“It's possible that [being a VC] is quite literally timeless, and when the AIs are doing everything else, that may be one of the last remaining fields that people are still doing."
Interestingly, his justification is not that VCs are measurably good at what they do, but rather that they appear to be so bad at what they do:
“Every great venture capitalist in the last 70 years has missed most of the great companies of his generation... if it was a science, you could eventually dial it in and have somebody who gets 8 out of 10 [right]. There's an intangibility to it, there's a taste aspect, the human relationship aspect, the psychology — by the way a lot of it is psychological analysis."
(Personally, I’m not quite sure he actually believes this - but watching him is a certain kind of masterclass in using spicy takes to generate publicity / awareness / buzz. And by talking about him I’m participating in his clever scheme.)
Even his justification for why AI can't become a VC sounds like you could just go by random chance and have the same chance at success which means even the personal touch he is trying to advocate is useless. A monkey could do his job.
The way I’d read that take is that being a “good” VC is about having enough money to spread around and enough networking connections to generate the right leads. After that pretty much any idiot can do the job.
Tldr AI can replace labor but not capital. More news at 11.
