3 ms·
the point that the algorithm is or isn't biased. the point is, humans are also training their experience on past deals, so the issue is, is the algorithm more
by vasilipupkin 8y ago
the point that the algorithm is or isn't biased. the point is, humans are also training their experience on past deals, so the issue is, is the algorithm more biased, on average, than humans, or less? I have absolutely no doubt that an average VC fund decision making process can be replaced by an algorithm. Best vc funds - that's a tougher call. But in general, algorithmic investing is superior to seat of pants investing.
- xevb3k 8y agoIf a human is biased, there are individuals whose attitude can be corrected, and if necessary pressure can be put on individuals to correct the situation (politically or otherwise). With an algorithm, you show the inputs, show the outputs and say “no bias, it’s all automated”. Look, part of the problem might be that at seed stage the optimal short term strategy might be to be biased. If series A,B investors are sexist or racist, then that’s going to make things harder for those companies to progress. An algorithm might pick up on that, particularly if it can find features correlated with sex, race, or some other factor that investors may be biased against. As to your point regarding the average VC. It’s possible that selecting companies at random might do better than the average VC. I suspect if we did, the societal outcomes might be better.