“It's felt for the last year that if you were an AI company, Jensen was past the point of, let's say, north of $1 billion, you're too big to fail in sort of like Jensen's worldview. It seemed like he wasn't going to let a company that had any relevancy fail. And I think that without him in that seat, I think that changes a lot.”

I just think if it's not your company and you don't like, like, Jensen is incredible in so many ways. And I don't think that this story needs to take away from that. Somebody can be very bad on some dimensions, right? Like, he's bad on not having affairs with alleged spies. And he's very good at being the face of compute, right? He's very good at playing that game. And I think the sort of scary scenario, at least if you're a venture capitalist, is like, well, what happens? As of right now, unless the story gets way, way, way worse, which it seems like it's possible, I see Jensen staying in this role. But I think a lot of people are thinking, what happens if you don't have this sort of like founder-led company that's willing to throw $10 billion here, $20 billion here, or do creative deals by companies that aren't really working. It's felt for the last year that if you were an AI company, Jensen was past the point of, let's say, north of $1 billion, you're too big to fail in sort of like Jensen's worldview. It seemed like he wouldn't. It seemed like he wasn't going to let a company that had any relevancy fail.…