Former a16z GP John O'Farrell criticizes the AI industry and his ex-partners for spending hundreds of millions to fight regulation, calling it “a huge mistake”
I first came to America from Ireland in 1984, as a young engineer about to attend business school.
New York TimesJohn O'Farrell
Context & Ripple Effects
This intervention adds an internal venture-capital critique to a long-running AI-policy divide. Related coverage has framed the dispute around whether regulation protects the public or instead entrenches incumbents and constrains smaller developers.
The surrounding record also shows AI governance pressure arriving from several directions: concerns over the EU AI Act, a debate over concentrated safety versus rapid advancement, and former OpenAI staff and researchers challenging OpenAI’s governance changes. O'Farrell’s criticism places a16z’s political spending within that broader contest over who sets AI’s rules.
First-order effects
O'Farrell’s remarks make a public issue of a16z’s and the wider AI industry’s anti-regulatory lobbying, creating visible disagreement between a former senior investor and his previous firm’s apparent policy posture.
The comments strengthen the case of AI-policy advocates who argue that industry opposition to rules is itself a material governance issue, rather than only a dispute over compliance costs.
Second-order effects
AI investors and companies arguing for light-touch rules face greater pressure to distinguish opposition to particular proposals from opposition to regulation broadly, especially where their positions can be portrayed as protecting incumbent interests.
The dispute gives policymakers and civil-society critics an industry insider’s framing for questioning whether lobbying against AI rules aligns with companies’ public safety commitments.
Third-order effects
If more investors and former executives break publicly with blanket anti-regulatory campaigns, AI governance may become a sharper fault line within venture capital rather than a unified industry-versus-regulator fight.
The durable policy contest is likely to center on whether AI rules can address safety and accountability without making compliance burdens a competitive advantage for the best-capitalized firms.
The trend: AI policy is shifting from a binary fight over regulation toward a contested debate over which rules curb harms without consolidating power among dominant companies and investors.
I reported last month that @johnofa, one of the first partners at Andreessen Horowitz, left his role at the firm due to political disagreements with Marc + Ben. Today, he's expanding on that in a column in NYT. “Some of the most powerful players in A.I. — led by some of my
John was the first non-founder GP at a16z. He explains with absolute clarity how a small group of billionaires is working to subvert the democratic process and prevent everyday Americans from having a say in how AI will be governed. Thank you @johnofa. https://www.nytimes.com/...
Wow. One of Silicon Valley's powerful insiders @johnofa speaks out against tech oligarchs using their billions to buy silence from politicians who seek to regulate them. Good on him. https://www.nytimes.com/...
sharp, sobering piece from @johnofa, a16z's first general partner, on the rise of AI, regulation, and the cues the valley is taking from how it handled its headlong push into crypto [image]
This is the debate we should be having rather than building arches and renaming performing arts centers...or ill prepared wars of choice against Iran and how to counter its economic effects. But with a self-indulgent narcissist in the Oval Office, this debate won't happen.
“The playbook we're seeing comes from the crypto industry, which successfully neutered efforts to regulate it by spending tens of millions of dollars to help defeat pro-regulation candidates and elect industry-friendly politicians in 2024.” — www.nytimes.com/2026/06/11/o...
The rise of the A.I. industry demands a national conversation about how to share its potential benefits widely while addressing people's legitimate fears. That conversation is beginning to happen, between unions, child safety advocates, civil rights organizations, economists and…