Episode summary
The Little Tech Agenda for AI
The a16z Show
· · Hosts: Erik Torenberg · Guests: Matt Perault, Collin McCune
Summary
The conversation argues that AI policy should protect people from harmful uses of AI without turning startup development itself into the target of regulation. The guests say the core idea behind the “Little Tech Agenda” is that startups and entrepreneurs were largely missing from Washington debates dominated by larger incumbents and institutional players, even though those smaller builders face very different compliance burdens and competitive constraints. They frame their work as pro-regulation, but against licensing regimes, broad disclosure mandates, and state-by-state patchworks that could freeze out new entrants.
They trace the policy debate from early 2023, when Senate hearings and fears about powerful frontier models accelerated calls for heavy restrictions, through the rise of state bills, federal executive actions, and the Colorado AI law. In their view, many of those proposals were trying to solve real concerns, but with the wrong tools. Existing consumer protection, civil rights, criminal, and anti-discrimination law already covers many of the harms critics worry about, and the guests argue that AI policy should mostly reinforce those laws rather than create a separate, highly complex regime.
The episode ends on a more constructive note: the guests say the federal government is now more aligned with their view on open source, competition, worker retraining, and national security. They want federal preemption for model regulation, clear state authority over harmful conduct, and a coalition that can keep the U.S. ahead of China while still leaving room for startups to compete.
Key takeaways
- The guests say little tech means startups and smaller builders, not just large incumbents, and they want policy written around their realities.
- They argue for regulating harmful AI use under existing law, not licensing or regulating model development itself.
- They say the industry is increasingly aligned that a 50-state AI patchwork would make it harder for startups to compete.
- They see the federal government as the right venue for AI development rules, while states should focus on harmful conduct within their borders.
- They view open source as strategically important for U.S. competition, innovation, and national security, even as export and China concerns remain.
Notable quotes
“Regulate use, do not regulate development somehow is interpreted as do not regulate”
“I actually can't think of a single example across the portfolio in which we are arguing for zero regulation”
“we want a market that's competitive for where startups can compete. We don't want a monopoly”
“the federal government should really lead regulation of development of AI. States should police harmful conduct within their borders”
How the episode opens
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 smaller builders in the space. 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. I actually can't think of a single example across the portfolio in which we are arguing for zero regulation.
Colin Matt, welcome to the podcast. Thanks so much. Thanks for having us.
So, there's a lot we want to get into around AI policy, but first I want us to take a step back and reflect a little bit. We had publicly announced the little tech agenda 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 Techch agenda and how did it come to be at the firm? Yeah, I mean, look, I 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 smaller builders in the space.
From the episode’s captions: roughly the first two minutes, lightly cleaned. Keep watching on YouTube →
Topics
- ai policy
- little tech agenda
- regulating ai use
- open source governance
- federal vs state regulation
Companies and tickers mentioned
- a16z
Watch the episode
Watch “The Little Tech Agenda for AI” on YouTube
Summary, takeaways and quote selection by Octagon. Quotes are short excerpts; the full conversation is in the episode.
More from The a16z Show
-
How AI Could Bring Halo and Other Classic Games Back to Life -
Mike Volpi on Why AI Infrastructure Will Outlast the Hype Cycle -
Why HubSpot’s Co-Founder Is Betting Against the SaaSpocalypse -
Inside Salesforce’s Acquisition Strategy for the AI Era -
How AI Is Turning Figma’s Finance Team Into Builders -
The New AI Agents That Shop, Plan, and Gossip
The a16z Show, this episode and its artwork belong to Andreessen Horowitz. Octagon is not affiliated with the show; this page is an independent summary.
