loading
loading
Looking to break into venture capital? Our next 1752vc Venture Fellow cohort begins Monday, January 11 at 5:00 PM PT, and we only have a few spots remaining. Over eight weeks, you'll learn how to source startups, evaluate deals, conduct due diligence, understand term sheets, and build a real venture investing skill set through live, case-study discussions led by Lucas J. Pols, GP at 1752vc. Join 400+ Venture Fellows across 20+ cohorts who have used the program to gain practical VC experience and expand their network. I can spot a Claude deck in about four seconds. Navy and gold. Serif headlines. A tidy grid of rounded cards. A TAM slide with a number so big it needs a "T." Every bullet is perfect, every sentence is balanced, and the whole thing says almost nothing. It's pretty. It's polished. And it tells me nothing about you. That's the problem. At pre-seed, the pitch deck was never about the slides. It was about the soul of the company. And right now founders are handing that soul to a model. The Deck Is Mutating Something strange is happening to the pitch deck. It's splitting in two. On one side is the deck. On the other is the investor memo: four, six, eight pages of dense narrative text. The memo isn't new. Bezos banned PowerPoint at Amazon years ago in favor of "narratively structured six-page memos," and said a great one "probably should take a week or more" to write. Parker Conrad has said outright that a memo "has become an acceptable alternative to a standard pitch deck with many investors." Rippling raised on one, with a stripped-down "just the facts" metrics deck alongside it. That was the good version: a founder who'd thought so hard about the business that slides couldn't hold it. That's not what's driving the new memo wave. Here's what is: Founders figured out that VCs are pasting everything into an LLM. So they're writing for the robot. Long text and lots of keywords, built to be parsed. The deck has become something you feed to an LLM. Here's my reality: if you send me a four-page memo of text, I'm not reading it. You get dropped straight into the bucket. Not because I'm lazy. Because I have hundreds more in the queue, and you've just told me you'd rather impress a parser than a person. Agent vs. Agent Let's play this forward, because the infrastructure is already here. Draper Associates runs a "Draper Brain," an MCP server that pipes their Airtable, Drive and inbox into Claude. Their deal engine scores about 20,000 companies on eight dimensions against the firm's past decisions and surfaces about 150. Affinity just shipped AI agents and MCP skills for Claude and ChatGPT, and has an agent on its roadmap that watches inbound email for pitch decks and turns them into structured CRM data. DocSend now has an MCP server too. Draper's own principal put it plainly: AI has multiplied company formation, and "the top of the funnel is larger than it's ever been." So where does this end? Maybe every fund runs its own agent. Every founder runs one too and applies to every fund on earth. The first two rounds of diligence become machines checking boxes against other machines: thesis fit, stage, check size, sector. Maybe that's the world we're headed for. I'm not sure it works. Because if both sides are optimizing for the filter, everything that gets through the filter looks the same. And when everything looks the same, the only thing left to judge on is the thing the AI can't fake. The Homogenization Problem Is Real (and Measured) This isn't just my gut. There's research on it. - Science Advances (2024): Stories written with AI ideas were rated more creative individually, and were more similar to each other. The authors called it a social dilemma: each writer does better, the group gets less variety. - Wharton, Nature Human Behaviour (2025): ChatGPT-assisted ideas were less diverse in 37 of 45 comparisons. In one task, only 6% of the AI-aided ideas were unique. Unaided humans: 100%. - NYU (ICLR 2024): Co-writing with a model significantly reduced diversity across authors' essays, and the model's text was what caused it. Now picture that across a pitch competition. One operator described a session where "all the decks looked eerily similar." When an investor pushed on a >$5 trillion TAM, the founders couldn't defend it. Then they admitted Claude had built the deck. That's the whole problem in one moment. They didn't lose because the deck was bad. They lost because there was no one behind it. What the Pre-Seed Deck Is For Let's be honest about what we're underwriting at pre-seed. It isn't the business model. It isn't the five-year projection. There's a high probability that where you start isn't where you finish, and that's fine. Most great companies pivoted, narrowed or rebuilt the product at least once. What we're underwriting is how you think. - How you found the problem. - Why you noticed it when no one else did. - What you believe that most people don't. - How you'll make decisions when the plan breaks, because it will. Sequoia said it about Airbnb's original deck years ago: "it wasn't really the slides we liked — it was their ideas, the clarity of their thinking." Paul Graham put it more bluntly: writing is thinking. AI is about to split the world into "thinks and think-nots." A deck the AI wrote for you is a deck from a think-not. It might sound smart. It doesn't think. And when we can't see how the team thinks, we can't do diligence. We're just reading a well-formatted guess. That's why AI slop doesn't just waste your shot. It wastes everyone's time. Yours, ours, and every other founder's in the queue behind you. "But the Tools Are Good" They are. I'm not anti-AI. That would be a strange position for someone in venture in 2026. Gamma hit $100M ARR and a $2.1B valuation because it removes real pain. Nobody should spend 12 hours fighting slide alignment. Use Gamma. Use Claude. Use whatever gets the deck clean and readable. But. There's a difference between using AI to present your thinking and using it to replace it. - Polish? Great. - Formatting? Great. - Pressure-testing your argument? Great. - Generating your business model, your market, your wedge, your "why now"? That's outsourcing the only part we care about. It's obvious when we see it. It feels like founders are skipping the early stages entirely: the talking to customers, the arguing with your co-founder, the whiteboard at 1 a.m. And you end up with "AI told me this was the business model." If there's no critical thinking behind it, there's no company behind it. What I Want to See Instead To founders, here's the playbook: - Write the first draft yourself. Ugly is fine. Bullet points, voice memos, napkin sketches. The raw thinking is the asset. Then let AI clean it up. - Show your fingerprints. One customer quote you got yourself. One chart you built from your own data. One belief we'll want to argue with you about. - Name what you don't know. "Here's our riskiest assumption and how we're testing it" beats a perfect TAM slide every time. - Make it look like you. If your deck could be swapped with three others in the batch, it's not a deck. It's a template. - If you send a memo, earn it. Rippling's memo worked because it was dense with insight, not keywords. If it's long because it's for the parser, cut it. To VCs: if we build agents that only reward founders who game agents, we'll fund a generation of companies that are great at passing filters. That's not the job. The Bottom Line The tools can make your deck beautiful. They can't make it yours. At the earliest stage, the deck is the only window we have into how a team thinks. Fill that window with AI slop and there's nothing to see. Pretty is cheap now. Anyone can have it. Point of view is the new scarcity. So, please, no more Claude decks. Show us how you think. That's the deck. Preorder: 1752 Fundraising 400,000+ investors. Personalized to your raise. The complete fundraising experience, from first list to closed round. Get matched to the right angels, firms, and family offices, send outreach from your own inbox, auto-apply in one click, and keep investors updated, all from one place. Built for founders raising right now, not someday. 20% off your first year. Founding price. No charge until launch. Learn More Visit us at 1752.vc For Aspiring Investors Designed for aspiring venture capitalists and startup leaders, our program offers deep insights into venture operations, fund management, and growth strategies, all guided by seasoned industry experts. Break the mold and dive into angel investing with a fresh perspective. Our program provides a comprehensive curriculum on innovative investment strategies, unique deal sourcing, and hands-on, real-world experiences, all guided by industry experts. For Founders 1752vc offers four exclusive programs tailored to help startups succeed. Whether you're raising capital or need help with sales, we’ve got you covered. Our highly selective, 12-week, remote-first accelerator is designed to help early-stage startups raise capital, scale quickly, and expand their networks. We invest $100K and provide direct access to 850+ mentors, strategic partners, and invaluable industry connections. A 12-week, results-driven program designed to help early-stage startups master sales, go-to-market, and growth hacking. Includes $1M+ in perks, tactical guidance from top operators, and a potential path to $100K investment from 1752vc. The ultimate self-paced startup academy, designed to guide you through every stage, whether it's building your business model, mastering unit economics, or navigating fundraising, with $1M in perks to fuel your growth and a direct path to $100K investment. The perfect next step after YC's Startup School or Founder University. A 12-week accelerator helping early-stage DTC brands scale from early traction to repeatable, high-growth revenue. Powered by 1752vc's playbook, it combines real-world execution, data-driven strategy, and direct investor access to fuel brand success. A 12-week, self-paced program designed to help founders turn ideas into scalable startups. Built by 1752vc, it provides expert guidance, a structured playbook, and investor access. Founders who execute effectively can position themselves for a potential $100K investment.
document fetched 2026-10-24 10:03