Categories
Business Storytelling

The Closed Laptop

The conference rooms all look the same after a while. Same long table. Same chairs that cost more than they should. Same window with the same view of the same parking lot baking in the same California sun. You stop seeing them. You develop a kind of practiced receptivity, a professional openness that is also, if you are honest, a professional distance. You have heard the story before. You know where you are in the presentation without looking at the slide number.

Until the day someone sits down across from you and closes their laptop and says: can I just tell you our story?


Fred Wilson, the venture capitalist at Union Square Ventures, has spent forty years learning to tell the difference between founders who can build and founders who can make you believe. The skill he overweights now, heโ€™ll tell you plainly, isnโ€™t technical. Itโ€™s selling. Recruiting, fundraising, convincing customers, inspiring teams. โ€œActually being able to write code,โ€ he said recently, โ€œis probably not a big deal anymore.โ€ What matters is whether you can cross the distance between your vision and someone elseโ€™s imagination and deposit something true and alive on the other side.

Most founders never figure this out. They build the deck instead. They pull the projector cable from the drawer โ€” there is always a drawer, there is always a cable โ€” and the room fills with blue light and bullet points and the comfortable geometry of a prepared presentation, and what never happens is the thing that needed to happen.

But there was this one morning.


He came in with his cofounder in the flat gray light that Silicon Valley gets in February, when the rain has stopped but the sky hasnโ€™t decided what it wants to be. They were early. He set his bag down and sat directly across from me โ€” not at the presenterโ€™s angle, not with one eye already calculating the distance to the screen โ€” directly across, the way you sit with someone you already know, or intend to. Neither of them reached for the cable in the drawer.

He looked at me with the particular steadiness of a person who has decided not to manage the moment.

Can I just tell you our story?

I want to be honest about what happened next, which is that I felt something shift before he said another word. Not a decision exactly. More like the precondition for a decision, the ground tilting slightly in a direction I hadnโ€™t chosen. I was, in some way I couldnโ€™t have defended rationally at the time, already with him. And I knew it, and I knew it was not an entirely reasonable response to a man who had been in the room for less than a minute, and I felt it anyway.

The laptop stayed closed for the next twenty minutes. No transitions. No bullet points. No hockey stick arcing toward a number reverse-engineered from a desired outcome. Just his voice and what he believed and the quality of attention you give a person when there is nothing else in the room to look at.

The deck came later. It was beautiful. By then it didnโ€™t need to be anything except true.


Storytelling is not a skill in the way that financial modeling is a skill. It is older than that by such a margin that the comparison almost doesnโ€™t make sense. What we are really talking about is the oldest technology human beings possess โ€” a person in a room, a voice, an image made of nothing but words and the willingness to believe in them. It was doing its work around fires forty thousand years before the first conference room was built, and it has never once required a projector.

What the great storytellers understand, and what the best founders understand in the same unspoken way, is that a story is not a transfer of information. It is a transfer of inner states. When it works โ€” when it really works โ€” something that existed inside one person gets reconstructed inside another, and the listener emerges changed. Not persuaded. Not informed. Changed. These are different experiences, and only one of them makes a person willing to bet their career on something that doesnโ€™t exist yet.

The deck puts glass between the teller and that possibility. The founder stands at the edge of the blue light pointing at things, and the room evaluates the things, and what never happens is the transfer. Everyone files out having formed opinions about the slides rather than beliefs about the person. Opinions and beliefs are not the same.

Wilson understands this even if he wouldnโ€™t use these words. When he says the skill is selling, what he means underneath the selling is: can this person walk into a room and make other people inhabit their vision? Not convince them. Inhabit. The difference is the difference between reading about a place and being there. One of them changes how you act. The other one you forget on the drive home.


The projector cable is still in the drawer. Someone will pull it out next week, and the room will fill with blue light, and another founder will stand at the edge of it pointing at things, hoping that the right font and the right graph will do the work that only a human being, exposed and without props, can actually do.

It wonโ€™t. It never does.

The CEO who closed his laptop had been carrying a story he believed in, and he knew the story was the thing, not the packaging around it. He understood that the oldest container is also the most powerful one. His own voice. A room. Someone willing to listen.

I was ready to work with him before he said another word.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models medical

Stethoscopes and Statutes in the Age of AI

David Sparks (aka MacSparky), dropped a casual bombshell on a recent podcast, the kind of offhand remark that lodges in your mind like a burr on a sock.

Paraphrasing, he said something like: โ€œAI seems to be a boon for doctors and a threat to lawyers.โ€ He was commenting on how heโ€™s observed that sense among the members of his MacSparky Labs community.

Itโ€™s the sort of statement that invites you to pause, tilt your head, and wonder what lies beneath.

Sparks, a lawyer himself who gave up his legal career a few years ago, knows one of those worlds intimately. His words carry the weight of someone whoโ€™s walked the halls of courthouses and squinted at screens late into the night.

So whatโ€™s he pointing out that the rest of us might miss?

Start with doctors. Medicine is a profession of patterns and particulars, a dance between the general and the specific. A patient walks inโ€”say, a 52-year-old man with a cough thatโ€™s lingered too long. The doctorโ€™s mind whirs: pneumonia? Bronchitis? Something rarer, like sarcoidosis? The human brain is a marvel at this, but itโ€™s not infallible. Enter AI, with its tireless capacity to sift through terabytes of dataโ€”X-rays, lab results, decades of case studiesโ€”and spot the needle in the haystack. A tool like Harvey, an AI platform now making waves in medical research, can crunch genetic sequences or flag anomalies in real time, handing doctors a sharper lens. Itโ€™s not replacing the physician; itโ€™s amplifying her reach. For doctors, AI is like a stethoscope thatโ€™s upgraded.

Lawyers, though, face a different challenge. Their craft is less about data and more about argument, a tapestry of precedent and persuasion woven over centuries. Sparks knows this: heโ€™s stood before judges, parsing statutes, coaxing juries with a turn of phrase. But hereโ€™s the rubโ€”much of lawyering is rote. Drafting contracts, reviewing discovery, chasing down case lawโ€”these are tasks of repetition, not revelation. AI can do them faster, cheaper, and with fewer coffee stains. Harvey, repurposed for legal work, joins programs like ROSS, built on IBMโ€™s Watson, to scan legal databases in seconds, spitting out answers that once took associates hours to unearth. For the grunt work, AI is a scythe through wheat. The threat isnโ€™t extinction but erosionโ€”junior lawyers, the ones who cut their teeth on those late-night searches, might find the ladderโ€™s lower rungs sawed off.

Yet law isnโ€™t just mechanics; itโ€™s theater. A machine can draft a motion, but can it read a jurorโ€™s furrowed brow? Can it pivot mid-trial when a witness veers off script?

Doctors heal with facts; lawyers win with stories. AIโ€”Harvey or otherwiseโ€”might streamline the former, but the latter resists its graspโ€”for now. Sparks sees a fault line: medicine gains an important new partner, law sees a new rival.