> It is a technology risk. This means that if I solve it, I wouldn’t have to worry about finding customers. VCs like technology risk. This is wrong (with all d

> It is a technology risk. This means that if I solve it, I wouldn’t have to worry about finding customers. VCs like technology risk. This is wrong (with all due respect to Steve Blank in his video, I don't really disagree with that video in context). Technology VCs hate technology risk. Biotech can get funded with 10-15 year lag times because the market risk is so lopsidedly low with patents, very concrete information on disease incidence rates, and solid metrics on what likely drug prices can be, among other factors. Technology VCs would call his AGI a "science project" and dismiss it. The only reason he can sort of make this statement is that he's assuming that the technology risk is gone when he says "if I solve it," but that doesn't mean that they don't hate technology risk. Even if he were successful in building an AGI there would still be market risk because if he can get it done, what's the probability that Google or IBM won't have beaten him to the punch (a VC might say)? The reason this is a confusion is because "technology risk" and "market risk" are not anchored to any particular value, they are relative to the speakers norms, and so each of these parties is anchoring them differently. When Steve Blank is talking about technology risk, he's not talking about high technology risk as in building AGI hard, he's talking about "can we build an enterprise software that automatically handles some highly complex business process that we aren't QUITE sure is automatable."