Think of execution steps as nodes in a graph. IFTT has pre-defined execution paths through the graph, its determinist. Agents design the execution path on the fly for the most contextually appropriate solution, it's non-deterministic. Both are state machines and DAGs.
Sure, but the point is that AI-driven data pipelines with executive parts have been commonplace for well over a decade. What's a network of trading bots instructed by ML-models fed by market data and various signals if not agentic AI already? Price-settings systems for airline tickets? Spambots?
The word "agentic" doesn't bring anything new. We've always been doing this.
Near the end he makes clear that his concern was about having a robot with a more or less static script hastily replace the human who has some actual authority. I think we've all experienced this to some extent and it is definitely getting more commonplace.
„Could these so-called UAP “countermeasures”, deployed over thousands of miles with pin-point accuracy be the real reason for government non-disclosure?“
Could the infiltration of defense systems by an adversary not be as good a reason?
Hope this is helpful, as i don't really answer your question about data. My context - I'm a founder, I raised a decent sized round from a good fund.
I've never met an investor who wanted data on competitors or the "market" or opportunity or whatever. They'll want to know that you know about it, but through experience not research.
At seed stage they're mostly investing in you as a person. What you need is a story, not data, in my opinion.
Happy to help if you've got specific questions about raising / how to talk to investors.
Thanks a ton. I do have some questions based on your feedback.
What do you mean by experience? As a consumer or moreso experience that the particular solution is viable?
A story on the product or of the founder(s)? I feel like I've got the latter covered. I have plenty of stories of when the product would have been very useful and a couple friends to vouch. Does that count?
Another question. Does it look bad when you can't bootstrap? Doing development in my spare time is fine. This particular idea though can't be done totally in my spare time nor could I bootstrap unless I was a lot wealthier, although it's not as high as I make it out to be.
When is too early to plan a pilot? I've got the majority of a pilot planned already because that's just how my brain works. Designed it to be as minimalist as possible so I could test the waters. Would that be a good sign? Do they really care about this level of detail? Or does the idea of a pilot turn them off because there's no substance yet?
Basically, how can I go in with as little as possible and get enough to run that pilot? "Little" in this case being "hey, I believe in this, but there's no way to do this other than to show you".
I'd be able to answer more specifically if I had more info on your experience and startup, but I can also answer higher level and hope it's useful for you.
Experience - are you deeply familiar with the problem you're trying to solve and the current options for solving it. Have you lived this problem? Have you been a consumer of the solutions? Why do you care about it? Why can you solve it better than anyone else?
Story - the answers to the above question will naturally help create your story. Friends can vouch probably won't hold up.
Bootstrapping - not everyone can bootstrap, but investors want commitment. If you signal any lack of commitment then it will tank the perception of the investment opportunity.
Pilot - do you mean MVP? At seed stage or pre-seed you don't need a product, but having a working demo or something tangible helps make your ideas more real for other people. Having some traction helps them place it in the real world.
Generally fundraising isn't so cut and dry. There's a spectrum of outcomes ranging from getting a great deal on great terms with a great fund that will probably get you in tech crunch, to raising a fine deal, on ok terms, with a 3rd rate VC fund, to failing to raise at all. The probability for better outcomes depends on how well you cover the bases of what VCs actually want to know, but also on how much they believe that you, specifically you, are the right bet for this type of solution/category.
When they invest in you it means they can't invest in other solutions that are similar (they can but they shouldn't and good VCs mostly don't).
Often VCs will already have a thesis or belief about the market you operate in. It will be high level, but they're going to have some opinion about the way the wind is blowing. They take a position on a macro trend and then find the best possible exposure to that trend in a great founding team and vision.
This is great feedback. I really appreciate it. I'd love to give you the short of what we're doing. If you're interested, my email is in my HN desc. Not sure what I could offer in exchange for your time but willing to figure something out.
I’d say that the genesis is a genuine interest in keeping in touch, automation is managing the process. I get behind on messages with my closest friends/family, and then I have a large network of professional/semi-personal relationships to maintain.
