31–40 of 122 posts
> The argument seems to be that they've realized the only way to achieve the next round of funding is to be "AI-first". This is the argument for virtually every company going AI-first : it's just a way to scam VCs. It seems crazy but it really works.
Is it really scamming VCs, if they're the loudest cheerleaders for AI?
Unless you own the business, you work for your investors. If investors only want AI, then you will either be forced to do that (whatever it means), do something else but make it look to them like AI, convince them they're wrong, or quit. Things are a little more nuanced if your existing investors side with you but all new investors are AI-driven. Then you don't have to quit, but you do have to run the business withou…
The ceo likely has more voting shares alone. The issue for a cashflow negative business is attracting new money.
Most AI "deployments" I have seen, are glorified knowledge search engines, or query engines. There are some content/code assistants as well. It is also the least intrusive way to be "AI - First". There is too much noise, too little value , but yet a significant pressure to be an "AI company". Most startups are feeling this (including the one I work at).
Unfortunately, VCs are always blinded by the next cool thing to invest in. So I think of it as a marketing feature that you have to build, rather than any real roadmap thing.
Turns out someone already made a version with AI as the desirable technology du jour.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1dckq74/so...
Think about it like a research project. The company or its culture may not be prepared for that, but that's what it is.
Unless you own the business, you work for your investors. If investors only want AI, then you will either be forced to do that (whatever it means), do something else but make it look to them like AI, convince them they're wrong, or quit. Things are a little more nuanced if your existing investors side with you but all new investors are AI-driven. Then you don't have to quit, but you do have to run the business withou…
At a smart business, you work for your customers. If you're at a company that works for your investors, you're going to have this problem over and over again. In fact, you might as well give up on the idea of planning and decision making based on what would be best for the product and your customers.
Note that starting a business with your own capital is not a way to escape it either, since you still have to answer to customers.
Sounds like the CEO is more interested in selling the company than building the product. IMHO that's a bad sign. It's also notable that you're aware of AI and use it to some extent. That means you have understanding of what it can and can't do. So why then is the CEO telling you how to do your job?
Draw up the product roadmap such that you can claim maximum AI-ness while including as little of it as possible in the actual product. Sounds like the CEO doesn't have any technical objections to not using AI, he just wants the ability to raise on AI branding. Include as much non-AI work as you can in the AI teams' projects, pitch an "AI efficiency initiative" that minimizes new spend on AI with the justification of…
(Also, huh - I wonder if that’s actually directly doable; “assembled by AI out of programmed outputs”?)
You say there is PMF but this statement contradicts that. It seems that your customers are the investors and you need to sell to them in the next round.
Couldn't be more excited for this kind of short-sighted, AI-instead-of-people thinking to become shameful. How many people need to aim the gun at their foot and pull the trigger before they're not bragging as they do it?