I have been asked to disclose that I hold significant positions in fourteen AI companies. I have also been asked to disclose that this does not influence my analysis. Both of these statements are, technically, true.

Last quarter, a journalist asked me whether I was concerned about AI-driven job displacement. I told her that disruption is the engine of progress, that the industrial revolution created more jobs than it destroyed, and that we should trust the market. She asked if I could name a specific new job that AI would create. I said 'AI ethicist' and she laughed, which I found unprofessional. I then said 'prompt engineer' and she laughed harder. The interview was not published.

My fund's thesis is simple: AI will augment human capability, not replace it. We arrived at this thesis after a three-day offsite in Aspen during which our team of eleven used Claude to write the entire investment memo. The memo argues persuasively that human creativity remains irreplaceable. We did not see the irony at the time because we were quite drunk.

Some of our portfolio companies have yet to generate revenue. This is by design. Revenue implies a business model, and business models imply constraints. We prefer to operate in the pre-revenue space, where valuations are limited only by the slide deck and the founder's ability to say 'generative' without blinking. One of our companies has pivoted four times in eighteen months. It is currently valued at $340 million. Its product is a chatbot that reminds you to drink water.

I am told that my perspective lacks empathy for displaced workers. This is unfair. I think about displaced workers constantly. Specifically, I think about how many of them will need to subscribe to AI-powered career coaching platforms, three of which I am an investor in.