Yes, with the clouds as heat sink
You can extract energy from the heat of the planet, but as many have pointed out, you need a heat sink. Assuming the machine works entirely on (and above) the surface, the best heat sink from the surface are the sulfuric clouds above. The surface has an average of 462°C, while the lower end of the sulfuric clouds is at 110°C. atmospheric temperature given altitude, altitude of sulfuric clouds
Some info on radiation
Radiative heat transfer is the same used by a thermographic camera to show the temperature of an object.
To radiate the energy it's possible to use a surface with the flat part toward the clouds above. What would happen is that said surface would radiate energy to any object in line of sight, and receive energy back from them. The energy flow depends on many factors like the inclination of the objects and their material, but to simplify the energy that you can emit is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature in kelvin, which means that if you increase +19% your temperature in °K, you double the energy that leaves you. The energy that arrives toward you depends on their temperature, so pointing your surface toward the clouds works better then keeping it vertically (you don't receive the one from the ground).
Produced energy density with no CO2
Your heat sink must be colder then the surface, but the actual temperature would depend on the type of cycle used to extract energy from the heat, and the type of fluid used for it. using those as rough reference, if we assume the sink to be at 300°C (160°C below the heat source), its temperature in kelvin would be 573°K, and using the Stefan–Boltzmann law you'd have an outflow of 6.1 KW/m², while clouds would be at 383°K with a radiation of 1.2KW/m² (assuming they are a black body). This means that the resulting heat that it can dissipate is 4.9 KW/m². If the heat engine has an efficiency of 30%, then 70% of the inflow of energy needs to be dissipated to the sky. 184
This means the maximum inflow from the surface is 7.0 KW/m², and the produced electricity is 2.1KW/m².
Using the USA average of 1.377 KW per person, to power a little village of a thousand people you'll need 655 m² plus the space for actual heat engine. This without considering any additional energy needed to survive on Venus. As an indication your average nuclear reactor produces 881MW of electricity, which would require 419,523 m² (42 hectares) of radiating panels.
Considering the CO2
CO2 is transparent to visible light, as its absorption is in the infrared, at wavelengths around 2, 2.7, 4.3 and 15 μm, a graph here. At those wavelengths the CO2 will absorb the radiation to heat up, and emit radiation due to its temperature. A similar heat that comes from the air happens earth, as can be seen at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/153839/what-is-the-temperature-of-the-clear-night-sky-from-the-surface-of-earth this question (the sky from the surface on earth is not 2°K, but -30°C/-6°C).
The problem is that below the clouds, there is a sea of mostly CO2 at high density, kilometers thick, and at a temperature higher then the radiator. This means that most of the energy that reaches the radiator comes from the CO2 and not from the clouds above, which means that the type of surface considered above (black body radiators) would just heat up instead of cooling. I mean, if it wasn't like this, then the surface of the planet would be cooler then what it is.
This can be fixed in as similar way of the one used for the daylight radiative coolers. The basic idea is to use a surface that reflects the wavelengths from which the CO2 emits, while emitting from all the other wavelengths. This would allow it to dissipate heat toward the clouds, without receiving the heat from the air in between. The energy produced per square meter would be even lower, though. 184