A few thoughts after staring at this chart… i believe the biggest risk in investing in a new era is getting very good at underwriting the last one. And when I look at this chart from a16z it’s a useful picture of where AI infrastructure spending goes. It also raises a question for me…how much of our investment thinking is shaped by what we already know how to value? And as a consequence of that placing everything in previous world frameworks. Chips, power, networking, data centers are all obviously very essential. All relatively familiar and easy to underwrite…capacity, contracts, utilization, margins. I think so what if you really dig into it is that similar to the early days of the Internet and even the current stage we’ve seen businesses that emerge when intelligence becomes dramatically cheaper and easier to access are harder to model. Their customers may behave differently. Their business models may not have obvious comparables. we’re seeing these pressures with token economics in AI. Funny enough Crypto has been modeling this for a decade at this point The reason I think this matters is because capital follows perceived risk-adjusted returns. What feels lower-risk is often what fits an existing framework. To go a little bit deeper- we’ve seen versions of this through the internet, SaaS, and mobile transitions. Each created new ways to distribute products, charge customers, and build habits. Investors who carried forward the wrong assumptions could recognize the importance of the technology and still miss where the value would accrue. The venture firms that were willing to think differently and underwrite in completely ridiculous ways won big. I think consumer AI is one of those places today. Think about why people wanted a BlackBerry…access to people, information, and decisions without returning to a desk. Phones expanded that access enormously, but we still spend a lot of time translating what we want into what software requires. Open an app. Search. Type. Do a thing… and the switch apps. Repeat. I do the same thing in Google Chrome tabs far more efficiently. I just have to carry a clunky laptop around. Well what happens when we can simply express an intention and trust something to carry it through? Devices like Meta’s announced Muse Charm make that question tangible. The opportunity extends well beyond any particular device- intelligence that fits naturally into daily life, through conversation, context, and less effort. And I think their glasses were old take things to another level- especially if they continue on their current trajectory. For Apple, the threat begins before someone gives up their iPhone. It begins when another company becomes the first place they turn with a question, a decision, or something they need done- and they get tired of looking at their device all the time. And I think with the dumb device sales it’s cleared that there is a screen fatigue. Adding a second screen in my opinion is not the solution. The thing is that easier access actually creates another problem. If every founder, executive, and management team consults similar systems, we may get more polished versions of the same … group think. If you’ve listened to a recent cuddly earnings call, it’s pretty sad to hear the politicians executive. Discernment obviously becomes way more valuable. knowing which perspective matters, what deserves skepticism, and when the apparent consensus is wrong. The most important will be who is brave enough to actually think this was an action on it. Partners have to earn TRUST through judgment—including the willingness to disagree. My bet is that we are underinvested in discovering these consumer behaviors and building around them, even as enormous capital flows toward supplying the underlying intelligence. This is a question i keep asking myself which assumptions from the last era are becoming less useful, and what opportunities become interesting when we let them go?