EVERY SPOKEN WORD
60 min read · 11,697 words- 0:00 – 0:40
Introduction
- CMCollin McCune
There have been these big institutional players in DC, in the state capitals for a very long time. There wasn't anyone who was actually advocating on behalf of the startups and entrepreneurs, the, the smaller builders in the space.
- MPMatt Perault
They're trying to build models that might compete with Microsoft or OpenAI or Meta or Google. For those companies, what are the regulatory frameworks that would actually work for them as opposed to making that competition even more difficult than it already is? Regulate use, do not regulate development somehow is interpreted as do not regulate.
- CMCollin McCune
I actually can't think of a single example across the portfolio in which we are arguing for zero regulation.
- SPSpeaker
[upbeat music]
- 0:40 – 1:01
The Little Tech Agenda: Origins & Vision
- SPSpeaker
Colin, Matt, welcome to the podcast.
- MPMatt Perault
Thanks so much.
- CMCollin McCune
Thanks for having us.
- SPSpeaker
So there's a lot we wanna get into around AI policy, but first I want us to s-take a step back and reflect a little bit. We had publicly announced The Little Tech Agenda J-July of last year. There's a lot that's happened since. Why don't we first take a step back, Colin, and talk about what is The Little Tech Agenda and how did it come to be at the
- 1:01 – 5:00
Defining “Little Tech” vs. Big Tech
- SPSpeaker
firm?
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. I mean, look, a, a ton of credit to Mark and Ben for having sort of the vision on this. I, I, I think when, you know, certainly when I first started here, I arrived, we started advocating on behalf of technology interest, technology policy, and I think what we realized was there have been these big institutional players that have been in DC, in the state capitals for a very long time. Some of them have done a lot of really good work on behalf of the entire tech community, but there wasn't anyone specific who was actually advocating on behalf of what I think what we call Little Tech, which I, I think in my mind are the startups and entrepreneurs, the, the smaller builders in the space. And I, and I think, I think beyond that, what we realized was, well, they're not always 100% aligned with what's going on with the Big Tech folks.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
And that's not necessarily always a bad thing or a good thing, but, um, I, I think that was the whole impetus of this. You know, how are we going to think about positioning ourselves in DC and the state capitals in terms of our advocacy on these issues? And how do we differentiate in between sort of the Big Tech folks who come with, you know, certain-- their certain degrees of baggage-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. On the left and the right
- CMCollin McCune
... and the smallest of small. From the left and the right.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
Right? And, and the smallest of the small. So that, that was really sort of the basic impetus of this.
- MPMatt Perault
For me, it was actually sort of almost a recruiting vehicle. So I-
- CMCollin McCune
[chuckles]
- MPMatt Perault
When, when it hit in July-
- CMCollin McCune
It's true
- MPMatt Perault
... I was not yet at the firm. I started in November, and when, when I first read the agenda, it sort of transformed the way that I looked at the rooms that I would sit in where there would be policy conversations, where all of a sudden you could see essentially an empty seat w- and, and Little Tech's not there. You, you know, there's a c-- there would be conversations where people would say, um, "And in this proposal, we wanna add this disclosure requirement, and then we'll have companies do a little bit more and a little bit more." And when you've read The Little Tech Agenda, all of a sudden you start thinking, "How is this gonna work for all the people who aren't in the room?"
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
And so for me, the question, like thinking about coming into this role in the firm was, is this a voice? Is this a part of the community I wanna advocate for and think about? And when you start looking at the policy debate from a perspective little-- of Little Tech and you see how many of the conversations don't include a Little Tech perspective-
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. Yeah
- MPMatt Perault
... it becomes-- From my, from my point of view, it was very compelling just to think about how can I advocate for this part of the internet ecosystem.
- CMCollin McCune
Right.
- SPSpeaker
And Colin, why don't you outline some of the pillars o of The Little Tech Agenda or s- or some of the things that we focus the, the most on or, and, and h- maybe how it differentiates from sort of Big Tech more, more broadly than-
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. I mean, well, uh, I mean, just from a firm perspective, right, obviously we're verticalized. We, you know, we all live and breathe this, and I think that that's, that's been very, very competitive for us on the business side. But I also think it's very competitive as on the policy side too, right? Obviously, Matt leads our, our AI vertical and that's sort of our AI policy lead. We have a huge crypto effort. We have a major effort around American dynamism, and it's-- and this is sort of defense procurement reform, which is something that the, the United States has needed forever and ever. We have, you know, uh, other colleagues who work on the, on the bio and health theme, and they're fighting on behalf of, um, all k- you know, FDA reform, everything from PBMs. There's a whole, whole vertical there that they're working on. Um, we're working a lot on, on fintech-related issues, and then, you know, just like classic tech-related sort of internet entrepreneurs coming up, what, what does that relate to? There's a lot of tax issues that come along with it, and then of course, obviously, there are the venture-specific things that we have to deal with. But look, I think, I think the, the... I, I try and think about this from a basic po-point of view, which is just like, if you're a small builder, what are the things that should differentiate you-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... between someone who's a trillion-dollar company and you have hundreds of thousands of employees, right? If you're five people and you're in a garage-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... how are you supposed to be able to comply with the same things that are built for 1,000-person compliance teams? Like it's just not the same thing.
- MPMatt Perault
Right.
- CMCollin McCune
And, and I-- Like there are categories and categories and categories that, you know, Matt and I are dealing with on a regular basis, but that's probably the main-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... pillar, which is five person versus trillion dollar company.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
Not the same thing.
- 5:00 – 6:09
Challenges Unique to Startups
- MPMatt Perault
It's made my job actually really hard in certain ways since I started at the, at the, at the firm because the kinds of, um, partners that you want within our portfolio often don't exist in that, like, a lot of the companies don't have a general counsel.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
They don't have a head of policy. They don't have a head of communications. And so the kinds of people who typically sit at companies thinking all day about, like, what is this state doing in AI policy? What is this a- federal agency doing in terms of rulemaking? They're not at startups that are just a couple of people and engineers trying really hard to build products. Those companies face this incredibly daunting challenge. I mean, it seems so daunting for someone like, like me, like non-technical, and I've never worked at a startup. Um, if they're trying to build models that might compete with Microsoft or OpenAI or Meta-
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah
- MPMatt Perault
... or Google, and that is unbelievably challenging in AI. You have to have data. You have to have compute. There's been a lot written about the cost of AI talent recently. It's incredibly, incredibly daunting. And so the question that Colin and I talk about all the time is, for those companies, what are the regulatory frameworks that would actually work for them as opposed to making that competition even more har- even more difficult than it already is?
- 6:09 – 10:01
Regulatory Frameworks for AI Startups
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- SPSpeaker
Well, well, yeah, one of the principles I've heard you guys, you know, hammer home is we want a market that's competitive for where startups can compete. We don't want a monopoly. We don't want even oligopolies, you know, a cartel like, like system. And that, that doesn't mean no regulation, uh, 'cause that can, as, as we've seen, that can be destabilizing too. Um, but it means smart regulation that, that enables that, that competition in the first place.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. So, so I think one of the things that was that, that's been surprising to me to learn about venture is the time horizon that we, that we operate in. So we're-- our fir- our funds are 10-year cycles, so, um, we're not looking to spike an AI market tomorrow, um, and have a good year or a good six months or a good two years. We're looking to create vibrant, healthy ecosystems that result in long run benefits for people and long run financial benefits for our investors and for us. Um, and that means having a regulatory environment that facilitates healthy, good, safe products. It doesn't mean like if people have scammy, uh, problematic experiences with AI products, if they think AI is bad for democracy, if they think it's corroding their communities, that's not gonna be... That's not in our financial incentive. That's not good for us. And so, um, that really animates the kind of core component of the agenda, which is n-not trying to strip all regulation, but instead focusing on regulation that will also, that will actually protect people. And we think that there are ways to do that without making it harder for startups to compete.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah, to Matt's good point, I actually, I walk into a lot of lawmaker offices, and I, and I... You know, it sounds like I'm pitching my book, but I, I, I genuinely say, like our interests are aligned with the United States of America's interest-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... because the people that we're funding are on the cutting edge. They're the people who are gonna build the companies that are gonna drive the jobs. They are gonna drive the national security components that we need, and they're also gonna drive the economy. And, a-and, and like we wanna see them build over a long h- time horizon. A-and, and like th-that is exactly what, how we should be building policy in the United States. Of course, like half the offices I walk into are like, "All right. Great. Like I... Get that guy out of here."
- MPMatt Perault
Ninety-nine point nine percent of people we talk to think that all we want is no regulation.
- CMCollin McCune
[chuckles]
- MPMatt Perault
And-
- SPSpeaker
Yeah
- MPMatt Perault
... we-- despite like writing extensively, both of us-
- CMCollin McCune
[chuckles]
- MPMatt Perault
... writing, speaking extensively about the importance of good governance for creating the kind of markets that we wanna create, and Collin can speak more to it in crypto. I, I've learned a lot from our crypto practice because the, the idea, the idea there is you really need to separate good actors from bad actors and ensure that you take account for the differences, and it's true in AI as well. If we don't have safe AI tools, if there is absolutely no governance, it's, that's not going to cr-create a long run healthy ecosystem that's gonna be good for us and good for people throughout the country.
- CMCollin McCune
I actually can't think of a single example across the portfolio in which we are arguing for zero regulation.
- MPMatt Perault
The core component of our AI policy framework, which was developed before my time, I wish I could take credit and I can't, is focused on regulating harmful use, not on regulating development. And that sentence, "Regulate use, do not regulate development," somehow is interpreted as do not regulate, and people just omit for some reason the k- the part that we focus on, on focusing on regulating harmful use. And that, in our view, is robust and expansive and leaves lots of room for policymakers to take steps that we think are actually really effective in protecting people. So regulating use means regulating when people violate consumer protection law, when they use AI to violate consumer protection law, or when they use AI in a way that violates civil rights law at the state and federal level, or violating state or federal criminal law. So there's an enormous amount of action there for lawmakers to seize on, and, um, and we really want that to be like an active component of the governance agenda that we're proposing. And for some reason, it's all passed over, and the focus is just on the, on, on don't regulate development. Um, I don't exactly understand why that, why that en-ends up being the case.
- CMCollin McCune
Easy headline.
- SPSpeaker
[laughs]
- 10:01 – 11:00
The Evolution of AI Policy Debates
- SPSpeaker
I-- So there's been a lot that's happened in AI policy, and I wanna get to it. But first, perhaps, Matt, you can trace the, the evolution a bit over the last few years. I believe there was a time where like pattern matching was social media regulation a bit.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- SPSpeaker
Why don't you trace some of the, the biggest inflection points or, or kind of the debates over the last few years, then we'll get to today maybe, Collin?
- CMCollin McCune
I think we, we have to play a little bit of history. Um, I, and I, and I wanna get to, you know, sort of a point that I think is the really critical point of what we're all facing here. Um, the-- f-for us, for me, I would say from a policy and government affairs perspective, this conversation started early 2023. That, that was, that was sort of like the kickoff of the gun. Um, it sort of puttered along and became more and more real over time. But in the fall of 2023, so almost, almost exactly to the day two years ago, there was a series of Senate hearings in which, you know, some major CEOs from the AI space came, and they testified.
- 11:00 – 13:00
Senate Hearings & the Rise of AI Regulation
- CMCollin McCune
And I think that the, the message that folks heard was, one, we need and want to be regulated, which I think maintains that's true today. That's obviously-
- SPSpeaker
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... you know, what Matt and I are working on a, on a regular basis. Um, but I think included in some of that testimony was a lot of speculation about the industry that led to and sort of absolutely jump-started this whole huge wave of conversation around the rise of Terminator.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
You know, go hug your families because-
- SPSpeaker
[laughs]
- CMCollin McCune
... we're gonna all be dead in five years, and that spooked Capitol Hill. They-- I mean, they absolutely freaked out about it.
- SPSpeaker
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
And, and look, rightfully so. You have, you have these really important, powerful people who are building this really important, powerful thing, and they're coming in, they're gonna tell you that, you know, everyone's gonna die in five years, right? That, that's a scary thing for people to hear, and oh, by the way, we wanna be regulated, which, you know, look, that, that starting gun I think moved us in hyper speed into this conversation around how do we lock this down? How do we regulate it very, very, very quickly? I think that led to the Biden executive order, which w- you know, we have publicly sort of, you know, denounced in certain categories. Um- [clears throat] That executive order led to a lot of the conversation that I think we're having in the States, a lot of the, you know, sort of bad bills that we've seen come through the States. Um, and I think it also, um, led to a number of federal proposals that we've seen that have not been very well thought through also. And look, you know, I think people who are kinda sitting around, they're like, "Oh, well, you know, was it just like, you know, some testimony from the CEOs that did this?" And the answer to that is no. You know, from my, from my point of view, um, and look, you know, they, they deserve a lot of credit. I think the Effective Altruists community for 10 years, backed by large sums of money, [lip smacks] um, were very,
- 13:00 – 14:29
The Influence of Effective Altruists & Interest Groups
- CMCollin McCune
very effective at influencing think tanks and nonprofit organizations in DC and the state capitals to sort of push us in a direction where, um, people are very fearful about the technology. And that has, that has shaped, significantly shaped the conversation that we're having throughout DC and the state capitals, and ca- candidly on a global stage.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
You know, the EU acting, the EU AI Act-
- MPMatt Perault
Right
- CMCollin McCune
... we, we're, we're public on that. There's a lot of very, very problematic provisions in there. All of this banner of safetyism came from this 10-year head start that these guys have had. So when I, I always, you know, that, that's kind of a bit of the history, but sort of as an aside to this, I always, I, I, I always just have to smirk or, you know, smile to try and laugh it off. But I mean, when people are writing these articles about the fact that the AI industry is, you know, pumping all this money into the system, certainly, like the- I'm not suggesting that there's not money in the system. We're obviously active on-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... the political and policy side. We're, you know, we're not hiding that. But it is dwarfed by the amount of money that is being spent and has been spent-
- MPMatt Perault
Right
- CMCollin McCune
... over a 10-year window. And, and the, candidly, I mean, the reason that Matt and I have jobs is because we are playing catch up.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
We are here to try and-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... make sure that people understand what is actually going on in this conversation and be a counterforce to this, this group of people and, and this idea, this ideology that has been here for a long period of time. So that's, I l- you know, that-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... that's kind of the briefer on this.
- 14:29 – 17:12
Big Tech at the Policy Table
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah, I mean, and, and companies I think were ready to consider some policy frameworks that, that I think were probably really going to be challenging for the AI sector in the long run.
- CMCollin McCune
Right.
- MPMatt Perault
And I think that's because I w- I was at, um, Meta, then Facebook, starting in 2011 and through 2019. And so after really, like, 2016, there was aggressive criticism of tech companies, and the general framing is, like, um, you're not being responsible and regulation needs to catch up. You, um, governance of social media is behind where the products are. Um, and whatever you think about that, that was really the kind of strong view in the ecosystem, that, like, governance has allowed... The lack of governance has allowed problematic things to happen. And so I think when AI was starting to accelerate and, um, and, and you had certain sort of prevailing political interests, I think, that were driving the conversation, companies rushed to the table. And I think it was a group of five, three, five, seven companies who went into the White House and negotiated voluntary commitments.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
W- I mean, we don't even have to make the argument about the importance of representing Little Tech in when you see that.
- CMCollin McCune
Right.
- MPMatt Perault
There's a, a, a set of companies who negot- negotiated an arrangement for what it would look like to build AI at the frontier with all current developers who weren't those companies, and all future startups not represented at the table.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
I think that is why, like, we started to think about the value of having more dedicated f- support around AI policy, because clearly the views of Little Tech companies aren't represented in the conversation.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. Well, I mean, let me, let me just add one thing to this.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
And I, I, I, it, it's Mark and Ben's story. They've told it many times. I was in the meeting as well, you know, and, and, like, you know, everything they've said has been 100% true and accurate. But there was a, there was a prevailing view by very, very powerful people of the previous administration that this was going to be only two or three major companies able to compete in the AI landscape. And because that was the case, they needed to be basically locked down and tr- and put in this incredibly restrictive view from a policy and regulatory perspective, and that was gonna be kind of like this, this entity that was kind of like a arm of the government. And, and I think that that was the most alarming thing that I think we had heard from the administration on top of an incredibly alarming [chuckles]
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... series of events that happened on the crypto side, um, including sort of wanting to eradicate it off the face of the planet, it seemed like. So I, I, I think that that all led to kind of the position that we're in now, and certainly, like, Matt's hiring and the thing, you know-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... like us building out the team, et cetera, so.
- 17:12 – 19:09
Licensing Regimes & Open Source Debates
- MPMatt Perault
That narrative is clearly, like, a very alarming, maybe the most alarming version of this. But even since I've been in this role, I've heard other versions of it where people will say, "Oh, don't worry about this framework. It just applies to three or five companies," or, "It just applies to five to seven companies." And I think they mean that to provide comfort to us, like, "Oh, this isn't gonna cover a lot of startups." But the view of the AI market where there are only a small number of companies building at the frontier is not the, that's not the vision for the market that we have. We want it to be competitive and diverse at the frontier. And the policy ideas-
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah
- MPMatt Perault
... that were coming out of the period that Collin's talking about were s- dramatically different from where they are today in a way that I think, like, some people have even, like, lost sight of exactly where we were a couple years ago. There were ideas being proposed by not just government, but industry, to require a license to build frontier AI tools, and for it to be regulated like nuclear energy, um, not just-
- CMCollin McCune
Which would be historic for software development.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. [chuckles] Yeah, right. Unprecedented.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. Um, and for it to be regulated like nuclear energy with, like, an international style nuclear-likeUh, uh, sorry, an international level nuclear style regulatory regime to govern it. And we've moved-- Like, no matter what you think about the right level of governance, there are not a lot of people now who are saying what we need is a licensing regime where you literally apply for permission from the government to build the tool, but that wasn't that far in the rear view mirror.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. And, and look, and we're also talking about bans on open source.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. Right.
- CMCollin McCune
I'm like, we're still kicking around that idea at the state level. And, and look, I, I, I-- it all... You know, look, f-for us who live and breathe the tech stuff-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... on a daily basis, this is, this is, you know, this sounds insane and crazy. Um, but let me, you know, like, just to make it a little bit more real, right? Like, the nuclear policy in the United States has yielded two, three new nuclear power plants in a fifty-year period since these organizations have been started. And look, like you can m- Some people are pro-nuclear, some people are anti-nuclear. I, I, I don't wanna get into that debate. The point though is,
- 19:09 – 26:57
National Security & Global Competition
- CMCollin McCune
is that that was not the intended policy of the United States of America. That was the effect-
- MPMatt Perault
Right
- CMCollin McCune
... of putting together this agency and what has come from that. And I think, you know, look, h- if we do the same thing to AI, had we done the same thing in AI in that period of time, then you don't have the medical advancements. You don't have the breakthroughs.
- MPMatt Perault
Right.
- CMCollin McCune
You don't have all of the things that come from this that are incredible. But beyond that, we lose to China.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
Full stop. You lose to China, and then our greatest national security threat becomes the one who has the most powerful technology in the world.
- MPMatt Perault
Right. And I, I think, I think the early concern on the open source was that we would be somehow giving it to China, but then we've seen with DeepSeek, et cetera, that they just have it anyways.
- CMCollin McCune
Right.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. Exact- Right. Exactly.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
You know, the idea that we could lock this down, I think, I think, you know... I mean, Mark and Ben have talked about this.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
I mean, I think they've debunked that a number of times.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. Just to understand, was-- For the previous administration, what was their calculus? W-was it that they were true believers in, in the fears? Was it that there was some sort of political benefit to having the, the views that they had, es-especially on the crypto side? I, I don't understand what's, what is the constituency for a anti-crypto stance. H-h-how do you make sense of, of sort of the players, uh, or the mo- uh, intentions or motivation, just to understand sort of the, the calculus there?
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah, you know, I mean, look, I, I think that that's a real- I think that's a really hard one to answer, and I'm not sure I can pretend to be completely in their minds. I think there's a couple of different competing forces here. Like, one is, you know, what are the constituencies that support sort of that administration? What are the constituencies that support, um, that side of the aisle? And I think that, uh, especially over the last ten to 15 years, it has been very, very heav-heavy focused on consumer fa- c-consumer safety, which I think, look, a very important thing.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
We're obviously in alignment on that. I think everyone should be in alignment. Have to protect consumers.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
Have to be able to pro-protect the American public. But I think that, um, a lot of that conversation has been weaponized.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
I think that it is, it is a big time moneymaker. I think a lot of these groups either get backing from very, very wealthy special interest, or they are small dollar fundraising off of quick hits like, you know, AI's coming for your jobs, donate $5, and we're going to, you know, and we'll make sure that we take care of this in Washington for you. And, you know, like, uh, pretty easy. You know, it's a pretty m- easy manipulation tactic.
- MPMatt Perault
Right.
- CMCollin McCune
You know, it's used, like-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... from a bunch of people.
- MPMatt Perault
Demagoguery.
- CMCollin McCune
But, but I think that that's, like, a very... That, that held very seriously true, right? And I think, um, you know, the other thing here is that I think, um, personnel is policy. It's the old saying, "Personnel is policy." And I think a lot of the individuals that, um, were in very senior decision-making roles within that White House and that administration came from this sort of consumer protection background-
- MPMatt Perault
Right
- 26:57 – 29:47
Crypto Policy Parallels
- CMCollin McCune
So I, I think everything that Matt just said is, is spot on. But, but, you know, like, and then, then you're kinda sitting around and you're kinda scratching your head. It's like, okay, well, if use covers it, and there hasn't been, you know, a f- a very incredibly fair rebuttal onto why use is not enough in, in terms of focus on, on the policy and regulatory side, what's, what's the answer? I think we're, we're experiencing sort of this, I don't know if it's phenomena, but we're experiencing this pattern on the crypto side too, which is, which is we're having a, a very, very spirited debate on the crypto side of things on how to regulate sort of these tokens and how do you launch a token in the United States. Is it a security or is it a commodity? And this is sort of this age-old debate that's pl- you know, plagued securities, traditional securities laws for years, but also certainly the crypto industry. But what we have found is there are s- there are a number of people who have entered this debate who are actually trying to get at the underlying securities laws. Like, they, they want to reform securities laws.
- MPMatt Perault
Mm.
- CMCollin McCune
They don't want to reform crypto laws-
- MPMatt Perault
Interesting
- CMCollin McCune
... that involve securities. And this is their only venue by which they can enter that conversation. Because we're not having-- There, there's no will from the Congress-
- MPMatt Perault
Right
- CMCollin McCune
... or from policymakers to go and overhaul the securities laws right now. You know, it's just not there. But what is moving is crypto. So people-
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah
- CMCollin McCune
... you know, there are all these people that are now trying to enter this debate and like, "Oh, we should relook at this." I'm like, "Wait, this doesn't have anything to do with it. We shouldn't be entering this conversation." Yet they're still pushing, right?
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
And that's kinda muddied the water. I think a very similar thing is actually happening on the AI side-
- MPMatt Perault
Mm
- CMCollin McCune
... which is, you know, there are a number of members of Congress that feel like, "Well, w-we missed it on the '96 Telecom Act."
- MPMatt Perault
Mm.
- CMCollin McCune
Like, that wasn't-- We didn't do good enough, uh, around then, so we need to rewrite the wrongs-
- MPMatt Perault
Mm
- CMCollin McCune
... through the venue of an AI policy conversation, right? 'Cause if you, if you think about it, right, assuming that use doesn't go far enough for someone, right? And this is the same conversation that we're having in California right now or in Colorado right now. If uses does not go far enough, okay, well then it would be really, really simple if you could have a privacy conversation around this, if you could have an online content moderation conversation, an algorithmic bias conversation around it. You could do all of that, wedge it through AI, and then assuming AI is actually going to be the thing that we all think it's gonna be, now you've put basically a regular, regulatory funnel on the other side. Like, you've put a mesh screen where everything has to run through AI, and therefore it runs through this regulatory proposal you put together.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. The, the, the thing that I've really been wrestling with in the last few weeks is whether those kinds of regimes are actually helpful in addressing the harm that they purport to want to address. And Colorado is a really good example. So there are all these bills that have been introduced at the state level. Colorado is the only one
- 29:47 – 31:33
The Dormant Commerce Clause & State Laws
- MPMatt Perault
that's passed so far. It set up this, this regime where you basically have to decide, are you doing a high-risk use of, of AI or a low-risk use of AI? And th-this would be for startups that don't have-
- CMCollin McCune
Right
- MPMatt Perault
... a general counsel, don't have a head of policy, can't hire an outside law firm to figure it out. High risk, low risk, and then if you're high risk, you have to do a bunch of stuff, usually impact assessments, sometimes audit your technology, to try to anticipate, is there going to be bias in your model in some form? Which m-m-maybe an impact assessment helps you figure that out a little bit, but it's probably not going to eliminate bias entirely. It certainly isn't going to, like, end racism in our society. Um-There was a, Colorado is now, their, their governor, their attorney general, um, have, have put pressure on the legislature to roll back this law because they think it's gonna be problematic for AI in Colorado. And so there was just a special session there to consider various different alternatives. One of the alternatives that was introduced proposed codifying that the use of AI to violate Colorado's anti-discriminate-- anti-discrimination statute is illegal. That's consistent with the regulate harmful use framing-
- CMCollin McCune
Right
- MPMatt Perault
... that we've talked about, and it's i- instead of having this like amorphous process where maybe you address bias in some form, maybe you don't, this goes straight at it. It's not a bank shot. It goes straight at it, where if someone uses AI in a way that violates anti-discrimination law, th-that would be, that could be prosecuted, you-- the attorney general could enforce. Um, and I don't, I still don't understand why that approach is not, is somehow less compelling than this complex administrative paperwork approach. I think it's kinda the reason that Collin's describing, which is, like, people want another, a, a different bite at the apple of bias, I suppose. But it's not clear to me that it, that, that it's actually the best way to effectuate the outcomes that you want as opposed to just criminalizing or creating civil penalties for the harm that you can see clearly.
- CMCollin McCune
It's
- 31:33 – 32:44
Federal Preemption & the Need for Standards
- CMCollin McCune
also, I, I mean, in, in policymaking and bill writing, it, it, it's really, really easy to come up with bad ideas.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
It's easy, right? Because they're not well thought through. The first thing comes to your head, someone publishes a paper on something, here we go. It takes real hard work to get something that actually works, and then it's even harder to actually go through a political and policy negotiation with a diverse set of stakeholders and actually land the plane on something.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. I think, I think that's part of the reason that people think that we are anti-governance-
- CMCollin McCune
Right
- MPMatt Perault
... because when we-
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah
- MPMatt Perault
... uh, I mean, Collin, he, again, he lived this history. I'm coming in late to it. But, like, as we were ramping up our policy a-apparatus, these were the ideas in the ecosystem, licensing, nuclear style regulation, um-
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah
- MPMatt Perault
... like flops, threshold-based disclosures, really complicated transparency regimes, impact assessments, audits, which are a bunch of ideas that we think are not going to help protect people and are gonna make it really hard for low resource startups. And so we've been trying to say, "No, no, no, don't do that." And so that sounds like deregulate. But, but for whatever reason, it's been hard so far to shift toward, like, here's another set of ideas that we think would be compelling for-- in actually protecting people and creating stronger AI markets.
- SPSpeaker
Right
- 32:44 – 34:00
Building Coalitions & Political Advocacy
- SPSpeaker
now, we don't see, you know, terrorists or criminals being aided, you know, one thousand X with AI in, in performing terrorism or, or, or crime. Like, when I ask people, like, "What are you truly scared about? Like, give me a concrete scenario," people, you know, they, they'll be like, "Oh, what about, like, bio-terrorism or something?" Or, "What about, you know, cybersecurity, you know, theft or something?" We seem very far away from that. Is there any amount of development at, you know, in the next few years, any amount of breakthroughs where you, where you might say, "Oh, you know, maybe use i-isn't enough?" Or, or do we think that that will always be a-
- MPMatt Perault
I, I think it's conceivable. I mean, and, and I think we've been open about that. Like, we, we, we think existing law is a good place to start. It's probably not where we end. So Martine Casado, one of our general partners, wrote a great piece on marginal risk in AI, basically saying, like, when there's incremental additional risk, that we should look for policy to address that risk. And so the situation you're describing I think might be that. I think what you're getting at is a really important question about just potential significant harms that we don't yet contemplate. We get asked often about our regulate use, n-re-- not regulate development framework. Are you just saying that we should address issues after they occur? And I understand why that's a concern. Like, there might be future harms. Um, and wouldn't it be nice if we could prevent them in advance? But that is how our legal
- 34:00 – 35:28
Industry Alignment & Divergence
- MPMatt Perault
system is designed. And typically, when you talk to people about ways that you could try to address potential criminal activity or other legal violations ex ante before they occur, that's really scary to people.
- SPSpeaker
Right.
- MPMatt Perault
Like, Eric, what if we just l-learned a lot of information about you and then predicted the likelihood that you might do something unlawful in the future? And if we think it's exceeded a certain threshold, then we're gonna go and try and take action against you before you've done it so that we can prevent future crime. That-- You're laughing 'cause it's laughable.
- SPSpeaker
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
We, we don't want a kind of ex ante surveillance, um, both because it feels invasive, but also because it, it, it often is ineffective. Like, you might-
- SPSpeaker
Yeah
- MPMatt Perault
... it might s- we might run some test that shows that maybe you're likely to pre-- be predisposed to some kind of criminal activity, but we don't know until you've done it that you're going to do-
- SPSpeaker
No
- MPMatt Perault
... that, that you've done it.
- SPSpeaker
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
And so, um, I think that kind of approach, again, I think it's motivated by a really valid concern and a, and a valid desire to prevent harm. What if we could prevent harm before it's occurred? The challenge is the regulatory framework I think probably won't do that and probably won't have the effect of preventing harm, and there are all these costs associated with it, mainly from our perspective, inhibiting startup activity.
- SPSpeaker
Yeah. Mark, um, once told me in a podcast, he told me this joke, which is, uh, m-man goes to the government, uh, you know, I go to the government because, uh, I have this big problem. Uh, now I get a lot of regulation. Now I have two problem. [laughing]
- 35:28 – 47:14
Where Are We At Now?
- SPSpeaker
Okay, let's talk about the, the state of AI policy today. There's a lot that's happened the last few months with the, the moratorium, the, the action plan. What are some of the things that we're excited about right now? What are some of the things we're, we're less excited about right now? Why don't we give a breakdown of where we're at right now?
- MPMatt Perault
So I think given what Collin's described about where things were a couple years ago, it's great to see the federal government, um, certainly the executive branch, but not just the executive branch, I think this is i-in Congress across both aisles being supportive of frameworks that we think are much better for little tech. So trying to, uh, identify areas where regulatory burden outweighs value and where we can right size regulation to make it easier for AI startups. As Collin said, support for open source. We were in a really different place on that a couple years ago. Now it seems like there's much more consensus, and again, it actually was across the end of the last administration and the current administration around the value of open source for competition and innovation. Um, there-- The, the National AI Action Plan also had-Yeah, great stuff in it about, um, thinking through the balance between the federal government and state governments, which is something that we've done a lot of thinking about. There's an important role for each, um, but the-- we think the federal government should really lead regulation of development of AI. States should police harmful conduct within their borders, and I think there's stuff in the action plan that would try to ensure those respective roles. There's also a lot of stuff in the action plan that wasn't really talked about much. It wasn't sort of the headline-grabbing stuff that I thought was incredibly compelling, um, in terms of tr- again, trying to, to create a future for AI that just works better for more people. And a really good example is the stuff on worker retraining, um, that focused on different programs that could help workers when-- if they're displaced as a result of AI, as well as monitoring AI markets and labor markets to make sure that we understand when there are significant labor disruptions. So I think it sort of gets at a point that you were, uh, alluding to a couple minutes ago about, like, what happens when there's something really disruptive in the future? Can you predict with certainty that there won't be this crazy disruptive thing? And no, we can't. There, there might be significant labor disruption. Um, others at the firm have talked extensively about how typically there's alway-- there are worries about labor disruptions when there's new technology introduced. Typically, there are increases in productivity that end up being good for labor overall. We think that's the direction of travel, but you never know. We can't predict it with certainty. And so I think it's a really strong step to try to just monitor labor markets to see what the disruption might look like so that we're set up to take strong policy action in the future.
- CMCollin McCune
Can I, can I just say one thing about the AI action plan?
- MPMatt Perault
Sure.
- CMCollin McCune
[clears throat] And I, I don't want to juxtapose this, uh, to what we saw under the Biden administration, which is incredible amount of activity in the Biden administration, [clears throat] incredible amount of activity under the Trump administration. But, you know, look, I, I kind of view these executive orders and these plans that come out from an administration are very, very important, and some of them have true policy. They direct the a- agencies to do things, to come out with reports, and then take under rulemakings and things like that. But from an AI action plan perspective, for me, it was so significant because I think it turned the conversation on its head. Before it was, we have to, we have to only focus on safety with a splash of innovation.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
And now it is, we understand how important this is from a national security perspective. We understand how important this is from an economic perspective. We need to make sure that we win while people-- while keeping people safe.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
Right? And that dynamic and that shift of rhetoric is incredibly important because what that does is it signals to the rest of the world, it signals to other governments that this is the position of the United States and will be the position for the next three and a half years, and this is the position of the United States to the Congress.
- MPMatt Perault
Mm.
- CMCollin McCune
So when the Congress is looking at potentially taking up pieces of legislation or taking actions or even committee hearings, which, you know, for the, the broad base of what we're talking about are fairly insignificant, [clears throat] all of that is sort of kept in mind. So now the conversation has shifted significantly, and that, that is really, really important.
- MPMatt Perault
Speaking of, of winning, Collin, um, I'm curious for our, for our thoughts, uh, on AI policy vis-à-vis China, whether it's export controls or any other, you know, issues we care about.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. I mean, well, I mean, look, first and foremost, uh, we've talked about it already. I mean, we have to win, right? And, and I think, I think that that is, that is at, that is at the main thrust of a lot of what we're doing here and a lot of the way that we think about this from a firm perspective. You know, I think first is making sure that the, the founders and the builders can build appropriately with appropriate safeguards and an appropriate regulatory structure. The second is, how do we win and make sure that America is the place where AI is, is probably the most functional and foundational vis-à-vis China? Um, you know, I, I, I think that, um, there has been a long conversation, the diffusion rule that came out from the Biden administration, specifically on export controls. Um, many, I think, panned that proposal. I think that that was, um, a lot of people suggested it was probably too restrictive. It wasn't the right way to think about things. I think, you know, w-we have spent most of our time, Matt leading this effort, has spent most of his time, our time, specifically focused on how are we regulating the underlying models and how are we regulating, hopefully, the use of these models versus specifically sort of on the export control piece. What I will say, though, is very concerning sort of some of the proposals that came out, um, from the Biden administration, some of the proposals that we've seen at the state level, and some of the pro- proposals that we've seen at, at the congressional level, at the federal standpoint, that dealt with specifically export controls on models themselves.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
And we're still kind of having this conversation. There's, there's a, um, there is a policy set that has been kicked around for a while. It's called the outbound investment policy, which is basically how much U.S. money from the private sector is flowing into Chinese companies. And I... Very noble, laudable, you know, super supportive of that concept. You know, we are a very sort of primary America, America First sort of organization here. We're investing primarily in American companies and American founders. Um, so, you know, we're, we're very supportive of it. But when you, when you sort of edge into the idea that we might inadvertently ban U.S. open source models from being able to be exported across the country, like, by definition of open source, there is no, there are no walls around these types of things. So that's one of the areas that we've been very, very focused on. Um, and I think, uh, I think obviously very important to make sure that we don't have these very powerful technologies, U.S.-made technologies in, in the hands-
- MPMatt Perault
Right
- CMCollin McCune
... of our Chinese counterparts and the PLA and the CCP using this against us.But I also think that we need to make sure that we're not extending too far and limiting the power of open source technologies to be able to kind of be the platform around the world. You know, the final point that I'd make here is we do ul-ul-ultimately and fundamentally have a decision to make a-as, you know, the US, which is do we want people using US products across the world, which helps for a whole bunch of different reasons, but certainly on soft power from a national security perspective, or do we want people to use Chinese products? The more that we lock down obviously American products, the more Chinese, the Chinese will enter those markets and sort of take a land grab in that space.
- SPSpeaker
Why don't you get into more what happened with the moratorium and, and the fallout that ensued?
- CMCollin McCune
I think this one's i-i-is a bit complicated. There was a perception about the moratorium when it came out that it would have prohibited all state law from, from existing for a 10-year window. Obviously, that's a long period of time. I'm not sure we would necessarily completely agree with that policy stance. That, from our point of view, is a misinterpretation for a whole bunch of different reasons of actually what the language said. But, you know, sometimes in DC, a lot of times in DC, perception is reality, and that w- that kind of, that kind of took hold. But I, I also think that, um, you know, there, there are also, you know, strong competing forces like we've discussed, right, from the, I, I think the doomer crowd or the safety crowd that were very, very anti, that had, had used all of their tentacles that they've spread out over the last decade to try and move in and try and kill this. I think they also were successful in leveraging some other industries to try and come in and also move forward to try and kill this thing. And look, you know, by virtue of the vehicle, the underlying procedural vehicle, this reconciliation package that it was moving in, it was a partisan exercise. It was gonna be Republicans on Democrats, and that was that, right? And there was nothing, even a prominent AI policy that was gonna be dropped in a reconciliation package that was ever going to drag Democrat votes over it because it was such a big sort of Christmas tree style thing that had all kinds, all kinds of tax reform positions, et c- et cetera. Um, and if you're in one of those situations, the margins on the votes become very, very, very small. So all it took was, you know, one or two Republican senators hitching their wagon to some of these ideas that were out there to tank this thing, right? And look, I, I think that's gonna be a situation that you're gonna fight in any sort of political policy legislative outcome or any sort of any, a-any sort of issue that you're gonna be running within the Congress, right? But I think more so than anything, um, and we heard this repeatedly from a whole bunch of different people, and this is what we've also experienced, the industry was just not organized well enough, right? And that's not just the industry, it's also the people who care about this thing that aren't actually industry stakeholders. The stakeholders who were pro some level of moratorium or some level of preemption were just not organized. And I think that that, um, that was a, you know, both a eye-opening moment, but also an important moment because I think what we have done in the preceding, uh, you know, three, four months since this thing has gone down is we've taken a long, hard look at what we need to do collectively from a coalition to be able to be in a better position next time we're there. Um, and so what does that look like, right? I mean, first and foremost, it comes with writing, doing podcasts, talking about these things, talking about the details of what's actually in these proposals and what it actually means for states and, and, and the federal government to make sure that we're fighting through the FUD that's coming through because it's always gonna be there. There's misrepresen- misrepresentation all over the, all over the field. The second piece is let's all get on the same page, which I think we've, we've worked very hard to do, and, and where we can find alignment, we-- I think we've found that alignment between big, medium, and little. And then I think the third and probably the most important is what are we doing on sort of the political advocacy side to make sure that we have the appropriate tools to be able to push forward in a way that ensures that America continues to lead and that we don't lose out on this race to China. And that's, you know, part of the reason that we have recently announced our donation to Leading the Future PAC, which will have, you know, several different entities underneath it, which I think is, is designed to sort of be that political center of gravity in the space. Um, and that will fight at the federal level and the state and local level. So we're, we're happy to be a part of it, and I... we expect, you know, there will be others that join this sort of common cause fight on the AI side.
- SPSpeaker
If we could wave a wand,
- 47:14 – 50:07
State vs. Federal Roles in AI Policy
- SPSpeaker
what would we like to be done at the state level? What we like to-- uh, versus the federal level versus h-how should we think about that, that interplay, that compared to where we're at now?
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. So, so I, I think there the, the, the helpful answer here comes from the Constitution. Constitution actually lays out a role for the federal government and a role for state governments. Federal government takes the lead in interstate commerce, so governing a national AI market and governing AI development, we think is primarily Congress's role. Um, sometimes when, when people say that, I think the-- what other people hear for some reason is states should do nothing. And we have been-- we've tried very hard to be very deliberate in not saying that and making clear that states have an incredibly important role to play in policing harmful conduct within their jurisdictions. So criminal law is a perfect example. There is some criminal law at the federal level, but the bulk of criminal law is at the state level. Like when you think about routine crimes, if you are going to prosecute someone, uh, prosecute a perpetrator, the-- it's likely that that would occur under state law. And so to the extent we wanna take count of local activity that, um, that would-- wh-where there's criminal conduct involved, and we wanna make sure that the laws are robust enough to protect people from that activity, that's gonna be primarily state, state law. Um, oddly enough, I mean, as Collin is describing, like we-
- MPMatt Perault
This isn't the delineation that we've started out with. There are a lot of state laws that have sort of taken the approach of some-sometimes explicitly, um, Congress hasn't acted, so we have a responsibility to act. And that's true to some extent, like you can act within-- states can act within their constitutional lane. Some of what states have done have gone outside that lane. And so we actually just this week released a post on, on potential dormant Commerce Clause concerns associated with state laws, and the basic idea there is that there's a constitutional test that says that states cannot excessively burden out-of-state commerce if it-- when it-- when that greatly exceeds the in-state local benefits. And so courts actually weigh that. There's a balancing test. Are the harms cost to out-of-state activity, do, do those significantly outweigh the benefits on the local side? And we think that at least for some of the proposals that have been introduced, it's, it's likely that they won't, that the benefits are somewhat diminished relative to what the proponents think they are, and that the costs are significant, like the cost of a developer in Washington State for complying with a law that's in California or a law that's in New York is gonna be significant. And so our hope, I think, is not that the dormant Co-Commerce Clause ends up serving as a function that makes it hard for states to enact laws, um, but actually just get-- serves as a guidepost for states around the kinds of laws that they might actually introduce. And I think it pushes in the direction that's consistent with our agenda, which is to, to take an active role in legislating and enforcing laws that are focused on harmful use.
- 50:07 – 54:31
The Future of AI Policy: Preemption, Workforce, and Literacy
- SPSpeaker
Looking at the next six months to a year, what, what are the issues that we're most focused on or that we're thinking about are going to, you know, be playing a role in the conversation?
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah. I, I think it's first and foremost some level of federal preemption. And I, I, I wanna be very specific about this. Again, to Matt's point, we're not talking about preempting all state law. We're talking about making sure that we have a federal framework specifically for this model regulation and, and hopefully how the models can be used, right? Um, I, I, I think that's gonna be so, so critical because we can't, just like any other technology, n-no technology can live under a 50-state patchwork. And, and, and that's, that's been the biggest issue that we've been fighting over the last year and a half or so. Um, so I think, I think that. Um, I think that there are some other sort of policy sets that I think will be handled beyond that, that I think can kick into sort of workforce training. I think there's some literacy things that should be coming up. Obviously, there's a huge, robust conversation around data centers and energy, and I think it will be really, really important. But above all, I think most of our time and energy will be focused on trying to have some level of federal standard here to try and drive the dividing line between the federal and state government, which I think Matt has already done a ton of great work on.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah. I think this is just a super exciting policy moment for AI. Um, there's the, the last couple years where I think there are a bunch of ideas that have been proposed, and for the reasons that we've discussed, we think those ideas fall short, both in terms of protecting consumers and in terms of ensuring that there's a robust startup ecosystem. Um, most of those laws I think have actually not succeeded in passing. So, like, th-there were a number of laws introduced at the state level in the-- in, in this past year's legislative sessions that we thought had a strong likelihood of, of passing, and I think to date, none of them have passed. Um, Collin has also been building out the expertise and skill set and capacity on his team. We just hired Kevin McKinley to lead our work in state policy, and he, I think, will help us to take a real affirmative position in the legislative sessions ahead on what might actually be AI policy that's good for startups. So instead of being in the position of saying no, 'cause we're sort of starting late and kind of with one hand behind our back, I think we're in a position to really actually try to articulate and advance a proactive agenda in AI that's compelling. I think Collin hit the main parts of it, um, ensuring s- the proper roles for the federal and state governments, w- focusing on regulating harmful use, not development, and there are specific things that you can do there in terms of increasing capacity in enforcement agencies, making clear that AI is not a defense to claims brought on under existing criminal or civil law, um, and, and technical training, I think, for government officials to make sure that they can identify and prosecute cases where AI is used in a harmful way. And then all this infrastructure and talent stuff that, that Collin's describing, work-worker retraining, AI literacy. Um, we've also given some thought to the idea that has been articulated by a number of lawmakers and was in the National AI Action Plan of creating a central resource housed in the federal government, and you could also do it in state governments as well-
- CMCollin McCune
Mm-hmm
- MPMatt Perault
...that lower some of the barriers to entry for startups, um, you know, compute costs and, and d-data access. Um, and we think that's really compelling in terms of, um, ensuring that startups can compete. And that idea, like many of these, is bipartisan. It's been supported by the current administration. It was supported by leading Democrats, um, o-over the last couple years. So that's the kind of thing that we are hoping that when we have the, the room and position to really advocate for an affirmative agenda, that we'll get some traction in policy circles.
- CMCollin McCune
We're not always in 100% alignment with other people in the industry, you know. And, and I, I think, I think that that's, you know, big, medium, little, you know, a-across the board, there's other sort of, like, consumer advocacy groups that obviously feel differently about these things. I think for the most part, the industry is generally aligned on some level of a federal standard here.
- MPMatt Perault
Mm.
- CMCollin McCune
And understanding that the thing again that won't work is a 50-state patchwork.
- MPMatt Perault
Yeah.
- CMCollin McCune
And I think that that's super, super important because I think for the first time, you actually have this sort of alignment there, and if you have that sort of alignment, that's kind of momentum that you can to actually push things over the finish line and get something done.
- MPMatt Perault
Mm.
- CMCollin McCune
And I, and I think, look, also the Trump administration, to their credit, has also been incredibly supportive of this
- 54:31 – 56:51
Industry Alignment and Political Dynamics
- CMCollin McCune
idea too.
- SPSpeaker
Th-there's a, like-- That's an incredibly important point. One criticism s- usually raised in sort of an implicit criticism sort of way is-
- MPMatt Perault
"Hey, you're the little guys, but often you align with the big guys, so aren't you just say- aren't you just in favor of a deregulatory agenda that works for big tech?" And one of the things that I think is really extraordinary about The Little Tech Agenda is it's really nonpartisan, and it's-- doesn't take a position on big/little. It basically says, "Here's the agenda, and when you agree with us, we'll support you, and when you disagree with us, we'll oppose you."
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
And that's not party line, it's not big/little. And so I think what we saw over a cert- or at-- w- the, the c- the, the phase that Collin was referring to kind of initially in the recent set of AI policy was a phase of divergence between big and little. Licensing regime, bigs were sort of pushing it, little was concerned about it. Um, then there's, then there was a period of convergence, and I think actually if you look at, like, the National AI Action Plan comments, um, across a range of different providers, as Collin's saying, like, a lot of them, they had some core similarities. So s- so lots of large companies have advocated for federal preemption. We don't oppose that just because big companies are advocating for it.
- CMCollin McCune
Right.
- MPMatt Perault
We think that that's good for startups. Um, I think it's possible-- I'm, I'm curious-- I mean, this is really-- You know, Collin really understands this in a way that I don't. Like, how the political chips will fall, I think it's possible we're in a period of some divergence. And one thing that we hear repeatedly, which is sort of funny, is people will bring us stuff and they'll say, um, "Industry agrees with this, so we expect you to agree. You can't-- The industry's already agreed, you can't disagree." And we say, "The big parts of the industry have agreed, but we, we-- sometimes we agree with them, but sometimes we have different views."
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- MPMatt Perault
"And so when we disagree, it's not because we're trying to, like, blow up a policy process or make it differ- difficult for lawmakers who are trying to move something forward. It's because when we're looking at it, we're looking at it through this particular lens." And I think, I hope it's not the case, but I think there might be more fracturing in the months ahead.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah, I agree with you on that. And by people, he means lawmakers.
- MPMatt Perault
[laughs]
- CMCollin McCune
Just to be specific.
- MPMatt Perault
[laughs]
- SPSpeaker
Yes. That's a great place to, to, to wrap.
- CMCollin McCune
Yeah.
- SPSpeaker
Collin, Matt, thanks so much for coming on the podcast.
- MPMatt Perault
Thanks so much.
- CMCollin McCune
Thanks very much. [upbeat music]
Episode duration: 57:01
Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript
Transcript of episode ZISvCnGmq_s
Get more out of YouTube videos.
High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.
Add to Chrome