Interview with Marc Andreessen on learning to love the humanities, and RSS(conversationswithtyler.com)
conversationswithtyler.com
Interview with Marc Andreessen on learning to love the humanities, and RSS
https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/marc-andreessen/
124 comments
Indeed. We also kept chemistry and physics under control. Biochemistry too. Nothing can harm humanity.
> We’ll be able to keep the math under control.
Hope A16z is loaded up on algorithmic stablecoin investments.
Hope A16z is loaded up on algorithmic stablecoin investments.
"Empires — fun historical fact: The Roman Empire was not run out of offices. They ran the world, yet there was no office. There was no office building. The Roman aristocrats worked out of their homes, and then they went to the Senate, and then [laughs] they went to their country house. There was no office building for administering the Roman Empire."
Is this "fact" correct?
Edit: It turns out utterly not. The Basilicas, for instance, were office buildings for public administration.
Why make up something like this?
Is this "fact" correct?
Edit: It turns out utterly not. The Basilicas, for instance, were office buildings for public administration.
Why make up something like this?
Great interview. Nice to read a tech leader with more cultural hinterland and intellectual diversity than the normal marketing/coding/mountain biking dreariness.
Marc made up facts and couldn't come up with a coherent argument half the time. Very unimpressive
You really drank the Kool-Aid huh?
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've been doing that a lot, unfortunately, and we ban that sort of account.
You may not feel you owe VC billionaires (or whoever) better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You may not feel you owe VC billionaires (or whoever) better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Is that the way you would like your own posts responded to?
It is actually kind of interesting to me that he grew up somewhere where it was unusual to have a passport or leave the state for college. It's not a perspective I'm very well-acquainted with.
Why is MA doing the podcast interview round?
I opened up YC to browse while listening/watching his interview with Michael Malice, also from today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elXWle3JNrI.
I opened up YC to browse while listening/watching his interview with Michael Malice, also from today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elXWle3JNrI.
Balaji's book I think
Good on Tyler for pressing on the advantages of Web 3.0 for artists. I didn't really find MA's answers satisfactory.
There are few actual good use cases for NFTs in ways that actually matter, buuuut... even in the case that a highly talented but unknown artist hits it big one day, there's nothing that is going to prevent the current owner from selling the art without going back to the NFT to compensate the artist. That's a pipe dream outside of the purely digital space.
Why do people always use art as an example? Couldn't you do it with something like cars (where the car doesn't start until you prove you have the NFT)? I'm completely unfamiliar the with the space
Would the NFT-locked car require a live blockchain connection and refuse to open its doors if it hasn’t been able to sync its node after a certain time? So you’d get locked out of your car if mobile Internet goes down?
If it doesn’t do this, then you can steal the car by selling the NFT, simultaneously disabling the car’s Internet connection, and driving off. Now the NFT is held by one person but the physical car is held by another.
If it doesn’t do this, then you can steal the car by selling the NFT, simultaneously disabling the car’s Internet connection, and driving off. Now the NFT is held by one person but the physical car is held by another.
Would likely require a form of NFT that's a little different and probably more complex than the current forn. Something about having the car key also be a cryptographic key, and transfers of the NFT invalidating keys or requiring rotation.
What is it with NFTs and solving theoretical problems in extremely complex ways. Car thefts at at 1/3 of what they were in the 90s, and the existing mechanisms for buying/selling cars work just fine. Why do we need to introduce car DRM with brittle, distributed access control systems? You're more likely to get your tires or cat stolen - no NFT is going to prevent that.
because then a16z can get a cut of it
You could shape the NFT in the form of a metal rod with notches on it. When placed inside a slot and turned, the car could validate that the right pattern of notches exist on the NFT and turn on.
If you want to sell the car, simply hand off the physical NFT to the new owner.
If you want to sell the car, simply hand off the physical NFT to the new owner.
Well crypto allows for trustless digital transfers. Like selling a house halfway across the world, without having to fly over to hand off the keys.
Yes.
But real estate law does not.
But real estate law does not.
So the person halfway around the world can immediately start enjoying their house?
I assume it would be something like, the door lock is tied to the current owner as defined by the blockchain. No need for intermediaries, and no physical key.
This is the classic definition of a solution looking for a problem though.
I don't know about "no need for intermediaries" because of course you need someone who creates and maintains this blockchain, since blockchains are not present in nature (perhaps that is a decentralized group of people but the blockchain and its maintainers are then the intermediary between the two parties) so let's focus on the no physical key part.
If the primary benefit of blockchain is that only the registered owner of the house can get access to it, on that blockchain, that's a pretty weak feature and actually pretty shit. I would like my family to also get access to my house, as well as perhaps other people like houseguests or a maid etc. Keys seem to work pretty well, nobody is pounding down the door to buy "smart locks" as far as I can tell.
I'm not saying blockchain won't provide transformative utility, it might, but it probably won't look like what we imagine it will (existing paradigms, but on a blockchain).
I don't know about "no need for intermediaries" because of course you need someone who creates and maintains this blockchain, since blockchains are not present in nature (perhaps that is a decentralized group of people but the blockchain and its maintainers are then the intermediary between the two parties) so let's focus on the no physical key part.
If the primary benefit of blockchain is that only the registered owner of the house can get access to it, on that blockchain, that's a pretty weak feature and actually pretty shit. I would like my family to also get access to my house, as well as perhaps other people like houseguests or a maid etc. Keys seem to work pretty well, nobody is pounding down the door to buy "smart locks" as far as I can tell.
I'm not saying blockchain won't provide transformative utility, it might, but it probably won't look like what we imagine it will (existing paradigms, but on a blockchain).
Sorry I meant centralized intermediaries, which is what is often meant when referring to blockchain tech. Some other examples of centralized intermediaries are banks, ticket resellers like ticketmaster, deed notaries, etc.
And as for sharing keys with family members, perhaps just list them as sub-members of the owning member on the blockchain. When the owner changes, all previous sub-members lose access too. This can probably be done using a smart contract
And as for sharing keys with family members, perhaps just list them as sub-members of the owning member on the blockchain. When the owner changes, all previous sub-members lose access too. This can probably be done using a smart contract
You can certainly do it. But then the problem being solved is "keys are bad". Typically in startup lore you want a product to be 10x better than the existing solution to gain mainstream adoption. I have a hard time picturing smart locks to your doors on the blockchain as being 10x better than keys.
So we're back to the original question: without an Internet connection, this blockchain-controlled door won't open, even if you're the legitimate owner.
Or if it does open without Internet, then you can buy the house NFT, but the seller disabled the Internet connection in the house so the door doesn't know about the transaction. Now you're locked out even though you theoretically own the house on the blockchain.
Turns out the blockchain doesn't solve ownership of physical objects. You still need intermediaries like the police and courts to decide who owns the house.
Or if it does open without Internet, then you can buy the house NFT, but the seller disabled the Internet connection in the house so the door doesn't know about the transaction. Now you're locked out even though you theoretically own the house on the blockchain.
Turns out the blockchain doesn't solve ownership of physical objects. You still need intermediaries like the police and courts to decide who owns the house.
Or perhaps it's looking towards a future where internet access is more reliable, as it has been getting for the past few decades
Do you really want to be locked out of your house or car if the Internet is down?
We've had the electrical power grid for over a century, but power cuts and brownouts are still a thing.
Designing vital systems to assume 100% reliability of shared systems is dangerous.
We've had the electrical power grid for over a century, but power cuts and brownouts are still a thing.
Designing vital systems to assume 100% reliability of shared systems is dangerous.
I think the point of an NFT would be that everybody else can also see that you control the token, which doesn't really seem relevant to starting a car. You could just ("just") have a privately controlled public/private key pair, and the previous owner could tell the car that your public key should now be the only one able to open the car; no need to announce that to the world.
(I also know nothing of the space, just engaging to build my own understanding.)
(I also know nothing of the space, just engaging to build my own understanding.)
I clipped the 3 minutes where Tyler pressed Marc on a specific Web3 use case: https://twitter.com/liron/status/1537186589486460928
Idk who this humpty-dumpty guy is, but the actual humanities are vastly more compelling of an intellectual pursuit than most machine-oriented stuff.
Most CEOs and investors I’ve met are intellectually quite dull, uncorrelated with their professional success.
This shouldn’t be surprising. They didn’t get rewarded by the market for being interesting, unlike, say, the interviewer.
MA continues to talk his book when it comes to crypto/web3 which is fine but that’s like a goldbug talking up gold. It’s boring.
This shouldn’t be surprising. They didn’t get rewarded by the market for being interesting, unlike, say, the interviewer.
MA continues to talk his book when it comes to crypto/web3 which is fine but that’s like a goldbug talking up gold. It’s boring.
I'm confused.
When MA talks about "humanities", I feeel like he is only describing "behaviorism" and "behavior psychology", which would be, at the very least, intellectually misleading.
When MA talks about "humanities", I feeel like he is only describing "behaviorism" and "behavior psychology", which would be, at the very least, intellectually misleading.
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what humanities stands for in the US (or UK, AUS, SA, ...) education context, if it has even a fixed meaning over time. Like the (Humbold-esque?) categorization of Naturwisschenschaften vs Geisteswissenschaften in my country/language, it seems to be partly used for dissing the humanities, but Reine Wissenschaften (where you're getting a degree in philosophy when studying maths) seems absent?
I found it telling when the interview was touching Florence and The Medici, that renaissance humanism (with its all-important aspect of rediscovering, republishing, and preserving antique text material) wasn't connected to the humanities topic. Maybe it was more of a Venice thing, but I saw it as a lost opportunity to learn more of Andreessen's opinion on preservation of our digital heritage (or lack thereof) seeing as he developed Netscape from Mosaic etc.
I found it telling when the interview was touching Florence and The Medici, that renaissance humanism (with its all-important aspect of rediscovering, republishing, and preserving antique text material) wasn't connected to the humanities topic. Maybe it was more of a Venice thing, but I saw it as a lost opportunity to learn more of Andreessen's opinion on preservation of our digital heritage (or lack thereof) seeing as he developed Netscape from Mosaic etc.
The terminology is vaguely defined. In the mouth of a techie, I'd assume they mean "everything that gets studied but isn't STEM or business", with a connotation "and is therefore easy since it doesn't have a rigorous grading system".
There are links between Renaissance humanism and what is now called "humanities". The Humanists weren't just about the re-naissance of Greek and Roman works, but also about creating new ones. A lot of humanists were poets, painters, and writers -- fields often lumped in with "humanities". There was also a rebirth of what the Greeks called philosophy, which also included subjects that we'd call sociology (laws, ethics, forms of government, etc.) Sociology is also treated as adjacent to humanities.
Techies do need to learn that the easily-measurable aspects of a technology are not the only important ones. We use tech because it appeals to us as humans, using the yardstick of our perceptions of things. Humanities are easily dissed because they're hard to measure objectively, but that doesn't mean they're unimportant. Indeed, they may be more important precisely because we haven't (yet) learned them well enough to be simple.
There are links between Renaissance humanism and what is now called "humanities". The Humanists weren't just about the re-naissance of Greek and Roman works, but also about creating new ones. A lot of humanists were poets, painters, and writers -- fields often lumped in with "humanities". There was also a rebirth of what the Greeks called philosophy, which also included subjects that we'd call sociology (laws, ethics, forms of government, etc.) Sociology is also treated as adjacent to humanities.
Techies do need to learn that the easily-measurable aspects of a technology are not the only important ones. We use tech because it appeals to us as humans, using the yardstick of our perceptions of things. Humanities are easily dissed because they're hard to measure objectively, but that doesn't mean they're unimportant. Indeed, they may be more important precisely because we haven't (yet) learned them well enough to be simple.
I wouldn’t call humanities easy. I did very poorly at them. I don’t dislike humanities, but if your grading system is going to be a bit subjective, I’d prefer not to be graded at all or at least just a pass/fail.
The teachers largely agree. They don't want to give the grades, either. They very much don't like the way they have to teach differently in order to give grades.
I suspect many would be happy to do pass fail.
I suspect many would be happy to do pass fail.
The fact that Andreessen is becoming a humanities autodidact through Burnham (the later arch-conservative Burnham, rather than the Marxist Burnham, I assume) is ... well, it's an interesting choice, I suppose. About the only thing that's stood the test of time as anything more than a curiosity is "The Managerial Revolution," but as socioeconomic analysis Chandler did it later, and better; and as geopolitical theory Mahan did it first, and better. I have a hunch he's going back to "Suicide of the West" and its bloody-minded anti-liberalism (in the "western liberal democracies" sense of "liberal") which Carl Schmidt did first, and better (using that word advisedly). All in all, it's an idiosyncratic self-education that's mired in a very specific far-right midcentury worldview.
Marc rides on the coattails of better thinkers and engineers who came before and had less to build on. At this point he’s a contemporary American elite grifter who relies on the small government meme despite being of a generation that benefited from a social safety net.
Seeing Gen X tech leaders as great thinkers when they’re riding the wave of the world rebuilding after WW2 is so bizarre to me; none of Marc’s work is fundamental to anything these days. Thousands of others understand these systems at the same level.
It’s a LARP, it’s propaganda. It’s taking intentional advantage of quirks in lizard brain biology. He’s smart but he’s not owed fawning deference. I just can’t under people with deferential behavior towards people like him anymore.
Not that you putting it out there like that. Just saying; to keep it’s all a rise and fall of biology. The spiraling rambling they put on is a show for people who don’t know better.
Seeing Gen X tech leaders as great thinkers when they’re riding the wave of the world rebuilding after WW2 is so bizarre to me; none of Marc’s work is fundamental to anything these days. Thousands of others understand these systems at the same level.
It’s a LARP, it’s propaganda. It’s taking intentional advantage of quirks in lizard brain biology. He’s smart but he’s not owed fawning deference. I just can’t under people with deferential behavior towards people like him anymore.
Not that you putting it out there like that. Just saying; to keep it’s all a rise and fall of biology. The spiraling rambling they put on is a show for people who don’t know better.
[deleted]
Marc grew up in the rural Midwest during Reagan's 1980s. Not sure what you mean that he's some great beneficiary of direct social welfare.
In what way did growing up in the rural Midwest in the 80s mean Andreesen didn't benefit from social welfare?
Public schools and universities like his alma mater UIUC are a pretty clear example of social welfare heavily subsidized by taxpayers, especially in the 80s when you could attend an elite public university for a very low price, and have little to no student debt.
Food stamps and SSI aren't the only forms of public assistance.
Public schools and universities like his alma mater UIUC are a pretty clear example of social welfare heavily subsidized by taxpayers, especially in the 80s when you could attend an elite public university for a very low price, and have little to no student debt.
Food stamps and SSI aren't the only forms of public assistance.
When I hear "social safety net" I don't think of public schools and universities. Perhaps other people have a different definition, but as someone who has studied tax policy (at a public law school!) this was never how we talked about safety nets.
> When I hear "social safety net" I don't think of public schools and universities.
The comment I responded to said social welfare, not social safety net. But personally I consider them not so different since education is a basic need like housing and food. But since middle and higher income people rely on the education subsidy, we don't like to use the same descriptors for it that we use for food and housing subsidies.
The comment I responded to said social welfare, not social safety net. But personally I consider them not so different since education is a basic need like housing and food. But since middle and higher income people rely on the education subsidy, we don't like to use the same descriptors for it that we use for food and housing subsidies.
So what we mean by "Andreessen is a beneficiary of welfare" is that he got exactly the minimum that 330+ million other Americans have access to. That type of statement provides zero insight.
(less in fact. Government education spending is higher as a % of GDP than ever.)
(less in fact. Government education spending is higher as a % of GDP than ever.)
> he got exactly the minimum that 330+ million other Americans have access to.
It is mistaken think that access to high quality subsidized public education has been uniformly or meritocratically accessible across the generations or class or other dimensions.
It is mistaken think that access to high quality subsidized public education has been uniformly or meritocratically accessible across the generations or class or other dimensions.
What’s funny is none of the rebuttals touch on the reality of the world rebuilding after WW2
Just defense of Marc. Talk about missing the forest for a tree. There was nothing but extreme growth to be had when exporting to the world the items needed to re-establish their manufacturing base.
But naaah; the world was rebuilt due to the brilliance of a handful of computer nerds in one nation.
The only quote that explains it for me is: “You took too much, man. You took too much, too much.”
Just defense of Marc. Talk about missing the forest for a tree. There was nothing but extreme growth to be had when exporting to the world the items needed to re-establish their manufacturing base.
But naaah; the world was rebuilt due to the brilliance of a handful of computer nerds in one nation.
The only quote that explains it for me is: “You took too much, man. You took too much, too much.”
Yes, Marc was more privileged than boomers or silent generation. I will concede that. Somehow I don't think that was the point of the original comment.
MA specifically addresses his education in this interview. He says that he learned most of what he knows via independent reading, that his high school was not high quality (his computer class teacher being a lucky accident that he almost missed), and that he identifies as part of the Midwestern farmer/tinker culture (e.g. Bob Noyce).
[deleted]
He also mentions Keynes shortly after that, I wouldn't call him a far-right follower just for being interested in that midcentury time-frame. He does make a very good point when he talks about Keynes being relatively easy to read when it comes to economics, I mean, compared to the economics of today which has been turned into basically maths.
Also, him being from Wisconsin and mentioning Burnham, is strange that he hasn't make at least a passing reference to George Kennan. I'm reading through Gaddis's biography of him and you can sort of see, if you look close enough, the "boy from Wisconsin who has made it to the outside world"-thingie all throughout his (Kennan's) career, even when he was residing in Moscow and when he was trying to understand how the Russians/Soviets basically think and act. It is my opinion that that outside view (meaning a view not centered on the US West Coast nor on the East Coast) is what made some of his dispatches so on point and, basically, so good and informative. I wonder if that also applies to people like MA, I mean, to people who get out of places like Wisconsin and who then reach the West Coast of today. Do they still have that "outside view"?
Also, him being from Wisconsin and mentioning Burnham, is strange that he hasn't make at least a passing reference to George Kennan. I'm reading through Gaddis's biography of him and you can sort of see, if you look close enough, the "boy from Wisconsin who has made it to the outside world"-thingie all throughout his (Kennan's) career, even when he was residing in Moscow and when he was trying to understand how the Russians/Soviets basically think and act. It is my opinion that that outside view (meaning a view not centered on the US West Coast nor on the East Coast) is what made some of his dispatches so on point and, basically, so good and informative. I wonder if that also applies to people like MA, I mean, to people who get out of places like Wisconsin and who then reach the West Coast of today. Do they still have that "outside view"?
> I wouldn't call him a far-right follower
he's been getting into Moldbug, so uh
he's been getting into Moldbug, so uh
You seem to know this area well. How did you learn about it, and do you listen to Know Your Enemy? I learnt about all those people from Know Your Enemy.
[deleted]
I guess you just had to be there when we'd hold our breath for Netscape nightlies.
Humanities - history, geography, politics, religion and partially are economics, are our legacy; what we are and therefore what we can become. They are arts not sciences. Oral and written tradition for generations before technology & science.
Of course this is important to humans, and as a species we should embrace it. Computers should augment us, not replace is.
This reminded me of Robert Wilson's congressional testimony on Fermilab. [0]
From the link:
Despite the key role physicists played in ending World War II, some members of Congress were skeptical of paying a hefty price tag for a machine that did not seem to directly benefit the U.S. national interest.
During Wilson’s testimony, then-senator John Pastore bluntly asked, "Is there anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?"
"No, sir, I don’t believe so," Wilson replied.
"It has no value in that respect?"
"It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of man, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending."
[0] https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201804/history.cfm
From the link:
Despite the key role physicists played in ending World War II, some members of Congress were skeptical of paying a hefty price tag for a machine that did not seem to directly benefit the U.S. national interest.
During Wilson’s testimony, then-senator John Pastore bluntly asked, "Is there anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?"
"No, sir, I don’t believe so," Wilson replied.
"It has no value in that respect?"
"It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of man, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending."
[0] https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201804/history.cfm
> "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending."
Thank you for sharing. This is one of the most thought provoking lines I have ever read. People and politicians often forget that making a country worth defending is as important as the act of defense.
Thank you for sharing. This is one of the most thought provoking lines I have ever read. People and politicians often forget that making a country worth defending is as important as the act of defense.
I mean, it's obvious.
Or maybe it's a proof of the intelligence of a elected official?
Or maybe it's a proof of the intelligence of a elected official?
These topics are incredibly important, and yet it's extremely difficult to make a living studying them, and people are routinely mocked for attempting to do so. One day we will realize that an entire society made up of engineers and managers is not a healthy one. How can we fix this when "stuff that people will pay for" is pretty much the only meaningful measure of value?
People get paid for engaging in them- i.e. doing them. Studying the arts will not, however, make you an artist.
It will make you, at best, a keen observer. Some people can make a living writing books about their observations and assertions formed from them. Most, however, will not.
How much extra value does one more person writing about Locke or Rawles really give society? It depends entirely on how many we already have.
It will make you, at best, a keen observer. Some people can make a living writing books about their observations and assertions formed from them. Most, however, will not.
How much extra value does one more person writing about Locke or Rawles really give society? It depends entirely on how many we already have.
The arts and the humanities are not identical.
The people doing history, for example, are the grad students and faculty who dig into archives and write books. They, largely, are shit on by society and are working in a field that pays virtually all of them like crap.
And they don't repeat themselves. The Nth person to write a book on Topic X isn't just saying what has already been said. They are in dialog with all of the other authors. They reinterpret and recast the history. They view it through different methods or they create new methods that others will use in the future.
The people doing history, for example, are the grad students and faculty who dig into archives and write books. They, largely, are shit on by society and are working in a field that pays virtually all of them like crap.
And they don't repeat themselves. The Nth person to write a book on Topic X isn't just saying what has already been said. They are in dialog with all of the other authors. They reinterpret and recast the history. They view it through different methods or they create new methods that others will use in the future.
There is a value that transcends money. Value to society as a whole. Sure people need to live and have basic needs met, but to transcend finance is perhaps a necessity. One can make do with a lot less when the soul is enriched, when we take solace from the learning of humanity.
And how much do you think artists get paid?
For independent artists, everywhere from "not at all" to "obscene amounts", with most on the lower end of the scale or nothing.
For commercial artists- designers and such for companies- it is usually a good living.
For commercial artists- designers and such for companies- it is usually a good living.
It’s weird that we don’t throw more money at the social sciences, in particular. People often laugh at the social sciences because of things like the reproducibility crisis. But if we’re finding it difficult to research fundamental questions about humans, why don’t we throw billions of dollars at the challenge, like we did with the Large Hadron Collider?
Humanities aren't science but still important in making rational decisions. "History repeats itself" at least partially, and history/politics/religion help explain human psychology, if you look into the motives behind them.
The Humanities are _essential_ to making rational decisions outside (and sometimes within) the sciences. Thomas Kuhn's work used to be viewed as a "bridge" between them (history + sociology of science). But in fact modern science owes its existence to the humanists of the Renaissance. Of course the really hard problems aren't scientific, or amenable to scientific solutions: war and peace, politics and crime, social movements, religion, economic exploitation and the ultimate questions of "why?" and "what's next?" Those require answers from history, literature, philosophy, art and culture. That's why Newton only spent the first part of his life studying the physical world, the latter part had him searching for meaning in the metaphysical.
He is a smart person, but not as brilliant as I thought he was (and I am not getting this impression just from this interview, I have been following him for a long time).
And the same is true for many other VC types, who, if it were not for the fact that founders and companies need their money, would have the same intellectual and "lived-life" weight of your run-of-the-mills 9-to-5 office worker.
He speaks way too fast which gives the impression is "throwing up" words instead of making a point. Chill. It is an interview, not a slam poetry the-quickest-wins contest.
He is asked how to identify talent and after working in VC for 15-20 years he gives a made-up answer on the spot. I don't think he is guarding some secrets, it appears he has not developed a theory. Which is fine, or the theory is implicit, he is looking for "vibes" more than "hard" traits after all the necessary boxes are checked (smart, persistent, able to articulate thoughts). Hard to disagree. If there were a secret, it'd be out there already found. But the made-up answer was not impressive at all (a videotape of when they were kids? Come on).
He talks about web3 and he comes up with ways of monetizing, say, podcasts with proposals that you would expect from a teenager. At the end, he basically admits he has no clue and the future will take care of itself.
He has watched many movies, but he doesn't have a favorite one.
He seems unfazed by selection biases. Peter Thiel is a great at recognizing talent, he says. How many would be recognize with 1/1000th of his money and how many he did not recognize?
He repeats "insights" and "talking points" gotten from twitter, social media, the usual playgrounds that myself, a total nobody, could repeat with more flavor.
He had a few interesting insights (saying they were "brilliant" would be quite arrogant on my part), surely. Not enough to be considered "brilliant".
And the same is true for many other VC types, who, if it were not for the fact that founders and companies need their money, would have the same intellectual and "lived-life" weight of your run-of-the-mills 9-to-5 office worker.
He speaks way too fast which gives the impression is "throwing up" words instead of making a point. Chill. It is an interview, not a slam poetry the-quickest-wins contest.
He is asked how to identify talent and after working in VC for 15-20 years he gives a made-up answer on the spot. I don't think he is guarding some secrets, it appears he has not developed a theory. Which is fine, or the theory is implicit, he is looking for "vibes" more than "hard" traits after all the necessary boxes are checked (smart, persistent, able to articulate thoughts). Hard to disagree. If there were a secret, it'd be out there already found. But the made-up answer was not impressive at all (a videotape of when they were kids? Come on).
He talks about web3 and he comes up with ways of monetizing, say, podcasts with proposals that you would expect from a teenager. At the end, he basically admits he has no clue and the future will take care of itself.
He has watched many movies, but he doesn't have a favorite one.
He seems unfazed by selection biases. Peter Thiel is a great at recognizing talent, he says. How many would be recognize with 1/1000th of his money and how many he did not recognize?
He repeats "insights" and "talking points" gotten from twitter, social media, the usual playgrounds that myself, a total nobody, could repeat with more flavor.
He had a few interesting insights (saying they were "brilliant" would be quite arrogant on my part), surely. Not enough to be considered "brilliant".
> He is a smart person, but not as brilliant as I thought he was
Yeah, one of the things that I keep coming back to is Acquired Situational Narcissism. I can name a number of very successful people who I used to listen to as insightful that now seem banal to me. I'm sure I've gotten more discerning, but I'm also sure, as in Andreessen's case, that there's been a real decline.
A pretty easy explanation here is that being truly insightful is partly a function of circumstance. If you can say basically anything and have people around you exclaim, "Amazing! Brilliant!" then you don't have a lot of incentive for working harder. If you're insulated from reality by vast swathes of power and money, you don't get the corrective-whack-on-the-nose feeling from unpleasant encounters with reality.
It's akin to how I think getting a permanent newspaper columnist is a curse. A lot of those people used to be really interesting once upon a time. But I think it's the very rare one who doesn't devolve into being almost cartoonishly predictable.
Yeah, one of the things that I keep coming back to is Acquired Situational Narcissism. I can name a number of very successful people who I used to listen to as insightful that now seem banal to me. I'm sure I've gotten more discerning, but I'm also sure, as in Andreessen's case, that there's been a real decline.
A pretty easy explanation here is that being truly insightful is partly a function of circumstance. If you can say basically anything and have people around you exclaim, "Amazing! Brilliant!" then you don't have a lot of incentive for working harder. If you're insulated from reality by vast swathes of power and money, you don't get the corrective-whack-on-the-nose feeling from unpleasant encounters with reality.
It's akin to how I think getting a permanent newspaper columnist is a curse. A lot of those people used to be really interesting once upon a time. But I think it's the very rare one who doesn't devolve into being almost cartoonishly predictable.
What is wrong with predictability. When you buy an album by your favorite musician or whatever, you expect a certain kind of sound
HN comments are hilarious. Someone who has created the first internet browser, built two companies worth $4.3B and $1.6B, and then a $30B VC firm doesn't have "the same intellectual and "lived-life" weight of your run-of-the-mills 9-to-5 office worker."
Success doesn't just magically cross all elements of human life!
The most visible SV VCs don't do themselves any favors. Granting the "I can built a successful company" component, there are many who then claim to understand society, politics, philosophy, and everything in between. Then they loudly talk about their opinions. And then people see it, and think "wow, not super smart huh".
The cherry on the cake is how many of these VC people get mad about cancel culture, cuz it turns out that social media means they have way more people calling them stupid to their face (an experience they likely don't have in their day to day life, as the person with the money/firing capabilities). (To be fair I also don't have people calling me stupid to my face and it sounds unpleasant)
Of course there are many VCs who don't play this game, don't pretend to have seen behind the curtain of the universe, and people don't make fun of them on Twitter. And many of those people are plenty successful and fine.
But there are a couple who become the butt of jokes because they like saying the name Socrates
The most visible SV VCs don't do themselves any favors. Granting the "I can built a successful company" component, there are many who then claim to understand society, politics, philosophy, and everything in between. Then they loudly talk about their opinions. And then people see it, and think "wow, not super smart huh".
The cherry on the cake is how many of these VC people get mad about cancel culture, cuz it turns out that social media means they have way more people calling them stupid to their face (an experience they likely don't have in their day to day life, as the person with the money/firing capabilities). (To be fair I also don't have people calling me stupid to my face and it sounds unpleasant)
Of course there are many VCs who don't play this game, don't pretend to have seen behind the curtain of the universe, and people don't make fun of them on Twitter. And many of those people are plenty successful and fine.
But there are a couple who become the butt of jokes because they like saying the name Socrates
> Of course there are many VCs who don't play this game, don't pretend to have seen behind the curtain of the universe, and people don't make fun of them on Twitter. And many of those people are plenty successful and fine.
That might be Ben Horowitz, the titular partner at A16Z. His Twitter is relatively quiet, mostly just retweeting other A16Z people's tweets.
In his book "The Hard Thing About Hard Things", every chapter begins with a rap lyric from golden-age era hiphop (80s, 90s). It's quite ridiculous contrasting lyrics about street life and hustling to Horowitz's tales of trying to build enterprise unicorns. But in book format, it comes off as well-meaning tribute from a fan and not a cynical way of conflating the struggles of the American poor with say Loudcloud going through a down round.
But on Twitter, which is combative to begin with, him quoting Nas or Jay-Z while bloviating about Web3 would invite derision right away.
That might be Ben Horowitz, the titular partner at A16Z. His Twitter is relatively quiet, mostly just retweeting other A16Z people's tweets.
In his book "The Hard Thing About Hard Things", every chapter begins with a rap lyric from golden-age era hiphop (80s, 90s). It's quite ridiculous contrasting lyrics about street life and hustling to Horowitz's tales of trying to build enterprise unicorns. But in book format, it comes off as well-meaning tribute from a fan and not a cynical way of conflating the struggles of the American poor with say Loudcloud going through a down round.
But on Twitter, which is combative to begin with, him quoting Nas or Jay-Z while bloviating about Web3 would invite derision right away.
If you believe the money amount correspondence to intellectual and lived life weight is linear, then Marc must be astronomical huge.
But in the end, no one knows the correspondence between money amount and intellectual and lived life weight. That's a market thing. Everyone's option is mixed together and give to a weight of collective market dynamism.
But in the end, no one knows the correspondence between money amount and intellectual and lived life weight. That's a market thing. Everyone's option is mixed together and give to a weight of collective market dynamism.
Netscape Navigator wasn't the first internet browser. It wasn't the second either. It came along in 1994, four years after Tim Berners-Lee introduced the WorldWideWeb browser.
That’s true, but Netscape wasn’t his first browser. He and Eric Bina also releasedd the first version of Mosaic in 1993, which was the first graphical browser to inline images with the text.
Oh yeah, it ran on 5 operating systems (I used the OS/2 version myself)
The breadth of features that were added between Netscape 1.0 and Netscape 3.0 in 2 year span was pretty astounding at that time. People forget how many critical features were added to Netscape 3.0 that would define so much of the web today and make it commercially viable.
Oh yeah, it ran on 5 operating systems (I used the OS/2 version myself)
The breadth of features that were added between Netscape 1.0 and Netscape 3.0 in 2 year span was pretty astounding at that time. People forget how many critical features were added to Netscape 3.0 that would define so much of the web today and make it commercially viable.
And the company only lasted a few years! Good for him on being in the right place at the right time and jumping on the opportunity. But if we're going to use it as a yardstick of his genius, surely we have to also look at how it turned out.
Generating value/wealth != intellectualism
Right. Most “intellectuals” never produce anything of value.
But they are a hell of a lot smarter than VCs
I found that as hilarious myself. A VC whose firm is the one who has been pushing the hardest for web3, cypto-fund, Chris Dixon etc., who when asked, seriously this time, not by people who are boot-licking on the basis of the billions made, what web3 is for, cannot articulate an answer that goes beyond a word salad with no dressing. On the basis of those very famous billions, should he be allowed a pass anytime he says nonsense?
He is an amazing technologist, but it appears to me that when he, and many other VCs, go beyond the boundaries of their technical expertise, they know as much as the guy who get their news from twitter. Their fame and worth sometimes prevent me from commenting on their nonsense on Twitter because I say to myself, who am I to criticize someone who moves billions?
I got the same vibe from a few too many CEO, CTO, and other assorted C- of big and famous companies. The CTO of my previous company, which had a total number of employees greater than 150,000 heads, was terribly underwhelming any time they decided to give their opinion on current business, and the future of the business and of the technology supporting the business. But they were never criticized because they were the CTO of a company of 150,000 people and therefore inherently extraordinary. The principle of authority does not work in science and works a bit more (too much!) in business because the authority can move the market, but not because the authority is right.
It is fine, of course, nobody is a genius everywhere, and as the comment said, he has been incredibly successful, 10,000 more than I have been. But some people, for the worship they get, are more disappointing than others when they show their true, and not assumed, intellectual range.
He is an amazing technologist, but it appears to me that when he, and many other VCs, go beyond the boundaries of their technical expertise, they know as much as the guy who get their news from twitter. Their fame and worth sometimes prevent me from commenting on their nonsense on Twitter because I say to myself, who am I to criticize someone who moves billions?
I got the same vibe from a few too many CEO, CTO, and other assorted C- of big and famous companies. The CTO of my previous company, which had a total number of employees greater than 150,000 heads, was terribly underwhelming any time they decided to give their opinion on current business, and the future of the business and of the technology supporting the business. But they were never criticized because they were the CTO of a company of 150,000 people and therefore inherently extraordinary. The principle of authority does not work in science and works a bit more (too much!) in business because the authority can move the market, but not because the authority is right.
It is fine, of course, nobody is a genius everywhere, and as the comment said, he has been incredibly successful, 10,000 more than I have been. But some people, for the worship they get, are more disappointing than others when they show their true, and not assumed, intellectual range.
I like how none of these other replies have picked up on your employment as a VC yet.
I dunno, I was pretty skeptical of the comment at first along similar lines as your comment, but then as I went I felt that the comment ended up making some pretty compelling points.
I suppose this is the pseudo-intellectual version of Monday morning quarterbacking.
It's hard to take A16Z seriously after they opened a crypto fund and invested in Adam Neumann.
Agree about crypto. I never never seen anything hyped so much which is otherwise useless. The World Wide Web proved useful and caught on quickly such as Amazon, Yahoo, Lycos, etc., but a decade later and crypto is still slow, unusable, a niche.
Is that “mother Earth token?” It’s such an obvious grift that anyone investing in that is either foolish or knowingly investing in a grift. Neither is a good look.
I'm not a crypto advocate but isn't it too early to say crypto has failed?
While some people still believe crypto isn't a complete failure just yet, let's focus on two things:
1) It's a haven for grifters right now
2) They're investing in Adam Neuman
Any explanation I can think of - outside of incompetence - veers pretty close to "might be criminal enterprise".
1) It's a haven for grifters right now
2) They're investing in Adam Neuman
Any explanation I can think of - outside of incompetence - veers pretty close to "might be criminal enterprise".
Yikes, I agree.
I thought you were talking about an investment in WeWork way back in the day, for which I think that could be forgiven.
But no, they RECENTLY invested in Neumann's new crypto start-up: https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/24/flowcarbon-wework-adam-neu...
I thought you were talking about an investment in WeWork way back in the day, for which I think that could be forgiven.
But no, they RECENTLY invested in Neumann's new crypto start-up: https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/24/flowcarbon-wework-adam-neu...
If you have to go from
a) it's a private P2P e-cash system, to
b) it's a digital asset and a hedge against inflation, to
c) it's saving people in Venezuela the Central African Republic
.... maybe it's failed.
a) it's a private P2P e-cash system, to
b) it's a digital asset and a hedge against inflation, to
c) it's saving people in Venezuela the Central African Republic
.... maybe it's failed.
[deleted]
> He has watched many movies, but he doesn't have a favorite one.
Not sure why that's supposed to be a bad thing.
> And the same is true for many other VC types
Andreessen isn't just one of those "VC types". He is the co-author of Mosaic, the first widely used web browser. [1]
If you don't consider him to be brilliant, I'm curious to know who in the same space do think is?
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen
Not sure why that's supposed to be a bad thing.
> And the same is true for many other VC types
Andreessen isn't just one of those "VC types". He is the co-author of Mosaic, the first widely used web browser. [1]
If you don't consider him to be brilliant, I'm curious to know who in the same space do think is?
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen
It is not a "bad thing" per se.
But say, you meet up with someone and they say they watch plenty of baseball games. And you ask them, "who is your favorite baseball player?". If they answer, "can I answer with my favorite tennis player?" or they say "I don't have a favorite player", I would find equally bizarre and suspicious.
It reminded of an episode that happened to me a few years ago. A colleague was talking about a person we both knew (apparently) and he said, of course I know her, we spend time together, we went on vacation together, man, I don't remember her name now. Did they go on vacation together? Did they know each other? Did he have cognitive problems?
Now MA is a VC guy, a few decades ago he built Mosaic. I'm not saying he's not fantastic at building web browsers, he is a genius, but I find that if the same interview had been given by someone who gets less credit than the inventor of Mosaic, he would have been taken little seriously from that point on.
But I could say the same about Gross, who was interviewed along with Cowen during their "book tour." He has made tens of millions or more from technology, but during their interviews he appeared rather light on the intellectual side.
But say, you meet up with someone and they say they watch plenty of baseball games. And you ask them, "who is your favorite baseball player?". If they answer, "can I answer with my favorite tennis player?" or they say "I don't have a favorite player", I would find equally bizarre and suspicious.
It reminded of an episode that happened to me a few years ago. A colleague was talking about a person we both knew (apparently) and he said, of course I know her, we spend time together, we went on vacation together, man, I don't remember her name now. Did they go on vacation together? Did they know each other? Did he have cognitive problems?
Now MA is a VC guy, a few decades ago he built Mosaic. I'm not saying he's not fantastic at building web browsers, he is a genius, but I find that if the same interview had been given by someone who gets less credit than the inventor of Mosaic, he would have been taken little seriously from that point on.
But I could say the same about Gross, who was interviewed along with Cowen during their "book tour." He has made tens of millions or more from technology, but during their interviews he appeared rather light on the intellectual side.
what would be brilliant in your eyes? If he just solved a the Riemann hypothesis on the spot or something.
What should he be saying instead? who is someone who is really smart then, excluding mathematicians or physicists?
What should he be saying instead? who is someone who is really smart then, excluding mathematicians or physicists?
Honestly I think the person he was having this conversation with - Tyler Cowen - is a pretty good example. His insights are typically more novel and more interesting than the kinds of things Andreessen was saying.
He is a brilliant, genius technologist. I don't find him a brilliant intellectual.
Einstein was a brilliant physicist. Otherwise he was not a paragon of human virtues.
Maradona was a brilliant soccer player. As a coach he was a disaster.
I have nothing against Andreessen, and, of course, he is 1,000 the professional that I could not even aspire but dream of being. But outside of technology, I don't find him convincing. He is very articulate and can speak without thinking, and that is a huge and massive advantage when you are in a position of professional and intellectual power.
Obama's success has undoubtedly and largely been aided by his ability to be tremendously effective in public speaking.
Einstein was a brilliant physicist. Otherwise he was not a paragon of human virtues.
Maradona was a brilliant soccer player. As a coach he was a disaster.
I have nothing against Andreessen, and, of course, he is 1,000 the professional that I could not even aspire but dream of being. But outside of technology, I don't find him convincing. He is very articulate and can speak without thinking, and that is a huge and massive advantage when you are in a position of professional and intellectual power.
Obama's success has undoubtedly and largely been aided by his ability to be tremendously effective in public speaking.
Is he a brilliant technologist if he pivoted to being an investor like 25 years ago? I'm not here to bash VCs but they're not really active contributors to the advancement of technology.
>marc andreessen bad
I wish they had this in 2.5x speed
not fast enough
not fast enough
Can't listen to anymore interviews w/ Andreesen after the rambling, self-serving podcast he gave on Econtalk (https://www.econtalk.org/marc-andreessen-on-software-immorta...), which is normally one of my favorite podcasts.
Unfortunately Roberts (the host) barely pressed Andreesen on his visionary love-fest for NFTs and crypto, which barely surpassed the typical nonsense spewed on twitter from NFT nuts who just so happen to have a lot to gain from folks buying in to their latest crypto site or NFT marketplace. Lots of talk of decentralized data and the power of people owning their own data, and ignoring the reality that 1) this idea has failed before and 2) it has always failed in the face of massive corporate greed, convenience, and walled gardens.
Andreesen was right about "software eating the world", I just wish he (or any VCs with his money and power) would try to grapple with or even acknowledge the negative consequences that have come from it.
Unfortunately Roberts (the host) barely pressed Andreesen on his visionary love-fest for NFTs and crypto, which barely surpassed the typical nonsense spewed on twitter from NFT nuts who just so happen to have a lot to gain from folks buying in to their latest crypto site or NFT marketplace. Lots of talk of decentralized data and the power of people owning their own data, and ignoring the reality that 1) this idea has failed before and 2) it has always failed in the face of massive corporate greed, convenience, and walled gardens.
Andreesen was right about "software eating the world", I just wish he (or any VCs with his money and power) would try to grapple with or even acknowledge the negative consequences that have come from it.
What do you think are the primary negative consequences from software eating the world?
The primary negative consequence is driving ungodly amounts of capital towards ridiculous businesses that at best create nothing except a layer of rent-seeking and at worst, use up the same amount of electricity as economically beneficial initiatives like domestic manufacturing.
Just look at the ridiculous indulgences VC funds have propped up over the past decade:
- social media apps that can only make money with ads and tracking
- exchanges where you can trade dog money
- office rentals, but at a made-up $50bn valuation
- "homesharing" rentals (don't call it a hotel because regulations)
- "ridesharing" (don't call it a taxi because regulations)
And let's not forget a key logistical challenge for human society -- food delivery.
Just look at the ridiculous indulgences VC funds have propped up over the past decade:
- social media apps that can only make money with ads and tracking
- exchanges where you can trade dog money
- office rentals, but at a made-up $50bn valuation
- "homesharing" rentals (don't call it a hotel because regulations)
- "ridesharing" (don't call it a taxi because regulations)
And let's not forget a key logistical challenge for human society -- food delivery.
Increasing wealth disparity
That's interesting. What sort of examples do you have of software leading to large scale wealth disparity increases?
I would venture the primary cause of the increase in wealth disparity from the 1970s to today is the outsourcing of labor overseas paired with financial engineering.
I would venture the primary cause of the increase in wealth disparity from the 1970s to today is the outsourcing of labor overseas paired with financial engineering.
[deleted]
Great fluff piece for the ponzi and fraud GOAT.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've been doing that repeatedly, unfortunately, and we ban that sort of account.
You may not feel you owe VC billionaires (or whoever) better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You may not feel you owe VC billionaires (or whoever) better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Who is?
Unfortunately no, the humanities need to be strongly defunded so academia can get back to the matter of academic research and not wearing time arguing about hurt feelings
What a shockingly shallow and irresponsible dismissal of AI-safety concerns by a man who has the means to know better.