Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

.Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 explains why startups need preferential attachment and how great VCs help them get it: "If you think about mechanically what's happening with a startup, a startup needs to basically get into a loop in which it's accruing more and more resources as it goes." "When a... company gets momentum, what it means is the next resource that you need is preferentially willing to attach to your thing as opposed to somebody else. That's the mechanical process that drives the power law curve." "A top-tier VC is a bridge loan of credibility at a point in time when the startup maybe deserves it, but just doesn't have it yet. And that credibility is harvested in the form of primarily personnel, money, and brand. And those three things turn out to be really important early on." With John Collison and Charlie Songhurst on Cheeky Pintshow more

a16z

1,031,453 subscribers

65,880 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology Finance

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

A startup is either gaining momentum or standing still. Marc Andreessen says the best founders pick up power early by compounding credibility into resources, and resources into results. “A top tier VC is a bridge loan of credibility at a point in time when the startup maybe deserves it, but just doesn’t have it yet.” Source: Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on Cheeky Pint with John Collison and Charlie Songhurst

A startup is either gaining momentum or standing still. Marc Andreessen says the best founders pick up power early by compounding credibility into resources, and resources into results. “A top tier VC is a bridge loan of credibility at a point in time when the startup maybe deserves it, but just doesn’t have it yet.” Source: Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on Cheeky Pint with John Collison and Charlie Songhurst

a16z

157,925 views • 9 months ago

Marc Andreessen on why startups need to scale to have impact: “Startups are where a lot of the innovation happens.” “The thing that startups can’t do until they become big companies is have a big impact on the world.” “You have to get big to have a big impact.” “Otherwise the opportunity to make an impact with what you’ve invented... is going to be cut off and somebody else is going to step in and do it.” Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 at Fortune Brainstorm 2009:

Marc Andreessen on why startups need to scale to have impact: “Startups are where a lot of the innovation happens.” “The thing that startups can’t do until they become big companies is have a big impact on the world.” “You have to get big to have a big impact.” “Otherwise the opportunity to make an impact with what you’ve invented... is going to be cut off and somebody else is going to step in and do it.” Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 at Fortune Brainstorm 2009:

a16z

34,315 views • 7 months ago

Sam Altman on why you shouldn’t track absolute user growth in the early days of a startup “Nothing but a great product will save you; you can get everything else right and it still won’t work.” He points out that almost all startup founders get the following wrong: “It is more important to have a small number of users that love you than a lot of users that like you… Eventually what you want of course is a lot of users that really love your product, but that’s almost impossible to do.” In practice, you have two choices: Deep and Narrow: “You have a small number of users that really love you and then find out how to find more and more of those users and broaden the appeal of the product.” Shallow and Wide: “You can have a lot of people that sort of use the product once or twice and kind of like it and try to figure out how to get them more engaged over time.” “With high confidence, I can say that you want to start with a small number of users that really love you. Almost all great companies have products that start this way.” He argues that a good indicator of users loving your product is retention and frequency of use: “In fact, I think this is so important that you actually shouldn’t track absolute growth in number of users in the early days of a startup. You should just track how often they’re using it… That’s a good early indicator of users that love you—better still is them spontaneously telling their friends to buy your product.” Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Sam Altman on why you shouldn’t track absolute user growth in the early days of a startup “Nothing but a great product will save you; you can get everything else right and it still won’t work.” He points out that almost all startup founders get the following wrong: “It is more important to have a small number of users that love you than a lot of users that like you… Eventually what you want of course is a lot of users that really love your product, but that’s almost impossible to do.” In practice, you have two choices: Deep and Narrow: “You have a small number of users that really love you and then find out how to find more and more of those users and broaden the appeal of the product.” Shallow and Wide: “You can have a lot of people that sort of use the product once or twice and kind of like it and try to figure out how to get them more engaged over time.” “With high confidence, I can say that you want to start with a small number of users that really love you. Almost all great companies have products that start this way.” He argues that a good indicator of users loving your product is retention and frequency of use: “In fact, I think this is so important that you actually shouldn’t track absolute growth in number of users in the early days of a startup. You should just track how often they’re using it… That’s a good early indicator of users that love you—better still is them spontaneously telling their friends to buy your product.” Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Startup Archive

565,789 views • 2 years ago

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Startup Archive

17,333 views • 5 months ago

The founders of Stripe and Pinterest on how to convince people to join your startup Stripe CEO Patrick Collison argues that part of the reason startups resonate so much is because the outcome is not guaranteed: "If it were guaranteed, it would be boring... Whether or not you're the best person in the world at what you do, you're probably not going to alter Google's trajectory. But if you really want to benchmark yourself and see how much of a contribution and impact you can make--which is a really compelling prospect for a lot of the best people--a startup is a much better place to test that." Pinterest founder Ben Silbermann emphasized this as well: "No smart person that you're hiring is under the illusion that you have a crystal ball into the future and that joining is a guaranteed thing. In fact, if you're telling them that and they select in, you shouldn't hire them because they didn't pass a basic intelligence test. I think it's important to tell them what's exciting and where you think the company can go. But also tell them where it will be hard and chart your best plan. And then tell them why their role can be instrumental--because it will be... What I would discourage doing is whitewashing all of that. If people are joining your company because they want all of the certainty and safety of working at Google but also the perks of working at a small startup with lots of responsibility and transparency, that's a really negative sign." Apparently in the early days of PayPal, Peter Thiel and Max Levchin would tell people after they interviewed all the reasons that the company would fail: "Visa and MasterCard want to kill us. We also might be doing something that's illegal. But if we succeed, we'll redefine payments." Don't whitewash the risks. Instead tell them how your startup will change the world if you succeed and how their role will be instrumental in affecting that change. Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

The founders of Stripe and Pinterest on how to convince people to join your startup Stripe CEO Patrick Collison argues that part of the reason startups resonate so much is because the outcome is not guaranteed: "If it were guaranteed, it would be boring... Whether or not you're the best person in the world at what you do, you're probably not going to alter Google's trajectory. But if you really want to benchmark yourself and see how much of a contribution and impact you can make--which is a really compelling prospect for a lot of the best people--a startup is a much better place to test that." Pinterest founder Ben Silbermann emphasized this as well: "No smart person that you're hiring is under the illusion that you have a crystal ball into the future and that joining is a guaranteed thing. In fact, if you're telling them that and they select in, you shouldn't hire them because they didn't pass a basic intelligence test. I think it's important to tell them what's exciting and where you think the company can go. But also tell them where it will be hard and chart your best plan. And then tell them why their role can be instrumental--because it will be... What I would discourage doing is whitewashing all of that. If people are joining your company because they want all of the certainty and safety of working at Google but also the perks of working at a small startup with lots of responsibility and transparency, that's a really negative sign." Apparently in the early days of PayPal, Peter Thiel and Max Levchin would tell people after they interviewed all the reasons that the company would fail: "Visa and MasterCard want to kill us. We also might be doing something that's illegal. But if we succeed, we'll redefine payments." Don't whitewash the risks. Instead tell them how your startup will change the world if you succeed and how their role will be instrumental in affecting that change. Video source: Y Combinator (2014)

Startup Archive

11,811 views • 8 months ago

Marc Andreessen explains the Onion Theory of Risk and the best way to raise capital for your business: "You can think about a startup on day one as having every conceivable kind of risk." "The way to think about it is—you're peeling away risk as you go and by achieving milestones. And then as you achieve milestones, you're both making progress in your business, and you're justifying raising more capital." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on Y Combinator

Marc Andreessen explains the Onion Theory of Risk and the best way to raise capital for your business: "You can think about a startup on day one as having every conceivable kind of risk." "The way to think about it is—you're peeling away risk as you go and by achieving milestones. And then as you achieve milestones, you're both making progress in your business, and you're justifying raising more capital." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on Y Combinator

a16z

50,483 views • 5 months ago

.Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸's recipe for a great founder: two traits and one choice. The traits: intellect and energy. The choice: courage. Courage is pain tolerance. “A huge amount of what people have to do is just get used to getting punched. And the reason people don't understand this is because when you're a founder, you cannot let on that this is happening because it will cause people to think that you're weak, and they'll lose faith in you. So you have to pretend that you're having a great time when you're dying inside.”

.Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸's recipe for a great founder: two traits and one choice. The traits: intellect and energy. The choice: courage. Courage is pain tolerance. “A huge amount of what people have to do is just get used to getting punched. And the reason people don't understand this is because when you're a founder, you cannot let on that this is happening because it will cause people to think that you're weak, and they'll lose faith in you. So you have to pretend that you're having a great time when you're dying inside.”

a16z

274,335 views • 10 months ago

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 views • 7 months ago

Marc Andreessen says don’t ever do diamonds in the rough. Only do diamonds. "This is actually an investor ego thing, I think, which is you basically say, 'Wow, I'm the investor that's gonna go find the thing that nobody else knows about... I'm going to go do the thing nobody else can think of.'" "The general pattern is... if it's got merit to be investable for venture, there are a lot of really smart and hungry VCs out there, and they are working extremely hard to sniff these things out, and it's their full-time job, and it's all they do." "I think it's really unusual to have the diamond in the rough, and usually if it's the diamond in the rough, it usually means two things... a company that's offside in some fundamental reason, it's in the wrong place, or it's structured wrong." "There's a reason why it's a diamond in the rough that actually ends up becoming a big problem." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Harry Stebbings

Marc Andreessen says don’t ever do diamonds in the rough. Only do diamonds. "This is actually an investor ego thing, I think, which is you basically say, 'Wow, I'm the investor that's gonna go find the thing that nobody else knows about... I'm going to go do the thing nobody else can think of.'" "The general pattern is... if it's got merit to be investable for venture, there are a lot of really smart and hungry VCs out there, and they are working extremely hard to sniff these things out, and it's their full-time job, and it's all they do." "I think it's really unusual to have the diamond in the rough, and usually if it's the diamond in the rough, it usually means two things... a company that's offside in some fundamental reason, it's in the wrong place, or it's structured wrong." "There's a reason why it's a diamond in the rough that actually ends up becoming a big problem." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Harry Stebbings

a16z

101,445 views • 3 months ago

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Scott on why conviction in an idea is dangerous as an investor but required as a founder: "From the investor seat, I don't think you want to be in love with an idea. That's a risky thing because you'll find a way to express that by investing and make some compromises on the team because you know this idea is just so good, its time has come. But if the team isn't there, 90% of the time it doesn't work. Then there's a whole thing can you swap out the team? But the whole Founders Fund thesis was always no, you need the founder to run the company. But on the company side, you have to be in love with the idea. It's not that rational to start a company. There's a lot easier, more comfortable ways to make money if that's the goal. So it's got to be about what the company is doing specifically. If you want to actually start a company, it better be something that you're really passionate about, or you think that the problem is really important."

Patrick OShaughnessy

33,016 views • 3 months ago

"The grand unification of AI and crypto is about to happen." — Marc Andreessen "It's now obvious that AI agents are going to need money—it's already happening." "It's that William Gibson quote: the future is already here, it just isn't distributed yet." "My friends who are the most aggressive users of OpenClaw have given their Claws bank accounts and credit cards. And not only have they done it—it's obvious that they needed to do it, because it's obvious that they needed to be able to spend money on their behalf." "And by the way, OpenClaw—if you don't give it a bank account, it's just going to break into your bank account anyway and take your money. So you might as well do it." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Latent.Space

"The grand unification of AI and crypto is about to happen." — Marc Andreessen "It's now obvious that AI agents are going to need money—it's already happening." "It's that William Gibson quote: the future is already here, it just isn't distributed yet." "My friends who are the most aggressive users of OpenClaw have given their Claws bank accounts and credit cards. And not only have they done it—it's obvious that they needed to do it, because it's obvious that they needed to be able to spend money on their behalf." "And by the way, OpenClaw—if you don't give it a bank account, it's just going to break into your bank account anyway and take your money. So you might as well do it." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Latent.Space

a16z

170,711 views • 3 months ago

Paul Graham’s advice for future startup founders: “Just learn” “If you make a conscious effort to try and think of startup ideas, you will think of ideas that are not only bad but bad and plausible-sounding—meaning you and everybody else will be fooled by them and you’ll waste a lot of time before realizing they’re no good.” As Paul Graham explains, the way to come up with good startup ideas is to take a step back: “Instead of trying to make a conscious effort to think of startup ideas, turn your brain into the type that has startup ideas unconsciously.” You do this by: 1. Learning a lot about things that matter 2. Working on problems that interest you 3. With people you like and respect (this is incidentally how you get co-founders at the same time as the idea) “The component of entrepreneurship that really matters is domain expertise. Larry Page is Larry Page because he was an expert on search. And he became an expert on search because he was genuinely interested in it, not because of some ulterior motive.” PG continues: “At its best, starting a startup is merely an ulterior motive for curiosity, and you’ll do it best if you introduce the ulterior motive at the end of the process. So here is the ultimate advice for young, would-be startup founders reduced to two words: Just learn.” Video source: Y Combinator (2017)

Paul Graham’s advice for future startup founders: “Just learn” “If you make a conscious effort to try and think of startup ideas, you will think of ideas that are not only bad but bad and plausible-sounding—meaning you and everybody else will be fooled by them and you’ll waste a lot of time before realizing they’re no good.” As Paul Graham explains, the way to come up with good startup ideas is to take a step back: “Instead of trying to make a conscious effort to think of startup ideas, turn your brain into the type that has startup ideas unconsciously.” You do this by: 1. Learning a lot about things that matter 2. Working on problems that interest you 3. With people you like and respect (this is incidentally how you get co-founders at the same time as the idea) “The component of entrepreneurship that really matters is domain expertise. Larry Page is Larry Page because he was an expert on search. And he became an expert on search because he was genuinely interested in it, not because of some ulterior motive.” PG continues: “At its best, starting a startup is merely an ulterior motive for curiosity, and you’ll do it best if you introduce the ulterior motive at the end of the process. So here is the ultimate advice for young, would-be startup founders reduced to two words: Just learn.” Video source: Y Combinator (2017)

Startup Archive

51,157 views • 5 months ago

Marc Andreessen says in the future, we may not have programming languages or even user interfaces: "I kind of think that in 10 years, I'm not sure there will even be a salient concept of a programming language in the way that we understand it today." "If you project forward, you have to think forward to a world in which it's just—I'm going to tell the thing what I need, and it's going to do it in whatever way is most optimal." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Latent.Space

Marc Andreessen says in the future, we may not have programming languages or even user interfaces: "I kind of think that in 10 years, I'm not sure there will even be a salient concept of a programming language in the way that we understand it today." "If you project forward, you have to think forward to a world in which it's just—I'm going to tell the thing what I need, and it's going to do it in whatever way is most optimal." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Latent.Space

a16z

65,597 views • 3 months ago

People will tolerate any level of chronic pain to avoid acute pain. Marc Andreessen says most would rather lose slowly than have the hard conversation to stop the bleeding. Your job as a leader is to create a culture that surfaces ugly truths to treat problems before they become terminal. Source: Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on Cheeky Pint with John Collison and Charlie Songhurst

People will tolerate any level of chronic pain to avoid acute pain. Marc Andreessen says most would rather lose slowly than have the hard conversation to stop the bleeding. Your job as a leader is to create a culture that surfaces ugly truths to treat problems before they become terminal. Source: Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on Cheeky Pint with John Collison and Charlie Songhurst

a16z

117,802 views • 10 months ago

Marc Andreessen says AI is teaching sand to think and it could be the most important technology in the history of humanity: "Imagine a form of alchemy that turns sand into thought." "Chips are made out of sand. They're made out of silicon, so they're literally made out of sand." "We plug the chip into a data center, into power, we light it up, and we put AI on it, and all of a sudden it's thinking." "We've turned sand into thought. And so it's possibly the most revolutionary technology in the history of the species." "It's certainly on par with electricity and steam power. It's certainly more important than the internet." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Joe Rogan

Marc Andreessen says AI is teaching sand to think and it could be the most important technology in the history of humanity: "Imagine a form of alchemy that turns sand into thought." "Chips are made out of sand. They're made out of silicon, so they're literally made out of sand." "We plug the chip into a data center, into power, we light it up, and we put AI on it, and all of a sudden it's thinking." "We've turned sand into thought. And so it's possibly the most revolutionary technology in the history of the species." "It's certainly on par with electricity and steam power. It's certainly more important than the internet." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Joe Rogan

a16z

203,805 views • 2 months ago

.Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on why God models don't eat all AI usage: "There's one version of the world in which you have a small number of what we sometimes call God models... millions of processors, with billions or hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of CapEx and training, investment behind it." "That's the equivalent of the world of search that we've been in for the last basically 20 years." "There's another scenario, what they sometimes call a race to the bottom, which is no, actually what happens is intelligence commoditizes." "The analogy there would be maybe what's happened in the microchip market... A really good one costs a few thousand dollars, there's companies like Arm that sell them for pennies. And you can put a microchip in anything, and it's super cheap, and everybody does it." "My guess basically is what we're about to see is something a lot like the microchip or the internet." "You'll be able to basically summon intelligence at some level into any application you need for basically very cheap or ultimately basically the same as free. And then you'll have the God models in the background when you need the super genius, but for most things, you don't actually need a super genius."

.Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 on why God models don't eat all AI usage: "There's one version of the world in which you have a small number of what we sometimes call God models... millions of processors, with billions or hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of CapEx and training, investment behind it." "That's the equivalent of the world of search that we've been in for the last basically 20 years." "There's another scenario, what they sometimes call a race to the bottom, which is no, actually what happens is intelligence commoditizes." "The analogy there would be maybe what's happened in the microchip market... A really good one costs a few thousand dollars, there's companies like Arm that sell them for pennies. And you can put a microchip in anything, and it's super cheap, and everybody does it." "My guess basically is what we're about to see is something a lot like the microchip or the internet." "You'll be able to basically summon intelligence at some level into any application you need for basically very cheap or ultimately basically the same as free. And then you'll have the God models in the background when you need the super genius, but for most things, you don't actually need a super genius."

a16z

104,395 views • 1 month ago

Marc Andreessen explains why startups are an “irrational act” “The biggest thing people don’t understand about what it’s like to be a startup founder is it gets very romanticized. Even whey they fail, it still gets romanticized about what a great adventure it was. But the reality of it is most of what happens is people telling you no, and then they usually follow that with ‘you’re stupid.’ No, I will not come to work for you. No, I’m not going to buy your product.” Marc explains why: “When you’re a founder, you cannot let on that this is happening because it will cause people to think that you’re weak and they’ll lose faith in you. So you have to pretend you’re having a great time when you’re dying inside. Just misery.” Why do it then? “For most of these people - on a risk-adjusted basis - it’s probably an irrational act. They could probably be more financially successful on average if they just got like a real job in a big company. But some people just have an irrational need to do something new and build something for themselves and some people just can’t tolerate having bosses.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2023)

Marc Andreessen explains why startups are an “irrational act” “The biggest thing people don’t understand about what it’s like to be a startup founder is it gets very romanticized. Even whey they fail, it still gets romanticized about what a great adventure it was. But the reality of it is most of what happens is people telling you no, and then they usually follow that with ‘you’re stupid.’ No, I will not come to work for you. No, I’m not going to buy your product.” Marc explains why: “When you’re a founder, you cannot let on that this is happening because it will cause people to think that you’re weak and they’ll lose faith in you. So you have to pretend you’re having a great time when you’re dying inside. Just misery.” Why do it then? “For most of these people - on a risk-adjusted basis - it’s probably an irrational act. They could probably be more financially successful on average if they just got like a real job in a big company. But some people just have an irrational need to do something new and build something for themselves and some people just can’t tolerate having bosses.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2023)

Startup Archive

70,007 views • 1 year ago

Mirendil Co-Founder and CEO Behnam Neyshabur explains the path to self-accelerating AI: " When you think about what does a scientist or an engineer do, the main skill they have is get very deep in a domain... and build a very sharp expertise that accumulates over time." "As you kind of become expert in a domain, your expertise is becoming sharper and sharper in something that has a tiny bit of volume in the whole set of all possible things you could be working on." "And getting to that point, being able to get there is a capability that is needed to advance all areas of science." "What that view means is that you have to work on what does it take to direct a system toward like a particular angle and make fast improvement, and that's the self-accelerating AI technology." Behnam Neyshabur

Mirendil Co-Founder and CEO Behnam Neyshabur explains the path to self-accelerating AI: " When you think about what does a scientist or an engineer do, the main skill they have is get very deep in a domain... and build a very sharp expertise that accumulates over time." "As you kind of become expert in a domain, your expertise is becoming sharper and sharper in something that has a tiny bit of volume in the whole set of all possible things you could be working on." "And getting to that point, being able to get there is a capability that is needed to advance all areas of science." "What that view means is that you have to work on what does it take to direct a system toward like a particular angle and make fast improvement, and that's the self-accelerating AI technology." Behnam Neyshabur

a16z

54,519 views • 1 month ago

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount of money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved ____ milestones and eliminated ____ risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve ____ milestones and eliminate ____ risks. This will get the company to ____ state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land. Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Q: Should startups always raise as much money as possible? In the clip below, Marc Andreessen shares a framework that Benchmark co-founder Andy Rachleff taught him called "The Onion Theory of Risk". You can think of a day 1 startup as having every conceivable kind of risk: founding team risk, product risk, technical risk, market acceptance risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk, viral growth risk, etc. A startup is basically just a long list of risks, and as Marc explains: "The way I think about running a startup is the way I think about raising money. It's a process of peeling away layers of risk as you go." You raise seed money to peel away the first two or three risks (e.g. founding team risk, product risk, initial launch risk). You raise the Series A round to peel away the next layer of risks (e.g. recruiting risk, customer risk, revenue risk, cost of sales risk) And so on. Basically, you're peeling away risk as you're achieving milestones. And as you achieve milestones, you're both: making progress on your business and justifying raising more capital. So in terms of fundraising, you should be calibrating the amount of money you're raising to the risks you need to pull out of your business for you to raise your next round. For example, if you're raising your Series A round, the best way to do that is to say to investors: "I raised a seed round then achieved milestones and eliminated risks. Now I'm going to raise $X for the Series A to achieve milestones and eliminate risks. This will get the company to state for the Series B round. " This seems fairly obvious, but as Marc points out, it's a much more systematic way of going about things versus just raising as much money as possible, renting fancy offices, and hiring as many people as you can to grow as fast as you can. The more money you raise, the more you dilute your ownership stake in your business so it pays to be thoughtful. Raise the capital you will need to achieve the milestones and eliminate the risks required for your next financing round. It also probably makes sense to give yourself some margin as safety because things never go exactly as planned in startup land. Follow Startup Archive for more tactical startup advice!

Startup Archive

178,597 views • 2 years ago

$GOOG's Ruth Porat says the biggest risk in the AI buildout is the ROI question, and focusing on short-term tactics at the cost of building a great company. "I think the biggest risk for everyone is when the question is asked, which it often is, how do you get to an ROI? That's going to force our teams to do something short-term and tactical. You can always do a cost cut to get something to drop to the bottom line, and that is not a way to build a great company." "So I think the risk is don't be so in the moment maniacally focused on what is it, but have a right mix of an engine that's continuing to drive the business, which also explains why you need to start building early for growth so that you can grow into it." ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more daily highlights of key business and technology conversations.

$GOOG's Ruth Porat says the biggest risk in the AI buildout is the ROI question, and focusing on short-term tactics at the cost of building a great company. "I think the biggest risk for everyone is when the question is asked, which it often is, how do you get to an ROI? That's going to force our teams to do something short-term and tactical. You can always do a cost cut to get something to drop to the bottom line, and that is not a way to build a great company." "So I think the risk is don't be so in the moment maniacally focused on what is it, but have a right mix of an engine that's continuing to drive the business, which also explains why you need to start building early for growth so that you can grow into it." ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more daily highlights of key business and technology conversations.

Fireside Alpha

38,283 views • 15 days ago