It doesn't happen at all.

Except yesterday.

So this debate, which is sort of a fake debate that Jess and I engaged in a couple years ago because I think we both ultimately eventually come to the same place, was motivated by seeing in the definitional components of Section 230 the definition of information content provider.

and you're an information content provider if you create or develop content in whole or in part, which means the lower bound of that standard is did you develop content in part? And my thought was there will be lots of generative AI use cases where you'll at least meet that standard.

I think Jess's piece was very helpful in coming in with a lot more technical sophistication and saying, I think the title of my piece was and this was as an academic before I joined Andreessen Horowitz, but the title of my piece was something like Section 230 Won't Protect ChatGPT, and that's, I think, too monolithic, and her piece, I think, makes very helpful arguments about why that's the case.

But my thought at the time, and I think still continues to be, that for Jess to be a hundred, in order to be in a world where we can really take comfort about the liability regime that we have that governs AI, Jess has to be right 100% of the time.

And that's a very hard hurdle.

I think that that part of the law is pretty clear, and I think that that's very much in the fabric of who we are, and so how we try to exist in the world.

Could you just walk us through that?

Yeah, so actually, so we wrote a piece, we co-authored the piece together on this.

And I think, again, this goes back to- My bad, okay.

I'm here that you bring it to Matt, but my bad.

This goes back, I think, to the professorial, Jay's professorial ambitions and the kind of learning foundation for our work.

We were hearing all of these things in the AI policy conversation about how if Congress hasn't acted that we need states to act.

And then people sort of saying, well, because this involves interstate commerce, that's a job for Congress and not at all a job for states.

I don't think the moratorium actually stopped states from doing it, but it was interpreted or it was sort of portrayed

If we could wave a wand, what would we like to be done at the state level versus the federal level versus how should we think about that interplay compared to where we're at now?

Yeah, so I think the helpful answer here comes from the Constitution.

Constitution actually lays out a role for the federal government and a role for state governments.

Federal government takes the lead in interstate commerce.

So governing a national AI market and governing AI development we think is primarily Congress's role.

Sometimes when people say that, I think what other people hear for some reason is states should do nothing.

And we have been – we've tried very hard to be very deliberate in not saying that and making clear that states have an incredibly important role to play in policing harmful conduct within their jurisdictions.

But above all, I think most of our time and energy will be focused on trying to have some level of federal standard here to try and drive the dividing line between the federal and state government, which I think Matt has already done a ton of great work on.