A top investor in global brands from Airbnb to Snap says we need swift 'guardrails' to get countries on the same page about AI

"You want to have a level playing field for innovation," the CEO of the VC firm General Catalyst told WSJ about the future for AI development.

• Countries around the world are racing to define their own strategies for developing AI technology.
• The CEO of the VC firm General Catalyst told WSJ that international collaboration will be crucial.
• World leaders should "align on some core protocols" for AI development, he said.

As countries worldwide vie to dominate the AI arms race, some investors think it's time that the international community gets on the same page about where artificial intelligence is headed.

One Silicon Valley venture capitalist — whose firm has backed tech giants like Snap and Stripe — says imposing "guardrails" and a spirit of "collaboration" across borders will be key.

Numerous countries are eager for a slice of the pie as AI development picks up steam, Hemant Taneja, the CEO and managing director of the VC firm General Catalyst, told The Wall Street Journal during the publication's CIO Network Summit this month.

"Every country has its own ideology," the CEO said, adding that the world's patchwork goals for the tech mean we need a "collaboration model" that gets all countries on board. Taneja — whose firm has backed other brands including the diabetes care company Livongo — is working with other VC firms, AI companies, and the US Commerce Department to create guidelines for new AI tech.

"Now there's this tension where no country wants to be left behind. France wants its own strategy. India wants its own strategy. And they want their cultural nuances to be implemented in how AI thinks," Taneja continued. "When you think about that dynamic, there is the risk we become siloed, which is unlike the way we built the internet. So we need to think about a collaboration model, a common set of frameworks around creating guardrails that actually accelerate progress, but in a responsible way."

More AI rules are coming globally

Taneja's comments to the Journal come as governments worldwide grapple with how best to regulate AI — a rapidly developing space that no one knows quite how to manage. But getting it right will be crucial: AI could contribute up to $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030, according to an analysis from PwC.

The European Union is set to sign off on a law called the AI Act, which will establish different standards for AI based on how risky its usage could be. For example, stricter laws will be enforced for companies using AI for hiring and law enforcement. That law could pass when the European Parliament votes on it in April and would go into effect in 2026.

China, for its part, has already approved more than 40 AI models, which the government requires to "uphold the core socialist values." However, experts have warned that the country could struggle to compete globally following US restrictions on some technological components required to build and train AI.

While AI powerhouses like OpenAI have put the US at the front of the pack regarding AI innovation, the country sits squarely in the middle on regulation. President Joe Biden signed an executive order in October that directs various agencies to develop AI standards and gives the US government some oversight over large AI developments. But it's still unclear how enforceable or wide-reaching the regulations will be.

So far, Russia has lagged behind China and the US in AI development. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in November that the country was planning an ambitious counterstrategy for developing AI to prevent Western countries from dominating AI innovation.

In his remarks to the Journal, Taneja suggested world leaders should "align on some core protocols" for AI development, but suggested "we shouldn't regulate AI too soon," adding that we don't yet fully understand the tech's potential.

"It's hard because every country has its own ideology," he said. "You also have this other dynamic where you don't want the value to accrue just to big companies. You want to have a level playing field for innovation."