Politics & the Future of Tech with Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz
01:43:09 Share

The entire world is going to use A I is going to benefit from this kind of hyper competition is going to potentially run for decades. And so I think if you put the co s on a truth er or what they would say that .

actually the that's why they're in washington.

that's why .

they're in ashington. Crypto is really our best answer for getting back to delivering the internet, back to the people and away from the large tech monopoly. IT is the one technology that can really do that.

And if we don't do that over the next five years he been up place are gona get much, much stronger. Probably some of them will be struggling. The us.

Government itself, we're deffand on the side of freedom, innovation, know. Having said that, that's not the same as saying no regulations of anything.

Ignoring tech is kind of no longer an option in the government and that we've seen that impact elections and education everything. Big tech has been president washington, but big tech interest are not only very different start up innovators interest, but we think also divergent from america's interest as a whole.

Hello everyone, welcome back to the eight sixteen sie podcast. In today's episode, you'll get to hear directly from a sixteen sie cofounder ers, mark and driven and bent horwitz, as they discussed one of the most hot button issues of today, that is, politics in the future of tech. Now this is obviously a climactic car for both policy and technology, but the overlap of these two fields has been increasing for quite some time.

So today, mark and then sit down to answer audience questions around this topic, touching on the important and increasing distinction between big and little tech A I regulation and funding the role attack in geopolitics, and even by the farmer chosen to get involved in tech policy. Now they cover much more than that, including for the marker band, whatever run for office themselves and you'll to listen to. And for that one, enjoy the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal business attacks or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investor or potential investors in any a sixteen z fun.

Please note that a sixteen z and it's a filly. It's may maintain investments in the companies. Discuss in this podcast for more details, including a link to our investments, please see a sixteen dot comm slave disclosures.

Welcome back, everybody. We are very excited with this episode. We are going to be discussing a lot of hot topics.

The theme of today's is tack and policy and politics. There's just a tremendous month of heat right now in the tech world about politics. There's A A tremendous t of heat in the political world about tech.

And then we firm and actually individuals end a lot more time in polity. And we as a firm have a much bigger pusher that we use to which they will describe in a moment. The big disclaim er that we want to provide up front for this is that we are partisan firm.

We are one hundred percent focused on tech politics policy. We today in this episode, we are going to be describing a fair number topics, some of which involve partisan politics. Our goal is to describe anything that as partisan as accurately as possible and to try to be a sort of fair minded and representing multiple points of view as we can be.

We are going to try very hard and not take any sort of persons political partisan position. So please, if you could grant us some generation of interpretation in what we say we are trying to describe and explain as opposed to advocate for anything specifically partisan. We advocate for tech policy topics.

We do not advocate for other partition topics. So yeah, on that thing then, we wrote a little while ago, you wrote blog post our firms engagement of politics and policy. We sort of laid out our goals and then also how we're going about IT, and we are actually quite transparent about this. And so hope you may be as an inroads for people who haven't seen that. If you could walk through what our planet's strategy is and how we think about this.

yeah, kinds starts with why. Now, why get involved in politics? Now, historically, tech has been little involved in politics, but it's been relatively obscure issues. Each one b visas, the option accounting Carried the interest hook, things like that. But now the issues are much more mainstream.

And IT turns out that for most of kind of the software industry, y's like washington just hasn't been that interested in tech or in regulating tech for the most part. But starting kind of in the mid two thousands, as suffered, the world in tech started to invade all aspects of life. Ignoring tech is kind of no longer an option in the government.

And that they've seen the impact, elections and education, everything. And I think policymakers really want to get in front of IT is a term that we hear a lot. We need to be in front of these things this time, not like last time when we were behind the curve.

And so tech really needs a voice, and in particular, little tech needs a voice. So big tech has been present in washington, but big tech interest are not only very different than kind of start up innovation, innovators, interests, but we think also kind of divergent from america's interest as a whole. And so that just makes IT like quite imperative for us to be involved.

Now I like to represent the start of community, but also to kind of get to the right answer for the country and for the country. This is, we think, a mission critical effort. Because if you look at the last century of the world, you say, okay, why was amErica strong? And why was basically any country significant in terms of military power, economic power, cultural power in the last hundred years? And I was really those countries that got to the industrial revolution first and exploited IT best.

And now at the dawn of the kind of information age revolution, we need to be there and not fall behind, not lose kind of our innovative edge. And that's all really up programs and really the kind of biggest way amErica would lose IT because we're still like from a capitalistic system standpoint, from education standpoint so forth, from a talent standpoint, were extremely strong and should be a great innovator. But to think that would stop, that would be kind of bad or misguided regulation that forces innovation elsewhere out of the country and kind of prevents us, ourselves, amErica and the american government from adopting these technologies as well, and kind of driving that, driving the things that would kind of make us bad on tech regulation, our first really big tech, whose goal is not to drive innovation or make amErica strong, but to preserve their.

We've seen that act out, out N A, I. In a really spectacular way, where a big tech has pushed for the banning of open source for safety reasons. Now you can find anybody who's been in the computer industry who can tell you that any open source project is less safe, first of all, from a hacking standpoint, you know.

And you talk about things like prompt injection and the new attacks. And so for you are much more trust and open source solution for that kind of, but also for a lot of the concerns of the U. S.

Government about copyrights, where does this technology come from and so forth. Not only should the source code be open, but the data should probably also be open as well. So we know what these things were trained on, and that's also prefiguring with their biases and so forth.

How can you know if it's a black rock? So this idea that close stores would be safer and big tech actually got some of this language into the biden administration executive order, like literally under the guise of safety to protect themselves, but against competition, is really scary. And so that kind of a good driver.

The other related driver is, I think, this combination of big tech pushing for fake safety ism to preserve their monopoly, and then rather thin understanding of how the technologies work in the federal government. And so without somebody kind of bridging the education gap, we are as a country very vulnerable to these bad ideas. And we also think it's just a critical point and technology history to get IT right.

Because if you think about what's possible with a eye, so many of our countries kind of biggest chAllenges are very solvable now things like education, Better and more equal health care, just spinning out the bureaucracy that we built in making the government easier to deal with, particularly for kind of under privileged people trying to get into business and do things and become entrepreneurs, all these things are made much, much Better by A I. Similarly, crypto is really our best answer for getting back to delivering the internet, back to the people and away from the large tech. IT is the one technology that can really do that.

And if we don't do that over the next five years, these in our plays who are gonna get much, much stronger. Probably some of them will be stronger than the U. S.

Government itself. And we have the technology that can help us get to this dream of stakeholder capitalism and participation for all economically. And we could undermine the whole thing with poor regulation. And then finally, in the area of biology, where than an amazing point, if you look at the kind of history of biology, we've never had a language, much like we never had a language to describe physics per thousand years. We didn't have a language to really model biology till now, the language for physics with calculus, language for a biology AI.

And so we have the opportunity to cure a whole host of things we could never touch before as well as kind of address populations that we never event did any testing on before and always put in danger. And this, again, you have big farmer whose interest is in preserving the existing system because that kind of locks out all the innovative competition. And so for all those reasons, we've like massively committed the flag and the firm to being involved in politics.

So you've been spending a tremendous of time in washington. I've been spending time in washington, tt. Many of our other partners, like critic tics and vj condy, have been spending time in washington.

We have real, actual kind of a lobbying capability within the firm when we'll talk about that more, but call government affairs. But they're registered lobbies. They're working to work with the government and set up the right meetings and help us get our message across.

And then we're delay a really significant amount of money to basically pushing innovation forward, getting to the right regulation tech that preserves america's strength. And we are nearly committed to doing that this year, but for the next decade. And so this is a big effort press, and we thought a big good idea to talk about IT on podcast.

Thank you. That was great. And then yeah, the key point there at the end, it's where a double underlining, I think, which is long term commitment. There have been times with tech. Specifically where there have been people who have kind of canabal their way onto the political scene with large sort of money bombs. Then maybe they were just single issuer, whatever, but they're in out or they're just in announce is just like they thought that they could have short time impact than two years later, they're gone on. We are thinking about that very differently.

Yeah and that's why brought up the historical ones. We really think that the americans can be amErica in the next hundred years. We have to get this right.

good. okay. We're going to unpack a lot of what you talked about and going in more detail about IT. So I will get going on the questions, which again, thank you, everybody, for submit questions on x of a great line up today. So i'm going to combine about questions because there is some theme.

So Jerry asks, why has so reluctant to engage in the political process, both at the local, national level until now? And then kate asks, interestingly, the opposite question, which I find a jx position interest because this gets to the nature of how we've gotten to where we ve gotten to k asked tech leaders suspend hundreds of millions, lumping in bc, right? The opposite point in european ion has IT worked in, what should we be doing, different, an industry when IT comes to working with dc.

So I wanted to kind of just oppose these two questions because I actually think they are both true. And the whether that they're both true is that there is no single tech right here in to your point, there is no single tech. Maybe once a point a time, there was, you know, I would say, at my involved in political efforts in this domain started thirty years ago. I've seen a lot of the evolution over the last three decades. And I was in the room for the founding of technical, which is one of .

the sort of legacy s and jon.

James and john doors. So I kind of seen a lot of twist turns on this over the last thirty years. And the way we describe IT is been said.

So one is, just, was there sort of a distinction on a real difference of you betwen big tech and little to twenty thirty years ago? Yes, there was. It's much wider.

Now I would say that whole thing is really remember, big tech companies in the eighties and nineties often actually didn't really do much in politics. Probably most famously, microsoft. Probably everybody at microsoft pro probably say they had never given what happened with the a trust is folded.

You actually the right issue we were united on with the stock option accounting, which interesting and we were against warn buffett and warn buffet was absolutely wrong on IT and warn and it's actually very much strengthen tech monopoly. So I think that the opposite of what people in certainly in silicon valley wanted, and I think people in washington, D C.

And in amErica we've wanted, was to make these monopoly so strong and using their market cap to further strengthen in their monopoly because we move from stack options to to s to get into here. But let's just say, trust me, was bad. Yes, yes.

I was very good for big companies, very bad for startups. yeah. And actually that's everything that actually happened the nineties and two thousand.

And is so there is a fundamental character, that of the technology in a particular tech startups and tech founder. And then and I would include ourselves in that group, which is where idiosyncratic, disagreeable, iconic, clastic people. And so there is no text.

Start of association, like every industry group in the country, is like an association that has like office as A D, C, A lobby, as and like major financial firepower. And you know these other names like the MPA in the move industry and the R A, A in the record industry, in the national association of broadcasters and the national oil gas association is so forth. Like every other industry has these groups, we are basically the industry participants come together and agree on a policy agenda.

They hire a, lobby a, and put a lot of money behind the tech industry, especially the start up. We've never been good to agreed on a color platform and in fact, manually mentioned the stock company accounting thing like that. Actually, my view of what happened at technical, which is technical, was an attempt to actually get like the start founders in the new dynamics c companies together.

But the problem was we all couldn't agree on anything other than basically they hurt two issues. We could agree on sack off from expensing as an issue, and we could agree on a Carried interests of venture of capital firms as an issue. Yeah very da tax treatment.

And so the basically one of the happening was my view kind of tech me early on got anchored on these, I would say, pretty actis accounting and financial issues and just couldn't come to agreement on many other issues. And I think a lot of attempts to corporate tech policy in the valley of had that characteristic and they look, quite honestly, the other side of IT when you highlighted this. But I want to really understand this just like that the world has changed and they up around and till about one and ten, I think you could argue that politics and tech or just never that release to each other.

For the most part, what t companies did was they made tools. Those tools get sold to customers that use them in different ways. So how do you regulate databases, software and Operating system, or where processor, router regulating a power drills or hammer? right? Yeah, exactly.

right. exactly. What are our appropriate travel regulations? And so IT just wasn't that important. And then this is where I think silicon, I kind of deserve to blame for you whatever going wrong, which is is a consequence.

I think we all just never actually thought I was important to really explain what we were doing and to be really engaged the process out there and then looks everything that happened was later. There was a love affair for a long time. There was just a view that, like texture, early, good for society.

Tech is purely good for society. There were really no political implications of two tech. And and by the way, this actually continue intestate after twenty twelve. People now know of all the headlines that social media is destroying democracy.

All these things that kind of really talked into year after twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, but you know even twenty twelve, like no social media have become very important. And twelve election with the tive in the press was like almost a formally positive. No is very specifically that social media is protecting democracy by making sure the certain candidate elected.

And then also obama. There were literally headlines from newspapers and magazines today. They're very artistic or very protect at that point because view is tech.

Alabama get reelected. And then the other thing was actually the erb spring. There was this moment or like tech is not only going to protect democracy in the U. S, but is going to protect democracy over the world and face. And google were the catalans at the time we reviewed the catalyst, the spring, which is going, of course, spring.

a flowering of democracy in the middle of that.

has did not work out that way. And so anyway, the point is IT is relatively recent in the last ten, twelve years, that everything is just kind of come together. And all of a sudden, people in the policy arena focus, people in the tech world have very strong policy, politics, opinions.

The media waited all the time. By the way, none of this is A U. S.

Only phenomenon. I will talk about other countries later on. But this also, these issues are playing out globally in many different ways.

I guess what thing I would have like when i'm in, I do a formal and dc on the non political side and when I mean meetings involving national security or intelligence or civil policy of whatever kind is striking, how many topics that you would not think our tech topics end up being tech topics? It's just because like when the state exercises is power now IT IT does so with technological enabled means. And when citizens basically resist the state to fight back against the state, they do so what technological enabled means. And so and IT sometimes say, we're the dog that caught the bus on this stuff, right, which is we all want to tech to be important in the world. IT turns that tech is important in the world, and then IT turns as the things that important, the world end of people in politics.

Yeah, I think that's right on the second part of the question. Like why is taken so in effective despite hering all the money? And I think there are like a few important issues around that. One is really arrogant in that I think we and tech and a lot of people went and are like we're the good guys were for the good, and everybody will love us when we get there.

And we can just push our agenda on the policy makers without really putting in the time in the work to understand the issues and the things you face as somebody in congress or somebody in the White house in trying to figure out what the right policy is. And I think that we are coming at that from kind of our cultural value, which is we take a long day of relationships, we trying never to be transactional. And I think that's especially important on policy because these things are massively complex.

And so we understand our issues and our needs, but we have to take the time to understand the issues of the policymakers and make sure that we work with them to come up with a solution that is viable for everyone. And so I think that thing one I think text has been very bad on that. And the second one is I think that they partisan, where it's been like not necessary or not events smart to be partisan.

So people have come in with whatever political bat, mostly kind of democratic moca tic party, that they have and OK, we're gona go in without understanding you and only work with democrats because we're democrats. And this kind of thing. And I talked to our approaches like we are here to represent tech.

We want to work with policymakers on both sides of the IO. We want to do what's best for america. We think that if we can describe that correctly, then we'll get support from both sides. And this is a really different approach. So hopefully, that's right and hopefully we can make progress.

Okay, good. So let's go to the next question. So this is I get a tuber question. So shine asks and what ways do you see the relationship between in dc evolving in coming years, particularly in light of recent regulatory efforts? Starting techs and will talk about tech culture on but there's been obviously big flash point kind of events happening right now. By the way, also regular and seen the D O J just filed a massive venator law suit inst sample. The tech topics are very hot red N D C.

So how do we see the interesting one of the one of the things that i've talked about, a lot of little tech, I think, is very much in alignment with some of the things that the ftc is doing, but probably we would do IT against a different kinda set of practices and behaviors of some the tech monopolies. IT just shows why, like more conversation is important on these things because you know what we think is the kind of abuse of the monopoly and what the lawsuit is. I would say you're not exactly the same thing.

Let's talk about that. I'll talk about that for moment because this is a good case study of the dynamics here are so the traditional kind of free market libertarian view is sort of very critical of antitrust theory in general and is certainly very critical of the great prevAiling and a trust theory, which are kind of more expensive and aggressive than the ones of the last fifty years has shown in things like the apple lawsuit and many other actions recently.

So for people that sort of a reflex of view that basically says business should be allowed to Operate, but then there are certainly people who have this view that basically says any additional involved of the political machine, especially the sort of prosecutor machine interact is probably going to make everything worse in tech. And so yeah, they sew apple today and maybe you're happy because you don't like apple today because they abuse you started for whatever. But if they wait against apple, they're just going to keep coming and coming and coming and do more and more of these. The opposite view would be the view that says no, actually, to your point, but the interests of big tech and little that of actually really diverse and that if there is not actually strong and vigorous investigation and enforcement, and then ultimately these things like the apple lazy, these companies are going to get so powerful that they may be able to really, seriously damage little tech for a very long time. So maybe we can talk a little bit about how we think through that because we even debate this inside our firm, but then talk a little bit through about how to process through that and then what you think and then also where you think those lines arguments are taking us.

yes. So look for disclosure. And we were a netscape, we were certain ly on the side of little tech against big tech.

And microsoft at that time had a ninety seven percent market chair on the stop. And I was very difficult to nova on the desk. He was just bad for innovation to have them in that level of a position power.

And I think that happened on the smart phone now, particularly without, I think, kind of the epic es and the spotify cases are really great examples of that where I am fielding a product that's competitive with spotify and I am charging spotify thirty percent tax on their product. That seems unfair just from the consumer, like just from the standpoint of the world. And that does seem like it's using monopoly power in a very grass way.

I think it's certainly against are interest in the interest of new companies for the monopolies to exploit their power to that degree, like when the government gets involved, it's second would be like a clean surgical. okay. Here's exactly the change is needed. But I also think with these global businesses with tremendous luck and they just have to at least have the conversation and say, okay, what is this going to do for consumers if we let IT run? And we need to represent that point of view, I think from that kind of small tech perspective.

And the big tech companies are certainly not doing our favorite right now. So so are certainly not acting in ways that are prostate up.

I think we can say, is a can no the quite opposite.

One of my as a kicker out a lot of IT feels like any company is either too scrappy or two, eric, yeah, but never at the middle.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I like outside people.

You're there's the underdog or you're the overdog.

and there's not a lot of .

not a lot of reasons dogs.

exactly exactly. Yes, here.

attention there. IT seems very hard for these companies to reach a point, a ominous and not figure out somebody to be.

Also think you to touch on an important point, which is representing little tech or not, a pure laboratory, an anti regulatory kind of force here. We think we need a regulation in places we certainly IT in drug development.

We certainly need regulation in crypto and financial services of the financial services aspect of crypto is very important is very important to the industry that would be strong in amErica with a proper kind of regulatory regime. So we're not entire regulation were kind of pro that kind of regulation that well kind of make both innovation strong and the country strong. Yeah, we should also say look like when we're .

advocating and have little tag, obviously, they're self interest kind of as a component to that because we're venture capital firm and we back startups. And so there's obviously a strait financial interest there. I will say I think when you agree with me, like we also feel like philosophically like this is a very sort of pro amErica position, very pro consumer position. And the reason for that is very straight forward, which is as as you said many times the past, the model of any monopoly .

is we don't care because we don't have to.

right? exactly. So experience.

if you have called customer service, when one of these monopolies has kicked you off their platform.

yes, exactly. And so yeah, just there is something in the nature of monopoly where if they no longer have to compete and if are no longer disciplined by the market, they basically go bad. And then how do you prevent that from happening? The way you prevent that is from forcing to compete.

The way that they have to compete. In some cases, they can beat with each other, although often they collude each other, which is another thing. Monopoly and cartel are kind of two sides of the same coin.

But really, at least ast in the history, the technology is really when they're faced to start of competition, when the elephant has a terror of heels nipping at him, taking increasingly big bite side of foot like that's when big companies actually act and when they do new things. And so without healthy start of competition is there are many sex. The economy, where is just very cleared now that there's not enough start of competition because the income that everybody deals with out a daily basis are practically tolerable.

Yeah, it's not in anybody's interest ultimately from a national policy standpoint for that to be the case. Know that things can get bad word. It's to the benefit of the big companies to preserve those small plays with very much not anybody else is now exactly.

exactly which is such a begin to this behind our kind of political activity.

Yes, right. okay. Now we're going to future looking. So in what ways do you see the relationship between soila valan dc evolving in the coming years? And then finally and again, we're not going to be making parties and recommendations here, but you there is no election coming up and IT is a big deal. And it's gonna both what happens in the White house and what happens in the converse is, is going big sequences discussing so how do we see the outcoming election .

of a yeah what I think there are several issues that end of being really important to kind of educate people are now because whatever platform you run on as a congress person, as a president, you want to kind of live up to that promise when you get elected. And so a lot of these kind of positions that will persist over the next four years are going to be established. Now I think in crypto in particular, we've been very active.

I miss because we have a big donation to something called the fair shake cake, which is kind of work on the sand, just identifying for kind of citizens, okay, which politicians are on what side of these issues? Who are they just flat out, anti crypto, anti innovation and anti black chain? I and tid centralized technology candidates and but at least now they are so that we can tell them we don't like IT and then tell all the kind of people who agree with us that we don't like IT.

And a lot of IT ends up being, you know, look, we want the right regulation for cyp to we've worked hard with policymakers to create help them formulate things that will prevent scams, prevent nefarious uses of the technology for things like money launder ing and so forth, and then enable the good companies, the companies that are pro consumer, helping you own your data, not have IT on by some monthly CoOperation, who can exploit IT or just lose IT, get broken into. And so you now identity of problems and so forth, that can kind of help kind of a fair economy for creative, so that there is not a ninety nine percent take grade or on things that you create on social media, these kinds of things. And so it's just important to kind of, I think, educate the populist on where every candidate stands on these issues. And so where really, really focused on that. And I think same true for I sing true for bio.

I'd also I like it's not actually the case that there is a single party in D C. That's protect in a single party this antitch. I there is not.

And by the way, if that we're the case that would make make life are these are yes, but it's not the case. And i'll just give up something else, keep what I see, what i'm in dc, and see if you agree with this. The democrat was for fluent tech.

I think that have to do with who that kind of elites are. I have to do with this kind of very long establish revolving door. I mean that both the positive production sets between the tech companies in the democratic party and democratic particia political offices, russian officers, White house offices, there's just a long mor immigration.

The big tech companies tend to be very democratic, which you see in all the donation numbers, voting numbers. And so there's just a lot more, I would say, tech fluent, tech aware democrats, especially in powerful positions, many of them have actually work in tech companies. Just has an example.

The current White house chief staff is former board member meta. Where am on the board? And so there's a lot of sort of connective tissue between those. Look, having said that, the current democratic party in particular and certain of its morraha wings, I have become extremely anti tack at the point of being arguably, in some cases, are right, anti business, anti capitalism. And so there's a real kind of back and forth there.

Republicans, on the other hand, in theory, and the stereotype would have you believe republicans sort of inherently more pro business and more for free markets and should therefore be more protect. But I would say there again, and it's a mixed bag because, number one, a lot of republicans just basically think of silica. But is all democrats and so silly is all democrats for republicans, that means they're defect of the enemy.

They hate us. They trade to defeat. They try defeat our policies. And so they must be the enemy. And so there's a lot of, I would say, some combination of distrust and fear and he on that front.

And then again, with much less connected tissue, there are many fewer republican executives of these companies, which means there are many two republican officials are staffers who have that experience. And so there's a lot of mistrust. And of course, that there have been flash point issues around this lately, like social media censorship that are really exacerbated this conflict.

And then the other thing is they're very serious policy disagreements. And there are again, there are at least wings of the money of republic and party that are actually economically interventionist. And so the term of the moment of industrial policy, yeah which basically there are republicans who are very much in favor of a much more interventionist government approach towards a dealing with business, in particular dealing attack.

And so I got to say, like is not an either or thing like there are relationship of both sides. The way we think about that is therefore there's a real requirement to engage in both sides. There's a real requirement when, to your point, to educating both sides. And if you're going to make any progress to tech issues, there's a will need to have a by partial approach because .

you do have to actually work with both sides. Yeah, I I think that's absolutely right. And just a kind of name named a little, if you like, like the democratic side, you've got cheat like rich I tour as out of the bronx and by the way, huge swathe of the congressional black cocos that sees well crypt as a real opportunity to equal the financial system, which has historically been documented, racist against the kind of of their constituent, and then also the creatives, which they represent a lot to kind of get a fair shake.

And then on the other hand, you have was, but warn who is taken a very totalitarian an view of the financial system and is moving to consolidate everything in the hands, very small, more bags, and basically control who can participate and who cannot in finance. So these are just very different views out of the same party. And I think that we need to just make the specific issues really, really clear.

And the same thing we can spend all you the long time also name named .

on the republican side.

So yes, which do later. But so I should do right now just to make sure that we're fair on this. The republicans like full on profit market, very posed, all current efforts to intervene and markets like and crept, by the way, many of those same republicans are also very negative, any antitrust action, they are very ideological post in a trust.

And so they would also be posed to things like the apple last suit that a lot of start up founders might actually like. And then on the flip side, you have folks like josh holy, for example, that I would say quite vocally. I say I raise a silicon valley and very in paper of much more government international control.

I think a whole administration, just as an example, would be extremely intervention ous in solo valley and would be very pro industrial policy, very much trying to both sort of set goals and sort of have government management of more attack, but also much more dramatic action against at least perceive the real and so the same kind of expect yeah so so anyway, that I want to go through that though this the answer to the question. How will the outcoming eleemosynary y which is you look there there look, there are real issues of the bide administration, in particular with with the agencies and with some of the filial senators has been just described. So there are certainly issues where you know the agencies, you know under, under, under the trump ministration, the agencies would be headed red by very different kinds of people. Having said that, it's not that you know it's not that a trap, president and see would necessarily be a clean win. You know there are many people on sert that way who might be hosea's in, by the way, in in, in, in different ways or or actually might be, however.

some cases in, in, in the same way. yeah. And by the way, you know, trump's himself has been print to moving target on this.

We know he was very at, he tried to ban to talk and now he's very protect k, you know he has been the negative fun. A I who's originally negative ecco pta is not positive. Encysted do so you know IT is is complex. And yeah which is why I think the foundation involve of this is yeah education and we yeah why we're spending so much time and washington so forth, is to make sure that we communicate all that we know about technology gies, so that at least these decisions are highly informed, that the politicians make good.

okay. So moving forward. So three per three, three questions in one. So alex asks a tech regulation becomes more more popular within congress, which is happening.

Do you anticipate a lowering in general of the rate of innovation within the industry? Number two, teller asks, what is the key policy initiative that have passed in the next decade could bolster the us. For a century? The Ellie Parker asks, what's one regulation that, if removed, would have the biggest positive impact on economic growth? yes.

So I think that at best, if you just grow this, I don't know that there is a single regulation or a single law or a single issue. There are certainly I mean, there are certainly individual laws or regulations that are important. But I I think the thematic thing is a much bigger problem, are much bigger if the thematic thing is the thing that matters.

things they are coming are much more serious than the things that have been. I think that's correct.

So okay, talk about that. Yeah go head.

yeah. I mean, so you know, if you liked at the current state of regulation, yet if IT stayed here, that there is not anything that like we really feel like a burning desire to remove IT in the same way that things that on the table could be extremely detractor. And basically in a luck if we ban large language or a large models in general, or we you forced them to go through some kind of, you know, government approval or feedback and open source technology, you know that they have just a devastating would basically take amErica out of the A I game. And you to make us extremely vulnerable from military standpoint, make us extremely vulnerable from technology, some point in general.

And so I know that never similarly, you know, if we don't get kind of proper regulation around crypto, the trust in the system in the business model is gna fade or is onna kind of be in jeopardy? And that is not going to be the best place in the world to build crypto companies and black chain companies, which would be a real shame. You know, the kind of analog would be the kind of creation of the R.

C. C, you know, after the great depression, which really helped put trust into the U. S. Capital markets. And I think that you are trust into the black change system as a way to kind of invest, participate, be a consumer, be an entrepreneur, really, really important, necessary and very important to us, right?

okay. And then speaking, okay, let's move straight in the specific issues than more. So expand on that.

So many asks, what form do you think air regulation will take over the next two administrations? Becky asks, while air regulation result in a concentrated few companies or explosion of startups, new innovation era asks, how would do you prevent the AI industry from being monopoles alizad with just a few tech corps? And then are a friend of B S asks, how do you see the regulation of AI compute and open series models realistically playing out? Where can we apply pressure to make sure we maintain our freedom .

to build N A I systems? Really interest, because there is like a regulatory dimension of that. And man mayors, the kind of technological kind of your version of that, and they do intersect.

So if you look at what big tech has been trying to do, they're trying they're very worried about new competition to the point where they've take out upon themselves to go to washington and train out other competitors. And you know if they succeed with that. And I think IT is like super concentrate.

I power here, making the kind of concentrated power of social media research are so far as like kind of really palin comparison. I think that would be very dramatic of their only three companies that were allowed to build a eye and and that's only what they are pushing for. So I think in one world were a big tech wins.

Then there is a very few companies doing A I probably yeah google, microsoft and matter. No, microsoft you're having, you are basically for control of OpenAI as they kind of demonstrated they they have the source code. They have the way you know such a went as for us saying that and we own everything and then they also kind of control of the CEO is says they demonstrated yeah beautiful ay so yeah if you take out that they will all beyond by yeah three, maybe four companies. If you just follow though, the technological dimension, I think what we're seeing layout has has been super exciting in a you know we were all kind of wondering, would there be one model that rule them all?

And even with in a company, I think we're finding that there is no current architecture that's going to gain you to, on a single thing, a transformer model, division model so forth that's going to become so sort in itself that once you make a big enough and just can know everything and that can be that what we've seen is, you know, even the large companies are deploying a tech they call the mixture of experts, which kind of applies, you know, unique different architectures for different things. You need to be integrated in a certain way and the system mass to work. And that just opens the aperture for a lot of competition, because there is many, many ways to construct a mixture of us experts to architect every piece of that we've seen, you know little companies like misr field models that are highly competitive with the larger models very quickly.

And you know and then there's other kind of factors like you know landsea cost, it's out that factor into this. And then there's also good enough, like when is the language model good? Not you know when IT speaks english, when IT knows about what things what are you using IT for? And then there is domain specific data.

You know, i've been doing whatever medical research for years, and i've got, you know data around all these kinds of genetic patterns and diseases and so forth. You know, I can build a model against that data that's differentiated by the data and so on. So I think what we well, we're likely to see kind of a great kind of camera explosion of innovation across all sectors, you know big company, small companies. And so for provided that the regulation doesn't outlaw the smaller companies, that, that would be in my prediction right now.

Yeah, I did a bunch thinks that. So so one is even on the big model side, there's been this sleep rogin thing is taking place. And so there there is opening O G P T four was kind of of the dominant model not that long ago.

And then it's spent leap frog in significant ways recently by both google, what's there? Geri pro, especially the one with so called long context, when there where you can feed at seven hundred thousand words or an hour of full motion video, as you know, context for a question, which a huge advance. And then you know the anthropic, their big model cloud is know A A lot of people now finding that to be more vast model GPT foreign and one assumes open as and come back and leave dragon will probably happen for a while.

So so, so even if the highest and you know at the most of these companies are not competing with each other, you there are still to sleep frogging this taking place. And then, you know, ban, as as you articulated you very well, there is this this giant explosion of of models of all kinds of shapes and sizes, as are another in our company. Data bricks just released another another, but looks like a big little program. The smaller model side, it's the I think it's the best small model now in the match Marks and IT is IT. Actually, it's so efficient that will run a macbook .

yeah and they have the advantage of you know as a as enterprise, you can connect to a system that gives you not only like enterprise quality access control and all that kind of thing, but also you know IT gives you the power to do simple queries with that gives you the power to basically create a catalog so that you can have command underside definition of all the weird corporate words you have, like, by the way, one of which is customer. Like there there's almost no two companies that to find customer in the same way. And in most companies that there are several definitions of of customer, you know from, is that a department at A T N T is A A T N T is a no, some little division of A T N T T.

I think I don't, anna literally speak for them, but I think if you put the city is the big companies under, trust me, I think what they would say is their big fear is that A I is actually not going to lead to him and apply for them. It's going to lead to commodity. It's going to do a ressort of a race to the bottom of Price.

And and you see that a little bit now, which is people who are using one of the big models API, are able to swap to another big model, A P, I, from another company pretty easily. And then you know, these models, the business man, the main business model for these big models, at least so far, is playing A A P I. You know basically paper token uh, generated or per answer.

And so like these companies really have to compete with each other like IT. IT may be that IT actually as a hyper competitive market and maybe opposite of like a search market, are like an Operating system market. IT may be a market where there is just like continue competition and improvement and leapfrogging and then you know constant Price competition.

And then of course, the payout from that is to everybody else in the world is like an enormous ly viBrant market where there's constant innovation happening and then there's constant cost optimization happening where and and then as a customer downstream of this, the entire world is going to use A I is going to benefit from this kind of hiper competition. It's going to competently ally, run for run for decades. And so I think if you put the C, C, gos in a true serum, but they would say, is that actually their nightmares?

That's why they are in washington. That's why they are in washington.

So that is what's actually happening. That is the scenario they trying to prevent. They are actually trying to shut competition. And by the way, and then actually, I will tell you this, there is a unna thing, text, text, historically bad of politics that I think I think some of these folks think think they're being very clever and how they go about this.

And so because they show in washington with that kind, kind of public service, narrow, ever end of the world there to to whatever IT is and there, I think they think that they are gona very clearly a trick everybody, trick people in washington and to giving them sort of car that us and the people washington realized in those too late. But and actually turns out people in washington actually quite cynical, they'd been lab before exactly. And so there is this thing and they they don't I get this from them off the record a lot, especially after a couple of drinks, which is basically, if you been to washington and for longer than two minutes, you have seen many industries come to washington.

Many big companies come to washington and want monopoly or cartel kind of regulatory protection. And so you see you see this if you're in washington and you you see this play out, you know, in some cases, guys when there for a long time, dozens or hundreds of times. And so my sense is like nine months ago or something, there was a moment where IT seemed like the big tech companies are kind of get away with this.

I think it's actually yeah actually it's it's the I just there's I still concerned and that we're still working on IT, but I think I just come off a little Better because I think that sis is a washington in this case is actually correct. And I think they're kind of all of these companies. And then, you know, look, if there's a unifying issue, specially two unifying issues in washroom and one is they don't like china, others they don't like big to and so you know, this is I was this is a win able war, like this is a winnable war on behalf of of startups, an open source and in freedom and competition. And so yeah, i'm worried, but I feel feel much Better about that thing.

I was much ago. Well, like we had to show up in the other thing. I IT stuff me a real lesson, which is, you know, you can expect people to know it's in your head. Yeah, you've got to to see them. You've tt a put in a time you've got ta kind of say what you think a man you know if you don't, you don't have any right to like bring your hands with how why you know bad things are.

yes. And then I just wanted to know one more one more thing, just a matter. You know you you to mention the the big companies being microsoft, oogly, meta is where note matter is on the open sort side of this. And so that actually working quite hard and IT is a big deal because it's very you know, contrary to the image, I think people have matter over you know prior issues you know correctly but on on the open side, say I topic and afraid of an innovate, at least for now that as I think very strongly that so yeah.

yeah, yeah I think that trade is actually a very interesting point in kind of I think essential for people understand is that the way meat is thinking about this in the way that they're actually behaving and executing is very similar to to how google thought about android, where, you know their main concern was that apple not have a monopoly.

The smart, you know, not too much if they make money on the smart on themselves because, you know, monopoly, the smart form on the smart con for apple with me that no google other business was in real. And so they ended up being kind of an actor for good. And you know, android, it's been an amazing thing for the world, I think, you know, into including getting smart phones in the hands of people who won't be able to get them otherwise.

You all over the world. And meta is doing kind of a very similar effort where you know in order to make sure that they have A I as a great ingredient in their products and services, is willing to open source and kind of gives their all of their very, very kind of large investment in A I to the world so that you entrepreneurs and everybody can kind of keep them competitive even though they don't plan to be the business of. They are in the same way that you know what google is in the business of smart drones to some extent, but it's set there kind of key business and you know matter doesn't have plan to be in the A I business baby. Yeah to some extent they will to, but that's not the mango.

Then I put one of the company on the concerning side on this, and I is truly to tell. But where they are going to shake out. But your amazon just now, they're investing a lot more money anthropic. So I think they're now basically amazon is to anthropic microsoft OpenAI.

I think yeah. So like there.

there is a anthropic is very much in the group of kind of big tech, a new income and big to liming very aggressively for regulation, the regulatory capture, I N D C. And so I I think it's sort of an open question whether amazon is going to pick up that A A open as tropic actually becomes effective. Amazon year of this is .

another place where we're on the side of washington, D C N. And a current current regulatory motion where yeah the big tech companies have dismissed thing which we thought was illegal because we we observed that occur at a well and people went to jail. But what they've done is that they ve invest and startups, you know, a huge amount of money, microsoft, amazon and google all doing IT.

We like billions of dollars with the requirement, with the explicit requirement that those companies then by GPU from them, yeah like not be the discomfort ye or nearly get, but at a relatively high Price and then be in their clouds. So that kind of and then you know in the microsoft cases, margin sive give me your source code, give me your weights yet, which is like extremely agressive. So you know they're moving money from the baLance to their p nl. You know in a way that from an accounting and point that was our understanding was illegal and the ftc is you know like me at that now. But IT, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

Yeah the others that's one or another issue you know that people should watch is no, that's what is the around tripping. The other one is just consolidation. You know if you own you know half of a company and you get to a point, the management .

team like .

is that you know is that A A subsidy? There are rules on that .

on the company equity. You are in the intellectual property of the company and you control the management team. Yeah is that night your company?

yeah. And then at that point, if you're not consoler dating IT like is at legal and so the S C. Is going to weigh on that. And then of course, you know to the extent that some of these companies have no profit components to them, the tax implications to the conversion of for profit in the so forth. And so like there there's a lot of yeah this this mistakes mistakes in the legal said the states in the legal, regulatory and political .

game that's .

being played here. I think we're quite high, quite high. Yes, unch. So some of these are just turn out to be serious.

So Gabriel asks what would happen if there was zero regulation of A I. The good, the bad, the ugly. And this is, this is actually really important topic.

So we're viggers ously arguing, you know, in D, C, that there should be, you know, basically anybody completely capable of building A I, deploying A I big company. Ies should be allowed to do IT. Small companies should be allow to do open store, should be allowed to do IT.

And you look, a lot of the regular portions we've been discussing that comes from the big companies and from the activist is is to prevent that from happening and put everything in the hand, the big companies. So you know, we're death finally on the side of freedom, innovate. You know, having said that, you know that's not the same as saying no regulations of anything ever. And so we're actually not approaching this is kind of a hard for libertarian lands.

The interesting thing about regulation of a eye is that IT turns out when you kind of go down the list of the things that I would say reasonable people know, sort thought for people are considered to be concerns around the ae on on both sides of the air, basically the the implications that they worried about our less the technology itself and or more than the use of the technology and practice, you there's for good or for bad. And so you know, then you brought up, for example, if A I is making decisions on things like granting credit or mortgage for insurance, then know there there are very serious policy issues around, you know, how those answers are derived, at which groups are affected in different ways. Know the flip side is, you know, if A I is used to plan a crime no or two, you know, plan a bankrupt or something like that, or terrace attack, no, that's obviously something that people focus on national security, long force and are very concerned about.

Look, our person is actually very straight. Ford, which is IT, seems like completely reasonable to regulate use of ai know and things that would in things that would be dangerous. Now the interesting thing about that is, as far as I can tell, and i've been talking a lot of people to see about this, first can tell every single use of A I to do something bad is already illegal under current laws and regulations.

And so it's already illegal to be discriminatory or and landing. It's already illegal to red line in mortgage, is already illegal to plan bankrupt eries. It's already already illegal to plan terrorist attacks like these things are already illegal. And there is you know, decades or centuries of case, law and regulation and law enforcement ment and IT tells us capabilities around all of these. And so to be clear, like we think it's like completely appropriate that those authorities be used. And if there are new laws, regulations made to do you know, other bad users that that that make little sense, but that basically the issues that people are worried about IT can be containing control of the level of the use, as opposed to somehow saying, you know, by the way, as some of the dumber activists. We need literally perfect people know doing a litter linear algebra, their computers yeah well.

I think that's important to point out like what is A I and IT turns out to be you know it's math and and specifically kind of like a mathematical model. So you can think of IT for those of you hoo study map in school, you know, in mad, you can have an equation like your vehicles and square plus b or something.

And that equation can kind of model the behavior of something in physics, or you know something in the real world, and so that you can predict, you know, something happening like the speed that object dropped or so far and so on. And then A I is kind of that, but with huge computer power cyd, so that you get a much bigger equations with instead of two or three or four variables, you could have the unnoted three hundred billion variables. And so if you get into the chAllenge with out, of course, as if you get into regulating math, and you say, well, math is OK up to a certain number of variables.

But then at the know two billion and first variable, then it's dangerous. Then you you know like a pretty bad place that you're going to prevent everything good from the technology from happening as as well as anything that you might think is bad to you really do want to be in the business of regulating the kind of applications of the technology, not the math, in the same way you know you want obama to, like nuclear power is very gently dangerous, says nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous. You won't want to kind of put parameters around what physics you could study in order to, you know like literally in the abstract, in order to kind of prevent somebody from getting a nuke, like you can no longer study physics in iran because then you might be able to build a new would be kind of the conclusion h and the, that has been kind of what big tech has been pushing forward because they want safety, but because you, again, they want a monopoly.

And so I think we have to be very, very careful that to do that. I do think there there will probably be, you know some cases that come up that are unable by a new applications that do need to be you regulated potentially. You know, for example, I don't know that there is a law that like if you recall, like something that sounds exactly like drake and then kind of put out a song that sounds like a drake song, like, I don't know that that legal, maybe that should be a legal, I think does things see to be considered for sure and you there they are shortly danger now also to think many technological solutions, such as regulatory solutions for things like deep fakes, that kind of help us get to, you know, what's human, what's not human. And interesting, a lot of those are kind of, you know, viable now based on kind of black chain craped a technology.

yes. So lets get just on the voice in request. So IT, actually, I believe this to be the case that is not currently possible to copyright a voice.

Yeah, right.

You can CoOperate lyrics and you can copyright music and you can copyright tunes right now is and so forth. Corporately voice. And yeah, that that seems like a perfect example where that this seems like that probably is a good a lot of to corporate .

your voice yeah I feel that way. You don't particularly if you people call their voice straight, square or something right like you in get that get you know again you know.

get again, just to offer the details of trademark. You can try mark your name so you you can probably prospect, by the way, having said that, look that also a get to the complexity of these things. Then there is actually an issue run Operating a voice, which is okay. Well, how close to the how close to the voice of drag is like there are a lot of people have like a lot of voices in the world, and like how close you have to get before your value incorporate. And what if my natural voice actually sounds like dick, like you might now in trouble.

right? And do I outlaw like Jimmy fox imitating quinzy Jones and that kind of thing.

right? exactly. So it's anyway, yeah, I know what I mean. Look, no violence is like.

That seems like a great topic, but that needs to be taken up and look at seriously from from legal that is so is actually is is is obviously exam sort of an issue that sort of elevated by A I but is is a general kind of concept, like also corporate remark things which as a long history and U. S. Law.

yes for sure yes.

Let's talk about the essentialize ation in the blockchain expects to this. So get that. So goose asks how important is the development of decentralized AI and how can the private sector catalist ed food and pregnant regulations to uh ensure U.

S retaining innovation leadership in this space. So yeah let's so let's then let's talk about well, started about the central aliza. I and then maybe i'll just all highlight require and then you can build on essential as day.

I like know the sort of default way the assessors are being built today, as with basically super computer clusters in a cloud. And so you'll have a single data center somewhere that's got you know ten thousand, one hundred thousand ships and then a little bunch of system interconnect them and makes them all work. And then you have a company you know you know, basically owns controls that.

And you know know these companies, I companies are raising lot of money to do that. Now these are very large scale, centralized kinds of Operations. And you know, to train us stay to your model here, one hundred million dollars plus, to train, you know, a big one, to train a small one.

Like, like the data icks month this came out, it's like on the other ten million dollars. And so know these are large centralized efforts. And by the way, we all think that the big models are gonna up, costing a billion and up in in the future.

And so so then this raises a question, like, is there an alternate way to do this? And the alternate way to do this is with we we believe strongly is with the decentralized, particular with a blockchain approach, is actually the kind of thing with a blockchain and web three kind of method, you know, seems like IT would work with very well. And in fact, we are already blocking backing companies that startups that are doing this.

And then I would say there is at least three kind of obvious layers that you could essentialize that seem like their increasingly important. So one is the training layer actually how to say for there's the training layer, which is build in the model. There's a inference layer, which is that run in the model.

Answer questions. There is the data layer, a bend your point on on on opening up the black box where the data coming from, which is there should probably be a blockchain by system where people are going to contribute for training of the eyes and they can paid for IT. And where you track all that and then there's a force that you alured to which is uh, deep fakes IT IT seems obvious to us the the answer to uh deep fax and I should I should lose your second and say in my last three months of trips to D C.

The number one issue, politicians and are focused on where they are as effects. The one is the one that directly affects them. And I I think every politician right now who thought about this has a nightman scenario.

You know, it's three days before the reelection campaign. You know three three days before the defeat goes out without know saying something absolutely orrible. And it's so in the voters get confused and like and they lose election on that.

And so I would say like that actually the that's the thing that actually has the most poy right now. And then you know, the are basically a lot of people say, including the politicians. So therefore, we need basically a way to detect deep fix.

And so either the A I systems need to watermark H, H generated content so that you can tell this a deep fake, or you need these kind of scanner, like the scanner that are being used to some schools now, to try to detect us something as A I generated. Our view is, know, I would say both technologists and investors in this space is that the methods of attack of of detecting A I generated content after the fact are basically not gonna. And then i'm going to work because AI is already too good at doing this.

And by the way, for example, if if you have if you happen, if kids that are in a school and they're running one of the scanner programs is supposed to detect whether your kid is submitting an sa, you use ChatGPT esa like those really don't work in a reliable way. And there there's a lot of both false positives and false negative of those that are are very bad, those actually very bad ideas and and for the same same reason, like detection of AI generator photos of videos and speech is not going impossible. And so our our view is you have to flip the problem. We have to convert the problem. And what you have to do instead is basically have a system in which real people can certify that content about that is real, where content .

has prevented as well.

where you going describe how that would work.

Yeah so you know we have like, you know one of the amazing things of uh crypt or black chain is that deploys something known as a public key infrastructure, which enables les kind of every human to have a key that unique to them where they can sign. So like if I was in a video or in a photo or I wrote something, I can certify that, yes, this is exactly what I wrote, and you cannot alter IT to make IT into something else.

This is just exactly that. And then, you know, as that thing you know gets transfer of the world, let's let's say that at something you know, like a song that you sell and south, you can track to slike with, you know, in in a less precisely ba, with the work of our retract the province with a house who on IT before you. And so for that's also like an easy application on the blockchain.

And so that, you know, combination of capabilities can make this whole kind of program much more viable in terms of like, okay, knowing what's real, what's fake, where I came from, A A, where it's started, where it's going. And so what I you know kind of going back the data, one I think is really, really important that you know these systems, you know one of the things that you've done that I would say dodge, and there's been big push back against IT with you know you on trying to lack down twitter. When the new york time suing open eye.

And so for yeah these systems have gone out and just slept in data from all over the internet and all over kind of you know people's businesses and so forth and train their models on them. And you know, I think that there is a question of whether the people who created that data should have any say in whether the models trained on that data. And you know, black chain is an unbelievably great system for this because you can permission people to use IT.

You can charge them a fee. IT can be all automated in a way where you can say, sure, come train, you know. And I think training data auto be of this nature where there is a data marketplace. And people can say, yes, take the state for free.

I want the model to have this knowledge or no, you can't have IT for free, but you can have IT or no, you can't have IT at all rather than you know what's gone on, which is a very aggressive scraping. And you know like you have these very smart models where these companies are making a enormous amount of money taken from data that certainly didn't belong to them. You know maybe it's in the public domain or what have you, but you know that ought to be an explicit relationship and it's not today.

And that's A A very great blockchain solution, you know. And we are part of reason. We need the correct regulation on block chain and we need the S.

C. T. Stop harassing and terrorizing. Get up people trying to innovate in this category. And so that kind of the second category. And then you have like training and inference.

And I would say, you know, right now, the push against kind of the central training and inference is, well, you know, you need this very fast interconnect and you need to told me one place technologically. But and I think that's true for people who have more money than time, which is like, you know start up and big companies until forth. But for people in academia, we have more time and money.

They're getting completely frozen of research you can do. There is not enough money in all of academia a to participate any more in A I research. And so you know having a decentralized approach where you can share kitto all the gp s across your network.

And hey, yeah, maybe IT takes a lot longer to train your network or to serve IT. But you know what, you still can do your research. You can still innovate, you know, create new ideas, do architectures and testing matic or scale, which, you know, we will be amazing if we can do IT. And again, we need, you know, the C, C, to stop. We know, kind of illegally terrorizing every ecliptic company and trying to block laws from being put in place that help us, you know, enable this.

Yeah, there's actually really, when you live, to have the college thing actually really matter. So we have a friend know who runs one of very involved in one of the big computer science programmes, one of the major amErica and research universities. And of course, by the way, a lot of the technology we are talking about was developed at american research and universities.

right? And canadian ones to toronto adia ones and european ones.

exactly. History, as with every other way of the technology in the last, you know, whatever hundred years, you know, the research are you research ties across these countries have been kind of the games of the of the wellspring of of a lot of the new technology, that event in a power ing economy and everything else around, you know, we have a friend involved there running one of these.

And this friend said a while ago that he he said that his his concern was that his university would be unable to fund a competitive AI cluster, basically. So, you know, computer IT that would actually let students and professors at that university actually work in A I because it's now going to be too expensive and research rink in and and the universities are just not funded to do have capex programs that big. And then he said he is consumer recently has spent all revert universities together, might not be able to ford h to do that, which means all universities together, or might not be able to actually have, you know, basically cutting J I work happening on the university side.

And then I happen ever conversations in dc s in a bipartisan you know how a meeting yesterday with on on the A I topics and and actually one of democratic know the question which you know comes up, which is a very serious question always right, which is how do you get a more more members of other represented groups under represented groups involved in tech? And you know, I find myself giving the same answer that I always get on that, which is, you, you, you, you, the most effective thing you need to do, you need to go up stream and you need to have more people coming out of, you know, computer science degrees, you know, skilled and qualified and trained, right, and mentor, to be able to participate in the industry. And you know that you, you, I band both came out of state schools with computer science programs that you know where we were able to have the careers we've had.

And so now I find myself answered the question, saying, what we need more computer size from from every, for every group. And then, but in the back, my head, I was like, and it's can be impossible to do that because none of these places are going to be able to afford to actually have the computer resources to be able to actually have eye programs in the future. And so, like you know, maybe the government can fix this by just dumping a ton of money on top of these universities, and maybe that will happen.

You know, the country political environment seems like me. It's not quite seasonable for a variety of reasons. And then and then the other approach would be a approach would be A A blocked black change based approach that everybody, that everybody could participate, you know, say if that we're something that the government we're rolling to support was right now, it's it's not and so I think is a really, really, really, really central important final issue here that I think you know I I think is being lost over about a lot of people that I think should .

really be what yeah I I think it's absolutely critical and this is, you know again, kind of going through original thing like it's so important to the country thing, what amErica being what amErica should be to get these issues right. And we're definitely in danger of that not happen again because, you know look, I think people are taking much to narrow view of some of these technologies and not understanding their full capabilities.

No, we get into oh, the A I could you know say something racist. Therefore, we want your cancer. I mean, like we're getting into that kind of dumb idea. And here we need to have attack forward kinder solution to some of these things and then the right regulatory approach to kind of make the whole environment twor. k.

So well, let's go to the next, the next phase, this now, which is the sort of global implications. So I mean, I can join two different topics here, but i'm going to do IT on purpose. So Michael, Frank Martin asks, what could the U.

S. Do to position itself as the global leader of open source software. You seen any specific legislation in regulator constrains that are hampered in the development of the source projects are to ask similar question, what would an ideal I A I policy for open sore software models looks like? And then there are homes. Ask the china question, do you think we will end up with two AI tex tacks, the west in china? And ultimately, companies will have to pick one side to stay on IT. And so look, I would say this is where you get to like the really, really big geopolitical long term issue, which is basically my understanding of things is service follows, which is basically the the for a variety of reasons, technological development in the west is being centralized in to the united states.

You know some canada and summer europe, although quite Frankly, a lot, a lot of the best canadian and you know european teachers are are coming to silicon valley yeah and teach ya luo hero in france teaches that why you and and works in matter both of which american institutions and so there are sort of an american and or but say american plus european you know I know sort of tack language wedge in the world and then and then there's china and and really is is actually quite a bipolar situation of the dreams attacked, being fully democratize, spreading, know through the world, then realized for sure on the on the u side but you know not nearly as much on the entrepreneurs or the invention side. And again, immigration, immigration being a great virtue. But you know, for the countries that are the beneficial immigration, the side of that is IT makes, you know, other countries are going to be less competitive because there they are.

Best in british are moving to the U. S. So, so, anyway, so we are in a bipolar, we are in a bipolar tech world.

That is primarily a bipolar tech world, is primarily in the U. S. In china.

You know, this is not the first time we have bended a bipolar world involving politics and technology. You know, there, the U. S.

And china have two very different systems. The chinese system has all of the virtues and outsides of being centralized. The U. S. System has all the virtues and downsides of being more decentralized.

There is a very different set of views of the two systems on how society should be ordered and what freedom means, and you know what people should be able to do and not do. And then look, both the U. S.

In china have visions of global supremacy and visions of basically current and agendas and programs, you know, to Carry forward their points of view on the technology of A I and on the societal implications of A I know, throughout the world. And so there is this cold war tube. And then the other thing is, just in dc is just Crystal clear that there is this now dynamic happening where republicans and democrats are trying to leapfrog each other every day on being more anti china.

And so you know, we're not our friend neal ferguson is using the chair where they called war two point o like IT whether we want to not like we're in called of war two point. Oh, we're in the dynamics of was with the U S S R. You thirty, thirty, fifty years ago.

And to serve homeless this question, it's one hundred percent going to be the case. There are two AI text tax, and there are two AI governance models, and there are two A I deployment systems. And there are two ways in which you know A I D tails and everything from surveilLance, smart cities to transportation.

Driving cars, drones, who controls what? Who gets access to what, who sees what they agreed, by the way, to which A I is, uses a method for population control there. There are very different visions and and these are national visions and global visions.

And there is a very big competition development. And you know IT certainly looks to me like there is to be a winner and a lizer. I think it's overwhelmingly and you know our best interest for the U.

S. To be the winner for the us. Winter, we have to lean into our strength. And you know are the downside of our system is that we are not as well organized and orchestrate a top down.

China is the outside of our system, at least partly is that where we're able to benefit from essentialize ation, able to benefit from competition from a market economy for a private sector, right? We're we're able to basically have a much larger number of snow people being making lots of small decisions to be able to give good outcomes as opposed to, you know, having a having a dictatorial system in which there is a small number people trying to make decisions. I may look, and this is how we won the cold war against russia, is our decentralized system just worked Better economically, technologically and ultimately militarily, the than the soviet essentialize ed system.

And so IT just seems like fairly obvious to me, like we we have lead into our strings. We Better lean into our strength. And because if we think we're just going to be like another version of a centralized system, but without all the advantages that china has with having a more centralize system, now that just seems like a bad formula.

So yeah, let me pauses there. I think yes for sure that be disaster. And I think this is why it's so clear that if there is one answer the question, there's one regulatory policy that we would enact that would ensure america's competitive ess who would be open source in the reason being that, as you said, this enables the largest summer of participants to kind of contribute to A I, to innovate, to come up with novel solutions.

And so for and I think that you know what's going to happen in china, they're gonna take one because they can and they're going to kind of drive all their wood behind that R O, in a way that we could never do because we just don't work that way. And they're gone to impose that on their society and trying to impose them on the world. And you know, our best counter to that is to put in the hands of all of our smart people, have so many smart people from all over the world, from me, like a, as we'd like to say, diversities our strength.

We ve got this tremendous different points of view, different you know, kinds of people in our country. And you know, the more of that we can enable them, the more likely will be competitive. And give you a tremendous example of this is, you know, I think if you go back to twenty seven and you read foreign policy magazine eta, there was not a single one that didn't say china was a head and A I.

They are more patterns, more students going to universities. They are head and eye. They are head a ae, like we're behind a ae. And then you know ChatGPT comes out and goes, so I guess we're not behind A I were head A I and the truth of IT was what china was a head on was in integrating A I into the government. There are one A I into their government in that way.

And you know like we're working hunt, doing a Better job with that with american dynamism, but we're never gonna be good at that model. You you know that's the model that they're going be great, and we have to be great at our model. And if we start limiting that outlying startups and outlying anybody but the big companies from developing A I and all that kind of thing will definitely shoot ourselves on the food. I would say related or like another kind of important point, I think in kind of the safety of the world is, you know when you talk about two A S that's like two A I stacks perhaps, but it's very important the countries that are in amErica that aren't china can alia I to their values and not just gives you kind of one really important example. Would you know, like i've been spending a lot of time in the middle ast, and if you look at the kind of history of you know, a country like saudi arabia, they are coming from a world of fundamentalism and you know kind of set of values that they're trying to modernize, that you makes them tremendous things with women's rights and so forth.

But yeah, what there is still the fact that they've got, you know, people who don't want to go to that future so fast, and they need to preserve some of their history in order to not have a revolution or extreme violence and so forth and yeah, we're seeing alcade really Spark up in afghanistan all these kinds of things ah which are, by the way, alcade real enemy of modern sadi just as much as the amErica uh, an enemy of america. And so if saudi can't of wine and A I to the current salty values, they could literally Spark revolution in their country. And so it's very important that as we have technology that we develop that would not be totally proprietary, close source, that the kind of modifiable by our allies are who need to kind of progress at their pace to keep their kind of country safe and keep us safe in doing so.

And so this is got great geopolitical ramifications. What we do here, like we've got the china model that google and microsoft are advocating for. This chinese model is only a few can control a and we're going to in big trouble yeah .

then then just to want to close in the open source point because it's so critical. So this is where you know I would to say I get extremely a at the idea of closing down open source, which you know, people in, in, in a number of of of these people are living. Actually, by the way, I I will have a name, one more name.

Yes, we even have CS lobby, the out open source, which I find to just be completely staging. And the so vo cos law, who is that, if which is, this is just incredible to me, to founder some microsystems, which was, in many ways, the company built an open source, built an open source s unique out of berkely. And then itself built a lot of open source, critical open source.

And then course was the dot com, which of course was all built an open source and then has been lobbying to ban open source ai. By the way, he denies that he's been doing this, but I saw him with my own eyes when the U. S.

Aggressive china committee came to stamford. I was in the meeting where he was with you know thirty, twenty or thirty other men and loving actually for this. And so i've seen to myself and you know, look, he's got a big stake and open a eye, you know maybe it's financial self interest, by the way, maybe he's a true believer in the dangers.

but in any of that I think he proved on twitter he was not a true believer in the dangers. I get into that.

all explained that but yes, yeah so so I I mean, even with in even within little tech, even within the start of world, we are not uniform in this. And I I think that's extremely dangerous. Only the open source like what is open source software like open source software is you know IT is quite little know technology technological copy of free speech, which means is the technological equipment of free thought and IT is the way that the software r industry has developed to be able to build many of the most critical components of the modern technological world.

And then then, as you said earlier, to be able to secure those and to be able to have those actually be safe and reliable and then and then to have the transparency, you know, we've talked about, so you know how how they work and how they're making decisions. And then to your last point, also so that you can customize C I in many different environments. So you don't end up with a world where you just have one or a couple as but you actually have like a diversity vas with like lots of different points to do a lots of different capabilities.

And so the open source fight is actually at the core of this. And and and of course, the reason why you know that sort of of people, when I try monopoly cartel, want to band this is open source is a tremendous threat to monopoly. A cartel, like know many ways, is a guarantee that monopolize cartel can last.

But IT is absolutely one hundred percent you required for the, for the further itself. Number one, a viBrant private sector. Number two, a vibrate started sector.

And then read back to the academic point, like without open source, then at that point, you university college kids are just not to be able to learn not even going to be able learn how the technology works. So there is going be like completely boxed out. And so a world open source is beyond is bad on so many fronts. It's just incredibly meeting anybody y's advocating for IT but that needs to be I think needs to be recognized .

the threat that IT is yeah and undernote you know there was such a funny dialog between you and he so like i'll just give you quick summary of IT basically you know he was arguing for close story, for open source. His core argument was, this is the manhattan project, and therefore we can let anybody know the secrets.

And you countered that by sankoh, if this is in fact, the manhattan project that is like R C O K A, you know, locked in a remote location, do they scream all there, like the employees very, very carefully? Is they know a surprise? Security, of course, some of that is caused to true, in fact, quite.

Uday of chinese nationals work there, probably summer of spies for the chinese government. There is no any kind of strong security at OpenAI. Read google ademi. These places, you know, good, anywhere near the manhattan project, which is really built a whole city that nobody knew that they can get into IT.

And you once economy that he said nothing and then he set back, well, you know, cause billions at all to train these models you just want to give that way. Is that good? You know, is that good? Economics like this is like kind of counterpoint to you, which basically I said, oh, you are trying to preserve a monopoly. Like, what are you doing? I'm an investor and and I think that's true for for all these arguments.

Well, the kicker you know the kicker ban on that story, kicker to that is three three days later, the justice of man and died, a chinese national google employee.

Who all google next generation AI chip designs, which is quite literally the family tools for an AI program, is know is the equivalent of stealing the, if you stretch the metaphor, and equivalent, stealing the design, the bomb, and that google employee took that tries all of them and took them to china. In my definition, my definition, that is still in the chinese government. Because no distinction in china between private sector, in the government is integrated thing the government owns to control everything. And so, you know, one hundred percent, one hundred percent guarantee that I will start to the chinese government, chinese military and google google which you know like you know google has like a big information security team on the rest of the google did not realize according the diamond, google didn't realize that the engineer had been in china for six months.

Yeah, amazing. Well, how long he gets Better? IT gets Better.

This is the same google with the same C, E, O who refused to sell google proprietary AI technology to the U. S. Department of defense.

So there's supplying china with A I. And that's flaying the U. S, which is just comes back to luck. If it's not open source, we're never gonna compete like that. Yeah, we've lost the future of the world right here much as why you know it's the same most important guy is you pressure yep.

And and you you're not going locked the stuff up like you're not going locked IT up. Nobody y's lacking up. It's not locked up. These companies security swishes SE. And like, you know, you're not gna know you have a debate about the tactical relevance of chip, embarrass and so forth.

But like you, the horse has left the barna that at least because these companies are, without a doubt, riddled with with with forever assets and they're very easy to penetrate. And so we did we just have to be, like, I would say, very realistic about the actual state to play here. And and and we have, we have to play in a reality.

And we, we have to play in reality. We have to win in reality. And the as we need innovation, we need competition, we need free thought, we need free speech, we need, we need embrace the virtues of our system, and and no, not shut ourselves down in the face of, in the face of the conflicts that are coming.

Another one, why are and s asks, why are U S B. C. So much more engaged in politics and policy than their global counterparts? And I I really appreciate that question because IT basically like IT, if that's the question that that means that boy VC outside the U.

S. Must not be engaged at all because U. S. Mcs are engaged yeah and then what you believe the impact, this is both the VC ecosystem of society in general and then related, related, related question, ben asked our european AI companies becoming less interesting investment targets for U. S. Based PC due to the strict and predictably predictable regulatory landscape in europe, would you advise early stage european AI companies to consider relocate into the U.

S. As a result? Great question. Well, I I like I think that that is kind of got back to a little of what you said earlier, which is you know in certain appeal like there's you know in the west, there's the united states and that makes everywhere else in the united states is kind of bigger than everywhere else combined.

And you know so it's natural. And like you know in these kind of political things that kind of starts with the leader and you know us is leader in VC. Ah we feel like we're the leaders in u svc.

So we need to go go to washington and til we go, you know nobody y's going. And so that's that's a lot of the reason why we started. thanks.

Well, on ear pean regulation policy like kids, I think I think generally regulatory policy is going to is likely to dictate where you can build these companies. We've seen some interesting things of france turns out to be leading a revolution in europe. Regulatory, where they're basically telling the E.

U. To pound sand, you know. And large reason because they have a company, they are missing.

And you know, they is a national national jewel for for the country. And they don't want to give you up because they are. The E.

U. Has some crazy safety. M, you thing going on there.

try IT also. No, france also. Course this. I play the several nuclear policy in europe yeah country there, the cleanest .

country yeah probably when the claim countries in the world as result.

right, but have been stanchly pro nuclear and trying to hold off, I think in a lot of ways sort of attests throughout the rest of europe, and especially from germany, to basic bad nuclear going to get the power .

yeah in the U. K. The U. K. Is sort of been flat, lapping on A I policy, and i'll see where they come out. And a resell has been ridiculous as theyve been almost everything yeah.

The big thing I think I know here is there's a really big physical hc distinction. I think it's rooted actually the difference between with the traditionally called, I think that are of angle american kind of approach to law, the european approach. I forget, forget things it's like I forget the terms for IT.

but the leg legal like and letting .

a civil law. So basically the difference basically is that which is not outlaw is legal or that wishes specifically not legal is legal and anything is not especially legal as a lot, right? In other words, like by default and do you have freedom and then you opposed the lot to have constraints? Or but if default, do you have nobility? Do anything and then a lot enables you to thanks. And these are a certain this is like a fundamental like philosophical, legal, you know, political distinction.

And then this this shows up in a lot of these policy issues with this idea called the precautionary precision uh h which is sort of the uh a rewarding of the sort of traditionally european approach um which is basically the procession principle says, uh new technology should not be allowed to be feel that until they are proven to be harmless um right and of course the the precaution principle very specifically is is part of sort of a hallmark of the european approach regulation and increasingly you the U S. Approach and it's specifically it's it's origin IT was actually sort of describing that way. And given that name actually by the german Greens in the one thousand nine hundred seventies as means to ban civilian nuclear power, by the way, which just catastrophe results.

And we we could spend A A lot of time on that. But I think everybody, if this poets agrees, like including the germans, increasingly agreed that was that was a big mistake, among other things, you know, has LED the basically europeana russia's invasion of ukraine to the, you know, they need for a important inertion because they they keep on now the nuclear plants. And so just like sort of catastrophic decision, but the precautionary of principle has become like, I would say, extremely trendy, like it's one of these things like that sounds great, right? It's like, well, why would you pass? Why would you want anything we released in the world of this? Not pretty harmless, like h how can you possibly being in support of anything is going to cause harm? But the obvious problem of that is, with that principle, you could have never deployed technology such as fire electa power, international convention engines, cars, airplanes, the computer, right? Like every single piece of technology we have, the power's modern day civilization has some way in which you can be used to hurt people at every, every simple one is technology.

Technology are double list sorts. They are think, you know, you can, you can use fire to protect your village, to attack and aborting, like these things can be used in, in, in, in, both for ways. And so basically, if we had apply the precaution of principle history, ally have, we would still be living in my huts, and we would be just like, absolutely ermie able.

So the idea of imposing the precautionary al principal today, if you're coming from like an angle american kind of you perspective, from a freedom to innovate perspective, that's just like, that's just like incredibly horrifying, you know, should basic guarantee to stall up progress. This is very much the mentality of the E, U, very acrs in particular. And this is the mentality behind a lot of their recent legislation on on technology sues france is does seem to be the main counterweight against this in the in europe you bend to your point, like U.

K. Has been a counterweight in some areas. But kay also has, like I would say, they've received a .

full those of this programming. Yes, they have a tennis.

yeah. And they ve been in A, I particular, I think they been on on the wrong side of that, which hopefully theyll reconsider. So so again, this is one of these things like this. This is a really, really important issue. And just the surface level thing of, like, okay, this, this technology might be able to be used for some harmful purpose like that, if that is allowed to be the end of the discussion.

Like we are never going to nothing new as ever gona happen in the world like that that would cause is ultimately start completely and and then you if if we start out that that will over timely to regression and and like literally, you know, I mean this happening, like the power is going out. Like, you know, german society, german german society, german industrial companies are cutting down because they can afford the power. This resulted from this know of the opposition is policy and the energy sector.

And so this is a very, very, very important thing. I think that E. U. Bureaucracy is lost on this.

So I think it's going to be up to the individual countries to directly conferences, if they want to anyway. So I really applied to what france is done. And I I hope more european countries join them in kind of being on the right side of this.

Yeah, yeah. no. It's always is funny to me to hear the E U. And like the economist and these kids of things say the you may not be the leader in innovation, but were the leaders and regulation, and i'm like, what you realize, those go to get there there. Like, one is a function of the other.

Okay, good. So and then list to one more global question a lap. Gong liang asks, are there any other countries that could be receptive to technical tips? M, for example, could britain, argentina or japan by ideal targets for .

our message admission? yes. So will you'll look for work on that in britain? And like we've got some pretty good reception from the U.

K. government. There's a lot of very, very smart people there were working with them. I on that there I am cypher effort and and we're hoping that the case you know japan is a having spent out of time there is you know they are vividly sly. Shown that capability you know, over time.

And then you know there's a lot about the way japanese society works that that holds them back from that at times as well. Yeah without getting at all the specifics, theirs and they have a very, I would just say, unusual and unique culture that has a great difference for the old way of doing things, which sometimes makes IT hard to kind of promote the new way of doing things. 还有 四点， you know, around the world, you know that that the middle east is very, very kind of subject and and kind of von board with technology.

Mim, the U A E sadi. Israel, of course we are many, many countries thought there are, are very excited about, know these kinds of ideas have taken the world forward, like, you know, just creating a Better world through technology, which I think that like with our population growth, if we don't have a Better world through technology, we're going to have a worst world without technology. I think that's like very obvious. Uh, so it's a it's a very compelling message. I know, by the way, south america, I should say also there are there are a lot of countries who are really embracing techno optimism now in south amErica and and math here in some great new leadership there that yeah that's pushing that yeah.

I would also say if you look at the polling on this, what I think you find is what I you could describe as the Younger countries are more enthusiastic about technology. And I I don't mean Younger here, literally of like when they were formed. But I mean two things.

One is how recently they kind of emerged and know what we would consider to be major nation. And so you know, for example, to embrace, you know, concepts like democracy or fill marc capitalism or innovation generally, you know, global trade so forth. And then the other is just quite simply, the number of the demographics know the countries of large number people.

And those are often about me at the same countries, right? They have have the reverse demographic. Pym ID, we have where they actually have a lot of Young people. And Young people are both. Young people both need economic opportunity and are very fired up about new ideas.

Yeah, I by the way, this is true in africa as well. In many african countries in nigeria, h rWanda, ghana, they were their techno optimism, I think, is taking hold in a real way. You know, they they eat some of governance improvements, but they definitely also have Young population si, seventy percent of the population is under thirty. So you know, just to your point, that very, very, very hopeful in those areas.

Then culture asks, you think the lobby efforts by good faith american cyp to firms will be able to move the need of politically in the next few years? One areas make you optimistic because a release to american crypto regulation crypt to blockchain web three.

yes. So I think that I, I, I hope I as well as i've ever been. So there is a there is a bunch of things that have been really passed for the first of all, you know the C, C, has lost, you think, five cases on a row.

So you know like some of they are like arbitrary enforcement of things that are was is not working. Secondly, you know there was a bill that past through the house or at the house financial services committee, which is a very, very good bill and crypt or regulation, and you know, hopefully that will eventually passed the house in the senate. Theirs you did we've seen by ommen, I think, adopt a really good new laws around those.

And so there is some progress there. And then and there has been we've been working really, really hard to educate members of congress and the administration and kind of the value of the technology. They are strong upon ets to IT, as you know, as I mentioned earlier.

And you know that's yeah that continues to be worry some. But but I I think we're making great progress and and the fair shape pack is that I just a tremendous job know of backing proscription lets and with great success, there were six different races on super tuesday that they backed and all six one. So I yet another .

good time plastic here. A couple of the topics are quickly to get under the wire. So for the time asks, can you give us your thoughts in the recent take tech legislation? If passed, what does this mean for big tech going forward? And so i'll just living give a quick swing at that.

So the technical legislation being proposed by the U. S. Congress and currently being taken up in the senate, which by the way, and the president by minority said he'll sign IT if if, if the son in the house.

This is legislation that would require A A require development of tiktok from its chinese parent company, bite ness. And so tiktok would have to be a purely american company or would have to be purely american company. And then fAiling that, they would be a band of tiktok, uh, in in, in the U.

S. This bill is a great example of the sort of bipartisan dynamic and D, C. Right now on the topic of china, which is this bill is being enthusiastically supported by the majority politicians on both sides of the air.

I think I passed ed out of its committee fifty to zero, which you know is basically like it's impossible to get anybody ndc degree on anything right now, except basically, basically this. So this is like super by partisan. And then the head of that committee are republican gallaga.

And you know, he immediately, and he worked in a bipartisan way with his committee members, but know the democratic White house immediately endorsed the bill. So so like this bill has like seriously omen. And the senate is taking up right now.

They're going they're I could have modified in some way, but IT IT seems in a reason like reasonable. I could have pass based on what what we can see. You know I would say is like I said by overwhelmed ly by part of the support and you know the argument for the ban, I would say couple different way of one of the ban.

Number one is just like, you know, an APP on every on americans, on the phones of every of large percent of americans with the surveilLance and potential propaganda kind of aspects of that, you know, certainly has people washing to concern. And then quite Frankly, there's underlying industrial know dynamic, which is, you know you know the us, the U. S. Internet companies can't top ate china.

So there, you know there there's a sort of an a very simec underneath that the really undercuts no, I think a lot of a lot of the a lot of the arguments from bite dance IT has been striking to see that there are actually opponents of this people who have emerged, I would describe on sort of the further to the right and further to the left and their respective parties. And know those folks, you know, I won't go through detail, but those folks make a variety of variety of of arguments. One of the and I actually the surface level, I think on on the further on the left, I think that there are people who thinks specially to further left hours, people who feel like tiktok is actually a really important final message system for them to be able to use to their constituent who tend to be Younger, internet century.

And so so there's that which, you know, interesting. But then on on the further right there is a lot in our our friend David sex or example might be an example this um there three number people who are very worried that the U. S.

Government is so prone to abuse new regulatory capability with respect attack and especially with respect to the censorship, that basically, if you hand the U. S. Government any new regulatory authority or legal authority at all to come down attack, IT will inevitably be used not just against the chinese company, but I will also then be used against the american companies.

And so, you know it's you know drama surfacing around this and and will see whether the opponent pull IT through. You look, quite Frankly, I know without coming down particularly on I think I think there is one of those cases is actually like excEllent arguments, like on all three sides, like I think there like very legitimate questions here. And so you know, I think it's great as issues being confronted, but I think it's also great as the arguments of its surface is and that we're going to, you know hopefully figure out the right thing. You do couple closing things close on to see, hopefully someone optimistic notes. So john potter asks, how do you most effective find common ground with group and that you benefit from working with, but with which you are usually opposed ideological.

otherwise you I mean, I think this is there is a termine in washington, common ground. And I think that, you know, you always want to start by finding the common ground. Because i'll tell you, something in politics generally is most people have the same intention, you know, like in washington, in fact.

And people want life to be fair. You know they want they don't want people to go hungry. They want you know citizens to be safe but have plenty of our opportunity.

So like there's a lot of common ground. The the differences live not in the intent, but how you get there, like what is right policy to achieve the goal. And you know so I think it's always important to start with the goal and then kind of work our way through. You know why we think our policy position is correct, like we don't really have a lot of disagreements on stated in tempt at least. I mean, I think there are some intentions that are that are very difficult in washington. You know like the you know the intention to kind of control the financial system is you know from the government or nationalized banks are kind of achieved the equivalent of nationalizing the bags is, you know, when you have bad attempt, that's tough but like if you start with, you know, most intentions are, I think, you know shared between you know, us and policymakers on both sides.

And then I will close on this great questions. Asks what either of you ever consider running for office and for fun? What would be your platform?

So I want just feel lucky, you know, I think being a politician requires a certain kind of skills, said matilde, and an energy from certain things that that I I don't pose. Ss, unfortunately do.

Do you have a platform you would to run on if you didn't?

okay. Yeah, what's your your point for the american dream?

So I won't do. And now but I like to put out of this chart that shows that change in Prices in different sectors to the economy over time. And what you basically see is the Price of like television sets and software.

And video games are like crashing hard right in a way that's like great for us. And was, you know like I said, seven, five flat Green, alter high dep TV now or double of five hundred dollars like is great. It's amazing.

Like when technologies allowed to work its magic, like Prices crash in a way that's just great for consumers and its equality. Ent of a giant basic, you know, when Prices drop is a going to race. So makes makes human work a lot Better.

The three, uh uh elements of the economy that is central to the american dream are, uh, health care, education and housing, right? And so you think about what does that mean to have american dream? And that means being able to buy and own a home IT means being able to send your kids great schools, get great education and to have a great life.

And then that means, you know, great head care are we will take care of yourself in your family. The Prices of those are skyline. There are just like spring to the moon, don't. And of course, those of the sectors that are the most controlled by the government there, where there is the most subsidies for demand from the government, there is the most restrictions on supply from the government, and there is the most interference with the ability to field technology and and startups.

And the result is we have an entire generation and of kids who basically, I think, are quite rational and looking forward, and basically saying, i'm never going to be able to hieu the american dream. I never done home. I'm never gonna able to get a good education.

Or said, my kids, to get education, i'm not going be able to get a good health care. Basically, I am not going to able to live the life and my parent live, or my grandparents and i'm not gonna able. I am not going to able to fundamentally form a family, provide for my kids.

And I think that's the I think that I might be a sy underlying seem to kind of what has gone wrong sort of socially, politically, psychologically, uh, in the country. That's what's LED to the sort of intense level of pessimism. That's what LED the sort of the attraction kind of very zero some uh politics to um you know recrimination over over over optimism building.

And so I I, I, I I would confront that absolutely directly. And then of course, I would know that I don't think anybody washington is doing that right now. So and either either I either I would win because I only one saying and I loud or I would cause nobody cares but I I think that I always dear whether that actually there was on the substance and of the message, whether that would be the right player.

yeah no. That would turn ly be the thing to do as the thing is very complex and that, you know health care policy is largely national, but education policy and housing policy is also got a very large local component, be a complete inside of policy that you'd have to enforce. But we still have a .

ton of question. So we may be part to and this at some point where we really appreciate your time and attention, and we will see you soon.

Kay, thank you.