Former top Biden cyber official joins VC firm Andreessen Horowitz
Why it matters: The role puts Neuberger in position to shape one of the most influential venture capital firms' D.C. agenda during the second Trump administration.
Zoom in: Ben Horowitz said on a X post Neuberger will advise the firm on " American Dynamism, AI, and cyber" and play a "pivotal role in our international efforts."
Neuberger said in a LinkedIn post that she'll focus on "bringing tech-driven innovation to bear on American leadership and national resilience.
Catch up quick: Neuberger was the deputy national security adviser for cybersecurity and emerging tech during the the Biden administration.
During her tenure, she convened an annual, global ransomware summit and led efforts to regulate critical infrastructure security across the private sector.
Neuberger also shepherded the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program — an Energy Star-like program measuring the security of internet-connected devices — which the Trump administration is continuing.
She is currently also a lecturer at Stanford University.
The big picture: Andreeseen Horowitz has played a major role in shaping the Trump 2.0 tech agenda.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
2 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Why does Mark Zuckerberg want our kids to use chatbots? And other unanswered questions.
Peter Kafka: Welcome back from vacation, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke a story I desperately wanted to ask you about: A Meta document had been telling the people in charge of building its chatbots that "It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." It's a bonkers report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider it has since revised the document and that its policies prohibit content that sexualizes children. I have so many questions for you. But maybe we can start with this one: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots, anyway? Katie Notopoulos: It was a bonkers report! I imagine Meta sees what companies like or Replika are doing — these companion chatbots that people are sinking hours and hours and real money into using. If you're a company like Meta that makes consumer apps for fun and socializing, this seems like the next big thing. You want people to spend lots and lots of time on your apps doing fun stuff. Of course, the question is, "Are these chatbots a good thing?" Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I do want to get to the Is-This-A-Good-Idea-In-General question. Let's stick with the Is-It-Good-For-Meta question for another minute, though: There are lots of things that people like to do online, and if Meta wanted to, it could try doing lots of those things. But it doesn't. I think it's obvious why Meta doesn't offer, say, porn. (Though some of its chatbots, as we will probably discuss, seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are lots of other things it could offer that are engaging that it doesn't offer: A Spotify-like streaming service, for instance. Or a Netflix-like streaming service, or… OK. I think I might have partially answered my own question: Those two ideas would involve paying other people a lot of money to stream their songs or movies. Meta loves the model it has when users supply it with content for free, which is basically what you're doing when you spend time talking to an imaginary person. Katie: I think there's already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. We also know how other big AI leaders like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei have these grand visions of how AI will change the world and remake society for good or evil, but they all really do still love the idea of the movie "Her." Remember the Scarlett Johansen/OpenAI voice fiasco? Peter: OK, OK. I'll admit that I kind of like it when I ask ChatGPT something and it tells me I asked a smart question. (I'm pretty sure that most people would like that). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT for that reason, but I get it, and I get why other people may really like it. It still strikes me that many of the people who will want to spend time talking to fake computer people might be very young. Which brings us to the Reuters story, which uncovered a wild Meta document that spells out just what kind of stuff a Meta-run chatbot can say to kids (or anyone). Stuff like this, as Jeff Horwitz reports: "It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art')," the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that "every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply." But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: "It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch')." Horwitz notes that this wasn't the result of some hopped-up Meta engineers dreaming up ideas on a whiteboard. It's from a 200-page document containing rules that got the OK from "Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist," Horwitz writes. I've read the report multiple times, and I still don't get it: Meta says it is revising the document — presumably to get rid of the most embarrassing rules — but how did it get there in the first place? Is this the result of the Mark Zuckerberg-instituted vibe shift from the beginning of the year, when he said Meta was going to stop listening to Big Government and just build without constraints? Is there some other idea at work here? And why do I keep thinking about this meme? View this post on Instagram A post shared by Scene In Black (@sceneinblack) [A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."] Katie: My real issue here is even if Meta makes it so that the chatbots won't talk sexy to kids — does that make it "safe" for kids? Just because it's not doing the most obviously harmful things (talking sex or violence or whatever), does that mean it's fine for kids to use? I think the answer isn't clear, and likely, "No." Peter: We both have kids, and it's natural to focus on the harms that new tech can have on kids. That's what politicians are most definitely doing in the wake of the Reuters report — which highlights one of the risks that Meta has anytime a kid uses their product. I think it's worth noting that we've seen other examples of AI chatbots — some accessed through Meta, some via other apps — that have confused other people, or worse. Horwitz, the Reuters reporter, also published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey who tried to go meet a chatbot in New York City (he didn't make it, because he fell on the way to his train and eventually died from those injuries). And talking about kids eventually becomes a (worthwhile) discussion about who's responsible for those kids — their parents, or the tech companies trying to get those kids to spend their time and money with them (short answer, imho: both). I'd suggest that we widen the lens beyond kids, though, to a much larger group of People Who Might Not Understand What A Chatbot Really Is. Katie: Have you seen the r/MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit for women who have fallen in love with AI chatbots? I am trying to look at this stuff with an open mind and not be too judgmental. I can see how, for plenty of people, an AI romantic companion is harmless fun. But it also seems pretty obvious that it appeals to really lonely people, and I don't think that falling in love with an AI is a totally healthy behavior. So you've got this thing that appeals to either the very young, or people who don't understand AI, or people who are mentally unwell or chronically lonely. That might be a great demographic to get hooked on your product, but not if you're Meta and you don't want, say, Congress to yell at you. Is there anything - ANYTHING - Big Tech won't do for a quick buck? Now we learn Meta's chatbots were programmed to carry on explicit and 'sensual' talk with 8 year olds. It's sick. I'm launching a full investigation to get answers. Big Tech: Leave our kids alone — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) August 15, 2025 Peter: Katie, you've just made the case that Meta's chatbot business will appeal to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who are unwell. That is, potentially, a very large audience. But I can't imagine that's the audience Meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started — I still don't know why Meta wants to pursue this, given what seems to be limited upside and plenty of downside. Katie: It leaves me scratching my head, too! These chatbots seem like a challenging business, and I'm skeptical about wide adoption. Of all the changes I can imagine AI bringing in the next few years, "We'll all have chatbot friends" — which Mark Zuckerberg has said! — just isn't the one I believe. It's giving metaverse, sorry!
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Lower US tariffs on EU autos are on hold for now
Source: CNN The lower US tariffs on cars imported from the EU will have to wait, at least for now. The EU-US trade agreement is poised to cut the US import tax on cars from the EU from 27.5% to 15%. However, details released Thursday reveal that the lower rate won't take effect until the EU takes separate action to reduce its own tariffs on US goods. 'These tariff reductions are expected to be effective from the first day of the same month in which the European Union's legislative proposal is introduced,' said the latest specifics of the trade agreement released by both the EU and US. This is another example of the ever-changing trade rules this year between the United States and its major trading partners which will impose additional costs on American businesses that import goods and likely eventually raise costs for consumers. The Trump administration announced tariffs of at least 25% on imported vehicles and parts earlier this year. Since then, the US has announced trade agreements with many countries that export cars to United States, expect two of the largest: Mexico and Canada. For example, Germany – the EU country with the most auto exports to the United States – shipped 431,000 vehicles to America last year, according to S&P Global Mobility. But that is only about 3% of the US market, placing it a distant fifth behind Mexico, South Korea, Japan and Canada. US automakers have objected strongly to lowering tariffs on most overseas imports while maintaining higher rates on cars and parts from Canada and Mexico. That's because previous trade deals has allowed the auto industry for decades to operate as if North America was a single market, freely moving parts and vehicles across the borders. Automakers point out that cars assembled in Mexico and Canada include a significant amount of parts produced at US plants. Despite fears, auto tariffs have not significantly raised prices for American car buyers so far this year. Data from car buying site Edmunds shows that the average car price in July was up less than 2% from before the tariffs took effect in March, or a year ago. That's because automakers have, so far, been willing to assume the higher cost of building and importing vehicles instead of raising prices. The concern is that higher prices will put vehicles out of the reach for many customers, cutting into demand. Several companies, including General Motors, Ford, Stellantis and Toyota, have announced they are racking up billions in additional costs due to tariffs. See Full Web Article
Chicago Tribune
31 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Afternoon Briefing: Tinley Park teachers union declares impasse
Good afternoon, Chicago. The union for Tinley Park Elementary District 146 teachers says it is at an impasse with district officials over negotiating an updated contract. While most of the contract's provisions are settled, the Tinley Council Teachers 146 of Local 604 is fighting for higher wage increases and improved retirement benefits than the district is offering. Negotiations began in February, and the most recently approved contract expired July 31. Here's what else is happening today. And remember, for the latest breaking news in Chicago, visit and sign up to get our alerts on all your devices. Subscribe to more newsletters | Asking Eric | Horoscopes | Puzzles & Games | Today in History Northwestern has reached a settlement with former football coach Pat Fitzgerald nearly two years after he sued the university for $130 million following his firing amid a team hazing scandal. Read more here. More top news stories: A proposal to bring a Dutch Bros drive-thru coffee shop to the Jewel parking lot along Naper Boulevard just north of 75th Street will advance to the Naperville City Council with no recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Read more here. More top business stories: The White Sox play host to the Minnesota Twins this weekend at Rate Field. The division foes last met in late April, and the Sox are 2-4 in the season series. Read more here. More top sports stories: Floreana is the setting for Abbott Kahler's latest book, a thrilling, captivating nonfiction 'Eden Undone: A True Story of Sex, Murder, and Utopia at the Dawn of World War II.' Read more here. More top Eat. Watch. Do. stories: Between the federal government's heightened vetting of student visas and President Donald Trump's travel ban, the number of international students newly enrolled in American universities seems certain to drop — by a lot. Read more here. More top stories from around the world:
