As more founders build AI into their products and pitch decks, Zerodha co-founder Nithin Kamath argues that simply highlighting AI is no longer enough. His comments have triggered a wider debate over whether startups should focus less on the technology itself and more on the problem they are solving.
Artificial intelligence has become a standard feature of the startup conversation, from product development and business strategies to fundraising pitches. But as more companies claim to use the technology, investors may be looking for something beyond the presence of AI itself.
Zerodha co-founder and CEO Nithin Kamath has questioned the growing habit of making AI the headline of startup pitches. In a post on X, Kamath said he frequently comes across investment decks that lead with their use of artificial intelligence, a pattern he now finds increasingly unremarkable.
The criticism is less about using AI and more about how founders present it. Kamath’s argument is that the technology alone does not explain what makes a business worth backing.
Kamath: AI is no longer a differentiator
Kamath said the number of investment decks opening with an AI pitch has become excessive. He wrote that seeing “we use AI” at the beginning of presentations is now common enough to provoke an immediate negative reaction.
His central point was summed up in a simple line: “AI is just table stakes now.”
Kamath compared highlighting AI as a selling point to boasting about an everyday habit. “Bragging that your product uses AI is like bragging that you take a bath every day,” he wrote, arguing that the technology does not automatically give a startup an edge.
More from TechFor founders seeking funding, that distinction matters. An investor may want to know what a company can accomplish because of AI, but merely adding the technology to a product does not establish that the underlying business is different or defensible.
Polished decks may not solve the problem
Kamath also raised concerns about the growing ability to use AI tools to produce visually polished presentations.
While better design can make a pitch easier to follow, he suggested that widespread access to the same tools could have the opposite effect when founders rely on generic messaging. A deck that looks professional but could describe almost any startup may do little to communicate the founder’s thinking.
That concern has become part of a broader discussion around AI-assisted work: if technology makes it easier for everyone to produce polished material, the quality of the underlying idea becomes more important, not less.
X users debate whether Kamath is right
Responses to Kamath’s post were mixed. Several users agreed that “we use AI” has become too weak a pitch on its own. One commenter compared it to saying a company has a website, arguing that the more important question is what the technology enables that was previously difficult or impossible.
Others welcomed the idea of founders moving away from AI-heavy messaging and returning to the fundamentals of building a business.
There was also criticism of AI itself, with one commenter describing the technology as an expensive fraud. Another focused on startup decks, arguing that a presentation can lose credibility when its polished appearance is not matched by original thinking.
Not everyone agreed with Kamath’s reaction, however. One user wondered whether dismissing AI-led pitches could cause investors to overlook genuinely strong businesses.
Another commenter argued that startups should begin with the problem they want to solve. AI, in that view, should remain a means to an end: useful when it improves the solution, but unnecessary when it does not.
Kamath’s comments ultimately point to a familiar challenge in startup fundraising: when a technology becomes widespread, its presence alone becomes less meaningful. For founders, the harder task may be explaining why their business matters even without the buzzword.
