Tell me you haven't talked to a VC.

A better model for VCs is: companies are finding tons of budget to allocate to new AI spend. Besides the labs, who is going to be able to capture some of that spend while they're actively looking to spend it?

Nobody at the seed stage is investing in things they think are "safe". They are investing in things they think have huge upside.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to mock your profession. Here's what I think. Most VCs and investors have their own success formula. There will be VCs who succeeded by investing in infrastructure. But the question is whether that same success formula applies to AI startups right now. Of course, from your perspective, it might look like 'this clueless kid is just being cynical without knowing anything.' I partly agree. But that's not the core of my argument.

What I'm trying to say is that those success formulas themselves need to be reconsidered.An insider from up there came out and talked about the next 'Databricks,' believing that's the kind of potential they're looking for. All of them do. Everyone wants to be the first investor in a goldmine. I don't think this is just about greed

The question is whether the traditional infrastructure investment logic holds here. I think most current AI infrastructure tools are closer to 'temporary patches' that exist before the functionality gets internalized.

Let's say infrastructure is like a concrete building. Traditional IT infrastructure basically has a standards committee, and once that committee sets things, changes are extremely rare. It's a kind of 'lake.' But AI infrastructure right now is different from one to another; even the ecosystems differ—the Chinese ecosystem is different from the US ecosystem. It's a flowing 'river.' I just think the question is whether the old grammar can be applied in this situation.

You probably have more money, more investment experience, and more success than I do. I only have a lot of failure. But apart from that, the issue is simply that 'potential' in growth potential ends up being data measured against past examples, and the question is whether that data still holds up now. Anyway, I might have been slightly sarcastic earlier, so I apologize for that. Someone as successful as you, please bear with it a little.

Sometimes people don't realize that 'professional' ideals and 'reality' are different.

What you're talking about seems like 'ideal' investing, not real world investing at all. Of course, the VCs in your country and the VCs in my country are different.

It's like in software, where everyone says you should write maintainable code within the norms, but in reality, most people don't do that

that investing in 'potential' is the basic principle of VCs. They call it the power law. But when you look at actual investment portfolios, it seems quite rare for people to follow only that principle. I guess you don't think so. Of course, I agree that ideal venture investing follows the power law. But in real world investing, there are pragmatic investors who operate somewhere between the ideal and reality. We always project ourselves onto the 'ideal,' but I don't think there are only people who are immersed in that ideal. Of course, no VC would invest in someone like me. I've met with VCs three times in my career, but they all turned me down. Haha.