4 ms·

Agreed. It's a bit naive for a bunch of AI researchers who know nothing about VC to be judging a few VCs for showing interest. First, which VCs? There is a ver

Agreed. It's a bit naive for a bunch of AI researchers who know nothing about VC to be judging a few VCs for showing interest. First, which VCs? There is a very wide range. And second, which people at those VCs? A lot of associates will reach out speculatively whenever some company or project makes headlines, but there's a ton more diligence and vetting that would go into getting a partner meeting let alone all the way to an investment decision.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
> Agreed. It's a bit naive for a bunch of AI researchers who know nothing about VC to be judging a few VCs for showing interest. I see no reason the VCs shouldn't keep some technical experts on staff to make these kinds of evaluations.
- amenod 10y ago
  That would be difficult to do. If someone wants to stay an expert in the field one has to practice it, which rules out 9/5 job at VC headquarters. But most important, it is probably cheaper and more effective for VCs to find an expert when needed, given that they probably need many experts from many different fields.
- tedsanders 10y ago
  Who's to say they didn't? Perhaps the VCs who reached out were reaching out so that their technical experts could learn about the product. If you can't find information about a startup anywhere, asking them is a great way to find out. Yet the implied attitude of the article and some comments here is that when VCs are missing a critical piece of information, they should just give up, rather than reaching out to gather that critical information. Am I missing something? Reaching out to a startup to gather more information sounds like typical VC hustle. I think as people who know things about AI that other people don't, we need to be careful about using our knowledge to trick others and then feel smugly arrogant about their ignorance. My opinion, at least.
plafl 10y ago
For me it sounds like the researchers are saying: we are so cool now we can tease you all we want because we can have 10 investors just by snapping our fingers. Sounds a little like a childish revenge after years of crawling for funding. I'm glad they like to raise awareness about hype but I would choose other way

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

> Agreed. It's a bit naive for a bunch of AI researchers who know nothing about VC to be judging a few VCs for showing interest. I see no reason the VCs shouldn't keep some technical experts on staff to make these kinds of evaluations.

amenod 10y ago
That would be difficult to do. If someone wants to stay an expert in the field one has to practice it, which rules out 9/5 job at VC headquarters. But most important, it is probably cheaper and more effective for VCs to find an expert when needed, given that they probably need many experts from many different fields.
tedsanders 10y ago
Who's to say they didn't? Perhaps the VCs who reached out were reaching out so that their technical experts could learn about the product. If you can't find information about a startup anywhere, asking them is a great way to find out. Yet the implied attitude of the article and some comments here is that when VCs are missing a critical piece of information, they should just give up, rather than reaching out to gather that critical information. Am I missing something? Reaching out to a startup to gather more information sounds like typical VC hustle. I think as people who know things about AI that other people don't, we need to be careful about using our knowledge to trick others and then feel smugly arrogant about their ignorance. My opinion, at least.

plafl 10y ago

For me it sounds like the researchers are saying: we are so cool now we can tease you all we want because we can have 10 investors just by snapping our fingers. Sounds a little like a childish revenge after years of crawling for funding. I'm glad they like to raise awareness about hype but I would choose other way