Tech
Microsoft and a16z set aside differences, join hands in plea against AI regulation
Two of the biggest forces in two deeply intertwined tech ecosystems — large incumbents and startups — have taken a break from counting their money to jointly plead that the government cease and desist from even pondering regulations that might affect their financial interests, or as they like to call it, innovation.
“Our two companies might not agree on everything, but this is not about our differences,” writes this group of vastly disparate perspectives and interests: Founding a16z partners Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and President/Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith. A truly intersectional assemblage, representing both big business and big money.
But it’s the little guys they’re supposedly looking out for. That is, all the companies that would have been affected by the latest attempt at regulatory overreach: SB 1047.
Imagine being charged for improper open model disclosure! a16z general partner Anjney Midha called it a “regressive tax” on startups and “blatant regulatory capture” by the Big Tech companies that could, unlike Midha and his impoverished colleagues, afford the lawyers necessary to comply.
Except that was all disinformation promulgated by Andreessen Horowitz and the other moneyed interests that might actually have been affected as backers of billion-dollar enterprises. In fact, small models and startups would have been only trivially affected because the proposed law specifically protected them.
It’s odd that the very type of purposeful cutout for “Little Tech” that Horowitz and Andreessen routinely champion was distorted and minimized by the lobbying campaign they and others ran against SB 1047. (The architect of that bill, California State Senator Scott Wiener, talked about this whole thing recently at Disrupt.)
That bill had its problems, but its opposition vastly overstated the cost of compliance and failed to meaningfully support claims that it would chill or burden startups.
It’s part of the established playbook that Big Tech — which Andreessen and Horowitz are closely aligned with, despite their posturing — runs at the state level where it can win (as with SB 1047), meanwhile asking for federal solutions that it knows will never come, or which will have no teeth due to partisan bickering and congressional ineptitude on technical issues.
This newly posted joint statement about “policy opportunity” is the latter part of the play: After torpedoing SB 1047, they can say they only did so with an eye to supporting a federal policy. No matter that we are still waiting on the federal privacy law that tech companies have pushed for a decade while fighting state bills.
And what policies do they support? “A variety of responsible market-based approaches.” In other words: hands off our money, Uncle Sam.
Regulations should have “a science and standards-based approach that recognizes regulatory frameworks that focus on the application and misuse of technology,” and should “focus on the risk of bad actors misusing AI,” write the powerful VCs and Microsoft execs. What is meant by this is we shouldn’t have proactive regulation but instead reactive punishments when unregulated products are used by criminals for criminal purposes.
This approach worked great for that whole FTX situation, so I can see why they espouse it.
“Regulation should be implemented only if its benefits outweigh its costs,” they also write. It would take thousands of words to unpack all the ways that this idea, expressed in this context, is hilarious. But basically, what they are suggesting is that the fox be brought in on the henhouse planning committee.
Regulators should “permit developers and startups the flexibility to choose which AI models to use wherever they are building solutions and not tilt the playing field to advantage any one platform,” they collectively add. The implication is that there is some sort of plan to require permission to use one model or another. Since that’s not the case, this is a straw man.
Here’s a big one that I have to just quote in its entirety:
The right to learn: copyright law is designed to promote the progress of science and useful arts by extending protections to publishers and authors to encourage them to bring new works and knowledge to the public, but not at the expense of the public’s right to learn from these works. Copyright law should not be co-opted to imply that machines should be prevented from using data — the foundation of AI — to learn in the same way as people. Knowledge and unprotected facts, regardless of whether contained in protected subject matter, should remain free and accessible.
To be clear, the explicit assertion here is that software, run by billion-dollar corporations, has the “right” to access any data because it should be able to learn from it “in the same way as people.”
First off, no. These systems are not like people; they produce data that mimics human output in their training data. They are complex statistical projection software with a natural language interface. They have no more “right” to any document or fact than Excel.
Second, this idea that “facts” — by which they mean “intellectual property” — are the only thing these systems are interested in and that some kind of fact-hoarding cabal is working to prevent them is an engineered narrative we have seen before. Perplexity has invoked the “facts belong to everyone” argument in its public response to being sued for alleged systematic content theft, and its CEO Aravind Srinivas repeated the fallacy to me onstage at Disrupt, as if Perplexity is being sued over knowing trivia like the distance from the Earth to the moon.
While this is not the place to embark on a full accounting of this particular straw man argument, let me simply point out that while facts are indeed free agents, the way they are created — say, through original reporting and scientific research — involves real costs. That is why the copyright and patent systems exist: not to prevent intellectual property from being shared and used widely, but to incentivize its creation by ensuring that they can be assigned real value.
Copyright law is far from perfect and is probably abused as much as it is used. But it is not being “co-opted to imply that machines should be prevented from using data.” It is being applied to ensure that bad actors do not circumvent the systems of value that we have built around intellectual property.
That is quite clearly the ask: let the systems we own and run and profit from freely use the valuable output of others without compensation. To be fair, that part is “in the same way as humans,” because it is humans who design, direct, and deploy these systems, and those humans don’t want to pay for anything they don’t have to and don’t want regulations to change that.
There are plenty of other recommendations in this little policy document, which are no doubt given greater detail in the versions they’ve sent directly to lawmakers and regulators through official lobbying channels.
Some ideas are undoubtedly good, if also a little self-serving: “fund digital literacy programs that help people understand how to use AI tools to create and access information.” Good! Of course, the authors are heavily invested in those tools. Support “Open Data Commons—pools of accessible data that would be managed in the public’s interest.” Great! “Examine its procurement practices to enable more startups to sell technology to the government.” Awesome!
But these more general, positive recommendations are the kind of thing you see every year from industry: invest in public resources and speed up government processes. These palatable but inconsequential suggestions are just a vehicle for the more important ones that I outlined above.
Ben Horowitz, Brad Smith, Marc Andreessen, and Satya Nadella want the government to back off regulating this lucrative new development, let industry decide which regulations are worth the trade-off, and nullify copyright in a way that more or less acts as a general pardon for illegal or unethical practices that many suspect enabled the rapid rise of AI. Those are the policies that matter to them, whether kids get digital literacy or not.
Tech
Blue Origin successfully re-uses a New Glenn rocket for the first time ever
Blue Origin has successfully reused one of its New Glenn rockets for the first time ever, marking a major milestone for the heavy-launch system as Jeff Bezos’ space company looks to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
But the overall mission’s success may be in question. Roughly two hours after the launch, Blue Origin revealed that the communications satellite that New Glenn carried to space for AST SpaceMobile wound up in an “off-nominal orbit,” meaning something may have gone wrong with the rocket’s upper stage. In other words, it appears the company missed the mark.
“We have confirmed payload separation. AST SpaceMobile has confirmed the satellite has powered on,” the company wrote on X. “We are currently assessing and will update when we have more detailed information.”
AST later said Blue Origin’s rocket placed its satellite into an orbit that was “lower than planned,” so the satellite will have to be de-orbited.
According to a timeline provided by Blue Origin prior to the launch, the upper stage of New Glenn should have performed a second burn roughly one hour after the rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida. It’s unclear if that second burn ever happened, or if there were other problems with it, before the AST satellite was deployed.
The company accomplished the re-use feat Sunday on just the third-ever launch of New Glenn, and a little more than one year after the first flight of the new rocket system, which has been in development for more than a decade.
Making New Glenn reusable is crucial to its economics. SpaceX’s ability to re-fly Falcon 9 rocket boosters is one of the main reasons why it has come to dominate the global orbital launch market.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
While Blue Origin has already sent a commercial payload to space with New Glenn — Sunday was the second-such mission — the company wants to use the rocket for NASA moon missions, and to help both it and Amazon build space-based satellite networks. Blue Origin is currently finishing getting its first robotic moon lander ready for an attempted launch later this year.
The booster that Blue Origin re-flew on Sunday was the same one the company used in the second New Glenn mission in November. During that mission, the New Glenn booster helped put two robotic NASA spacecraft into space for a mission to Mars, before returning to a drone ship in the ocean. On Sunday, Blue Origin recovered the rocket booster a second time on a drone ship roughly 10 minutes after takeoff.
Any trouble deploying AST’s satellite could present a risk to Blue Origin’s near-term plans for New Glenn. Blue Origin has a deal with the communications company to send multiple satellites to orbit over the next few years as it works to build out its own space-based cellular broadband network.
This story has been updated with new information from Blue Origin and AST SpaceMobile.
Tech
Cracks are starting to form on fusion energy’s funding boom
It happens in every emerging industry: founders and investors push toward a common goal, until the money starts to roll in and that shared vision begins to diverge.
Cracks are emerging in the fusion power world, which I saw firsthand at The Economist’s Fusion Fest in London last week. It didn’t dampen the overall buoyant mood, lifted by fusion startups’ fundraising haul of $1.6 billion in the last 12 months. But people had differing opinions on two key questions: When should fusion startups go public? And are side businesses a distraction?
Going public was at the top of everyone’s minds. In the last four months, TAE Technologies and General Fusion have announced plans to merge with publicly traded companies. Both stand to receive hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their R&D efforts alive, and investors, some of whom have kept the faith for 20 years, finally see an opportunity to cash out.
Not everyone is in agreement. Most of those who I spoke to were worried these companies were going public far too early and that they hadn’t achieved key milestones that many view as vital in judging the progress of a fusion company.
First, a recap: TAE announced its merger with Trump Media & Technology Group in December. Though the deal isn’t yet completed, the fusion side of the business has already received $200 million of a potential $300 million in cash from the deal, giving it some runway to continue planning its power plant. (The remainder will reportedly land in its bank account once it files the S-4 form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.)
General Fusion said in January that it would go public via a reverse merger with a special purpose acquisition company. The deal could net the company $335 million and value the combined entity at $1 billion.
Both companies could use the cash.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
Before the merger announcement, General Fusion was struggling to raise funds, and around this time last year it laid off 25% of its staff as CEO Greg Twinney posted a public letter pleading for investment. It received a brief reprieve in August when investors threw it a $22 million lifeline, but that sort of money doesn’t last long in the fusion world, where equipment, experiments, and employees don’t come cheap.
TAE’s position wasn’t quite as dire, but it still required some funds. Pre-merger, the company raised nearly $2 billion, which sounds like a lot, but keep in mind the company is nearly 30 years old. What’s more, its valuation pre-merger was $2 billion, according to PitchBook. Investors were breaking even at best.
Neither company has hit scientific breakeven, a key milestone that shows a reactor design has power plant potential. Many observers doubt they’ll hit that mark before other privately held startups do. One executive told me, if they were in those shoes, they’re not sure how they would fill time on quarterly earnings calls if the companies didn’t hit scientific breakeven soon.
If TAE or General Fusion doesn’t deliver results, several people feared the public markets would sour on the entire fusion industry.
Now, not all may be lost. TAE has already started marketing other products, including power electronics and radiation therapy for cancer. That could give the company some near-term revenue to placate shareholders. General Fusion, though, hasn’t revealed any such plans.
And therein lies another divide: fusion companies remain split on whether they should pursue revenue now or wait until they have a working power plant.
Some companies are embracing the opportunity to make money along the way. Not a bad strategy! Fusion is a long game, so why not improve your odds? Both Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Tokamak Energy have said they’ll be selling magnets. TAE and Shine Technologies are both in nuclear medicine.
Other startups are worried that side hustles could become a distraction. Inertia Enterprises, for example, told me that they’re laser-focused on their power plant. That jibes with what another investor told me months ago: — they were worried that fusion startups could get distracted by profitable, but tangential businesses and fall off the lead.
There wasn’t consensus on the right time to go public either. I heard a few proposed milestones. Some believe startups should first reach that scientific breakeven milestone, in which a fusion reaction generates more energy than it needs to ignite. No startup has achieved that yet. The other possibilities are facility breakeven — when the reactor makes more energy than the entire site needs to operate — and commercial viability — when a reactor makes enough electrons to sell a meaningful amount to the grid.
We may have an answer to that question sooner than later. Commonwealth Fusion Systems expects it will hit scientific breakeven sometime next year, and some think the company might use that as an opportunity to go public.
Tech
TechCrunch Mobility: Uber enters its assetmaxxing era
Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, how AI is playing a part. To get this in your inbox, sign up here for free — just click TechCrunch Mobility!
A few weeks ago, I wrote about how Uber seemed to be everywhere, all at once in the emerging autonomous vehicle technology sector. The Financial Times has now put a number on it. The FT calculated that Uber has committed more than $10 billion to buying autonomous vehicles and taking equity stakes in the companies developing the tech, according to public records and discussions with folks behind the scenes. About $2.5 billion of that is in direct investments, with the remaining $7.5 billion to be spent on buying robotaxis over the next few years, the outlet reported.
We’ve reported on Uber’s numerous investments and deals with autonomous vehicle companies across drones, robotaxis, and freight. Some of its investments include WeRide, Lucid and Nuro, Rivian, and Wayve.
This rather large number (and particularly that $7.5 billion) got me thinking about another transformative era in Uber’s history and how it has visited these asset-heavy shores before. Uber might have started with a plan to be asset light, but for a brief period it did quite the opposite.
Uber went on a moonshot spree between 2015 and 2018. It launched electric air taxi developer Uber Elevate and the in-house autonomous vehicle unit Uber ATG, which would be boosted by its acquisition of Otto in 2016. It also snapped up micromobility startup Jump in 2018.
And then in 2020, Uber pulled the asset-heavy rip cord, ostensibly leaving all of those moonshots behind. Uber sold Uber ATG to Aurora, Jump to Lime, and Elevate to Joby Aviation. But it didn’t completely divest; it kept equity stakes in all of them.
Uber is now entering into a new and different asset-heavy era. It’s not plunking down millions, or even billions, to develop the technology in-house, although I’m sure folks there would be quick to pipe up that there is always R&D happening over at Uber. Instead, it appears to be focused on owning (or perhaps leasing) the physical assets.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
That could mean interesting line items on Uber’s balance sheet in the future.
Owning fleets of robotaxis built by other companies might not have been the original vision of Uber, or its former CEO Travis Kalanick, who has said the company made a mistake when it abandoned its AV development program. But this new approach could still get it to the same end point.
A little bird
Earlier this month, I interviewed Eclipse partner Jiten Behl about the venture firm’s new $1.3 billion fund and where that money might be headed. The firm, as I wrote, intends to incubate more startups (e.g., it was behind the Rivian spinout Also). Behl wouldn’t give me details, only stating, “We’re definitely working on a couple of really cool ideas.” He also said Eclipse is particularly interested in startups that work across enterprises.
Thanks to one little bird and some document diving by senior reporter Sean O’Kane, it looks like a seed round announcement is imminent for a San Francisco-based startup working on an autonomous hauler that I’ve been told doesn’t have a driver cab. This sounds similar to what Einride has built, but since we haven’t seen it, we’ll have to wait.
The company’s roster isn’t big, but it is chock-full of Silicon Valley tech elite, including a founder who was at Uber ATG, Pronto, and Waabi. Stay tuned for more.
Got a tip for us? Email Kirsten Korosec at kirsten.korosec@techcrunch.com or my Signal at kkorosec.07, or email Sean O’Kane at sean.okane@techcrunch.com.
Deals!
Slate is back with more capital as it prepares to put its first affordable pickup trucks into production by the end of 2026.
The electric vehicle startup, which got its start with backing from Jeff Bezos, raised another $650 million in a Series C funding round led by TWG Global. Keep your eye on TWG. This is the firm run by Guggenheim Partners chief executive (and Los Angeles Dodgers owner) Mark Walter and investor Thomas Tull.
Slate has raised about $1.4 billion to date, and its previous investors include General Catalyst, Jeff Bezos’ family office, VC firm Slauson & Co., and former Amazon executive Diego Piacentini, as TechCrunch first reported last year.
Other deals that got my attention …
Glydways, a San Francisco-based startup developing personal autonomous pods designed to operate on dedicated 2-meter-wide lanes in cities, raised $170 million in a Series C funding round co-led by Suzuki Motor Corporation, ACS Group, and Khosla Ventures. Existing investors Mitsui Chemicals and Gates Frontier and new investor Obayashi Corporation also participated. But wait, there’s more.
GM and Ford are reportedly talking to the Pentagon about whether the auto industry can help the military revamp its procurement program and find cheaper, faster ways to buy vehicles, munitions, or other hardware, the New York Times reported, citing anonymous sources.
Loop, a San Francisco-based startup, raised $95 million in a Series C funding round led by Valor Equity Partners and the Valor Atreides AI Fund, and includes investments from 8VC, Founders Fund, Index Ventures, and J.P. Morgan’s late-stage fund, Growth Equity Partners.
Monarch Tractor, the startup developing electric, autonomous tractors, has moved on to (ahem) a different pasture. The startup’s assets have been acquired by Caterpillar after struggling to pivot to a software services business.
Uber is increasing its stake in Delivery Hero by 4.5%, the Financial Times reported. Uber agreed to buy about 270 million euros in shares from Prosus, the Dutch investment group and Delivery Hero’s largest shareholder.
Notable reads and other tidbits
Doug Field, the high-profile executive who shaped Ford’s electric vehicle and technology strategies over the past five years, is leaving. Notably, Ford is shaking up the organization as well, creating a “product creation and industrialization” team to be led by COO Kumar Galhotra. Any guesses where Field is headed next? Perhaps he’ll return to Silicon Valley.
Lightship, the all-electric RV startup, is expanding its Colorado-based factory by another 44,000 square feet, which will allow it to quadruple its manufacturing capacity.
Rivian and battery recycling and materials startup Redwood Materials partnered years ago. We’re now seeing the fruits of that relationship. Redwood is installing battery energy storage at Rivian’s factory in Illinois. The catch? Redwood is using 100 second-life Rivian battery packs, which will provide 10 megawatt-hours (MWh) of dispatchable energy to reduce cost and grid load during peak demand periods.
Tesla created a new self-driving app that makes it easier for owners to subscribe to its Full Self-Driving software and see statistics on how — and how often — they use it. This may not be huge news, but it did catch my eye because of the gamified qualities of these new stats.
Waymo, as per usual, has a few news items this week. The Alphabet-owned company started testing its autonomous vehicles on public roads in London. It also removed its waitlist in Miami and Orlando to scale its robotaxi services in the two cities.
One more thing …
This newsletter isn’t my only project that is leaning more heavily into robotics. My podcast, the Autonocast, is too, as the worlds of autonomous vehicles, AI, and robotics mash together. Check out this interview with Foxglove founder Adrian MacNeil, who previously worked at Cruise.
Lego’s May the 4th Star Wars drop is here, and half the sets are under $50
Rivalry continues as Nuggets host Timberwolves for Game 1
