I know I’m just repeating myself endlessly but, depending on fund size, the knock-on effects of ai are a much better investment than ai (1) there’s tens of billions of dollars competing for the same bad deals in ai, and pattern matching (in bad feedback loop) almost immediately became adverse selection on both sides (founders/ projects, and investors); once a mandate is clear, VC’s rush become an expression of it for LP capital, with the incentive to allocate to things that fit that shape, and game player founders/ ppl at the end of a bad filter also rush to fit the shape of that allocation mandate you end up with a ridiculously oversaturated market of clones for every single low tier narrative, counter-signal as signal (many bad feedback loops intertwined), and nearly all capital then competing on seed/ growth rounds then driven up to ridiculous valuations at the same time, there’s (oversimplifying) two types of ai props, and the heavily entrenched giga corps will mostly own/ compete with each other on the long term verticals the second, which nearly all ai products have fallen into, are the tech equivalent of dropshipping pop up wrapper/ vibecoded products that fit into a temporary equation - - how many people will pay an $[x] fee per month, for y amount of months - see something work, do cheaper version, compete on price and distro (eg) if you can deploy an app that 50000 people will pay $5+ per month for, for 6 months, $1.5mm+ revenue. just like dropshipping, in that time others will do cheaper versions of same product and compete on distro until it’s an exhausted product. onto the next fidget spinners and can openers, fun topical products, things that fit into social media slop format conversion you don’t need to raise - the cost is near-zero, the time cost is lower each day - and in this scenario that’s a filter away from agency and in itself a counter signal the real winners are either the super-positioned giga entrenched mega startups, or the superfluid high agency app dropshippers this too will exhaust into absolute dilution - and once there’s more money to be made from selling courses than doing the thing, it will be mostly over and hyper-competitive (2) on the other side, there’s only yet a pretty juvenile understanding that’s over distilled to “distribution is the moat” by capital allocators the barbell effect to ai (and the oversaturation outlined above) - not even the pendulum swing, the things that go up in value because of [everything caused by] ai/ slop/ disconnection/ reduction of task value/ diminished social layer/ format-optimisation exhaustion, and a load of other things that had already culminated in the misunderstanding of connection driven value props as attention market (which are accelerated by ai) - there is basically no competition for. and currently no appropriate capital allocation vehicle for this to be expressed. at best we see a slopification of the early realisation by the low tier pattern recognisers, who co-opt it towards bd events, articles, and marketing services

the gap between backwards vs forwards looking pattern recognition has never been wider. foresight is the human moat. peach front ran them again