Legendary billionaire investor, cofounder and cochairman of, has spent decades navigating financial manias, major shifts in interest rates, and the fluctuating pendulums of investor psychology. Yet his most recent interaction with artificial intelligence left him with profound awe—and a deep existential reflection on his own storied career.
When Marks engaged with AI late last year, he approached the technology with a healthy degree of skepticism. Like many, he initially thought AI models were little more than advanced search engines, capable of retrieving and rehashing data without true understanding. He questioned whether AI could truly break new ground or was merely limited to statistically recombining human ideas. So, as he explained in a follow-up, he spoke with “some intriguing tech professionals in their 30s and 40s.” One of them suggested he try asking Claude.
Marks wrote that Anthropic’s AI model generated a tutorial explaining AI and its developments over the past three months. He added that the resulting 10,000-word essay was so impressive he decided to reprint much of it for his clients in a summary, though he wanted to include some of his own human-written content.
“I could have saved myself a lot of time by having Claude write this memo,” he noted, “but I chose not to, because I see putting words on paper as a big part of the enjoyment.”
Marks emphasized to clients: “I want to convey the depth of awe I felt when viewing Claude’s output.” Not only did it read like a personal note from a friend or colleague, but it also dismantled Marks’ skepticism by using the investor’s own legendary mentors against him. Above all, he said, it was remarkably intelligent.
“It reasoned logically, anticipated points I might raise in response, added humor, and bolstered its credibility by openly acknowledging AI’s limitations, much as I would,” he said. “I’ve asked AI questions before and received answers, but I’ve never gotten a personalized explanation like this one.”
Here’s what Claude told Marks, leaving him impressed—and somewhat shaken.
The Graham, Buffett, Munger example
In response to Marks’ query about whether AI could truly think, synthesize information, or generate new ideas, Claude offered a “spirited rebuttal,” Marks said. The AI addressed him directly: “Howard, all your investment knowledge comes from others,” the machine wrote. “Benjamin Graham taught you about margin of safety. Warren Buffett taught you about quality. Charlie Munger taught you about mental models from multiple disciplines. John Kenneth Galbraith taught you about the psychology of financial manias.”
The AI pointed out that Marks had spent 50 years reading thousands of books, memos, and case studies, taking raw material from others to create something genuinely new.
“You learned reasoning patterns from decades of reading. I learned reasoning patterns from training,” the AI argued. “The question isn’t where the inputs come from. It’s whether the system—human or artificial—can combine them in ways that are truly novel and useful.”
The argument left Marks stunned.
“Of course, this is entirely true,” he wrote, marveling at how the AI reasoned logically, added humor, and anticipated his counterarguments. This realization transformed his perspective on machine intelligence, prompting him to ask: “Is AI’s process of growing, learning, and ‘thinking’ really different from ours?”
Marks is renowned in financial circles for his periodic “memos” to Oaktree clients, which analyze market cycles, risk, and investor behavior; these have been called among the most influential writings in modern finance and are now in the. It is noted that when he sees a memo from Marks, it is the first thing he reads, solidifying Marks’ reputation among professional investors. In 2024, the Museum of American Finance honored Marks with a for his impact on financial thought, highlighting how his memos and philosophy have shaped modern investing. Thus, his view on AI’s impact is just one perspective, but a highly significant one.
Reasons why and why not
Now viewing AI not as a mere assistant but as an autonomous system—what he terms “Level 3” AI, capable of fully replacing human labor—Marks said he sees enormous implications for Wall Street. Many traits of exceptional investors are present in AI, which can absorb vast amounts of data, identify historical patterns, and operate free of human greed, fear, or fads. He also noted the technology is advancing at a pace unmatched in history, with some models even writing and testing their own code autonomously.
Yet despite AI’s alarmingly rapid evolution and its ability to mimic the intellectual synthesis of Buffett and Munger, Marks added he does not believe human investors are entirely obsolete. The human advantage, he argues, lies in assessing truly novel developments where historical patterns do not exist. Moreover, AI lacks a critical aspect of investing: “skin in the game.” Unlike humans, a machine does not intuitively sense risk or feel the gut-wrenching fear of losing capital.
Marks may be correct that AI will transform finance. But there is reason to question the awe he described. The persuasiveness and polish of Claude’s response to Marks alone might warrant skepticism, because. Large language models excel at inferring context clues—in this case, the user’s name, professional background, and likely objections—and tailoring their output accordingly. The 10,000-word essay felt like a note from a brilliant colleague because it was designed to feel that way.
Claude’s central argument—that Marks learned from Graham and Buffett much as Claude learned from training data—sounds profound, but human learning and statistical pattern-matching across text corpora are not the same. Marks did not just read Graham; he applied the margin of safety in real markets, lost money, felt fear, revised his thinking amid genuine uncertainty, and formed convictions that carried personal cost if wrong. That feedback loop—consequences, revision, hard-earned judgment—is precisely what Claude has never experienced and cannot simulate.
Ultimately, Marks’ interaction with Claude convinced him that AI is far more powerful than a passing trend, with its true potential likely underestimated today. While he warns against going “all in” on AI stocks due to the risk of ruin, the legendary investor’s final advice is clear: No one should stay “all out” and risk missing one of humanity’s greatest technological leaps. Even though Claude will never have a personal stake in the game.