The quality of being technical dominates the early-stage ecosystems — both among founders and VCs — in a way I’ve never understood.

I remember mentioning to a founder that I had been interested in machine learning and computer vision in undergrad when they interrupted to say, “Oh so you’re technical?” I paused and wasn’t really sure how to answer. Sure, I had studied these models and implemented algorithms for homework assignments but that seemed far from calling myself technical. To me, the technical expertise was with the researchers inventing these models and algorithms, from which I was a world away as an undergrad.

But I presume this founder meant technical in a different, but much more common parlance. Many use technical in a weird have and have-not sense — you either are technical, typically based on majoring in Computer Science in undergrad, or you are not (sorry for you!).

It has become a moniker to signal being in some in-group of the knowledgeable few. “Don’t worry, I’m a technical VC so I know what I’m talking about.” Oh really? You somehow have cutting edge knowledge of every forefront of technology you will encounter in a job whose entire premise is investing in a future we can’t know today?

It’s helpful to crack open the dictionary for this one.

technical. adj. having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject.

I would point out here that technical means knowledge within a domain — it is not a generalizable quality of a person. You might be a technical expert on K8s deployments or on mobile front-ends, but you are not just technical. Additionally, this knowledge exists on a continuum rather than in a fixed state, and this is especially true of technology which evolves every day. Others may have more knowledge in an area than you and if you do not continue to develop your knowledge, it may no longer be considered particularly specialized.

So when I say I’m investing in technical founders, I quite literally mean these qualities: (a) deep specialized knowledge of their problem space and (b) a desire to remain at the forefront with that knowledge. Notice that none of this inherently requires a CS degree: it may, depending on the problem space, but just claiming to be technical on that fact alone is not convincing enough.

But in terms of how this founder was using the term technical for me as an investor - as a litmus test on some basic knowledge of their space - there is still merit to this and so I propose a new way to understand what technical means. Technical in this sense means “do you give a damn about what I’m interested in?” Today, knowledge is all around us and it is easier than ever to get a baseline in any space. Documentation abounds and can be consumed via LLMs in a variety of formats, whether through chat, summarization, personalized podcasts, Deep Research and voice-based conversations — the list just continues to grow. Getting to the 70th percentile of knowledge in a space is doable if you are interested enough to spend the time. So to be technical just means a willingness to spend time to truly learn how a novel technology works at a fundamental level.

It is the quality of acting on the curiosity that many claim to have as investors.

So the good news is anyone can be technical, not just CS majors! But the bad news is that we have to work for it and constantly upgrade our knowledge. Fortunately, this is what lovers of technology — whether founders or investors — just do anyways.