4 ms·

Maybe the fact that RocketAI didn't have a product, wasn't solving any problem, or was touting a bogus algorithm with absolutely zero details should've set off

by zo7 10y ago

Maybe the fact that RocketAI didn't have a product, wasn't solving any problem, or was touting a bogus algorithm with absolutely zero details should've set off some flags. They didn't base their interest off of any value they were creating, it was just unsubstantiated hype.

michaf 10y ago
I agree. I see it as an attempt to somewhat deflate the emerging bubble. Most AI researchers are aware of the effects of the previous 'AI Winters' and probably want to smoothen the hype cycle in order to secure continuous funding in the future.
amenod 10y ago
Would a research paper constitute enough proof? Or some "results"? Comparison of their technology to some other state of the art stuff? In other words, what is the proof that VCs (and other AI newbies) should believe? EDIT: note that VCs just contacted them. That is far from signing a deal.
- argonaut 10y ago
  Yes. I think you're answering your own questions?
  - amenod 10y ago
    My point is that everything can be faked. In the end you have to decide who you trust to pass the judgement, unless you are capable enough to make that call yourself (and that option is just not realistic).
tyre 10y ago
And the VCs didn't invest, they reached out for a meeting. If there were any term sheets offered to RocketAI, that would be different. It's completely unsurprising that VCs reached out to a company touted by top AI researchers, wanting a meeting.
pjc50 10y ago
> didn't have a product, wasn't solving any problem Since when has that stopped startups? /s
crdb 10y ago
The filter for relevance for investment that has overwhelmingly survived in the market is social proof ("warm intros") for a reason: it's substantially more expensive and harder to fake third party signals (including their own quality) than your own. Why did Google beat all the search directories? The latter used keywords on pages to figure out relevance, which was easily gamed by sites putting up thousands of keywords. Google weighed (still weighs) both the number of links and the quality of each referrer. The SEO vs search relevance war continues to this day, but PageRank gives Google a long term advantage. The attractiveness of an investment has many variables with the two most important team quality and traction. Many VCs are on record saying they'll fund a pre-product company if the team is worth it. If a number of high quality referrers are recommending the team, then the team quality variable might override the others. The hype's substance here was the referrer quality.
- koja86 10y ago
  What exactly is the advantage given by PageRank today?

by zo7 10y ago

michaf 10y ago

I agree. I see it as an attempt to somewhat deflate the emerging bubble. Most AI researchers are aware of the effects of the previous 'AI Winters' and probably want to smoothen the hype cycle in order to secure continuous funding in the future.

amenod 10y ago

Would a research paper constitute enough proof? Or some "results"? Comparison of their technology to some other state of the art stuff? In other words, what is the proof that VCs (and other AI newbies) should believe? EDIT: note that VCs just contacted them. That is far from signing a deal.

argonaut 10y ago
Yes. I think you're answering your own questions?
- amenod 10y ago
  My point is that everything can be faked. In the end you have to decide who you trust to pass the judgement, unless you are capable enough to make that call yourself (and that option is just not realistic).

tyre 10y ago

And the VCs didn't invest, they reached out for a meeting. If there were any term sheets offered to RocketAI, that would be different. It's completely unsurprising that VCs reached out to a company touted by top AI researchers, wanting a meeting.

pjc50 10y ago

> didn't have a product, wasn't solving any problem Since when has that stopped startups? /s

crdb 10y ago

The filter for relevance for investment that has overwhelmingly survived in the market is social proof ("warm intros") for a reason: it's substantially more expensive and harder to fake third party signals (including their own quality) than your own. Why did Google beat all the search directories? The latter used keywords on pages to figure out relevance, which was easily gamed by sites putting up thousands of keywords. Google weighed (still weighs) both the number of links and the quality of each referrer. The SEO vs search relevance war continues to this day, but PageRank gives Google a long term advantage. The attractiveness of an investment has many variables with the two most important team quality and traction. Many VCs are on record saying they'll fund a pre-product company if the team is worth it. If a number of high quality referrers are recommending the team, then the team quality variable might override the others. The hype's substance here was the referrer quality.

koja86 10y ago
What exactly is the advantage given by PageRank today?