The key question here isn’t so much whether GPT-4 beats the actual human decks as much as what it had to fabricate to do so. The humans are probably constrained by things like “reality” and “what their business has done in it” while GPT-4 could make up anything it wanted. A fair comparison would be to humans given the same prompt and told to invent whatever facts they wanted.
GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
11–20 of 90 posts
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#12This says more about VC's than it does about AI
I'm in agreement regarding more . But I think it also says something about clear messaging and how many people struggle with that. It's actually consistent with YC advice. They say most pitches fail to even convey what the hell they are doing and what problem they are solving. I suspect a language model will get that part across rather well.
I mean, if you're creating a pitch deck and not asking ChatGPT what it thinks about the messaging, you're being negligent. Of course you don't need to listen to its advice, but it takes five seconds to paste some text into ChatGPT and get additional suggestions that you might not have otherwise considered.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#13I find it weird to compare GPT-4 to not expert humans (which this did - they seemed to have just sampled pitch decks for funded companies). GPT-4 generally will beat non-experts.
What you want to see is a comparison to say pitch deck consultants - it's also more useful to evaluate whether AI or a human should help you build one.
This does suggest at minimum though that if you are a founder that GPT-4 will likely provide positive value in helping you relative to no one.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#14> 1 in 5 investors and business owners pitched by GPT-4 would invest $10,000 or more. This is a completely useless metric and also a common pitfall. It's been shown many times that what people say they would invest/pay for something is completely unrelated to what they actually do when push comes to shove.
That in fact is pretty much the foundational insight behind capital markets- people say one thing and do another but when they vote with their wallets they say what they really mean.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#15Now analyze whether GPT-4 gets better returns than the VCs rating GPT-4 pitch decks!
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#16This says more about VC's than it does about AI
Yawn.
"This says more about [insert accomplishment] than it does about GPT" is getting tiring. It loses any potential meaning when that's the go to retort for any of its impressive achievements.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#17The key question here isn’t so much whether GPT-4 beats the actual human decks as much as what it had to fabricate to do so. The humans are probably constrained by things like “reality” and “what their business has done in it” while GPT-4 could make up anything it wanted. A fair comparison would be to humans given the same prompt and told to invent whatever facts they wanted.
Great point! Since they are not showing the decks, for all we know these GPT4 pitches may have been proposing they found a cure for cancer.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#18This says more about VC's than it does about AI
I'm in agreement regarding more . But I think it also says something about clear messaging and how many people struggle with that. It's actually consistent with YC advice. They say most pitches fail to even convey what the hell they are doing and what problem they are solving. I suspect a language model will get that part across rather well.
language model could, but did it in this experiment?
we can all make decks that say things people want to hear and then go to jail 12 years later
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#19> 1 in 5 investors and business owners pitched by GPT-4 would invest $10,000 or more. This is a completely useless metric and also a common pitfall. It's been shown many times that what people say they would invest/pay for something is completely unrelated to what they actually do when push comes to shove.
Yeah, but it's a comparison metric to the human ones, so is relevant to implying the GPT-4 set is "better".
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#20I find it weird to compare GPT-4 to not expert humans (which this did - they seemed to have just sampled pitch decks for funded companies). GPT-4 generally will beat non-experts. What you want to see is a comparison to say pitch deck consultants - it's also more useful to evaluate whether AI or a human should help you build one. This does suggest at minimum though that if you are a founder that GPT-4 will likely prov…
If a company was funded, doesn't it mean that pitch deck was successful?