00:00Just interested in your thoughts in the first instance on what Mr. Sachs was saying,
00:04you know, the trajectory and timeline for a federal level set of rules on AI.
00:09It's great to be with you, Ed. Yeah, I think what David had kind of stated yesterday makes a lot
00:16of sense. A patchwork of regulations across 50 states is not a sustainable structure in a global
00:23competitive technology race. I think as a builder and somebody who has sat inside of government,
00:31I can confidently say what we need right now is a single national framework that advances
00:37this critical technology in one of the most consequential times we're seeing in modern
00:41history. Joe, what everyday Americans may be confused by is the distinction between either
00:48there not being enough regulation. In other words, we do not have a federal level framework,
00:52but there is a lot of state-by-state regulation, the point that Mr. Sachs was making.
00:59What is the real risk, over-regulation or under-regulation in this context?
01:05Yeah, I think there is a fundamental mismatch between the pace of this technology
01:11and the rate at which we're trying to regulate this across different states, localities, cities.
01:19And the issue is this is still a very emerging technology in many respects. It's a horizontal
01:25technology that cuts across every sector, vertical industry. And there's a question that I think
01:34is persisting throughout circles in D.C. in the Valley of if not America, then who?
01:40And we are at a moment right now where we're seeing massive productivity gains in key sectors
01:48of the economy to include government itself. And I think it's far too early to be taking an
01:55over-regulatory approach to a technology we're still learning a great deal about.
02:00There's two specific areas I want to talk to you about. The first is the use of AI generally
02:05in national security and defense. Anthropic is the biggest case study of late, right? And
02:11just having returned from D.C., the position of many was it is not up to the companies how the
02:17government, particularly the defense arms of government, use the technology. Your viewpoint on
02:23that, please. Yeah, I mean, I would say it's the prerogative of any American to express their
02:29First Amendment rights. And at the same time, we have systems to affect change. We live in a
02:35democratic electoral society. If folks are unhappy with the position of any given administration or
02:42a government composition, there are plenty of tools at our disposal to affect change. What I would say
02:49is these technologies aren't anything new to the U.S. military or defense circles in general. We've been
02:54using machine learning and AI capabilities for decades. And for now, it's starting to get a lot of
03:01attention in the media, particularly because of, I think, adjacent stories that have a tendency to
03:11get a dialogue moving. For instance, the patchwork of regulatory frameworks and many hyperscalers
03:18being caught in that as well. But I would say, in general, there's a dangerous notion of allowing
03:28boardrooms and private executives asserting too much influence in systems of government that have
03:37clear processes for change. Joe, we just have 30 seconds, but the pace of innovation in AI agents,
03:43genuinely autonomous AI agents. How do you regulate for that? I mean, I think right now we need to be
03:50thinking through a verticalized mindset. There are a lot of platforms, ours included, that are trying to
03:56close the delta between generic models trained on mixed quality data and very sensitive enterprise workflows
04:06across private industry and government itself. And so I would say applying an over-regulatory approach
04:15to agentic workflows could be short-sighted in the grand scheme of a little competitive race.
Comments