Isn't the same true for scammers?
GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
41–50 of 90 posts
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#42The 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.
Right!?! Ideally the most important thing in a pitch deck are the actual facts and substance, not the presentation and storytelling. So what are the facts used?
The substance is the base, the presentation and storytelling is the multiplier (and yes the latter can be < 1)
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#43I 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…
> GPT-4 generally will beat non-experts. Just a nitpicking, but I would say GPT can easily beat untrained people. Clearly, GPT has already learned from all the good examples available on the internet, and it's nothing weird about that trained ones mostly outperform untrained ones.
yeah nothing weird about these LLMs at all
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#44The 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.
These ChatGPT pitch decks might start offering something even more ludicrous, like profitability!
That's the real risk to the startup ecosystem.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#45We’ve reached the event AI horizon when we’re now scraping the barrel for chatGPT wins.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#46The 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.
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. You clearly know different founders than I do.
Wait, lying is an option?
Gross.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#47VCs are stupid. So what’s new?
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
wait isn't that the point of fake it until you make it though
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#49In my experience having pitched to VC's it's not that there is a perfect deck but many really bad ones. I.e. there is diminishing returns on a "perfect" pitch deck. You just want to be in the category of not sucking and the decks level of perfection is no longer important. Today I would even go as long as to say the pitch deck is much less important than a demo. You can in theory pitch in an email, the rest is just t…
> but many really bad ones.
Indeed, having spent 4 years at a VC where we all took part in initial filtering of decks, the typical reasons decks failed to even make it to our investment committee, were:
* Not describing the team, or not having a team, or thinking you could outsource key functions (e.g. we once rejected a "tech company" where the entire tech function including the CTO were outsourced to a consultancy with no link to the founders)
* Not clearly explaining the idea.
* Not setting out the size of the opportunity clearly.
* Not setting out unit economics.
* Not setting out a long enough plan (some might want 5, we wanted 10) that sets out an optimistic but possible case to a huge exit. If you go to an angel, they might be ok with a case for a 10m acquihire, but for a VC putting in $5m+, you better have a path towards a $100m+/year revenue business even if it's a long shot. It doesn't matter if the opportunity is huge if you plan to take a conservative approach that will hardly get you any of it.
Re: GPT-4 Outperforms Humans in Pitch Deck Effectiveness
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. You clearly know different founders than I do.
Wait, lying is an option? Gross.
what if lying is the real superpower of ceos and all those marketing blogspams were also lies