Matt

Executive at data operations company Invisible and AI policy expert affiliated with Andreessen Horowitz.

Claims

As speaker

Mentioned in

Key positions and views

Regulate AI Use, Not Development: Believes that regulation should target the harmful application of AI technologies rather than imposing licensing or other restrictions on the development of the models themselves [45].

Enterprise AI Requires External Expertise: Argues that "out-of-the-box" AI solutions are largely ineffective and that successful enterprise deployment requires specialized, externally-driven teams for integration and fine-tuning [1, 2, 32].

Pro-Competition via Open Source: Strongly supports open-source AI and government aid for startups (e.g., compute access) as essential tools to foster competition and prevent market domination by a few large technology companies [17, 24, 42].

Human Feedback is Irreplaceable: Rejects the idea that synthetic data will soon eliminate the need for human feedback in training and refining AI models, viewing human-in-the-loop systems as critical for success [10, 9].

In-Person Work Drives Higher Productivity: Posits that transitioning from a fully remote to a primarily in-person work model can lead to an "exponential increase in productivity," based on his experience at Invisible [6].

Podcast consensus on Matt

Points of consensus

▶Matt consistently uses data from expert reports (MIT, Gartner, KPMG, Salesforce) to substantiate his arguments regarding AI adoption rates, effectiveness, and consumer usage [1, 30, 32, 34, 37].

▶He advocates for a practical, hands-on approach to AI implementation, emphasizing the failures of generic "out-of-the-box" solutions and the superior effectiveness of externally-driven, specialized teams [1, 2, 32].

▶Across his commentary on AI policy, he maintains a clear stance that regulation should target the harmful applications of AI, not the development of the underlying technology itself [43, 45].Apr 2026

▶He consistently promotes policies that foster a competitive AI ecosystem, such as supporting open-source models and creating federal resources to help startups challenge large incumbents [17, 24, 42].Apr 2026

Points of debate

▶Matt speaks with insider authority for two distinct organizations, using "we" when discussing fundraising for Invisible [11] and "our" when describing the policy framework of Andreessen Horowitz [quote], presenting a complex or potentially conflicting dual role.Apr 2026

▶He presents a bifurcated view of the AI market, highlighting explosive growth metrics like Invisible's deal flow and YC's revenue [8, 28] while simultaneously citing high failure rates (5% deployment success) and project cancellations (40%) for enterprise AI [30, 37].

▶He champions in-person work as a driver of "exponential" productivity gains based on Invisible's strategic shift [6], a position that contrasts with the prevalent remote-first or hybrid culture in much of the technology industry.

▶He argues that most potential AI harms are already covered by existing laws [43], yet he also details the necessity and creation of new, AI-specific legislation like Colorado's law, suggesting the current legal framework may be insufficient [13, 16, 36].Apr 2026

Key themes

▶The Enterprise AI Implementation Gap

Matt consistently highlights the significant chasm between the hype surrounding Generative AI and its actual successful deployment in enterprises. He uses data to show low operational rates (5% of deployments are working), poor accuracy of out-of-the-box agents (as low as 33%), and high project cancellation forecasts (40%) [30, 32, 37].

Investors should be wary of companies promising seamless, off-the-shelf AI solutions and instead focus on those providing deep, human-assisted integration, which Matt claims are twice as effective and address this clear market failure [1].

▶Regulating Application, Not Development

A core tenet of Matt's policy stance is that AI regulation should focus on penalizing harmful uses rather than restricting the creation of the technology itself [45]. He views proposals to license frontier models like nuclear energy as misguided and believes existing laws already cover many potential harms [19, 43].

This theme reflects a strategic venture capital perspective aimed at preventing regulatory capture by large incumbents and keeping the barriers to entry for model development low, thereby fostering a competitive environment for startups.

▶The Pro-Competition AI AgendaApr 2026

Matt advocates for policies that actively support competition against the handful of large tech companies dominating the AI landscape. He champions open-source AI as a key driver of innovation and supports federal initiatives to provide startups with access to crucial resources like compute and data [24, 42].

This focus on competition signals a clear strategy to create a fertile ground for new market entrants, directly challenging the technological and resource-based moats of companies like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI [17].

▶The Human-in-the-Loop Imperative

Matt consistently argues against the idea that AI will soon operate autonomously, particularly in complex enterprise settings. He is skeptical that synthetic data will replace human feedback [10] and his company, Invisible, is built on integrating a massive human expert marketplace into AI workflows to ensure quality and effectiveness [9, 38].

This perspective indicates a belief in a significant and durable business opportunity in data labeling, verification, and AI fine-tuning, suggesting the need for human intelligence to guide and correct AI systems will grow, not shrink.

Source episodes

Timeline

Pre-2023 (approx.)

Invisible, the company Matt represents, operated for nine years having raised only $7 million, indicating a period of slow, capital-efficient growth before the recent AI boom [11].

Recent Past

Matt describes a period where the dominant AI policy discussion, even among industry players, involved proposals for strict licensing of frontier models, akin to nuclear energy regulation [19].

Most Recent Legislative Session

Observes that despite significant debate, major state-level AI bills failed to pass, with Colorado's controversial risk-based framework being the sole exception [13, 14].

Current (Policy Shift)

The policy discourse has shifted. Matt identifies a growing bipartisan consensus favoring open-source AI to foster competition [42] and notes significant political pushback against Colorado's new AI law from within the state's own government [16].

Current (Business Growth)

Invisible has entered a rapid growth phase, raising $130 million [11], securing 12 enterprise deals in 45 days [8], and shifting from a remote to an in-person model to boost productivity [3, 6].

Suggested prompts

How does Matt reconcile his advocacy for regulating AI "harms" with his view that most harms are already covered by existing laws? &nearr;What specific market failures or opportunities does Matt believe are created by the high enterprise AI project cancellation rates and low deployment success? &nearr;How does Matt's role at Invisible, a company reliant on a large human workforce for AI tasks, influence his policy stance on AI development and automation at Andreessen Horowitz? &nearr;Given the political pushback against Colorado's AI law, what alternative regulatory framework does Matt believe would effectively balance innovation with consumer protection? &nearr;

Key concepts

AI Regulation & Policy 1 ep Enterprise AI Adoption 1 ep Business Strategy & Growth 1 ep Data & Human-in-the-Loop Systems 1 ep Venture Capital & Startups 2 ep US Government & Legislation 1 ep Defense Technology 2 ep Hardware & Semiconductors 1 ep

Notable quotes

“The core component of our AI policy framework which was developed before my time I wish I could take credit and I can is focus on regulating harmful use not on regulating development”

Matt · The Little Tech Agenda for AI

“MIT just released this report that 5% of Gen AI deployments are working in any form.”

Matt · Matt Fitzpatrick: Who Wins the Data Labelling Race & Why Al Needs Forward-Deployed Engineers

“historically, Invisible had only raised $7 million of primary capital in its entire nine-year journey. We've now, we initially announced $100 million. Actually, right now we're raised $130 million.”

Matt · Matt Fitzpatrick: Who Wins the Data Labelling Race & Why Al Needs Forward-Deployed Engineers

“There were ideas being proposed by not just government, but industry to require a license to build frontier AI tools and for it to be regulated like nuclear energy.”

Matt · The Little Tech Agenda for AI

Report last updated: Apr 21, 2026

Get started free

Back to Entities Intelligence Report