I Asked Chat GPT How It Sucked, Its Response Is Worth Paying Attention

While I’ve been trained on a diverse range of sources, I might struggle with very nuanced or specific contexts…

“How do you suck?”

Understanding Context: While I’ve been trained on a diverse range of sources, I might struggle with very nuanced or specific contexts, especially if the conversation requires understanding of very recent events or highly specialized knowledge that wasn’t widely available before my last training data update.

Your question is a bit broad and can be interpreted in various ways depending on the context. If you’re asking about limitations or areas for improvement in AI like me, ChatGPT, I can provide some insights:

Real-time Information: I don’t have the ability to access or provide real-time information or updates because my knowledge is static and cut off as of my last update in April 2023.

Emotion and Tone: Interpreting and responding with the appropriate emotional tone can be challenging. I aim to be neutral, informative, and respectful, but may not always capture the subtleties of human emotion or social cues perfectly.

Creative and Subjective Responses: While I can generate creative content, my responses are based on patterns in data I was trained on. This means my outputs might not be as original or nuanced as those from a human, especially in areas requiring personal taste, judgment, or current cultural nuances.

Specific Personal Experiences: I can’t draw from personal experiences or opinions because I don’t have personal consciousness or life experiences. My responses are generated based on the information I was trained on.

Precision in Complex Tasks: For complex or specialized tasks (e.g., advanced technical problems, medical advice, or legal interpretation), my responses might not be as accurate or reliable as a professional’s guidance in that field.

If your question was intended in a different direction or if you have a specific query in mind, feel free to provide more details!

Message ChatGPT…

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.

Author’s Note: The image used for this post was ChatGPT’s response to the query, “Create a visual representation of yourself”.

What’s the Deal With Sputnik ATX?

Author’s Note: Updated for New Program Information on April 24, 2024.

The number one question on most people’s minds when they meet either Oksana or myself is, “what’s the deal with Sputnik ATX?” So here it is.

Sputnik ATX is named after the first thing man put into space, and the town that we love (Austin, TX). Sputnik-1 combined visionary insight and engineering excellence. That first satellite massively changed the course of human history and inspired billions of people to continue to look up. Like sputnik-1, we believe that maker/engineer humans should continue to launch transformative ventures. We want to back those founders with investment dollars, resources, and advice.

In short, we want to get you to the fun part of the growth curve, faster. We invest in nerds. Then, we teach nerds how to sell.

The Sputnik ATX program couples $100k-$500k in investment with a 13 week, resident, “heck-on-earth” rigorous experience to immerse you in the process of how to make something people love, grow your company fast, increase your network, expand your vision, and deliver product-market fit faster. We are laser-focused on helping companies to:

  • Find product-market fit
  • Master the sales/marketing process
  • Scale

We require all applicants to have minimum viable product (MVP) and at least one customer. We don’t care if that is a paying customer, you just need someone who isn’t your cousin Larry, so to speak. This is because it is impossible for someone without MVP to fully benefit from our program.

We provide all cohort members with

  • Six months office space for the founders, and limited space as the team grows
  • $100,000 in initial cash funding via our SAFE note
    • funding on our founder-friendly SAFE note with a $3mm cap and 30% discount
    • Option to invest an additional $100,000 at the same initial terms for up to 24 months (at our option)
    • Option to invest an additional $300,000 on an uncapped YC SAFE note with a 30% discount for up to 24 months (at our option)

The easiest way to do the math on this is, post money, we get a maximum 4.76% stake in your company for every $100,000 we invest for the first $200,000 (a better deal than YC, we love ya, and several other programs)

The next $300,000 we invest will convert based upon your valuation in your next round. Y’all are incentivized to grow fast for less dillution!

Of course, you’ll still get our renowned curriculum, advice, and mentoring, things we work very hard to improve and our alumni rave about!

But wait, there’s MORE!

  • Tons of freebee credits from AWS, Microsoft, and the usual SaaS suspects
  • Fully stocked kitchen, yeah, you’ll be working late eating frozen burritos, a potpourri of yogurt and “gourmet” ramen as far as the eye can see
  • Mentor and investor introductions (our network rocks)
  • The fridge of joy (you have to see it to believe it)
  • The opportunity to win the #tractionhorse (check X/Twitter on this one)

For every dollar you get in cash from us, we have more than a dollar of overhead to support you, so we think our deal is pretty good.

We’re not for everyone. Indeed, there are many good accelerator/incubator options in the world and depending on the stage of your startup and what you need the most, we may not be a good fit. So please understand what we do, and if we’re a fit, apply. I hope to see you in an interview soon.

The Worst Start-Up, Ever!

Angel sheet is the worlds first fully-social, AI infused, machine learning toilet paper, on the blockchain.

Behold, Angel Sheet.

Angel Sheet is the worlds first fully-social, AI infused, machine learning toilet paper, on the blockchain. Yes, you heard me correctly.

You see, Angel Sheet does what no toilet paper has done before, optimizing its cleaning mission with artificial intelligence, learning your individual needs and improving with every use.

Best of all, it is on the blockchain; you can buy crypto tokens to securely keep track of your commode progress and only share it with your absolute best friends.

Best of all, Angel Sheet monetizes the back-end data, selling valuable water usage and disease vector data to hedge funds and medical research companies. This data value alone will enable the company to lower the cost to the consumer of the basic TP product close to zero.

Better yet, Angel Sheet will create an advertising marketplace for its basic product, infusing each sheet with paid images of the hottest trends, influencers, or political ads. Because it is fully connected to the Facebook API, it knows your preferences and adjusts automatically to your needs.

We estimate that everyone in the world will have to have it someday, it will replace all TP as we know it.  That means our potential market cap is somewhere between Amazon and Google.

Oh, and did I mention our seed round, pre-MVP valuation range is expected to be somewhere between $500 million and a cool billion. Conservatively.

Authors Note: I came up with this pitiful idea after reading a ton of excellent submissions to our recent accelerator class, interspersed with, well, some Angel Sheet. Enjoy.

3 Economic Rules Every Crypto Start Up Must Obey

There’s a ton of people infusing cryptocurrency and blockchain into traditional businesses and asset classes claiming to have some revolutionary breakthrough when, in fact, the business value proposition is nothing more than, well, bananas.

We see a lot of crypto start-up ideas that go something like this:

“We’d like to put bananas on the block chain and trade them with utility tokens. It will revolutionize produce sales globally. Our pre-money valuation for the seed round is 2 trillion dollars.”

I’ve taken some editorial license here, but you get the idea. There’s a ton of people infusing cryptocurrency and blockchain into traditional businesses and asset classes claiming to have some revolutionary breakthrough when, in fact, the business value proposition is nothing more than, well, bananas.

I thought I’d take the time to put down some basic “cryptonomic” rules to help would-be, block chain titans evaluate if their idea is gold or goop.  It all begins with Ronald Coase at the University of Chicago, Laureate for the 1991 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (yes, it does have a cool sounding official name).

In 1937 (yeah, it takes that long to win the Nobel prize), Coase wrote a paper called the Nature of the Firm that revealed the fact that transaction costs are almost always material and do shape economic transactions.  For example, if it takes too many clicks of the mouse to buy something online (a non-monetary transaction cost of your time), you’ll just go buy something on another website. Transaction costs, while not always monetary, affect our willingness to buy, sell, and engage in a market.

Why does this matter to crypto? Because what crypto and blockchain do, precisely, is reduce transaction costs for certain economic activities. For example, bitcoin makes it possible to transfer money between parties without fees, or oversight from your bank, government, etc. That transaction cost can be high (prison) if you’re a drug trafficker or engaging in some other illicit activity. That is why so much illegal activity is transacted using virtual currencies. They lower the transaction cost of the exchange sufficiently to justify the risk of volatility inherent in virtual currencies. I’m not advocating using virtual currency for illegal activity, I’m just saying that it happens for well-understood economic reason.

Overall, bitcoin is probably the lowest transaction cost method to transfer “money” securely to anyone, anywhere, for any reason, and at any time.

This leads us to crypto start up rule #1 – the use of crypto or blockchain must lower transaction costs for the economic activity it underwrites.

If you’re not actually making it easier to transact an economic activity using your business plan, then you’re not creating consumer surplus above traditional market activities and no one will adopt your platform after the initial hype wears off.

The second rule of crypto start ups is due to a government body that was created as an indirect result of Ronald Coase and his pioneering work on transaction costs: the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Some asset transactions require government oversight to even the playing field in public market transactions. This is because asymmetric information (when one party has inside information about the value of something) leads to fraudsters dumpling worthless assets on less-knowledgeable persons. If this insider trading was allowed, it would impose a major transaction cost on public markets from a fundamental lack of trust between two parties in any asset exchange.

To remedy this, the SEC regulates certain asset classes that are publicly traded to ensure that all information provided from insiders with non-public information about an asset, and have control over that asset, share that information with all market participants simultaneously and do not manipulate markets to their advantage. If you try to create an asset for public trade, and then benefit from trading it with inside information, you will go to jail.

This is rule #2: Don’t go to prison. Sounds simple, but for some crypto folks, this is a difficult idea to master. If you intend to create an exchange for your crypto tokens where they can be held, bought and sold, then you’re business should be regulated by the SEC and you need to hire a regulatory attorney who specializes in crypto assets and make sure that you’re idea is lawful with appropriate disclosures and oversight. This isn’t cheap to do, but going to prison is definitely more expensive.

Hmm, does that mean prison is a transaction cost of criminal activity?  You bet it is!

Now, on to rule number three.

Blockchain is a secure way to share information, plain and simple. If you want to use it for a business purpose, then by so doing it needs to be a transaction where securely sharing information on the blockchain lowers transaction costs sufficiently to act as an incentive to increase underlying economic activity . For example, putting banana information on the blockchain doesn’t really help a person buying them at their local Target store get better information in a manner that is more convenient than the sign at the store; however, securely transmitting point of agricultural origin data may be helpful to Target if they have to certify to their shoppers that the banana is organic and their sign is accurate.

To simplify, rule number three is that blockchain should only be used when it lowers transaction costs to securely share and maintain information critical to the underlying economic exchange.

Now, if you’re a crypto entrepreneur, you still have to abide by the basic rules of good startups (link shamelessly inserted if you missed it before). So don’t think that if you do merely these three things, you’re going to be the next Winklevoss twins and the living is easy. Getting any startup off the ground is still a knife fight in an alley with Andre the Giant and he has a gun (as we often say at Sputnik ATX).

These are just economic realities that any crypto start-up will ultimately have to face, so better to know up front and assess if your idea has merit before you push your life savings into the next banana-crypto debacle.

In summary:

Rule 1:  The use of crypto or blockchain must lower transaction costs for the economic activity it underwrites.

Rule 2:  Don’t go to prison, hire a regulatory attorney and obey the law.

Rule 3:  Blockchain should only be used when it lowers transaction costs to securely share and maintain information critical to the underlying economic exchange.

No go out and make Ronald Coase proud: start lowering those transaction costs crypto entrepreneurs!

 

The Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity

Want to be wealthier? Stop being a jerk-face to #women.

America has a multi-trillion dollar problem that just hit home for me. My daughter was sexually harassed by another student at school, and worse, the school didn’t protect her when they knew it was going on.

When examining why some economic agents like companies, churches and schools continue to protect sexual predators, I’ve come to realize that this problem is probably the single largest drag on the global economy (at least the largest I’ve ever seen) and that our legal system provides warped, perverse incentives that perpetuate this perversion.  The cost to our society of this broken system is staggering.  And yet society continues to look the other way to a situation that reminds me of the old story about the gardener and the rabbit. It goes something like this:

Once there was a gardener who woke up every morning to discover that a rabbit ate much of his crop the night before. He tried everything to get rid of it, but the clever rabbit eluded him night after night. Finally, in desperation, the gardener built a strong fence around his garden, even digging a portion underground, to keep the rabbit out. Supremely confident in his fine fence, he slept well that night, only to awake and discover that the rabbit ravaged his beautiful garden once again. He had fenced in the rabbit the day before.

Like the farmer, our tort laws regarding sexual harassment are fencing in the rabbit, and providing incentives to churches, schools and workplaces to protect harassers.

So, let’s look closer at the perverted incentives for schools, churches and companies (which I will call social agents). If a person commits sexual harassment, and if anyone at a social agent had any inkling that that person was a perv, then the social agent bears some liability for the perv’s actions since it was foreseeable that harassment would take place. However, social agents and individuals tend to want to see the best in people, so when perv’s do something pervy, we try to explain it as “we must have just misunderstood what he/she meant”. That is because we are nice.

Predators depend upon our kindness to do their dirty deeds. I’m not suggesting that we stop being nice, but I think how we respond to inappropriate behavior must change.

First, we need to speak up when boundaries are crossed and not care if we offend. If a man or woman in your office puts their hand on your back or shoulder, that is crossing the line. You don’t need to touch people to do most jobs, and should only do so when it is required as a part of your job description and, even then, minimize this as much as possible. There is no such thing as an OK sexual joke at the office (or at home for that matter). Grooming people by talking around the edges on mature subject matter is not subtle, it is blunt and we don’t like it. Stop doing it now. It’s time to grow up and start respecting people appropriately.

Second, in today’s Donald Trump school of management, tort laws provide cover to economic agents who pride themselves by saying that they are protecting innocent men from the wild accusations of an accuser when really, they are just protecting their bottom line. This encourages the victim blaming and cover-ups that we see in the news every freakin’ day. Current tort law “fences in the rabbit”, by providing companies legal incentives to align with predators to fight off harassment claims to avoid paying damages. Instead, we need to look at the REAL damages.

Social agents incorrectly assume that the biggest harassment cost they need to avoid is financial damage from lawsuits. This false belief encourages them to deny harassment claims and fend off harassment accusations with no thought to the emotional and personal cost to the victims. In fact, the far bigger expense is the economic loss of productivity and the broken lives of their employees, investors and customers due to their policies that fence in rabbits.

At the macroeconomic level, ranges of the GDP cost due to gender discrimination and harassment vary between 10% and 25%. Given that global GDP is around 78 trillion dollars, we’re talking about 8 to 20 trillion dollars in lost global income creation each year due to harassment and discrimination. In contrast, we fret about the billions of dollars we spend defending lawsuits from harassment. Our priorities are wrong.

Social agents only hedge these defensive costs with defensive expenditure: insurance coverage, harassment training for employees, lawsuit settlements and, if they’re super progressive, on-site counselors to help those affected by sexual harassment. However, I believe that the best defense is a good offense. Let’s do something to get the 20 trillion dollars, please.

I would like to call upon our elected officials to pass new tort laws to permit and encourage persons sexually harassed to work with social agents to pursue justice against sexual predators together. This can be done by permitting and encouraging churches, schools, and companies to sue their students and employees who harass, and recover damages commensurate with the social cost, the total social cost -not just the defensive expenses. It is time for pervs to pay up or smart up. In this way, social agents have an economic incentive to identify and root out sexual harassment because they will share the benefit of legal actions against those who harass. Harassers have an incentive to change their behavior, and the homes that foster future harassers have economic losses to incentivize them to change their ways.

What I hope you now understand is that sexual harassment is an economically expensive epidemic, and the emotional and psychological cost to our wives, daughters, and girlfriends is incalculably higher. So, let’s shift that expense to those who create it, and make it possible for our churches, schools and companies to recover damages from those who create the problems.

When groping results in the loss of your parents 401(k), maybe parents, clergy and managers will stop saying, “boys will be boys”, excusing Trumpian “locker room banter” and begin teaching proper respect for women. Furthermore, suing predators will become an effective way for social agents to capture the expenses they bear to treat harassment victims who often require special accommodation to cope with school and the PTSD or other problems harassment creates in their lives. Better yet, maybe my daughters will be able to live in a world where their contributions are valued by society and they can live without fear.

Furthermore, when we replace faux corporate hand-wringing and cringing with “ka-ching” whenever a crude joke is told in the office, and the offenders lose real money to their employers, people will stop telling crude jokes, putting inappropriate hands on backs, grooming victims and doing other macro-aggressions. No one is trying to stop appropriately asking out a coworker on a date, it just needs to be done the right way, don’t be a perv.

In short, it is time we make harassment the problem of the perpetrators, and enable our social institutions to go after them to the economic and emotional benefit of all. Enough is enough.

Is Your Start Up Idea Gold or Goop?

Is your business idea an undiscovered gem, or a flaming dumpster fire leading you to your doom. Here’s a quick rule to help.

A lot of entrepreneurs ask me to look at their business ideas since they know what I do for a living. Some are gold, some are meh, most are flaming dumpster fires. It stinks to tell people when their ideas are smoldering rubbish, so most VCs don’t and just politely decline or ignore bad business pitches. Although the full content of our upcoming accelerator/incubator, Sputnik ATX, is still in stealth mode, I’d like to share a quick rule you should apply to any business idea that you want to pursue. It is specific to answering the question:  will anyone buy this? A question that is obviously important to everyone except the tunnel-visioned entrepreneur who doesn’t value his equity.

So, would be entrepreneurs, let’s take off our blinders and have an honest conversation about your product and service, and more specifically, the benefit it provides.

I’m hoping you already read my post about consumer surplus. If not, read this first. I’m going to use a lot of those terms here. Because if you’re going to get someone to buy your stuff, you had better generate a ton of consumer surplus first.  Assuming that your idea and business plan can generate value (consumer surplus), you still may have a lot of trouble finding people who want to buy it because the switching cost still exceeds the marginal benefit.  Say what?

Switching costs are what economists call any expense related to stopping the use of one product and service, and beginning to use another. Switching costs may include disposal fees for the old junk, training for new stuff, hardware upgrades, software patches, the time it takes to buy/train/learn the new item, and pretty much anything else associated with the new thing to consume or use. Sometimes these can be quite high.

For example, why do we all keep using Facebook when there are surely other social platforms out there? Because the switching cost includes getting all our friends to switch to the new platform (good luck with that) and also includes information loss when we miss out on posts from our friends still on Facebook or they miss out on ours since we now use some loser platform they’ve never heard of. That switching cost is sufficiently high enough that we don’t switch to Loserbook.

But what if switching has a lot of advantages?  The advantages of switching are called the marginal benefit. This is the increase in value we get from switching to a different product or service. For example, if you stop eating at Chipotle and start eating at Qdoba, you get the marginal benefit of free guac at Qdoba (yes, you read that correctly). You also get the added option of queso at Qdoba, and hey, who doesn’t like queso!  While this is a good place to add another marginal benefit, not playing the intestinal fortitude lottery at Chipotle, I’m going to restrain myself. Suffice to say that there are some serious marginal benefits of eating at Qdoba versus Chipotle.

Now, if you want to create a new company and provide a new service, you need to provide your consumers a product where the marginal benefits exceed the switching costs in a manner that is obvious and as big as possible.  The larger the cap between benefit and cost here, will greatly influence how quickly people will make decisions to consume your new product/service.

One of the worst products to do this, of all time in my opinion, was the Apple Newton. I can pick on Apple, because they’ve made a lot of smart product launches where marginal benefit kicked the life out of the switching cost, but not on this one (thank you John Scully, I couldn’t have written this without you). Newton was a stinker. For those unfamiliar with it, Newton was a hand-held device that kept digital notes for you. That’s it. You wrote on it, it recognized the handwriting if you used its funky letter system and it converted your writing to digital text. It was also expensive.  It cost $699 when launched back in 1993.  That is roughly several gazillion dollars today (in Zimbabwe).

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that $700 is a lot to pay for a notepad that only recognizes its own weird version of shorthand. The Newton made you pay an awful switching cost for something that you already had in a simpler, easy to use format and could buy for fifty cents at Walmart. So what happened? People kept buying notebooks that worked great, and the Newton died.

Remember how the Segway was going to revolutionize foot traffic?  Yep, switching cost exceeding marginal benefit.  There are more. Microsoft Bob?  You betcha! Google Glass?  Check! The idea graveyard is littered with expensive examples of how brilliant people created incredibly complex and expensive solutions to problems with little benefit beyond what the market currently provided.

Now, Steve Jobs returned to Apple (hurrah) and we got the iPad. It could still be used to jot stuff down, but it also pretty much ran the whole universe. The increased benefit of zillions of apps, made the switching cost paltry compared to the massive benefit provided and, viola! People buy them up the wazoo.

So, if you want to avoid betting your life savings, and that of your investors (me) on something that will never catch on, please do some product soul-searching to see if the benefit your start-up provides is sufficient to cover the cost to customers when they switch. Remember, marginal benefit must massively exceed the switching cost -iPad, not Newton. Of course, you still have to do a lot of other things right to succeed, but this is a biggie so get it right.