Author: Li Xiaoyin, Wall Street Journal

On December 13 local time, billionaire Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz, was interviewed by Bari Weiss of the Free Press, confirming that he is collaborating with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and sharing his feelings about working with the elected President Trump.

Andreessen stated that technological innovation is the cornerstone of America's economic prosperity and national security, and maintaining technological leadership is crucial for the U.S. He expressed appreciation for the technology policies of the Trump administration, criticizing the current government's (Biden administration) policies for stifling technological innovation.

During the interview, Andreessen mentioned that he is a "volunteer" for DOGE and that DOGE has two main goals: to cut spending and reduce regulation.

He also noted that since the election, he has "probably spent half of his time" at Mar-a-Lago and has participated in some interviews with cabinet officials, focusing his contributions on technology policy, business, economics, and national health. However, he also stated:

"I'm not saying I've been involved in all decisions, but I've been trying to help in as many ways as possible."

When asked whether talent would hesitate to join the Trump administration due to the controversies of his previous term, Andreessen observed the opposite trend:

"I think the flow of qualified talent from outside the establishment is actually stronger now."

Key points are as follows:

• The current government (Biden administration) lacks understanding of the tech industry, is overly conservative in policy-making, and even hostile; whereas the Trump administration was supportive of technological innovation and more friendly towards the cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence sectors.
• Under the Biden administration, the U.S. is in a state of "soft authoritarianism," where the government controls society through strict censorship and "de-banking" (closing the bank accounts of certain individuals or businesses for political reasons). He is concerned about this state power and believes the next administration should legislate to protect citizens from such actions.
• The traditional elite class had a "compact" to pursue wealth in business and donate it to charity upon retirement to cleanse their "original sin" and gain social recognition. However, this "compact" has been broken in recent years, leading to a loss of social status and voice for the traditional elite.
• The elite class, originally composed of business oligarchs and media, has become corrupt and is being replaced by a "new anti-elite" force, with Trump's election reflecting this trend. Andreessen himself is both a "defector" from the traditional elite and a representative of the emerging "anti-elite" force.
• There will always be "sycophants" around centers of power, which is unavoidable. However, he believes that key figures in the emerging "anti-elite" force, such as Elon Musk, can maintain independent thinking and avoid repeating past mistakes.
• Andreessen supports a comprehensive review of government spending and regulation to improve efficiency and reduce waste.
• There is political polarization in the tech industry, with founders of large companies leaning towards the left, while founders of startups tend to lean towards the right. However, leftist thought generally dominates, especially in consumer-facing sectors.
• Government investment and support are crucial for technological development, but the government should also avoid excessive intervention and allow the market to function.
• Artificial intelligence is key to future development, but Andreessen is also concerned that AI may become a tool for government control and censorship.
• Technological progress will inevitably change social structures and power distribution, but humanity also needs to consider the ethical and social issues brought about by technological development.

Below is a summary of the interview content:

Weiss: Andreessen, welcome to the show, I'm very glad to have you. I have to say, in the past four weeks, I've never seen you look more vibrant in public than you do now, and I think it's because Donald Trump won the election.

I think every listener wants to know, what fundamental significance does Trump's victory hold for you and for America?

The Trend Shift Behind Trump's Election Victory

Andreessen: First of all, I want to say that it is morning in America, so I am indeed very happy. First, I want to say that this is not just because of Trump, but his victory is indeed part of it, and I think there are two other things.

One is the dramatic "right turn" that occurred in this election. Many areas in places like California and San Francisco (Democratic strongholds) turned "red" this time. The second major change is the youth vote, which is changing.

I would say these changes have transcended political party lines because the past decade has been a "dark emotional" period, as you have written about extensively, where industries represented by Silicon Valley have been suppressed by soft authoritarianism, which has had a real negative impact on the tech industry in the country and the world.

So I think the change of an entire generation of young people is significant. I am in the venture capital business, so I have received all this segmented data about the changes happening from people in different industries.

Now, there are many small changes bringing hope: people can now write a book they never thought could actually be published; comedians can start telling jokes they previously couldn't… These small sparks are igniting everywhere, and people are basically starting to peek out from the cultural frozen tundra, beginning to smile, play, and enjoy themselves. This is actually something to be proud of for the country.

Weiss: You have many people around you, and I think the most obvious is Elon Musk, who repeatedly stated in the weeks leading up to the election that if Donald Trump did not win, if the right did not come to power, this would be the last American election. Do you agree?**

Andreessen: To be honest, I don't know. Maybe I have a bit more confidence in this system.

I don't think we are in a world where there will be sudden, dramatic changes. You know, throughout history, there have been these incredible moments, but I don't think that's the world we live in.

For example, people are ready to go out and kill at any moment; these can be found in the history of the U.S., the West, and the East. Now, the battlefield will shift online; this is a virtual cold war rather than a physical hot war. For example, people are beating each other on X or Facebook to vent their anger.

Listen, this is why I say it feels a bit like soft authoritarianism. We don't have thugs in the world we live in, but if we lived in a world where: if you speak out of turn, you will be completely erased in reputation and economically, and your friends and family will lose you too.

This is a very tense situation. The politics and culture of America will continue to be intense; it is a form of soft authoritarianism and repression, rather than a dramatic physical historical break. I don't think we can add some meat to the bones of the soft authoritarianism and soft extreme authoritarianism you described.

Weiss: Why is this worldview so popular, and why has it been able to conquer so much territory and institutions so effectively?**

Andreessen: I think there are two reasons. One is a basic impulse, which you might say is the leftist political culture; this is fundamental, by the way, society is inherently unfair and unequal.

The other reason is somewhat like a power circle. Just like if you have the ability to destroy someone, you can call them a racist, a sexist, or accuse them of many other ideological crimes. We can be sure that power corrupts.

This is the worldview I have observed, and the worldview we describe operates in an authoritarian manner. I see its impact on me and those I love. For me, I want to stay as far away from these as possible.

This is why we have a middle layer in Congress and the Senate, because every direct democracy experiment in world history has ended in disaster, and any form of democracy will have an elite class responsible for governance.

This will be a structural reality. This ruling elite class is either good, beneficial, and considers the greatest interests of the people, or they are just pretending to be randomly elected, and the idea of the people in power is just a myth.

In any case, do we live in democracy or oligarchy in America? We always live in oligarchy. Every society in history has been some form of oligarchy.

With this premise, the election on November 5 was somewhat like a vote from the American public, or at least a huge opposition to the old elite, the old guard, the old oligarchy, perhaps introducing a new oligarchy.

Weiss: You supported Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008, Hillary in 2016, and this time you supported Donald Trump.

Do you represent a shift: seeing the corruption of the old elite and deciding to switch to the new anti-elite?

Andreessen: Yes. Politically, socially, and culturally, I am a child of the 1990s. For tech founders like me, being educated in American universities, benefiting from everything from federal research funding to student loan programs, and having the opportunity to start a successful tech company.

Basically, people like me can start a company, make money through extensive media coverage, and pay taxes. Then at the end of your career, you leave a large sum of money, and you donate it to charity. This cleanses all your sins, and you transform from a dubious business tycoon into a moral philanthropist.

Then you get invited to all the great parties, attend the World Economic Forum, receive honorary degrees from all the universities, and sit with the editorial board of The New York Times.

Basically, everything I just mentioned is now considered relatively evil in the past decade. Some people are more easily able to achieve greater economic outcomes, and that in itself is evil. Tech companies are presumed to be evil, tech workers are seen as an evil class, and any wealthy person is also considered evil.

In recent years, many people feel they cannot take risks for their companies, their economic interests, their reputational interests, or even for their children to get into the right schools; they feel they cannot risk publicly supporting Trump in society, but they feel either professionally Trumpian or sufficiently disappointed that they won't vote for Kamala.

However, on July 13, the day Trump was shot, I privately learned from WhatsApp and Signal groups that they were very curious about Trump, but in public, they acted completely differently. Suddenly, we started sharing the iconic image of Trump with blood on his ears, raising his fist.

So I think even among the elite, most people do not have these super strong specific views. If the momentum of the entire society is moving in one direction, then following it is the most natural thing in the world. Then when this preference loosens, it may strongly correlate in another direction.

Returning to the incident of Trump being shot, for a man, seeing someone shot in the head, bleeding, and not realizing the severity of the injury is very distressing. And that typical photo was so magical, perfectly embodying the colors red, white, and blue, with the American flag in the background. At that moment, we knew he would gain more support.

Another important thing is that Musk stood up and said, I support him, which was a significant moment for the entire industry.

The Current Government's Suppression of the Tech Industry is the Main Reason Andreessen Supports Trump

Andreessen: The Biden administration is really terrible; they disdain the American tech industry and want to do everything possible to destroy it.

The current government has an unmanageable binary opposition, with a seemingly reasonable, moderate, centrist, and thoughtful president and a pillar of the old Democratic establishment. They are particularly targeting us in three areas, which has led us to support Trump.

One is cryptocurrency; they have just declared war and are trying to kill the entire industry and push it overseas. The second is AI; earlier this year, I was very afraid they would treat AI the same way they treated cryptocurrency. The third seems to be an obscure topic, but I think it is very important: the concept of unrealized capital gains tax. Taxing private companies essentially destroys the ability of small businesses to own homes and tech startups through this tax structure change known as unrealized capital gains.

We have been in a passive position for four years in the cryptocurrency war we just experienced. It has been incredibly brutal and destructively unbelievable for AI. A group of us had a meeting in Washington in May to discuss this issue, and the content of the meeting was very frightening; we basically decided we had to support Trump.

They are actually directly telling us not to start businesses, not to create AI startups, and not to fund AI startups. We are not allowed to let such things happen. They are basically saying that AI will be a game for two or three large companies closely cooperating with the government, and we are basically going to wrap them in a cocoon of government. We want to protect them from competition; we want to control them; we want to dominate them.

Then I thought, I don’t understand how you can lock it down so tightly because the principles of AI are out there, everywhere. They said, during the Cold War, we classified all fields of physics, stripping them from research areas, as if the entire branch of physics had basically fallen into darkness and could not continue research. If we decide to do this, we will do the same to the mathematics underlying AI. I said, I just learned two very important things because I didn’t know the former existed, nor did I know you would do the same to the latter. So they are basically saying we want to explore; we want to have complete control over the whole thing.

Weiss: What specific viewpoints are involved?

Andreessen: This has several layers, and I will do my best to "reframe" it.

First, if you compare AI and autonomous weapons as new things that determine the outcome of wars, then these things are military-related, and that is indeed the case. You can draw an analogy to the Cold War; that was nuclear energy, that was the atomic bomb, and the federal government does not allow startups to manufacture atomic bombs, right? According to them, their level of secrecy even reaches the level of mathematics; they strictly control everything. This largely determines the shape of the world.

The second part is the aspect of social control and things related to judgment. We have been judging how AI has been fundamentally weaponized alongside social media, and how the government has entangled itself with social media censorship, which is one of the real scandals of the past decade. These people have been using social media trials to go after their political enemies. They have been de-banking their political opponents. They basically want to use AI in the same way.

The third is that I think this generation of Democrats, under Biden's leadership in the White House, has become very anti-capitalist; they want to return to a more centralized, controlled, planned economy era. You can see this in many aspects of their policies. But frankly, I think they do not prioritize the idea that the outside establishment plays an important role. They generally believe that companies are bad, capitalism is bad, and entrepreneurs are bad. They have said it a thousand different ways. They demonize entrepreneurs as much as possible, proposing tax policies that will only destroy the process of creating private companies and undermine venture capital.

I want to say that I cautiously optimistic that smart, moderate Democrats will realize that these are unnecessary struggles. It seems there is no reason to take this approach. This has nothing to do with the historical foundation of the party, with what people think they are voting for, with the ability to care for the poor, or with the ability to implement progressive social policies. It is like extreme anti-business, anti-tech hostility; they should let go, re-establish the close ties of history, and move forward. I hope they can draw the right conclusions.

One thing the Biden administration has done is actively crack down on Google, Amazon, and Meta regarding these antitrust laws. There is growing dissatisfaction with so-called big tech across the political spectrum.

Weiss: The incoming Vice President Vance supports a massive tech antitrust crackdown. Which of his viewpoints do you agree or disagree with? In other words, where should we regulate these large tech companies and protect consumers? Where do you see it as excessive?

Andreessen: So we distinguish between what we call big tech and what we call small tech. Big tech companies have succeeded and have a certain degree of market power; at least people accuse them of being terrible monopolies, which means very large market power, and that is big tech. And if you are a big tech company, you are a household name.

Then we define what we call small tech and the small tech of startups, right? Therefore, new companies have the ambition to become big companies. It has an interesting lifecycle; all small companies want to become big companies, right? What is the goal of small tech? It will become a large tech company, right?

So there is this cycle, which has been the performance of the tech industry for 80 years. You have existing bank tech companies, and then you have these small tech startups. Most people fail, but when they succeed, they become large tech companies. Basically, the cycle repeats. The role of venture capital firms is to fund each new generation of small tech companies, right? So ultimately, what we are going to do, like most of our daily work, is to fund those companies trying to grow to eliminate existing large tech companies and replace them.

What I want to say is that both sides of the political spectrum have really decided that they really hate big tech companies over the past decade, but I would say for very opposite reasons in many ways. So the left hates big tech companies for several reasons. First, they just hate capitalism, hate companies, and hate external economic success. Then to some extent, they blame tech for the election of Trump; they blame tech for the rise of populist right-wing politics.

This has appeared in many ways over the past decade. But if we did not have these big tech companies, these large social networks, we would not have Trump. And you know, therefore, these are considered evil.

Frankly, I think this is related to electoral politics, meaning that union voting has really started to shift. So I think some on the right believe that if they work harder in big companies, they will be able to gain more union votes, which by the way may be true. It is like a new tone.

But I think most of it is anger towards big tech companies and anger towards censorship and de-banking.

Weiss: Let me ask you another question about the relationship between government and tech. The government invested in the initial internet, which made your career possible. They funded GPS, they provided loans to Tesla to keep it operating, and they funded the California public university system, which essentially can be said to provide employees and founders for you to invest in. They are somewhat like building or at least cultivating the soil, creating a very rich environment for all these companies to grow. And now many people are turning around and saying: the government should get out.

How do you respond to this criticism?

Andreessen: In this view, the government created a seedbed for those companies and created overall success for American experiments; the entire government and private action complex made America successful.

However, when these companies become too big and out of control, there will be problems regardless. But overall, the success of American industry, the success of American business, and the success of American technology are seen as beneficial to America by both sides. This is a very sharp new phenomenon of anti-capitalism.

Regarding what the new government will do, there is a controversy online; many people from the first Trump administration told me they experienced this themselves, so after the first Trump administration, they could not obtain various insurances, home loans, or other things, and then this happened to many of their friends and allies over the past decade. I would say, first, discovering what actually happens, what happens in the shadows of Washington is never easy to see from the outside, but they can now discover it. Then second, if they believe there are cases, they certainly have the ability to file lawsuits.

Andreessen's Role as a "Volunteer" in the New Government

Weiss: Speaking of the next government and the government, some reports say you are considering running for office.

Andreessen: I am a volunteer, an unpaid intern for the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Weiss: What do you think it will do?

Andreessen: Basically, there are two important parts. One is that they will conduct a comprehensive review of government spending and cut costs as much as possible. They have a complete theory and strategy for this. Then related to this, they will do the same with regulations. So they will basically conduct a top-down review of regulation, which we call the regulatory state, and the consortium they do not talk about in public, which I think is actually very important.

According to the law, the president must spend every dollar allocated by Congress, whether he thinks it is a good idea or not. But the Constitution does not actually say that; the Constitution states that the president needs to obtain funding from Congress; it does not say he must spend money. So this is a constitutional issue. It is like we have been living under a regime where many things that are taken for granted may not comply with the Constitution. So this is one of the things I am sure will be focused on.

Weiss: Just because you are excellent in one area does not mean you are excellent in another. You know, like me, I can think of certain people who are obviously very good in tech and entrepreneurship, but their ideas on foreign policy are the dumbest I have ever heard in my life. What makes you believe this is the right role for these two men and their various unpaid interns?

Andreessen: Of course. I think the first question is how good you think experts are?

Weiss: Very bad.

Andreessen: Yes. So I think the American people would agree with that. Yes, absolutely right. So if you cannot rely on the expert class to do good things, to have good judgment, or to run these things, I think it is now clear that you cannot like it.

Weiss: You can agree that experts are bad but believe you still need experts. In other words, I think the current elite is bad, but I would still be skeptical of the anti-elite. Don’t you agree?

Andreessen: Obviously, the overall viewpoint is correct. Obviously, this will always be a matter worth paying attention to. You could even say this has nothing to do with different types of experts. It is just that these are complex systems that have a huge impact on decision-making.

This is the construction of the government we have today. Our current government was established in the 1930s, and Roosevelt fundamentally changed the government. It became a small part of the 1920s. It transformed into what it is now, a discontinuous step function. If you remember what Roosevelt did, it was widely praised and felt at the time; he called upon basically all the smart young people in the nation to raise their hands and volunteer.

But I think there is an argument to be made, just like you would want Elon Musk to use chopsticks to pick up a rocket, you want him to make electric cars. So he concludes that he must do this. What I want to say is that Elon had already been involved in these matters long before he formally engaged in any political affairs; he has already become an important part of the national defense system and our allies' defense system.

Weiss: I want to briefly revisit what you mentioned about having dinner with Trump just days before he was shot, and before you supported him, you said it was a wonderful dinner. Tell us what you heard there that comforted you, even excited and inspired you, and also, have you been to Mar-a-Lago since the election?

Andreessen: Since the election, I have spent almost half my time there. I state the following: I am not at the center of all decision-making, but I help in as many ways as possible. So, I want to say, as we discussed, Trump evokes a lot of emotions in many people; they have very strong opinions. I am not Mr. Foreign Policy, Mr. Abortion Policy, or Mr. Gun Policy; my views revolve around tech policy, business economics, the health of the nation, and the success of the nation.

He (Trump) is an incredible host; no matter what people think, he is an incredible host. You know, he runs his own private world. We had a lot of fun. He enjoys being surrounded by his friends, family, grandchildren, and members of various clubs, which is also a very interesting way to observe him at work. He treats everyone equally and talks to everyone. I think this is one of his truly undervalued virtues that people have not realized for a long time; he happily engages with visitors, like asking who the vice president should be, and then he asks questions, as if he really often talks to ordinary people. He has many stories from the campaign trail, like spending a lot of time with police officers and everywhere he goes, etc.

His view of us is basically: I don’t know much about technology, but I don’t need to know because you all know a lot. You should go build tech companies. You are the American tech companies that should win. American tech companies should be the winners. We should beat China. We should export. We should make the products the world wants.

Weiss: You spend half your time at Mar-a-Lago or its vicinity; what types of meetings do you attend, participate in, or assist with?

Andreessen: I have been involved in some interview processes for officials, and the quality of many people I have met is very high. In the past two weeks, many job positions have declined, you know, the next level of employees, and I think they are all very impressive people. I think the flow of talent seems to be very strong.

Weiss: There is a general concern that qualified people are cautious about working for Trump?

Andreessen: I think the opposite is happening; I think the qualified talent flowing in from outside the system is actually much stronger. Everything is preparing for the actual inauguration on January 20. So we have a long way to go, but they will definitely act quickly on inauguration day.

AI May Become the "Regulatory Machine" Across All Systems

Weiss: One thing I have always wanted to ask you is about this war over AI regulation.

Andreessen: What is happening is that social media has been developing along the arc I described from 2013 to today, becoming a censorship machine. AI has entered an accelerated version of that arc. It basically happens upfront. Social media took time to become a censorship machine. It has been happening from the start with AI. They will happen from the start with AI because AI companies learn from the experiences of social media companies, and they just say, well, if we are going to build a censorship machine in ten years, we might as well do it in advance.

My concern is that AI censorship and political control are a thousand times more dangerous than social media censorship and political control. Social media censorship and political control are very dangerous. But at least it only happens when people are talking and communicating with each other. The problem with AI is that I believe AI will become the control layer for everything in the future, so I think AI will become the control layer for how the healthcare system operates. I think it will become the control layer for how the education system operates, and the control layer for how the government operates. So in the future, when you deal with the healthcare system, the education system, or the government, you will be dealing with an AI.

This directly relates to Elan's argument, which is the core of this argument; all you have to do is train the AI. Just like if you want to create the ultimate dystopian world, you would have a world where everything is controlled by an AI programmed to lie.

To put it bluntly, technology can change society, which can be traced back to the invention of fire and everything that followed. It has a long history, and many great books have written about it. Technology simultaneously rearranges power and status in society; it changes how society operates. It has always been this way, changing the way things are handled, changing society.

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。