of Zuck's AI Safety Pitch, Canada Turns to Europe, and Kash Patel on Bestiality

by New York Magazine

1h 6m•September 18, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of Pivot

This episode of Pivot mixes the show’s usual banter with a few major political and tech stories: Mark Carney’s push to deepen Canada’s ties with Europe as a hedge against Trump, Mark Zuckerberg’s attempt to reframe Meta as serious about AI safety, and the bizarre Capitol Hill hearing where Kash Patel was pressed on an FBI policy involving bestiality. The hosts also welcome Jessica Tarlov to discuss her book I Disagree, which becomes a broader conversation about how to argue productively in an era of polarization, algorithmic outrage, and “dunking” culture.

Tour Announcement and Opening Banter

  • Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway announce a new Pivot tour, with stops including:
    • New York City
    • Toronto
    • Minneapolis
    • Los Angeles
    • San Francisco
    • Denver
  • They joke about guests, audience demand, and city-specific politics.
  • The opening stretches into a long back-and-forth about:
    • The Sydney Sweeney ad controversy
    • Whether her branding strategy is smart or dumb
    • How sexuality, celebrity, and outrage are monetized
  • The tone is intentionally argumentative and comedic, setting up the episode’s larger theme: disagreement as both entertainment and dysfunction.

Canada Turns Toward Europe

Mark Carney’s message

  • Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney addresses the EU Parliament and argues that Canada and Europe are “stronger together.”
  • The hosts frame this as Canada seeking strategic diversification away from dependence on the U.S.
  • Carney emphasizes:
    • Resilience
    • Sovereignty
    • Democratic values
    • Rule of law
  • He also makes clear he is not proposing a new great-power bloc “with better manners.”

Trump’s reaction

  • Trump reportedly sees Canada’s EU overture as hostile and threatens tariffs.
  • The discussion suggests Trump’s style of diplomacy has pushed allies to look elsewhere.
  • Key takeaway: Canada is not abandoning the U.S., but it is clearly looking for backup.

Jessica Tarlov on disagreement

  • Tarlov argues Carney is essentially “parenting” Trump: being polite, setting boundaries, and then escalating when necessary.
  • She says this is a good example of how to disagree without permanently cutting people off.
  • The hosts connect this to the broader politics of relationship management, leverage, and national dignity.

The Zack/Musk/AI Safety Debate

Zuckerberg’s message

  • Mark Zuckerberg posts that AI labs should prioritize safety and that companies can regulate themselves through competition and legal liability.
  • Kara and Scott are skeptical of this argument, saying it amounts to companies grading their own homework.
  • Meta’s delayed release of its AI agent is cited as evidence, but not persuasive enough to calm concerns.

Core argument of the segment

  • The hosts argue:
    • AI companies are too powerful to self-police effectively.
    • Public trust is low.
    • Government regulation is weak or inconsistent.
    • Industry leaders have financial incentives to downplay risk.
  • Scott compares the situation to a major public-safety crisis where the people in charge are also the ones profiting.

Broader concern

  • The discussion moves from “AI may be dangerous” to “who is actually accountable?”
  • Kara argues the real issue is not the technology itself but the companies and people wielding it.
  • They emphasize that the current moment feels like an industry sprinting ahead without adult supervision.

The Media Chill Around Elon Musk

  • New York magazine discusses reports that Universal may be nervous about releasing a documentary about Elon Musk internationally.
  • The hosts frame this as an example of the chilling effect around powerful figures, especially when political pressure is in the background.
  • They argue that media companies increasingly fear:
    • Litigation
    • Political retaliation
    • Regulatory scrutiny
  • The broader takeaway is that journalism about powerful people is becoming riskier for studios and distributors, even when the content is legitimate and newsworthy.

Bernie Sanders, Steve Bannon, and AI Regulation

  • The episode notes a strange convergence: Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon both speaking at a bipartisan AI summit and calling for tighter regulation.
  • They agree that AI decision-making should not be left to a few billionaire CEOs.
  • The hosts find this politically surreal but substantively important.
  • Main point:
    • AI could reduce jobs
    • AI could also improve medicine, logistics, and productivity
    • But the upside and downside are being decided by a small, wealthy elite
  • They argue that regulation is inevitable, but the key question is whether it comes before a crisis.

Kash Patel, Bestiality, and the Breakdown of Seriousness

The hearing

  • The most absurd segment of the episode centers on Kash Patel being questioned by Senator John Kennedy about an FBI hiring policy that did not immediately disqualify applicants with prior bestiality offenses.
  • The clip is treated as both grotesque and darkly funny.
  • Kennedy’s questioning is presented as a symbol of how degraded and unserious parts of government discourse have become.

What the hosts think it means

  • The hosts say the hearing reflects:
    • The absurdity of the administration
    • The normalization of grotesque political theater
    • A growing willingness among Republicans to challenge Trump appointees
  • They joke through the segment heavily, but the underlying point is serious: institutional standards are visibly eroding.

Why Disagreement Matters

Jessica Tarlov’s segment becomes the episode’s conceptual anchor.

Her core thesis

  • People are too quick to:
    • Interrupt
    • Perform
    • Grandstand
    • “Dunk” instead of persuade
  • She argues that effective disagreement requires:
    • Listening
    • Timing
    • Emotional discipline
    • Knowing when not to keep pushing

How it applies

  • The hosts connect this to politics, family life, cable news, and online culture.
  • They argue that modern disagreement often becomes dominance rather than dialogue.
  • Tarlov says she feels calmer and more grounded because of her work arguing for a living.

Closing Thoughts and Predictions

Paramount and California

  • Scott predicts Paramount will eventually settle its conflict with California rather than leave the state.
  • He argues threats to relocate production are mostly leverage, not practical reality.

AI regulation will spread

  • Kara predicts a foreign country or bloc may eventually ban or limit U.S. frontier AI models.
  • The implication: if the U.S. won’t regulate AI effectively, other countries may step in.

Final takeaway

  • The episode’s deeper message is that modern power—whether in politics, media, or AI—depends on cooperation, trust, and restraint.
  • The hosts repeatedly return to one theme:
    • The current era rewards outrage and dominance
    • But long-term success depends on coalition-building, regulation, and the ability to disagree without destroying the relationship

Notable Themes

  • Trump’s diplomacy is pushing allies away
  • AI companies cannot be trusted to self-regulate alone
  • Media and studios are increasingly wary of powerful figures
  • Online politics has turned disagreement into performance
  • Cooperation, not dominance, is what sustains modern society

Guest Highlight

Jessica Tarlov

  • Co-host of Raging Moderates
  • Author of I Disagree: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends
  • Her appearance gives the episode its most practical takeaway:
    • Disagreement can be productive if people stop treating every exchange like a zero-sum fight