Colin McCune, Head of Government Affairs at a16z, discusses how early lobby efforts shaped government perceptions of AI danger.
Assertion Supported
McCune: Current AI tech lobbying is dwarfed by decade of safety spending
“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, I'm not suggesting that there's not money in the system. We're obviously active on the political and p…”
What-if
McCune: Regulating AI like nuclear power would cause U.S. to lose to China
“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. You don't have all of the things that come from this that are incredible. But beyond that, we lose to China. Full stop.”
Prediction Not checkable as stated
McCune: Restricting U.S. AI exports will allow China to capture global markets
“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.”
Disclosure
McCune: a16z donated to Leading the Future PAC for AI political advocacy
“And that's, you know, part of the reason that we have recently announced our donation to leading the future pack, 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 …”
Assertion Not checkable as stated
McCune: No D.C. group specifically represented early-stage tech startups before a16z
“There wasn't anyone specific who was actually advocating on behalf of what I think, what we call little tech, which I think in my mind are the startups and entrepreneurs, the smaller builders in the space.”
Assertion Not checkable as stated
McCune: Lawmakers are using AI policy to fix the 1996 Telecom Act
“There are a number of members of Congress that feel like, well, we missed it on the 96 telecom act. Like that wasn't, we didn't do good enough around then. So we need to rewrite the wrongs through the venue of an AI policy conversation”