Don't get me wrong, I always love VC-istan bashing, but I think the OP has some critical misses in it and, ultimately, comes out with some bad advice.

If you want to come up with awesome, fundable ideas, go work for large companies with deep pockets that have old and archaic processes and few highly-technical and dynamic problem solvers. Identify the inefficiencies, make friends with decision makers, and then leave, build your solution, and sell it back to them.

That doesn't work. The theory is that these deep-pocketed dinosaurs are just waiting to get some top-1% talent to tackle their hardest problems. It's like they're sitting on their hands just waiting for smart, energetic people to solve their problems.

There are a few issues there. First, the captains of those behemoths think they already have top talent, because they can't recognize it, and therefore end up giving their ears to salesmen. Saying, "you should listen to me instead of that idiot, even though I'm 23, because I am an actual 3-sigma talent" doesn't just work that way. Trust me. I've tried it. In an ideal world it would work, but that's not where we live.

You know how people hate "politicians" in the abstract (recognizing the incompetence of the class) but tend to be favorable toward their local representatives, on account of interpersonal charm? That's why investors and owners get robbed blind by idiots and scumbags. We think they just can't find people like us; in fact, those owners and investors think they already have people like us (even if they share our skepticism of management/executives in the abstract).

"Make friends with decision makers"? As if it were that easy. Smart people love to think that the people in power are just waiting for top talent to come and help them; in reality, the people in power think (usually incorrectly, but good luck convincing them of that) that they have more enough access to top talent as it is.

Genuine smart people have a hard enough time getting along in the Googles of world, which are still more tolerant of true top talent's idiosyncrasies than a typical MegaCorp. Just being smarter than the competition doesn't mean you automatically get put on some magical protege track and "make friends with the decision makers" and will be able to "better yet, get the company to invest in your new startup". Ha! If only it were that easy.

What built Silicon Valley back when it was great was a tolerance of people (true top talent, with the career-disrupting idiosyncrasy that implies) whom the current crop of VCs wouldn't give the time of day. Silicon Valley was built by people too talented and creative to survive a single year in the corporate culture that now dominates.

Okay... so that's the critical miss of the OP.

Now, onto why shitty ideas get funding, it comes down to this...

The clear good ideas (such as nutrition planning for bodybuilders) have two issues. First, they aren't that good. They're things that obviously add value; that doesn't mean they're worthwhile businesses. They might not add value in a way that can make sufficient money to cover the costs. Many great ideas don't; that's why philanthropy and non-profits exist. Second and more importantly, they require some domain expertise (the "golden child" protege of some chicken-hawking VC can't run it; you actually need to know something to run the business-- one of the appeals of social media is that, because any idiot can run it, VC funding as a personal favor works in that space, whereas it wouldn't in biotech). This also means that those businesses have a well-defined domain, which VCs would denigrate as a "sandbox". In other words, lifestyle businesses. It will never be a billion-dollar concern, so why fund it? VCs aren't really trying to maximize their portfolio returns but their career returns which are tied to visible tokens of social access. Those career-making extreme black swans come once in a decade. It's not making a return for investors. It's about getting "in on" those once-in-ten-years deals. That's why the disgusting culture of co-funding and (almost certainly illegal, and clearly unethical) collusive note-sharing exists.

Consequently, VC-istan ends up funding the "who knows?" projects-- not the obvious good ideas (whose maximum yields are usually below beeelll-i-ons) and not the obvious bad ones-- but those that are so vague as to have no obvious maximum. This means they end up funding based on personality cults and "track record" (read: how well someone as peddled influence and credibility in the past) because no one under the sun is capable of assessing these red-ocean gambits.

It's not that VCs are drawn to terrible startup ideas. It's that they're drawn for variance for variance's sake because the only thing that actually matters to a VC's career (i.e. making Partner, then lateral hops all the way to Sequoia) is getting in on those extreme black swans (as I call them, black albatrosses). Funding a good idea that will reliably 5x is useless from a VC's career perspective.