Welcome to the deep dive.
We've got some really interesting stuff to dig into today.
Yeah, some fascinating sources about tech and business
and how they all played into this last election.
Right.
We're going to be focusing on this conversation between Mark
Andreessen and Ben Horowitz.
Oh, yeah, the A16s guys.
Exactly.
Those are the co-founders of that big venture capital firm,
A16s.
And they're talking about what it's
been like trying to navigate the political landscape
and what they see coming down the road.
One of the things that really stood out to me
was how Andreessen and Horowitz see technology
as like this central thing to America's global strength.
Not just some little side issue.
Right, they're connecting it directly to economic power
and military might.
It's all kind of intertwined for them.
It sounds like they're feeling way more optimistic about where
the tech industry is headed since the election.
Yeah, for sure.
Andreessen even talks about waking up happier now.
Wow.
It's really interesting how they use this term learned
helplessness to describe how tech founders were feeling
under the previous administration.
Like they just gave up.
It's like they felt so beaten down by policies they saw
as holding them back that they kind of lost
their drive to innovate.
Just totally lost their mojo.
Yeah, exactly.
And you can almost feel this sense of liberation
in what they're saying now.
Like, oh, weight's been lifted.
Exactly.
They don't hold back on their criticisms
of the previous administration either.
They definitely don't mince words.
They even call it unprecedented in its hostility
towards the tech industry.
And they bring up debanking as a big example.
Right, debanking.
So for anyone who's not familiar with that term,
it's basically when financial institutions are pressured
to cut off certain businesses.
Yeah, and what's really striking is that they're saying,
this tactic was usually used against foreign countries.
Like we're going to sanction you.
Right, but Andreessen and Horowitz
argue that it was actually used against American fintech
and crypto companies.
So basically targeting their own citizens.
Yeah, it's a pretty serious accusation.
They actually compare it to sanctions imposed
on countries like Iran.
Like they're saying the government basically
sanctioned American citizens without any due process.
Whoa.
And then they share this story about a company that
was trying to help out low wage workers.
Sounds like a good thing.
They were providing free loans, but then they
got targeted by the CFTP, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
So that's where the government steps in.
Right.
It really makes you think about, like, who are these regulations
actually protecting?
Is it really about the consumer or is it something else?
Yeah, is there another agenda at play here?
And then they get into this whole crypto crackdown.
Oh, yeah, which they see as another example of regulators
kind of going overboard.
Stifling innovation.
Right.
And they bring up this interesting anecdote
about the Amish community.
The Amish?
What do they have to do with crypto?
Well, it's not about crypto specifically.
It's more about this idea of government overreach.
You wouldn't necessarily think of the Amish
getting involved in politics.
Right.
They kind of stay out of things.
Yeah.
But they actually supported the winning candidate
in the recent election because they
had been targeted for something you wouldn't expect.
What was that?
Selling unpasteurized milk.
Oh, wow.
I would not have seen that coming.
It seems kind of random.
But Andreessen and Horowitz connect this
to a bigger concept.
They call anarcho-tyranny.
Anarcho-tyranny.
That sounds intense.
It is.
It's this idea that the government focuses all
its energy on overregulating law-abiding citizens.
While letting the real criminals run free.
Exactly.
It's like they're going after the Amish for selling raw milk
but ignoring way bigger problems.
That's a really interesting point.
It makes you wonder about priorities, for sure.
Yeah.
Where's the focus?
And speaking of crypto, Andreessen and Horowitz
were big backers of that pro-crypto,
super-packed fair shake.
Oh, yeah.
Fair shake.
And get this.
They had a 52 to 6 win-loss record
in the congressional races.
That's impressive.
Pretty effective.
It shows you how much influence the crypto lobby has.
And they emphasized that this support wasn't just
coming from one side of the aisle.
Right, it was a bipartisan thing.
Which shows how much crypto can cut across party lines.
So it's not just a Republican or Democrat issue.
Exactly.
And they even mentioned that a bunch of Democrats
defied their own party.
And even a potential veto threat from the White House
to support this FIT21 bill.
FIT21.
Yeah, it stands for the Financial Innovation
Technology for the 21st Century Act.
OK, so what's the big deal about this bill?
I'll admit, I'm not super up to speed on all the ins
and outs of crypto legislation.
Well, FIT21 was all about trying to create
some clear regulations for the crypto world.
So trying to bring some order to the chaos.
Exactly.
Like figuring out is something a commodity or a security.
Because that's a big question, right?
Is it a currency?
Is it an investment?
No one seems to know.
Right, and that's where the SEC comes in.
The Securities and Exchange Commission.
Yeah, and they were actually pushing back against this bill.
So they didn't like it.
They opposed it, which raises some interesting questions
about what their motives were.
Were they really trying to protect investors?
Or were they trying to stifle a potential competitor
to the traditional financial system?
It's like they saw crypto as a threat.
Possibly.
It's something to think about.
Definitely makes you wonder.
So it sounds like it's not just about the regulations
themselves.
It's about who's pushing for them and why.
Right, it adds a whole other layer
of complexity to the debate.
For sure.
But Andreessen and Horowitz aren't just
focused on the regulatory side of things.
They also make this really strong case
for how crypto can promote financial equity.
Yeah, they point to the fact that black Americans,
for example, have a higher rate of crypto ownership
than other asset classes.
So they're actually getting in on the ground floor.
Which suggests that crypto could be
a way for historically marginalized communities
to build wealth and get ahead.
That's a really powerful idea.
It challenges the perception that crypto
is just for tech bros and wealthy investors.
Exactly.
It has the potential to be much more inclusive than that.
So while some people might see crypto
as this risky Wild West kind of thing,
Andreessen and Horowitz are saying, hold on,
there's a bigger picture here.
It's about leveling the playing field
and creating opportunities for everyone.
Which, if you think about it, ties back
into their whole idea that tech is about more than just
profits.
It can have a real social impact.
Absolutely.
It's not just about making money.
It's about making a difference.
OK, so we've covered crypto.
What about AI?
That's another area where things are moving so fast.
What do Andreessen and Horowitz have to say about AI policy?
Well, they see AI policy as this really crucial moment right now.
There's a lot of concern about what
they call regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture.
Yeah, it's basically where the big tech companies
try to use regulations to stifle competition
and maintain their power.
Ah, so it's like they're rigging the game in their favor.
Exactly.
They're trying to use the government
to squash the little guy before they can even get started.
Not cool.
Not cool at all.
And then there's this whole debate
about the precautionary principle.
It's this idea that we should put strict regulations in place
even if there's no clear evidence of harm yet.
So like better safe than sorry.
Yeah, but you could also argue that it could stifle innovation.
If you're too afraid of what might happen,
you never try anything new.
That's a tough one.
It's about finding that balance.
Exactly.
How do you encourage innovation while also protecting
against potential downsides?
It's a tricky question.
And it's not just about AI itself.
They also bring up the energy implications of all this.
Right.
They argue that the US energy grid might not
be able to handle the demands of large scale AI development.
So it's like we need an energy upgrade
to keep up with the AI revolution.
Exactly.
Otherwise, we could hit a bottleneck.
And it's not just about AI.
It's about all the industries that AI could potentially
transform.
So it has this ripple effect.
Exactly.
And they bring up this really interesting historical
parallel.
Oh, I love historical parallels.
Let's hear it.
They talk about President Nixon's Project Independence
back in 1971.
Project Independence.
Yeah, he wanted to make the US energy independent
through nuclear power.
Wow, that's a big goal.
Did it work?
Well, not really.
What happened was they created the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
And that basically stopped the development
of new nuclear plants for decades.
So they're saying that overregulation actually
backfired and made us more dependent on foreign energy
sources?
That's their argument.
They see it as a missed opportunity.
But they also think there's a chance for what they call
a nuclear renaissance now.
A nuclear renaissance.
Interesting.
Yeah, they think there's an opportunity
to revisit those goals of energy independence, which
could be especially important as AI development ramps up.
It all ties together.
Exactly.
And if we can solve that energy problem,
it could unleash a ton of innovation, not just in AI,
but across the board.
And potentially even boost national security.
Right, because they're really focused on that as well.
Yeah, defense tech is a big theme for them.
How are they thinking about that?
They're emphasizing how defense tech is changing in a major way
because of drones.
Drones are everywhere these days.
Right, and it's not just about the technology itself.
It's about how drone warfare is changing
the whole nature of combat.
Sounds pretty radical.
They even tell this story about a special forces
expert who compared the impact of drones
to the invention of the stirrup.
The stirrup, like for horses?
Yeah, exactly.
The idea is that the stirrup allowed mounted warriors
to stand up and fire arrows.
Ah, OK, I see where this is going.
It completely revolutionized calorie warfare.
And this expert is saying that drones
are having a similar impact on modern warfare.
So drones aren't just a cool gadget.
They're changing the game entirely.
Right, but that comes with its own risks.
Andreessen and Horowitz are warning
about the dangers of relying on drones
made by foreign countries, especially China.
Oh, I see where this is going.
They're worried that we should become
dependent on a potential adversary
for a crucial military technology.
Makes sense.
We don't want to be caught with our pants down
if things heat up.
They actually draw a parallel to pagers.
Pagers?
Wow, going way back.
Remember how those were all the rage back in the day?
Well, they say that a lot of those pagers
were actually made in China.
Really?
I had no idea.
And they paint this scenario where American troops are
relying on Chinese-made drones, and then in a conflict,
that technology gets turned against them.
Hey, Ike.
That's not a good situation.
Not at all.
So they're arguing for the importance of investing
in our own domestic drone industry.
We need to control our own destiny.
Exactly.
Yeah.
And that idea of technological independence
goes way beyond just defense.
Right, it's about ensuring that the US remains
a leader in innovation across the board.
It's about shaping the future, not just reacting to it.
Absolutely.
And that brings us to this really crucial point
that Andreessen and Horowitz make,
the need to win in technology.
Winning?
But what does that even mean?
Is it just about economic dominance or military power?
Or is there something even bigger than that at play?
Well, that's a question we'll need
to explore further in part two of our deep dive.
They definitely seem to think it's about something more
profound than just having the most gadgets or the biggest
companies.
They have a whole philosophical perspective
on what it means to win in technology.
Stay tuned for part two, where we'll dig into all that
and what it might mean for you.
Welcome back for part two of our deep dive.
Last time we left off talking about this idea
of winning in technology.
Right, like what does that actually mean?
It felt like they were hinting at something more than just
having the fastest computers or launching the most satellites.
Exactly.
And they're arguing it's not even just about being ahead
in the tech race for its own sake.
They're really connecting it to national security.
Which is something they keep bringing up over and over again.
Right, it's a major theme for them.
So it's like that drone example we were talking about.
If we're not building our own drones,
we end up relying on other countries,
and that puts us at risk.
Exactly.
And they take that idea and make it even bigger.
They're saying that the US needs to be way more proactive when
it comes to tech policy overall.
So like not just reacting to what other countries are doing.
Right.
Be more assertive.
Take charge.
They see technological leadership as like this key thing.
It's tied to economic power and military power.
It's all connected.
Exactly.
And they're contrasting this with what
they see is the previous administration's approach,
which is much more hesitant.
Like they were playing it too safe.
Yeah, like they were too worried about the risks,
and that ended up holding the US back.
So they're saying we need to be bolder, take some chances.
Calculated risks, of course.
But yeah, be willing to push the boundaries.
And it sounds like they're pretty optimistic
about the new administration.
They seem to think that there's a much better understanding
of the importance of technology now.
Like the new administration gets it.
Yeah, they're more receptive to this idea of the US needing
to be a leader in tech.
But they also acknowledge that Washington
can be a really tough place to navigate,
especially when you're talking about something
as complex as technology.
Oh yeah, for sure.
There are so many different players and interests
and perspectives.
It can be a real maze.
So how do we even begin to make progress?
Well, they argue that the tech industry
needs to be way more involved in shaping policy.
So they're saying Silicon Valley needs to step up.
Exactly.
They can't just sit on the sidelines
and complain about regulations.
They need to be active participants
in these conversations.
Go to DC and make their voices heard.
Yeah, be part of the solution.
And they're emphasizing that this
isn't about partisan politics.
So it's not just a Democrat versus Republican thing.
Right, it's about finding common ground
on issues like supporting innovation
and boosting American competitiveness.
Things that everyone can agree on.
Exactly.
They believe there's a lot of potential
for bipartisan cooperation when it comes to tech policy.
OK, so that's what winning might look like from a policy
perspective.
But I'm curious, what does all this
mean for the average person?
That's a great question.
And I think Andreessen and Horowitz
would say that technology isn't just some abstract thing
anymore.
It's affecting every aspect of our lives.
It's everywhere.
Exactly.
It's shaping our economy, our national security,
our everyday experiences.
So even if you're not a tech CEO or a politician,
this stuff matters.
Absolutely.
The decisions being made about AI, crypto, all of it,
it's going to impact all of us, whether we realize it or not.
It's going to trickle down.
Yeah, it's going to affect the jobs that are available,
the prices we pay for things, even our personal privacy.
So it's not just something for the techies to worry about.
Right.
It's something we all need to be paying attention to
and engaging with.
Because ultimately, the future of technology
isn't just being decided in Silicon Valley or in Washington.
It's being shaped by all of us.
It's a collective effort.
Exactly.
And that's where I think their emphasis on optimism comes in.
They're saying that despite all the challenges,
there's still so much to be excited about when
it comes to technology.
They really believe in its potential.
They see it as a powerful force for good.
They believe that technology can help us solve some
of the world's biggest problems.
Like, what kinds of things are they talking about?
Well, they mentioned climate change, for example.
That's a big one.
Yeah, and disease and poverty.
They think technology can be a tool
to tackle these huge issues and make a real difference.
So it's not just about making our lives more convenient
or entertaining.
Right.
It's about something much bigger than that.
It's about making the world a better place.
Exactly.
But they also acknowledge that it's not a guaranteed win.
There are risks involved.
Yeah, there are definitely potential downsides.
Yeah.
We need to be smart about how we develop and use technology.
We can't just assume it's all going to work out perfectly.
Right.
We need to be mindful of the ethical implications,
the potential for misuse, all of that.
So it's not about just blindly embracing technology.
Exactly.
It's about being thoughtful and intentional
about how we approach it.
Using it responsibly.
Exactly.
And I think that's a really important message.
It's not about being anti-technology
or being afraid of progress.
It's about being aware of the potential risks
and working to mitigate them.
So it's like a balancing act.
Yeah.
Finding that sweet spot between innovation and responsibility.
And they believe that if we get that balance right,
we can really create a better future.
A future where technology is used to uplift and empower
everyone, not just a select few.
OK, so we've talked about what winning in technology
might look like from a policy perspective.
And we talked about what it might mean for society
as a whole.
But I'm wondering, what does it look like on an individual
level?
That's a great question.
And one way to think about it is in terms
of this idea of a more decentralized and democratized
world.
Like giving more power to individuals.
Exactly.
And they highlight a few specific areas
where this is already happening.
One is biotechnology.
Oh, yeah.
That's a field that's moving so fast.
Think about all the advancements we're seeing in gene editing,
personalized medicine, all that.
They believe we're on the verge of being
able to cure diseases that were once thought to be incurable.
That's incredible.
It's like science fiction becoming reality.
It really is.
Yeah.
And it's not just about curing diseases.
It's about extending lifespans, improving quality of life,
all sorts of possibilities.
And AI is playing a big role in all this, right?
Huge role.
It's helping us analyze data, develop new treatments,
really push the boundaries of what's possible.
It's like having a super-powered research assistant.
Exactly.
And then there's education.
They talk about how online learning platforms
and AI-powered tutors are making education
more accessible and effective than ever before.
So you don't have to go to a fancy school
to get a good education.
Right.
You can learn from anywhere in the world at your own pace.
It's about giving everyone the opportunity
to reach their full potential.
I love that idea.
It's like democratizing knowledge.
Exactly.
And then there's the way we work.
We're seeing the rise of the gig economy, remote work,
becoming more common people, using technology
to create their own businesses and pursue their passions.
It's like the old rules of work are being rewritten.
Exactly.
And they call this the creator economy
and the passion economy.
It's about having more control over your work and your life.
More freedom and flexibility.
Exactly.
And technology is enabling that shift.
So it's like a more decentralized and democratized
economy, which could be really empowering for individuals.
They believe it has the potential
to create a lot more opportunity for everyone.
But of course, all of this comes with its own set
of challenges.
Oh, yeah, for sure.
There are definitely risks and concerns that we can't ignore.
Like, what kinds of things are they worried about?
Well, job displacement, for one.
As automation and AI become more sophisticated,
there's a real possibility that some jobs will be eliminated.
Yeah, that's a scary thought for a lot of people.
And then there's data privacy.
As we generate more and more data,
there's a risk that it could be misused
or fall into the wrong hands.
Which could have serious consequences
for our privacy and security.
Exactly.
And then there's the potential for AI
to be used for harmful purposes.
Like autonomous weapons systems or surveillance technologies.
Right.
We need to be very careful about how we develop and deploy
these powerful technologies.
So it's not all sunshine and roses.
Definitely not.
Right.
But Andreessen and Horowitz are arguing that we
shouldn't let fear paralyze us.
We can't just stick our heads in the sand.
Right.
We need to acknowledge the risks,
but also embrace the potential for good.
So it's about finding that balance again.
Exactly.
And they believe that if we approach technology
with the right mindset, we can overcome these challenges
and create a future that's truly beneficial for humanity.
So it all comes back to optimism.
Yeah.
They're really emphasizing the importance
of having a positive and forward looking
perspective on technology.
It's about shaping the future we want,
not just reacting to the one that's coming at us.
Exactly.
And I think that's a really powerful message.
It's a call to action for all of us
to be engaged and informed and hopeful about the possibilities
that lie ahead.
Wow.
We've really gone deep on this one.
Everything from government regulations
to the future of AI.
And don't forget that whole philosophical debate
about winning in technology.
Oh, right, right.
What does that even mean in the grand scheme of things?
Exactly.
And as we wrap up, Andreessen and Horowitz really
push us to think even bigger.
They're asking, what does winning in technology
ultimately mean for humanity?
Yeah.
Is it just about being the richest country
or having the most powerful military?
Or is it something more than that?
Right.
And I think they're definitely hinting at something much
bigger.
Yeah.
In the last part, they talked about using technology
to solve problems like climate change and poverty.
Right.
They seem to believe that technology
can be this incredibly powerful force for progress.
Not just for making profits.
Yeah, exactly.
It's about improving the world for everyone.
So it's not just about a Mick Schrecker being number one.
It's about using our technological leadership
to benefit all of humanity.
Which brings to mind that whole competition with China
that they keep talking about.
Oh, yeah.
That's a big one for them.
They make it sound like it's more
than just a typical geopolitical rivalry.
It's like this clash of values.
Right.
They see the US as representing freedom and openness
and democracy.
While China represents a more controlled and authoritarian
approach.
And they argue that whoever wins this competition
is going to have a huge impact on the future
of the whole world.
So the stakes are pretty high.
Super high.
It's not just about who has the best gadgets
or the biggest economy.
It's about what kind of world we want to live in.
What kind of future we want to create for ourselves
and for generations to come.
And I think that's a really important takeaway for everyone
listening.
The choices we make about technology today
aren't just about some abstract political debate.
They're going to have real world consequences.
They're going to shape the kind of society we live in,
the kind of opportunities we have,
the kind of freedoms we enjoy.
It's about shaping our destiny.
Exactly.
So what does all of this mean for you, the listener?
We've explored some really complex topics today.
I heard some pretty strong opinions.
So what are you walking away with?
What's sticking with you?
Hopefully a better understanding of just how powerful technology
is.
And how important it is to be engaged in these conversations.
Even if you don't consider yourself a tech person.
Because like we've been saying, the stuff affects all of us.
And the decisions that are being made right now
are going to have a ripple effect for years to come.
So Andreessen and Horowitz are issuing a call to action.
Be informed, be engaged, be optimistic.
Don't be afraid of the future.
Embrace it.
Shape it.
Because the future is not set in stone.
We have the power to create the world we want to see.
And that's a pretty empowering thought.
It is.
It's a reminder that we're not just passive bystanders.
We all have a role to play in shaping
the future of technology.
And that future has the potential to be amazing.
If we do it right.
So let's do it right.
Let's use technology to solve problems,
to create opportunities, to build a better world for everyone.
I'm in.
Me too.
Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.
We'll see you next time.