21–30 of 41 posts
Wow. They can't bother to have people working in customer service, and now they can't even bother to have people working on where they invest their money? Please tell me that the execs are next to be automated.
There are numerous areas, including hiring, in which algorithms are provably better at some jobs. The fact that you choose to do something one way doesn't indicate that you "can't even bother" to do it another way.
The article has uncovered sources that claim the algorithm makes the ultimate decision and other sources that claim it doesn’t. If it does make the ultimate decision and not just for political reasons then this is very interesting. Having input data that is sufficiently informative is important on a number of levels. Firstly this means that it is possible to pick winners on the basis of other VCs etc Secondly it mean…
If the main input is quality of other VCs, then at some point a VC has to decide to invest based on fundamentals rather than what other investors are doing. a group of "fundamental" investors with good track records then would dictate what the rest of the market invests in. you sort of see this dynamic play out in reality. YC is an example: they invest early, before other investors often, so they cant rely on other i…
1. Is the money that the startup attracts responsible for its success? In other words if a mediocre company goes through Y Combinator and then attracts a $55 million round, is it more likely to succeed than a great company that does not? (Let’s day the mediocre company doesn’t squander the cash wastefully but slowly looks for the product market fit)
2. Are there fundamentals that can be distinguished from an “observer effect.” Suppose everyone believes that a company coming out of Stanford is more likely to succeed than one coming out of (say) Babson. Does believing it make it true because the company attracts more money in each round?
These two thoughts are variations on a theme of the role of signaling in picking out fundamentals.
Edit: I should also point out that GV might also use “true” fundamentals like search results, trends, etc
That would explain their Juicero investment.
Wow. They can't bother to have people working in customer service, and now they can't even bother to have people working on where they invest their money? Please tell me that the execs are next to be automated.
I wonder if the prospective company's G Suite data gets crunched.
And risk losing thousands of existing paying customers if it ever came out? Not a smart choice, considering you're betting on the company you're illegally spying on to get profitable at some point.
And even the data of enterprise customers is used to improve Google’s machine learning algorithms, according to those.
So not illegal, just entirely immoral. But when has that ever stopped Google?
That would explain their Juicero investment.
If a significant chunk of VCs invest based on an algorithm following the investments of other VCs running the same algo... positive feedback loop. Juicebox squeezer receives $120m investment.
> Inputs into "The Machine" include round size, syndicate partners, past investors, industry sector and the delta between prior valuation and current valuation. The algorithm then ranks deals on a 10-point scale, with green said to represent 8 or above I'm sure there are more inputs than this, but from that list you'd imagine they basically pick deals based on who else is investing. which is not that different from m…
Another phrase for that is "herd" mentality, which will hopefully result in de-risked "safe" investing, but VC's are supposed to be looking for true breakout possibilities. If LP's wanted safe, they'd buy Treasury notes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And risk losing thousands of existing paying customers if it ever came out? Not a smart choice, considering you're betting on the company you're illegally spying on to get profitable at some point.
It’s not illegal if it’s in the ToS. And even the data of enterprise customers is used to improve Google’s machine learning algorithms, according to those. So not illegal, just entirely immoral. But when has that ever stopped Google?
That would explain their Juicero investment.