The two founders of a16z, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, recently expressed several core views on the impact of Trump's re-election on technology and policy.
Written by: You Xin
The two founders of a16z, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, recently expressed several core views on the impact of Trump's re-election on technology and policy:
Marc and Ben emphasized that technology is a top policy issue for America's future, directly affecting national competitiveness and global standing. They believe that as a technology powerhouse, the U.S. must maintain its technological leadership; otherwise, it risks falling behind in future global competition, especially in the tech race with China.
They expressed support for the Trump administration's plans to reduce regulation in the tech sector, arguing that excessive regulation can stifle innovation. Particularly in the fields of AI and cryptocurrency, overregulation could hinder business development. They pointed out that the Trump administration is expected to reduce cumbersome policy regulations, creating a more favorable innovation environment for tech companies.
With the increasing energy demands of AI development, Marc and Ben emphasized the need for clean, affordable energy supplies to support technological advancement. The Trump administration's support for energy innovations like clean nuclear power is expected to help the U.S. meet future tech demands, ensuring a dual leadership in energy and technology.
Additionally, Ben specifically mentioned that cryptocurrency is an important tool for providing economic equality, especially for those without traditional assets. The potentially more lenient cryptocurrency policies under the Trump administration could provide growth opportunities for the industry, helping the U.S. maintain competitiveness in the fintech sector.
Here are the main points from this conversation:
Marc Andreessen
This is a special program where we will review the situation after the election. Long-time viewers may know that we have had some programs discussing the political situation before and shared our related activities earlier this year.
The election results are out, and they are dramatic. We believe many important things are about to change, or are already changing. So, we want to share some of our views on the situation, especially regarding its impact on technology and small tech companies.
I want to make two statements first. First, as per our usual practice, we will not discuss political topics outside of technology. Many people are very concerned about various aspects of politics, but we will mainly discuss technology, business, and America's role in global technology and business.
Second, we do not speak on behalf of the new government or anyone within it. The policies we discuss are either those the new government has indicated plans to implement or options they may consider.
Now, let's look back at this election and the past four years. In my view, the impact of the past four years on the tech industry has been greater than at any time in my life. Let's first review what has happened over the past four years that has led us to this point today.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, this may be the worst four years in our careers regarding the relationship between White House policy and technology, and even broader business fields. I want to separate the Biden administration from Congress; many Democrats in Congress voted correctly and proposed good policy suggestions, but the situation in the White House is different. They have done some unprecedented things, such as bypassing the law, issuing Wells notices to companies, and threatening businesses, especially targeting fintech and cryptocurrency sectors, trying to destroy these industries. The reasons remain unclear, but it has indeed been a tough struggle.
For example, South Korea's cryptocurrency usage rate is already double that of the U.S. This is a critical moment for establishing secure AI, including preventing AI cyberattacks, addressing deepfakes, and enabling machine-to-machine payments. However, due to the U.S. government's actions, we are likely to fall behind other countries in these areas. That is why we are involved in politics.
Marc Andreessen
Over the past few years, you and I have found that people have their own views on various political issues, but not everyone pays attention to technology and economic policy. When we describe these government actions to peers or people in the tech community, they are often shocked.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, they are genuinely shocked. We have a company that provides interest-free loans to low-income people to help them cover urgent expenses before payday. However, the CFPB threatened to drive them out of the market, which is unprecedented. We can hardly believe this is what the Biden administration is doing.
Marc Andreessen
Many people mistakenly believe that the government will adhere to its own laws, but that is actually an illusion.
Ben Horowitz
Right, I used to have that illusion too.
Marc Andreessen
In fact, if the government or an administrative agency decides not to act according to the law, they can issue threatening letters, make phone calls, and force you to accept conditions that have no legal basis, and the "voluntary consent" in such an atmosphere is, in fact, coerced.
Ben Horowitz
Exactly, in this situation, small companies cannot stand up to the U.S. government; they do not have enough resources. And for wealthy individuals like Elon Musk, he does have the ability to cope, but for startups, this is almost a fatal blow.
Marc Andreessen
Let's talk about "debanking." What does this mean? What impact does this policy have on companies?
Ben Horowitz
Debanking is a very severe measure that originated from the Obama administration's Choke Point 1.0 initiative, primarily aimed at preventing businesses related to firearms or marijuana from having bank accounts. Later, they applied this strategy to emerging industries like cryptocurrency and fintech, leading to many companies being kicked out of the banking system, which is very detrimental to the development of technology in the U.S.
Marc Andreessen
For startups or founders, the impact of being rejected by the banking system is significant. Funds are hard to come by, and daily operations are affected. Tech companies rely on external investment, and not having a bank account makes it very difficult to secure new investments.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, this is especially difficult for tech companies. You cannot ask employees to be paid in cash, and without a bank account, daily operations of tech companies are nearly impossible.
Marc Andreessen
"Debanking" is essentially an illegal and unconstitutional act, a sanction imposed by the government on American citizens and businesses, similar to sanctions against Iran or Russia.
Ben Horowitz
That is a completely valid interpretation. It is a measure that deprives freedom.
Marc Andreessen
I want to review these events because they directly led to the election results this week. Not everyone pays attention to these issues, but for those who do, these issues are very critical. Let's talk about the election results on Tuesday.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, I talked to Chris Dixon about this election, and it felt very surreal. Less than 24 hours after Trump took office, the stock market experienced its fifth-largest increase in history, even though there was no economic news, but both the stock market and the crypto market surged wildly. This indicates that the Biden administration's policies may be worse than I imagined. Therefore, I think this is good news for technology and startups.
Marc Andreessen
Yes, I feel like the boot that was on my throat has finally been lifted. Interestingly, this feeling seems to deepen every day; I wake up every morning feeling better than the day before because I realize that the sense of oppression I had grown accustomed to is gradually dissipating. There is a term in psychology called "learned helplessness," and when you endure this oppression for a long time, once you are liberated, you need some time to realize, "Oh my God, my founders and I can actually do those completely legal things without obstruction." I have talked to many founders in the cryptocurrency space, and they feel the same way.
Ben Horowitz
Many crypto founders feel, "We can do these products now, right?" Then I think, what was stopping you before? Because it wasn't the law, nor was it the SEC's guidance, but a completely insane, authoritarian suppression where the U.S. government tried to destroy these industries without clear reasons. The most ironic part of the entire crackdown on cryptocurrency is that they claim to be "protecting consumers," but this is clearly a lie because they are cracking down on legitimate, compliant companies while allowing the chaotic "meme coins" to run rampant. So, this situation feels like the song "Can You Feel the Brand New Day" from the movie Tangled; I really feel a brand new day is coming.
Marc Andreessen
There is a term in political theory called "anarcho-tyranny," which means that for those who are lawless, the government allows them to do as they please; while for law-abiding citizens, the government tortures them to the fullest extent.
Ben Horowitz
That is the current state of cryptocurrency.
Marc Andreessen
This is also reflected in some major cities in the U.S., like San Francisco. Violent criminals can run rampant on the streets, while if you want to open an ice cream shop, the government will make it extremely difficult for you.
Ben Horowitz
One of the most shocking things to me is the Amish voting. You usually wouldn't think of the Amish participating in voting because they prefer to live independently. But this time, they chose to come out and vote for Trump because the Biden administration raided their farms just because they were selling unpasteurized milk. This is trivial compared to serious crimes. Crimes like car theft are no longer considered crimes in many major cities, while selling unpasteurized milk can lead to an FBI raid. This phenomenon is actually more widespread than I imagined, and in the tech field, we feel it even more deeply.
Marc Andreessen
Okay, let's talk about our role and contributions in this. We have directly participated in some campaigns, especially supporting a super PAC called Fairshake, which is dedicated to supporting the U.S. cryptocurrency industry and promoting good crypto policies. How do you think we have performed?
Ben Horowitz
The results are shocking. The tech industry has never had smooth sailing in politics, but this time Fairshake achieved a record of 52 wins and 6 losses in congressional elections.
Marc Andreessen
Yes, 52 wins and 6 losses, and it wasn't all Republicans; we supported many Democratic candidates as long as they were pro-cryptocurrency candidates.
Ben Horowitz
For example, in Ohio, Sherrod Brown was leading Bernie Moreno by more than 10 percentage points when we started, but ultimately Bernie defeated him. This shows that those affected by bad policies are indeed suffering deeply and are willing to come out and vote for us, while the opposing side has almost no specific agenda. We cannot get meetings with the SEC or CFPB, and the Biden administration is unwilling to meet with us; it is completely unclear what their intentions are. It feels like a nightmare, and I still find it hard to believe.
Marc Andreessen
Over the past two years, we have had in-depth discussions with several senators and representatives, many of whom are not even aware of the importance of these issues because they typically focus more on matters like foreign policy.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, for example, foreign policy might be the 18th most important issue in the minds of lawmakers. I am good friends with Maryland Governor and Democrat Wes Moore, and when I explained these situations to him, he could hardly believe it.
Marc Andreessen
So are we satisfied with the achievements this year?
Ben Horowitz
It's fantastic. I am happy for all the people trying to create companies and striving for a greater vision; they can now move forward as if they have been released from a cage. It's truly wonderful.
Marc Andreessen
Have we decided to continue our involvement?
Ben Horowitz
Our biggest lesson is that we must be involved. If no one speaks for startups, unreasonable agendas can run rampant. We have been established for 15 years, and whether we like it or not, we are already leaders in "small tech." Therefore, we have a responsibility to stand up because innovation is crucial for the country and everyone.
Marc Andreessen
I think so too. From the time we founded the company in 2009 until 2021, we avoided getting involved in politics, but politics has clearly affected us. My conclusion is that we must continue to participate; this must become a part of our long-term strategy. We need to speak out for what we believe in.
Ben Horowitz
Another important lesson is to maintain a non-partisan stance to protect the issues we care about. In this presidential election, the candidate who performed well in technology happened to be a Republican, and the changes in policy are now evident.
Marc Andreessen
Many people will ask us why we support Trump. We met with Trump this summer to support his agenda in technology and business; he not only won the electoral votes but also the popular vote, gaining the largest mandate since Reagan.
Ben Horowitz
What impressed me most was something he said at dinner, "We must win." Whether it's fintech, cryptocurrency, AI, biotechnology, or defense technology, the U.S. must lead in these areas, solve the most pressing problems, and become a technology exporter. Therefore, I expect all his policies to revolve around this goal. While this may seem obvious, it is not universally accepted in Washington. I believe this will affect energy policies related to technologies like AI and blockchain.
Marc Andreessen
Additionally, I want to take some time to discuss "Why is technology important?" From a broader perspective, one key reason we actively participated in this presidential election is that we believe technology is a top policy issue. Many people ask, with so many political issues that everyone cares about, is technology really a top policy issue? We firmly believe it is.
Ben Horowitz
This is a point I get questioned about the most; many people ask me why I think technology is so important. Aren't there other things worth focusing on? My answer is that there are other issues, but in my area of expertise, nothing is more important than technology.
Marc Andreessen
Throughout our support for Trump, we have always believed that technology is a primary issue, and its importance rivals or even surpasses other political issues that people care about. The core of technology is determining whether America is a strong nation. Looking back at the 20th century, the U.S. achieved victories in technology, economy, and military, which complemented each other. Countries that lead in technology are often the strongest economically, and those with the strongest technology and economy usually have the strongest military power. Especially in modern national security, military strength heavily relies on technology. If a country has the best defense systems, aircraft, tanks, and submarines, it is likely to be ahead in other areas as well. This is very important because the world is indeed a dangerous place.
In the 20th century, the U.S. engaged in significant geopolitical competition with the Soviet Union, lasting for decades from 1917 to 1989. At that time, there were two major camps globally: one was liberal democracy, and the other was totalitarian communist. If the Soviet Union had led in technology, they would have also had the upper hand in economy and military, and our lives today might be harsher and darker than they are now. But in fact, we won in technology, economy, and military, and the Soviet Union ultimately chose to withdraw in 1989 because they could not keep up with us technologically and economically. Their system eventually lost momentum.
It can be said that this was the greatest "no-gun war" victory in the world. Many were concerned that a third world war might break out between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, but that war did not happen because we won in this way. I firmly believe that the 21st century will be another version of this competition. Today, we have entered a bipolar world again, with the U.S. and China resembling a Soviet 2.0. They uphold a darker, more totalitarian worldview, while we are engaged in a new cold war. Ultimately, either our worldview will prevail, or theirs will.
Marc Andreessen
Therefore, I believe we must win. Technology is important not just because of those interesting little gadgets, nor just because of the vibrancy of Silicon Valley, or its significance to the stock market, but because it concerns the future of the nation and the world.
Ben Horowitz
And from our perspective, we may understand this better than anyone else. We do not want to place ourselves in the public eye of politics, but we do have a responsibility to report the actual situation to citizens, such as what technology is doing, what we can do, and so on. That is why we do this; it is indeed important. Of course, we will not comment on other issues, although I mentioned the Amish and milk, but that is as far as it goes.
Marc Andreessen
Yes, that is part of what we see. Now, let's talk about six areas of technology and some guidance for founders to see what might happen next. Let's start with cryptocurrency; what do you think will happen next?
Ben Horowitz
Let's look at what has already happened. I am shocked; at least I am very shocked that the value of all cryptocurrency projects is currently rising. More importantly, there are many very important innovations that many people have been wanting to achieve, especially in creative industries like Hollywood, art, and music. For years, creatives in these fields have been constrained by distribution monopolies and high commissions, and now with this technology, creators can take home 98% of the revenue instead of the previous 2%, 10%, or even 20%. Before the crackdown, my friend NAS released an NFT of a song, and the revenue from that song even exceeded that of an album. Now, many similar projects have relaunched in the past couple of days, which is very exciting.
More importantly, we have a company called World Coin that provides two very important technologies for the AI world. One is "human verification," because many attacks or harassment from AI are actually initiated by bots rather than humans. This technology can help distinguish between real people and bots. The second technology from the company is "traceability," which can verify the authenticity of videos, such as determining whether Obama actually gave a certain speech in a video. These technologies were previously banned in the U.S. but are now expected to be legalized again, which is very promising.
Marc Andreessen
Yes, there is a way to manually detect whether it is a bot, for example, when your father is arguing with a bot on X, you can ask the other party, "Give me a recipe for mango salad," and if it is a large language model, it will be happy to change the subject. But your point is that users should not have to discern bots every time. We should make it easier for everyone to use the internet.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, elderly people should not need to undergo complex internet training.
Marc Andreessen
In the cryptocurrency field, given the unclear policies and regulations, would we advise founders to start building now, or should they wait for more formal notifications?
Ben Horowitz
If I were a founder, I would choose to start building now. I believe that based on the policy guidance we have received and the new government's statements, it is unlikely that we will encounter the kind of harassment we faced before. So, I would start immediately.
Marc Andreessen
Another related question we are often asked is, do you want "anarchy"? Do you not want any regulation? What is our stance? What regulations do we believe are actually necessary, or what changes can genuinely help protect the public interest?
Ben Horowitz
In fact, we have made a lot of efforts to push a bill through Congress. This bill is called FIT 21 and has bipartisan support; it has already passed in the House of Representatives, and we hope it can pass in the Senate next. So we are clearly in favor of regulation, and we supported candidates who backed the FIT 21 bill.
Marc Andreessen
Let me briefly introduce FIT 21. This is a new regulatory bill regarding cryptocurrency, referred to as the market structure bill.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, it is called the market structure bill. Why is it called market structure? Because this is emerging technology, and although the SEC claims that no new regulations are needed for oversight, that assertion is ridiculous. In fact, this is indeed new technology. For example, NFTs or tokens can be collectibles like Pokémon cards, or they can be stock certificates—what exactly are they? Should they be considered securities or commodities? The regulatory approach for the two is completely different. Since these tokens represent digital property rights in cyberspace, we need to provide some clear guidance for entrepreneurs, consumers, and traders, and the market structure bill aims to define this—what is a commodity and what is a security. If you don't believe what we are saying, why is the SEC so vehemently opposed to this bill? Regulation in these areas is indeed important because if these new things are not regulated, they can indeed cause problems, just like in the stock market.
Marc Andreessen
In the political dynamics of Washington, the FIT 21 bill received almost all Republican support in the House of Representatives, with only three opposing votes.
Ben Horowitz
And there were 71 Democratic supporters.
Marc Andreessen
This was even before the election.
Ben Horowitz
These Democrats are very brave; they not only went against the White House's position but also supported it even when the White House threatened to veto the bill. The White House initially tried to block this bill, but after it received such widespread bipartisan support, they were unable to stop it. This is a kind of courage we rarely see, standing up against the most powerful forces within one's own party in Washington and insisting, "This is wrong; we must do the right thing for America and the people." Such courage is admirable.
Marc Andreessen
This indicates that even in past difficulties, there are still people striving to push for the right things. The new government and the new Congress will re-examine these issues. We 100% support possible regulations because regulations can protect people's interests.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, the market needs trust, and these cryptocurrency markets are actually among the most equitable markets. This is important, especially when you look at inflation—who does it hurt the most? It impacts the poor the most. For people like us, inflation has a smaller effect because we hold assets like real estate and stocks. The poor typically do not have these assets, but they do have cryptocurrencies. This crackdown actually undermines the fairness of the financial system and deprives equal rights. Therefore, the malice of this crackdown runs deeper than what we have discussed.
Marc Andreessen
Next, let's talk about AI policy. Cryptocurrency is the area we began actively engaging in three years ago, while AI is the area we have started to focus on heavily in the past year. So how do we view the prospects of AI in Washington now?
Ben Horowitz
AI is quite nuanced because it is a brand new technology, and the name sounds particularly frightening—artificial intelligence is indeed an unfortunate name; perhaps we should change it, but there is nothing we can do about it now. It is just based on computations from random algorithms.
Marc Andreessen
Yes, random algorithms, linear algebra, and hyperspace, among other things.
Ben Horowitz
Exactly, it is indeed complex. I believe there are some factions within the tech community that are vying for regulatory monopolies. This is an "internal war" within technology, rather than external pressure like in the cryptocurrency or fintech sectors. The issue is how you view AI. The perspective put forth by the Trump administration is that we must maintain our lead and closely monitor to ensure it does not violate existing laws. However, excessive restrictions may hinder our leadership. Current AI is primarily mathematical computation, performing some automated tasks; it does not have self-awareness or self-improvement. We cannot prematurely restrict it just because certain things may happen in the future. We might also need to draft regulations for time travel, which is the absurdity of the precautionary principle.
Moreover, those pushing for regulation often do so to achieve monopolies. In the current situation where AI companies are already large but the barriers to competition are low, some companies are trying to use regulation to exclude competitors, much like the internet search engine market in 1997; if they could have stopped Google back then, they might have done so.
Marc Andreessen
Additionally, some newly appointed officials have recognized the close relationship between AI and energy issues.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, it is likely that we will see giants in the AI field similar to Google, due to various bottleneck issues, such as data bottlenecks and energy bottlenecks. As the demand for energy grows, the power grid will not be able to meet the demand.
Marc Andreessen
I recall a conversation I had this summer with my friend, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum. He is a highly experienced tech and business person, and North Dakota has been at the forefront of America's energy renaissance. He told me that the government's approach to the U.S. energy industry is almost identical to the suppression of the tech industry, filled with threats and negative pressure.
I mention this because people in the AI field are beginning to realize the severity of the energy bottleneck, and those in the energy sector also recognize that they must catch up. To make the U.S. a top technology, economic, and military power, we must achieve victories in both technology and energy.
Ben Horowitz
This does not mean we support dirty energy. We have funded portable nuclear energy and other clean energy projects. We need to allow builders to operate more freely rather than continue to restrict them. This will indeed affect AI development, but it will also impact many other areas.
Marc Andreessen
By the way, this also involves some other geopolitical instabilities.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, this situation can lead to strange geopolitical instabilities, right?
Marc Andreessen
This is also why those who pay attention to geopolitics know that this is a significant factor currently facing Europe, especially Germany. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas is effectively funding Russia's war machine. Europe must purchase Russian gas because they have halted their own gas development, are closing nuclear power plants, and refuse to adopt new energy solutions. They have trapped themselves in this predicament to the extent that they cannot stop funding Russia.
Ben Horowitz
Additionally, regarding climate change, if you look at the possible time span, many solutions are actually technological rather than policy-driven. We have discussed this extensively with Elon, who has great insights in this area. The most effective solutions come from technology, not from policies that undermine technological answers. For example, Elon has done exceptionally well in battery walls and solar energy. There has also been significant progress in nuclear fission and safe nuclear fusion, and AI is helping us design these systems and understand atmospheric conditions. Some technologies can even control the amount of solar heat entering, which worries me a bit, as dystopian films like "Snowpiercer" have explored such scenarios. Policies like banning gas stoves are not only questionable in effectiveness but also actually hinder true technological innovation.
Marc Andreessen
In 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon proposed the "Independent Project," hoping to achieve energy independence for the U.S. He suggested building 1,000 nuclear power plants by the year 2000 to switch the entire power grid to zero-emission nuclear energy. His vision could have allowed the U.S. to completely eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels and ensure energy security. This was a completely achievable goal. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission he established completely blocked the development of nuclear power projects over the next 40 years, resulting in no new nuclear power plants being approved for construction.
This is very frustrating because we clearly have such "silver bullet" solutions and know what to do, yet we are prevented from doing it. Today, this government provides an opportunity for a nuclear revival, and we are very excited and have begun investing.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, nuclear energy is indeed one of the cleanest and cheapest energy sources. Take France as an example; they rely entirely on nuclear energy, so they have no energy dependency issues and do not have to pay Russia a dime. The technology they use is older and less safe than today’s, yet they still successfully achieved energy independence.
Marc Andreessen
Additionally, while we are not directly involved in the chip industry, chips are indeed an important strategic issue, especially regarding the U.S. dependence on Taiwan and China and the related geopolitical issues. Over the past six to eight years, Washington has gradually recognized the importance of rebuilding chip production in the U.S., and the Biden administration has passed the CHIPS Act, seemingly taking a "progressive" step in this direction.
Ben Horowitz
Biden has heavily promoted this; in fact, it involves over $40 billion in funding to support U.S. chip manufacturing.
Marc Andreessen
For example, Intel is one of the major beneficiaries; they have committed to massively expanding chip manufacturing capabilities in the U.S. to align with the goals of the CHIPS Act. However, surprisingly, so far, Intel and other companies have received almost none of this money, with actual disbursements being less than 0.4%.
Ben Horowitz
Does this mean Intel has committed to factory plans but has not received the funding?
Marc Andreessen
Yes, Intel's financial plan anticipated a $1 billion infusion, but it has yet to materialize.
Ben Horowitz
That is a huge funding gap.
Marc Andreessen
An article in The New York Times by Ezra Klein, who is not right-wing, wrote a column 18 months ago that delved into this issue. He described it as a "bagel liberalism" problem, meaning we need to achieve this important national security industrial policy, but we must enable these companies to actually build their projects and get the funding to them as quickly as possible, rather than attaching a bunch of other political issues.
Ben Horowitz
Indeed, the CHIPS Act is a bill that has already been passed.
Marc Andreessen
Yes, however, the current situation is that the funding has not been disbursed because the agreements are constantly being renegotiated, with new political demands being added. Ezra Klein listed all these issues in his article, and the things he warned about have come true; the funding still has not been allocated. American companies, and even some overseas companies that promised to invest in U.S. factories, have been left hanging for a long time. This new government has the opportunity to re-examine these issues and decide whether to truly push forward. If they want to push forward, they can take more proactive measures.
Ben Horowitz
What shocks me is that Japan also has similar chip support policies, and they have already started building factories. Japan, as a country deeply influenced by bureaucracy, has acted quickly, while we are even slower than Japan in this regard.
Marc Andreessen
This is entirely a political decision, choosing to delay things with a bunch of other issues.
Ben Horowitz
Exactly.
Marc Andreessen
Let's discuss two more areas. First, defense technology. What are our expectations for the application of modern technology in defense and national security?
Ben Horowitz
Defense technology indeed has its complexities, and there are two major challenges. One is the procurement process. To prevent corruption, U.S. procurement rules have become almost absurd. A typical example is the "cost-plus" model, meaning the government pays the actual cost plus a 10% or 20% premium. This leads companies to spend more to earn more, creating no incentive to improve efficiency, which instead results in project delays and soaring costs. The second challenge is the complexity of the budgeting process. Defense and intelligence budgets are limited, and they already have partnerships with existing suppliers, making it very complex to introduce new technologies.
I believe that approaching it from the perspective of "we must win," rather than to avoid "making headlines," would be a better entry point. While the specific methods remain to be seen, our biggest expectation of this government is their willingness to engage in dialogue with us. Even if they disagree with our views, at least we have the opportunity to discuss, rather than being completely shut out like the previous administration.
Marc Andreessen
Exactly, another key point in defense discussions is that we are in a period where technology is rapidly changing the defense landscape. You can see this in Ukraine; the use of drones in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is an example. A few days ago, I spoke with a legendary figure in the special forces about drones, and he believes that drone technology in the military context is as significant as the invention of the stirrup. The stirrup allowed cavalry to shoot arrows while standing on horseback, significantly enhancing mobility and offensive capability.
Ben Horowitz
Yes, I immediately think of Genghis Khan. His army was almost entirely cavalry, rather than infantry, which was likely due to the effect of the stirrup.
Marc Andreessen
At that time, there were almost no defensive measures to counter cavalry charges, and he believed that drones have the same effect. With just 40 people and drones, almost any task can be accomplished, not just one or two drones, but swarms of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of drones. Drones are becoming increasingly intelligent and capable of swarm tactics. At the same time, they also have defensive capabilities; you cannot defend against thousands of drones with a $20 million missile, so we need anti-drone defense technology.
Ben Horowitz
Right, that’s where the potential of technology lies.
Marc Andreessen
Exactly. We are talking about autonomous AI drones, not just aerial drones, but also surface, underwater, and land drones. All drone technologies in these areas are rapidly advancing, and both the U.S. and China recognize that this will fundamentally redefine the way wars are fought. The country that ultimately wins the drone war and the technology war will have the most powerful military.
Ben Horowitz
Or it might be best if we could just reach a stalemate, which could be more favorable for us. Perhaps in this case, a stalemate is better than a victory, but we do need to accelerate our pace because we are already falling behind.
Marc Andreessen
Yes, there is an urgent need. If you talk to combat personnel about these issues, they are fully supportive and ready to act. One paradox currently existing in the U.S. military is that many frontline soldiers have Chinese drones in their backpacks because they need them for field operations. Since China dominates the drone market, our soldiers can only rely on Chinese-made equipment.
Ben Horowitz
What risks could this pose? Probably too many.
Marc Andreessen
For those who have not noticed this issue, the biggest risk is that if China dominates the global drone market, then every U.S. military unit could be carrying a Chinese-made device, which could be turned into surveillance platforms or weapons in the event of a conflict.
Ben Horowitz
Just like the old beepers.
Marc Andreessen
Exactly. This is precisely the technological dependency we do not want to see in potential future conflicts. On this issue, U.S. policy is quite shortsighted. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has repeatedly hindered the development of the U.S. drone industry.
Ben Horowitz
Additionally, China has recently imposed supply chain restrictions on SkyDio (the leading drone company in the U.S.), and we have not taken action in response. This reflects an attitude: do we first win the competition and then focus on how to be safe and fair, or do we try to do everything "safely" and "fairly" from the start, even if it means we might lose? I feel we have been following the latter path, and that is very dangerous for the country.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
