(3) isn’t about AI so I don’t think Zvi’s model explains that. If we ignore (1) and (2), then the one example we’re left with (which may or may not be badly reasoned) isn’t good enough evidence to say that somebody “just consistently makes badly-reasoned statements.”
I encourage you to look into his firm’s Web3 claims and the reasoning behind them. My sibling comment has one link that is particularly egregious and recent. Here’s another badly-reasoned Web3 argument made by his partner, which implies Marc’s endorsement, and the time his firm invested over $100M in an obvious Ponzi scheme.
Actually, the only time I know they cashed in early was selling half their Coinbase shares at the direct listing after holding for 7 years.
Their racket was to be the #1 crypto fund with the most assets under management ($7.6B total) so that they can collect the most management fees (probably about $1B total). It’s great business for a16z to be in the sector-leader AUM game even when the sector makes no logical sense.
I’m just saying Marc’s reputation for publicly making logically-flimsy arguments and not updating on evidence should be considered when he enters a new area of discourse.
My #1 and #2 are in a separate video Marc made after the post Zvi referred to, but ya, could fall under the “bizarrely poor arguments” Zvi is trying to explain.
My #3 and his firm’s various statements about Web3 in the last couple years, like this recent gaslighting, are additional examples of bizarrely poor arguments in an unrelated field.
If we don’t come in with an a-priori belief that Marc is an honest or capable reasoner, there’s less confusion for Zvi to explain.
My model is that Marc Andreessen just consistently makes badly-reasoned statements:
Comparing AI doomerism to love of killing Nazis
Endorsing the claim that arbitrarily powerful technologies don’t change the equilibrum of good and bad forces
Last year being unable to coherently explain a single Web3 use case despite his firm investing $7.6B in the space
Isn’t Zvi’s post an attempt to explain those observations?
(3) isn’t about AI so I don’t think Zvi’s model explains that. If we ignore (1) and (2), then the one example we’re left with (which may or may not be badly reasoned) isn’t good enough evidence to say that somebody “just consistently makes badly-reasoned statements.”
I encourage you to look into his firm’s Web3 claims and the reasoning behind them. My sibling comment has one link that is particularly egregious and recent. Here’s another badly-reasoned Web3 argument made by his partner, which implies Marc’s endorsement, and the time his firm invested over $100M in an obvious Ponzi scheme.
In the words of Matt Levine, he was in the Ponzi business, and business was good, my understanding is they did quite well by cashing in early.
Actually, the only time I know they cashed in early was selling half their Coinbase shares at the direct listing after holding for 7 years.
Their racket was to be the #1 crypto fund with the most assets under management ($7.6B total) so that they can collect the most management fees (probably about $1B total). It’s great business for a16z to be in the sector-leader AUM game even when the sector makes no logical sense.
I’m just saying Marc’s reputation for publicly making logically-flimsy arguments and not updating on evidence should be considered when he enters a new area of discourse.
My #1 and #2 are in a separate video Marc made after the post Zvi referred to, but ya, could fall under the “bizarrely poor arguments” Zvi is trying to explain.
My #3 and his firm’s various statements about Web3 in the last couple years, like this recent gaslighting, are additional examples of bizarrely poor arguments in an unrelated field.
If we don’t come in with an a-priori belief that Marc is an honest or capable reasoner, there’s less confusion for Zvi to explain.