I do think if Khan takes an honest look at her tenure, I think she'd conclude that the work she's done around big-tech regulation is really meaningful and has been helpful to early-stage innovation. No one pitches me as an investor saying they are a competitor to Meta. That's a bad thing. These companies seem indestructible now -- like General Motors and Standard Oil once did. If no one can compete with them, that's a bad thing.

So, on the one hand she's doing a great job. But venture capital isn't a nonprofit, and Khan also had a chilling effect on mergers and acquisitions. When you have a chilling effect on M&A, and investors don't think they can get a return on their deals, it slows the flow of funding and has a negative effect on company formation and innovation.

Do you agree with Cuban that nations are in "a zero-sum race for global dominance" over AI right now?

No, not necessarily. Maybe I'm being shortsighted, but AI is still mainly promise. Forget about revenue from businesses succeeding. Sure, people play with ChatGPT. Even useful products for companies using AI, there's not that much really happening with them. To say "this thing is so mission-critical that we will abandon all regulations because all that matters is winning?" That may benefit the investors in AI at the expense of the American people. Two: The evidence doesn't prove that's the case. A couple of years ago, we were all going to live in the Metaverse and Web 3.0. That all just sort of went away. On top of that, have we not learned enough about social media, the harms that come from it, and the effect of lack of regulations there?