[nsteel]

Can you think of an example in history where labour was replaced with tech and the displaced workers kept their income stream? If a machine can do your job, (eventually) I'll be cheaper to use that machine instead of you and you'll no longer have a job. Is that not a given?

Anyway, it was probably just a joke... so not sure we need to unravel it all.

[nine_k]

Displaced hired personnel of course cannot hope for that.

But VCs own their business, they are not employees. If you own a bakery, and buy a machine to make the dough instead of doing it by hand, and an automatic oven to relieve you form tracking the temperature manually, you of course keep the proceeds from the improved efficiency (after you pay the credit you took to purchase the machines).

[achierius]

The same was true with the aristocrats of centuries past: the capitalists who run our modern economy were once nothing more than their managers, delegates who handled the estates, their investments, their finances, growing power until they could dictate policy to their 'sovereign' and eventually dispose of them entirely.

[nine_k]

The nobility used to be the dedicated warrior class, the knights. This secured their position in the society and allowed them to rule, by coercion when needed.

Once they ceased to exercise their military might, some time around 17th-18th century, and chose to live off the rent on their estates, their power became more and more nominal. It either slipped (or was yanked) from their hands, or they turned capitalists themselves.

[achierius]

The problem is your timeline: in actuality, the nobility of Western Europe lost their independent armies by the 15th century, solidly by the 16th, and thereafter held on to a military role only through participation (as officers) in the state-run standing armies that developed thereafter. Yet for centuries they held on to power: in France, until the revolution, and in Britain, until well into the 19th century. Great read on the topic: https://projects.panickssery.com/docs/allen-2009-a_theory_of...

"Living off of the rent of their estates" was enough to remain in control of the state for centuries. Only the birth of capitalism and thereafter the industrial revolution allowed for other actors -- the bourgeoisie -- to overtake the aristocrats economically.

[myko]

I didn't get the impression it was meant as a joke:

"Every great venture capitalist in the last 70 years has missed most of the great companies of his generation... if it was a science, you could eventually dial it in and have somebody who gets 8 out of 10 [right]," the investor reasoned. "There's an intangibility to it, there's a taste aspect, the human relationship aspect, the psychology — by the way a lot of it is psychological analysis," he added.

"So like, it's possible that that is quite literally timeless," Andreessen posited. "And when the AIs are doing everything else, like, that may be one of the last remaining fields that people are still doing."

https://futurism.com/venture-capitalist-andreessen-jobs

[wmf]

Andreessen isn't joking but I can still laugh at him. He has a serious conflict of interest here.

I would bet that AIs will master taste and human psychology before they'll cure cancer. (Insert Rick RubAIn meme here.)

[gammarator]

Ironic how “no VC makes all the right picks” becomes “VCs are indispensable.”

In a rational market, LPs would index, but VCs justify their 2 & 20 by controlling access…