Embrace the Future: Meet Your AI Teammates

Sketch graphic of the 5As of Cognition as a Service (woman with robot at a computer)

AI may not be coming for your job anytime soon, but it surely is coming to work alongside you.

Introducing your new teammates: Devin, the AI software engineer; Hippocratic, the AI healthcare worker; Outreach Kaia, the AI sales assistant; Evenup, the AI legal assistant; and Hawkeye, the AI ITOps engineer (founded by Goutham Rao and Vinod Jayaraman of NeuBird, a team of Mayfield repeat founders who debuted with $22 million in funding today).

Reflecting on conversations with 100s of entrepreneurs, we’re witnessing a shift from Automation to Augmentation. Artificial intelligence isn’t about replacing humans; it’s about augmenting intelligence. In this new era, AI liberates us to forge new relationships and adopt innovative behaviors.

Despite fears of AI replacing humans, I recall the discussion about offshoring two decades ago as the lead investor in Persistent Systems, India’s product engineering offshoring giant today. Then, as now, there were concerns about the impact of technology on humans. However, unlike the offshoring wave, I firmly believe AI teammates will not only boost productivity but also enhance, amplify, and elevate human capabilities.

Take Hawkeye, unveiled today by NeuBird. For example, an e-commerce company may notice that its website is performing poorly at populating shopping cart suggestions. Traditionally, this would require assembling a cross-functional team involving IT, web developers, and data analysts to investigate the issue, a process that can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. Using NeuBird, the same company can simply ask, “Why is my website running slow?” and “How can I resolve that?” NeuBird’s Hawkeye will diagnose the issue, contextualize potential reasons for the problem, share steps needed to resolve it, and even write code to fix the issue. This frees ITOps engineers to assist more customers and tackle complex issues, showcasing the power of AI-human collaboration.

Welcome to the Era of AI Teammates. Together with humans, they automate tasks, accelerate productivity, augment capabilities, and amplify creativity, advancing humans to superhuman levels.

Fund/Build/Scale: Understanding Privacy and Compliance (Transcript)

Here is the transcript (edited for space and clarity) of the conversation between Fund/Build/Scale podcast host Walter Thompson and Laura Bisesto, global head of policy and privacy at Nextdoor.

Laura Bisesto  00:00

I think the person who’s developing the product should have a conversation with their fellow colleagues about different issues, that the product may raise different risks. And that’s — you know, in itself AI ethics — you don’t have to be an ethicist to start an AI ethics program. I think anyone who’s developing a product in this space should consider a way to measure its impact, or at least talk about it.

Walter Thompson  00:30

That’s Laura Bisesto, global head of policy and privacy at Nextdoor. I interviewed her in January 2024 at her company’s San Francisco headquarters to get her thoughts about the regulatory landscape facing AI startups. We talked about compliance, how small teams can build frameworks for managing data and privacy, how to recognize when you need to hire a lawyer, and the overall importance of planning for worst case scenarios. She also had some advice for rolling out new AI-powered features, and navigating a patchwork of state, federal and international laws. I’m Walter Thompson. Welcome to Fund/Build/Scale. 

Laura, thanks very much for being here today. I appreciate it.

Laura Bisesto  01:32

Thanks so much, Walter, for having me. I’m really happy to be here.

Walter Thompson  01:35

So your title is, exactly?

Laura Bisesto  01:39

I am the global head of policy and privacy and regulatory compliance at Nextdoor. I am a former prosecutor and I came here to start our policy program, which includes working with governments around the world, developing our own internal content policies, as well as managing our privacy and regulatory legal work. And, and all of that with AI. There’s a big through line, it covers all those surfaces. And so recently, I started our AI ethics committee as well.

Walter Thompson  02:04

I wanted to talk about a lot of very basic issues that early-stage AI founders are gonna face, but kind of starting off first with building an AI ethics framework. I guess the first question I would say is, if we’re talking about a small team of people, largely technologists, whose job it is to get the ball rolling for creating this ethics framework, who does that? Who owns it?

Laura Bisesto  02:27

I don’t think it necessarily needs to be a lawyer or policymaker’s job, I think the person who’s developing the product should have a conversation with their fellow colleagues about different issues that the product may raise, different risks. And that’s, you know, in itself AI ethics, you don’t have to be an emphasis to start an AI ethics program, I think anyone who’s developing a product in this space should consider a way to measure its impact, or at least talk about it. And we’ll call it the red team, some places just sit in a room and talk about some of the bad things that could go wrong and, and how to mitigate against them, and maybe write them down or write down potential solutions as you think through them.

Walter Thompson  03:08

So I’ve worked in a number of startups myself, worked on things like community management and content, where it was my job to come up with a Terms of Use document, is an ethics framework  something you can templatize? Can I take somebody else’s AI framework and kind of adapt to make it my own? Or do I need to start from scratch to really reflect my own problems and challenges?

Laura Bisesto  03:27

You can definitely start with other people’s. At Nextdoor, we developed an AI framework based on the White House’s blueprint, as well as the UK’s white paper. As we were looking to develop it, we took inspiration from other sources, there’s no reason to reinvent the wheel here. I mean, there’s really, you know, some different options in terms of how you want to protect users, protect consumers, or how your product will work and thinking about the different risks, and there’s just a suite of different principles, you could work for your business, for sure.

Walter Thompson  04:03

Actually, going back to that, recognizing when you actually need a lawyer. I know a lot of startups get along early on the kind of a fractional counsel approach, but a four-person team who’s just kind of getting started at the seed stage. When should they start thinking about, “when do we need a lawyer?”

Laura Bisesto  04:19

Yeah, and they don’t have to hire a general counsel, per se. I mean, if you’re thinking about complying with regulations, or just getting ahead of policy or ethics, I mean, there’s a lot of people that can do that work, they could be on your board, for example, and help give advice there for you know, a different a different setup. You know, traditionally you might have waited till person 100 to make a move, but nowadays, given the regulatory framework you’re seeing around the world in terms of AI, it’s no longer the environment where you can just launch, and eventually it’ll catch up with the rules and laws. It really will pay off to get ahead of it in advance. So when there are 10 people or when you reach a certain threshold of user data, it might be a good idea to start thinking about bringing someone on board at least on your board or asking your investors or outside counsel for advice. And you know, frankly, if you’ve got this incredible product, you may want to really be on top of the policy and the regulations. Because you, you know, maybe there’s actually even a story to tell to make sure you don’t have a competitive disadvantage when it comes to regulatory making that we’re seeing around the world.

Walter Thompson  05:33

Are there situations where the thing you’re making you’re working on kind of raises or reduces your need for legal assistance in-house? For example, if you’re working in something health or fintech-related or you’re collecting a lot of personal information or data on people?

Laura Bisesto  05:48

Yeah, absolutely. If you’re collecting personal data, there’s tons of new privacy laws that are passing around the US. I mean, we’re talking in the tens to twenties to 20s site that will go down because there’s just not that many states over the next few years. But there’s a real patchwork of regulations. When it comes to consumer data, there’s the general data protection regime in Europe GDPR, and the UK has its own and other countries have that as well. I think if you’re working in employment, if you’re creating a product for employment purposes, that’s a pretty sensitive area of FinTech as you as you mentioned, also any in biometrics, if you’re working with with that type of, of user, or personal data, or healthcare for that matter. There’s just different, those things can be pretty risky.

Walter Thompson  06:34

So let’s say a small team, they’re working today, they’re spinning up. They’re not in the market yet, but they’re doing customer discovery, and they’re talking to people. How do they fully understand let’s say, like, in talking to customers, if I was doing like, you know, I’m, I’m trying to spin up a veterinary services startup, I’m talking to vets and people who do health care, it’s that kind of thing. Pet Health Care. How do I come up with a checklist? Am I talking to industry experts? 

Laura Bisesto  06:59

Yeah, I think it’s a good idea to reach out to experts if you can. But there’s also a number of public resources. As I said, the White House blueprint for AI is really, really helpful. The AI Bill of Rights is what it’s called, also, the UK government’s pro innovation approach to AI regulations, they have just a number of ideas in there that could help you come up with different opportunities. Even on Nextdoor, I’ll give a plug for next door, we have publicly listed our principles for deployment of generative AI. I mean, those are just different resources that are available online to give you ideas about what might matter to regulators, but also your customers. And then of course, investors as well who want to know that you’re thinking about this and that you’re not going to have huge costs down the line.

Walter Thompson  07:43

I know you’re a very skilled attorney, but you didn’t create your GAI principles out of whole cloth. You had a team of people, I presume?

Laura Bisesto  07:51

Yes, I did. I had some folks. And we and most importantly, you have technologists and you have product people, you don’t want a roomful of lawyers creating these policies, you really do want it to come from the people that are building the product. So you want to bring everyone together and really talk through what you need, what you can commit to, how can you, you know, manage privacy, make sure there’s transparency, and that all is built into a product. And we absolutely use the White House’s blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights as inspiration as well as the UK’s work to help us come up with ours. And then also make sure it’s something we can commit to as well.

Walter Thompson  08:27

Have you rolled out these principles to Nextdoor’s users?

Laura Bisesto  08:33

Yes, we absolutely did at Nextdoor, one of our main values is to make sure we have users’ trust. And so we’ve launched several generative AI features. You can have your content rewritten if you’d like by what we call an assistant. And you can also have your content edited. And when we rolled that out, we also launched our principles. At the same time, our public commitment to making sure that users understand how their data is being used with generative AI as well as that there’s transparency that they know they’re interacting with generative by just some of those things are strong examples. And also, before we launched the product, we went through a series of tests to make sure that it wasn’t going to give a sub optimal experience to users. And we talked through risks, which really at the size of our company, we also have an advisory board that we can talk to about these issues to make sure that the experience is good for users. So really building that out

Walter Thompson

A user advisory board?

Laura Bisesto

This one is an advisory board of social scientists and academics that help us think through some of the issues. But we also created a way for users to give feedback. For example, on Nextdoor when neighbors are providing comments or feedback, you know, there’s different language or tones in different communities and we wanted to make sure that it sounded like the neighbors who were speaking — not too formal, very conversational, that sort of thing. So we actually created a way to get feedback from users as well

Walter Thompson  10:03

Who looks it over before it rolls out? And who decides this is safe to roll out?

Laura Bisesto  10:08

The product manager should really oversee a lot of that risk management. And I think the most important thing is that, before you launch a product, you get in a room and you talk about the bad things that could happen with the product, like just talk about it, it doesn’t have to be this perfectly organized, lawyer led meeting, it can just be like, let’s just talk about worst case scenarios here. And, and talk about because nobody’s thinking about that when they’re building a product. They’re thinking about all these incredible things that we’ll do, and I’m sure it will. But let’s talk about the risks and the things that could go wrong. And, you know, just just doing that is simply a good step. But also being aware if you’re launching a product that is, you know, taking a bunch of user data and doing something with it that maybe users wouldn’t expect you to do. And you should also be aware of the regulations and rules around using private private users data and the risks you’re going to engage in. So there’s different, it just depends on what you’re doing. But at the very least, for anything you should get in the room and talk about where things could go wrong.

____________

Walter Thompson

How would you describe today the regulatory environment for AI startups operating in the US and in Europe?

Laura Bisesto  12:25

The regulatory environment is evolving. Absolutely. I think AI will remain a top priority for governments around the world for the foreseeable future, at least the next five years. And I think there’s an urgency from policymakers to get it right. I think there’s a sense that they haven’t been able to regulate as well around competition or liability content, moderation and content liability. There’s been concerns about that. And I think there’s a real desire to get it right. So there’s real attention and priority. I think the problem is, is what you’re going to see is that you’re going to have a patchwork of regulations, which is really not the reality of how your business will operate. You don’t intend to have a different operating model in different US states, for example. So I think what you’re going to see is, you know, a ton of action, but it depends, it remains to be seen where the actual legislation will come into play. I mean, you’ve recently seen that the European Union passed its AI act in December, the language won’t even be out for another month or so. And really will have a risk-based approach to how it starts going into effect, starting with the most riskiest uses of AI as the law classifies them. And then you’re probably going to see next a ton of US states introducing legislation, and it’ll remain obscene, what what’s going to pass in Congress, tons of hearings, tons of talk, I think, being aware of politics at play is important and to be able to make an educated guess as to whether things will move forward.

Walter Thompson  14:02

I’m guessing most of these companies are going to be based in California, at least to start. So does this mean that similar to the way that manufacturers are selling cars all over the country, but you want to make sure that they’re emission-proofed for California? Is this going to be the same thing for AI startups where they’re basically you’re in Columbus, Ohio, but you have to be compliant with California and the EU?

Laura Bisesto  14:23

California definitely wants it to be that way. I’ve been to EU events here around the AI Act in the San Francisco Bay Area and I’ve seen California legislators there seeking inspiration. There’s a number of pieces of legislation that are pre filed, that you can already see California’s leadership in action in that space. So I think that there’s definitely you can expect to have some laws to follow. I mean, at the very, very least you’ve got California’s data privacy law, and that really, if you use personal data that will come into play pretty quickly and a number of other states have followed suit, but California led the way there. And I think we can expect that with AI as well.

Walter Thompson  15:04

Getting into the Biden administration’s executive order that was issued in October of 2023. Is that correct?

Laura Bisesto  15:10

Yes, it was, I believe it was the very end of October, maybe October 30. So if I recall correctly.

Walter Thompson  15:18

Back of the napkin, what are the big points here, basically?

Laura Bisesto  15:22

Yeah. The Biden executive order really is dealing with eight core issue areas. And this is to be a leader in the world in terms of AI governance. I mean, this was announced before the EU passed its AI act before the UK’s safety Summit. I mean, this was leading the way. And it talks about eight issues, including testing and evaluation, competition, workforce and impacts, equity and civil rights, consumer protection, privacy, strengthening AI expertise, and government and global leadership. And a lot of the work it’s seeking is seeking its agencies, the federal agencies, to put forth rules and regulations around some of these issues. 

Walter Thompson  16:08

But Washington doesn’t move quickly.

Laura Bisesto  16:12

And no, no, no, no. And so I mean, some of these some of the things like for example, AI frameworks for NIST, that would deal with risk management issues. 

Walter Thompson

Sorry, NIST is?

Laura Bisesto

NIST is the National Institutes of Standards and Technology that has to do with cybersecurity. And it’s part of the Department of Commerce, their regulations, they’ve been instructed within 270 days to develop regulations and resources, and a new secure software development framework. And they have to create guidance and benchmarks for auditing and evaluation. Now, they’ve been told they have 270 days. But there’s there’s other issues like privacy. I mean, the White House urges Congress to pass bipartisan privacy legislation, given how AI can link together different forms of personal data. And I think that that’s, you know, less realistic that a bipartisan privacy agreement will pass in Congress at this point. So there’s different parts to the executive order, but none of it has an immediate impact, I’d say.

Walter Thompson  17:27

So if I asked you how this will be monitored and enforced, there’s no real answer at this point.

Laura Bisesto  17:33

But no, it’s totally spread out among different federal agencies. They did invoke the Defense Production Act to compel certain AI companies to share results of red team exercises with the government ahead of launch depending on what you’re developing and how sensitive it is. But the Commerce Department is supposed to help stand up standards for red teaming, and inform what has to be shared. So there’s a lot and they want to, you know, get into gene synthesis, screening standards, cyber issues, just AI with critical infrastructure is a huge concern. So there’s just a variety of issues, including labor as well, and how it will impact the workforce, but not clear cut by any means, at this point, just a really general statement of leadership.

Walter Thompson  18:18

So given that this is this new regulatory environment is still murky. I mean, that’s the best word I can use at this point. What do early-stage AI founders need to do today to set themselves up for future compliance?

Laura Bisesto  18:32

Right, that I think the best thing to do is be mindful of, first of all, the privacy laws, the consumer data privacy laws out there, that’s number one. Those laws really deal with a lot of some of the issues people are concerned about with AI when it comes to user data. If your product is using consumer data, that’s definitely something that’s concrete that you can look to. But you really need to try to follow along the best you can see if there’s someone you can get on your board that follows along politics doesn’t need to necessarily be your general counsel, as I said before, outside counsel, have someone that’s worked in emerging technology before or worked in DC worked in the political space and can really read the tea leaves and understand where where laws might pass or not pass. But I’d say, if you’re working with consumer data, figuring out the privacy laws is like a great first step in building that into your product as you design it, rather than waiting till later. And also just understanding that risk, as I said, doing an impact assessment and understanding where the risk areas are, then you will at least have a concrete understanding of the issues. When the regulations come up. You’ll say, hey, that one probably would apply to us because we’ve got that risk. And you’ll have that understanding of what’s going on for you.

Walter Thompson  19:49

Like, the government’s plans for model evaluation tools and testbeds. Like, what even is that?

Laura Bisesto  19:58

I think it will remain to be seen, it’ll probably start as voluntary. I mean, you’ve seen people who are voluntarily joining some of the commitments that the White House has asked companies to join in terms of AI programming, but it’ll probably be in partnership with some of these federal agencies, you know, the US wants to be a leader here. And so they’re going to want partners to help facilitate leadership and make sure the technology stays on shore and or advances onshore for sure. So there’s definitely an opportunity to work with the government, which is more foreign in the US, it’s not as typical as… other places where you might have a closer relationship with regulators, like in the EU or UK. But I think there’s definitely opportunity, especially if you have a unique product that, you know, implicates national security or could be useful. I mean, that’s another reason to pay attention to the regulations. And what’s happening, you may have something interesting to say, that could get you an advantage competitively in regulations, which is equally exciting and good for your business, and I think would definitely appeal to investors.

Walter Thompson  21:05

Based on what I’ve been reading, the Commerce Department is basically expected to weigh in on things like foundation models, and I’ve watched some of these congressional hearings where these senators and congresspersons talk about — they ask questions that really belie their lack of understanding of this technology. And that’s different from the Commerce Department, but from your perspective, is there a deep enough bench of talent in the federal government to actually regulate this meaningfully and effectively?

Laura Bisesto  21:31

I think there needs to be a solid partnership with the private sector here in the US. The Department of Commerce has had great success advocating for US interests abroad, even in the tech space. And I know they’re tasked now with AI labeling and ultimately issuing guidance on identifying general AI generated synthetic content. And including authenticating official US government digital content, like there’s some real national security issues there, no doubt that they will find the way to figure out the best path forward. And there’s definitely the opportunity for private partnerships, particularly if you have a product that you think would be helpful in this space, I think there’s probably that opportunity to, to work with the government. And also, if you want to see a certain type of regulation, that is the way you do your business, you’d also benefit for potentially sharing that as well. So I think there’s opportunities and you shouldn’t shy away from sharing them if you think you have a solution for what the government is trying to achieve. This is what I would say I think people are scared of necessarily working with the government. But there’s definitely a lot of opportunity there. Especially if you have a way of doing things and you want to preserve that way. That’s it’s not a bad idea to share how you do it.

Walter Thompson  22:55

So something just occurred to me. A lot of teams are distributed. So what does that mean, as far as clients and liability, you’ve got data, you’re sharing customer data with someone who’s in Bratislava, they may not be under the same regulations that you’re under, how do you keep everything tight and zipped up? You

Laura Bisesto  23:13

depending on the type of data you’re sharing across countries, there’s different rules that apply. Of course, if you have an employment agreement with someone, you want to make sure that that’s sufficient that they’re, you know, you’re willing to enforce that agreement, you’re able to enforce that agreement. But if you’re sharing data of consumers across countries, you want to make sure you’re following different rules. For example, the European Union has very strict rules for transferring their users’ data to the US and you have to have a certificate from the Department of Commerce, it’s a new one that they’ve just come up with. Or you have to have previously, you could have done it contractually. But there are different rules for sharing user data across countries. And it is useful to be aware of that, depending on what your objectives are, including sharing the data, just with employees, just sharing it across continents is really important to be aware of those issues, too.

Walter Thompson  24:09

I’ve kept the conversation largely positive and somewhat aspirational. Let’s talk about where things go wrong. And the last bit here, I know you’re here at Nextdoor, so things are pretty steady. No surprises, I’m sure. But in the world of smaller scale startups, you’re seeing, what are some of the most common mistakes that you perceive AI founders making with regard to privacy, compliance, trust and safety?

Laura Bisesto  24:33

Yeah, I think it’s the “it can’t happen to me” or just refusing to look at the risks and the bad things that could happen. I mean, cyber is an obvious place that I think everyone can conceptualize not securing personal data of users, or just thinking, hey, you know, the user told us we could use the data for this reason, but we’ll use it for another reason and getting hooked on that kind of lack of transparency and trickery is strong word but essentially Really, it may be perceived as trickery. So just be pretty careful and cautious when it comes to personal user data for sure. And also just really thinking about the risks and how things could go wrong. I mean, you know, we have an election coming up here in the US, there’s elections all over the world this year, I think it’s one of the biggest election years ever. And so there is a lot of a lot at play, and a lot at stake, depending on what your product can do. So it’s good to think about that. And, yeah, just just just think of the bad things along with the good things, even if that’s not the way you often think, it’s important that you do so here. Again, these mistakes can be expensive, and you can get hooked on them too, because they may cut corners, but in the long run, they’ll be really costly. And it’ll be such a pain to go back and make huge changes.

Walter Thompson  25:53

It’s always good to be virtuous. But is it fair to say that mitigating your risk early makes you a better bet for investors?

Laura Bisesto  25:59

Absolutely. I think, you know, you can say that you’ve thought about these things that you’ve you know, you could even say, you know, you took a look at these AI regulations, you’ve, you know, you believe the tea leaves are going this direction, you think it’s really just going to be a privacy thing, maybe. And you’re just you’re going to focus on that. I think that all just shows you’re looking ahead. And you can even say we won’t have to spend this money in the future to go back and re-engineer. We’ve got these, these consumers and our customers like this as well, so that a lot of customers, especially big B2B Customers want to make sure you’re following different rules. A lot of contractual terms ask that as well. So it’s important to be able to say that

Walter Thompson  26:38

Last question: would it be crazy if you have a 10-slide pitch deck, should one of the slides be about privacy and compliance?

Laura Bisesto  26:45

Absolutely. And considering I think that would be a brilliant idea. And you can talk about how trust is something you’ve been doing since the beginning. And, you know, being, you know, trustworthy and thinking about risk and making sure that you’re with all the things going around with their regulations, making sure you’re staying on top of them. And you know, what’s happening? I don’t think that would be unreasonable at all. And, and you can say that, you know, customers want that, especially your big target enterprise. Customers want that, and it’ll pay off in the long run.

Walter Thompson  27:18

Awesome, Laura. Thanks very much for the time, it’s been a great conversation. I appreciate it.

Laura Bisesto  27:22

Thanks so much, Walter. I appreciate it.

Walter Thompson  27:27

Thanks again to Laura Bisesto of Nextdoor for today’s conversation. On the next episode: coming up with an idea for an AI-powered startup is actually pretty easy, but how do you translate your personal vision into something that’s tangible enough to attract a co-founder investors and eventually paying customers? To find out, I interviewed May Habib, co-founder and CEO of Writer, and Gaurav Mitra, co-founder and CEO of Captions. We talked about building a founding team that aligns with your values, how they validated their ideas before bringing them to market, and how to successfully pivot with the support of your investors and your team if or when you need to. May and Gaurav also spoke frankly about the challenges they both needed to overcome after stepping into leadership roles. I really think this episode’s gonna be useful for anyone who’s trying to hone their storytelling skills, connect with investors, or even become a better marketer. If you’ve listened this far, I hope you got something out of the conversation. Subscribe to Fund/Build/Scale so you’ll automatically get future episodes, and consider leaving a review. For now you can find the FBS newsletter on Substack and check out the new YouTube channel with audio of every episode. The show theme was written and performed by Michael Tritter and Carlos Chairez. Michael also edited the podcast and provided additional music. Thanks very much for listening.

Fund/Build/Scale: Breaking in to Enterprise Sales (Transcript)

Here is the transcript (edited for space and clarity) of the conversation between Fund/Build/Scale podcast host Walter Thompson, Maria Latushkin, GVP of Technology and Engineering at Albertsons, and Jack Berkowitz, Chief Data Officer at Securiti.

Maria Latushkin  00:04

If you hit it right, the rewards are plentiful. You get to innovate, you get to figure out the roadmap together. There’s a lot of goodness in this. But you have to put in a lot of energy as an enterprise in order to make sure as you see it through. And so there will always be a very limited number of early stage startups that we would feel we can afford to engage with.

Walter Thompson  00:27

That’s Maria Latushkin, GVP of Technology and Engineering at Albertsons, the second-largest grocery chain in America. I interviewed her and Jack Berkowitz, Chief Data Officer at Securiti, to get an insider’s perspective on how enterprise-level customers buy software and services from early-stage AI startups. The most surprising thing I learned came early in the chat: spinning up a pilot program or a partnership with a startup creates tangible risks for enterprise customers, which means they can only afford to work with a few of them at a time.

Jack Berkowitz  00:57

Because at the end of the day, we only had so much energy. And so we would balance between established companies, and three startups maybe an actual execution. Maybe we were having discussions with others, it was probably two or three at any one time.

Walter Thompson  01:14

Maria and Jack each have experience working inside early stage startups., but their time working as C-level execs at public companies gives them a unique perspective on breaking into enterprise sales. In this episode, we’ll talk about sales strategies, navigating the procurement process, how to run a proof of concept or pilot program and other essential topics. I’m Walter Thompson. This is Fund/Build/Scale. More after this.

Walter Thompson  01:47

Fund/Build/Scale is sponsored by Mayfield, the early-stage venture capital firm that takes a people-first approach to helping founders build iconic companies. The podcast is also sponsored by Securiti, pioneer of the data command center, a centralized platform that enables the safe use of data and Gen AI.

Walter Thompson  02:12

If you could just both say, Jack starting with you, approximately how many vendors do you work with each year that are early-stage startups?

Jack Berkowitz  02:20

It’s a great question. Um, you know, in my last role where we were really encouraging startups to come because we were interested in the latest things in AI and ML, even then we were sort of limited, we probably only had three at any one time coming through the system. Because at the end of the day, we only had so much energy. And so we would balance between established companies and three startups, maybe an actual execution, maybe we’re having discussions with others, but it’s probably two or three at any one time.

Maria Latushkin  03:00

Same here. And the reason being is, whether you are like right now I work for a public company, real large public company, but even when I wasn’t working for a large public company, there’s a lot of responsibility you take on as a buyer, and you want to make sure that you do that well. So there’s a lot of energy, as Jack says, that needs to be put in, in shepherding a very early-stage company, there’s the rewards, if you hit it, right, the rewards are plentiful, you get to innovate, you get to figure out the roadmap together, there’s a lot of goodness in this. But you have to put in a lot of energy as an enterprise in order to make sure that you see it through. And so there would always be a very limited number of startups that early stage startups that we would feel we can afford to engage with.

Walter Thompson  03:53

I mean, it sounds kind of like a partnership, not just a customer-client relationship.

Maria Latushkin  03:58

It truly is. It truly is.

Jack Berkowitz  04:03

I’m sorry. Well, I was just gonna say it’s a two way partnership in a sens  because the startup wants to fail fast. And unfortunately for the executive for the team, failing fast on the enterprise side is probably not the best outcome.

Walter Thompson  04:23

How often are you someone’s first customer?

Maria Latushkin  04:28

Not in the company I’m at right now. Previously, we have been first customers, small companies I was at. And there’s a lot that goes into ensuring that you are safe, first customer and some of the things that you really have to think about and that would be important for the startup to be able to have answers to is how much risk do they introduce. For the person, depending on what it is that they’re developing for the person that is a buyer or the person that is piloting, how easy or difficult is it to integrate with the company, because the more you have to put in upfront, knowing that you’re the first customer, and it’s really more of an unknown situation, you want to make this a smaller decision for the person that is partnering with you. And so, the looser the integration, the less kind of upstart effort it requires, the better the company that being able to demonstrate that the risk is going to be mitigated, there isn’t ever a zero risk, but like to the extent that you can look under the covers, and see how they would help you mitigate the risk, that would be the important parts for us to consider,

Jack Berkowitz  05:52

Yeah, my last role, it was at a Fortune 250 company. We were never the first customer, never; it just wouldn’t hit our profile to be able to even deal with our procurement group and the insurance and the financing needed. What I would say, though, is when I was in smaller companies, five, six hundred-person companies, then yeah, we were happy to be the first customer because we had flexibility to be able to do it as well. And, you know, the notion for me buying at, or partnering at the Fortune 250 company is, “we’ll tell you what, who do you have already?” So if you got 10 or 15, then I’m comfortable, right? So 10 or 15, mid, mid-sized enterprises, before you go to, you know, one of the biggest companies in the world.

Maria Latushkin  06:45

It’s my advice, having been in small startups, my advice to startups would be not to target these really, really large companies, because the amount of overhead a companies that are large, established companies will present this startup out of necessity, not on purpose, but they have to do certain things. And they have to be able to guarantee certain things for their executive team for the shareholders may become too much overhead and may not actually be good at the end of it good for the company. So maybe taking careful who you want to target as your first customers or first pilot is actually really important. Yeah, when the company is quote unquote, smaller, you buy all of the needs that it would have.

Jack Berkowitz  07:33

Yeah, I was just thinking exactly the same thing, Maria. The killer whale hunting, you don’t want the whale to pull you under?

Maria Latushkin  07:41

Yeah. Yeah.

Walter Thompson  07:43

That’s a great analogy. I mean, yeah, that’s a great analogy, because everybody wants to land the whale. I’m getting all this Moby Dick imagery in my head, certainly. So what are some of the consequences? It sounds like you’re saying, you know, an enterprise customer can literally make or break your business, so what does it look like when things go bad? What are some of the consequences for you as a client, as a customer? If things don’t go well, if this partnership isn’t paying off, doesn’t bear fruit? What are you worried about going wrong?

Maria Latushkin  08:13

There’s a multitude of things. I mean, I’m not gonna go into the doomsday scenario, but I’ll just, you know, even on the surface some of the things would be — I mentioned risk, right? Depending on the type of the solution, depending on the partnership, managing risk is an important thing, is that something that can be introduced? Whether that’s vulnerabilities or it’s some other risks to your company that you have to think about? That’s one. Another one is the company’s solvency. If you have a business case, and presumably you were counting on something as a company that this partner will deliver in the case that they are not, what happens to that function, what happens to that need that you have as a customer? That is another thing that we always think about scale. If your pilot goes well, and then you’re trying to scale it to your whole operation, is that something that is going to work? Will they be able to scale with you both in terms of, you know, traffic volume, all of that, as well as maybe geographical needs, like other elements that scale introduces with it? Will they be able to continue to be a partner, or you will your crush them with your needs, like that’s also something that is very important, both for the company because the company doesn’t want to be crushed, and for the buyer, because the buyer also wants to make sure that that, you know, we’re able to deliver with a solution that we’re recommending,

Jack Berkowitz  09:50

And that can come into play, even if it’s a successful pilot. So you run a pilot, you run a POC, and you’re ready to go and suddenly, as a buyer, you’re having to fund the company? Or find people to fund the company. And so it really is a dance as you move forward to make sure that the company is stable and able to grow with the big enterprise. And we had that recently where, you know, thankfully, we were able to help one company get some additional funding. But, you know, in this environment right now, it was an interesting set of discussions, if you can imagine.

Walter Thompson  10:30

But there must have been some clear benefit for you at the other end, if you’re willing to extend yourself that far, I’m imagining,

Jack Berkowitz  10:35

Yeah, yeah, this system worked better than anything that we had seen and fit into our architectural approach. So it was worth it, for us to extend and stretch further than we normally would. Because of the benefit on the other side, for sure.

Walter Thompson  10:55

Jack, in our pre-interview, you said something that stuck in my head, I asked you when is it too early to talk to an enterprise customer? And you said, you know, well, you know, we can be brutal, as far as, you know, data and compliance in our systems and volumes. But you tempered that by saying, “you can talk to us, but don’t sell to us.” So what does that look like — someone’s trying to figure out how to talk to you, how to sell to you, but they’re not ready to do that yet? How do you want to experience customer discovery from your side of the desk?

Jack Berkowitz  11:21

So I’ve been thinking a little bit about this, you know, at the end of the day, my role level and Maria’s level work selling right now. I mean, we’re, that’s part of our job is to sell, right. But we don’t sell by going in and giving a 20-page PowerPoint pitch, we’re pushing and pushing and pushing, we’re selling through influence, selling through the ideas being there. So the conversation is really about the ideas. It’s much more important to us as a big enterprise dealing with a startup, what’s your long term vision? What do you actually see — I don’t care about your vision for making money or the fact that you’re gonna go work remotely, that doesn’t matter to me. But where do you see the technology space evolving? How do you see things evolving? Where are you going to play if things change in a different way? So really, I’m looking for that same discussion I might have with one of my peers, with my boss, with somebody in the business that I happen to be in, or in the technology business technology area that I’m in that conversation, that helps me understand the product. But if you come in with a list of features, and why you’re better than some other company, and then what you don’t do, I didn’t know you didn’t do that. And I don’t even know that other company. It’s more about for me, understanding where you’re headed and how you fit into, you know, a technology landscape that’s changing rapidly. I mean, today’s technology landscape didn’t even exist 12 months ago. And so that’s what I’m really interested in.

Maria Latushkin  12:59

To add to that, I would also say I love what you said, as in terms of the influence. And really this whole selling process being a conversation. As buyers, we understand that you if you talk to a startup we understand it doesn’t it’s not as bulletproof, as in a large enterprise that comes it’s given, we don’t expect that — we do expect vision, we do expect somebody to be innovative and knowing where the industry is going, where they’re going. And that would be something that we would benefit from. The other thing is my advice to startups would be to learn the customer. Unfortunately, too often I get into a discussion and with one or two questions, I understand that they don’t really understand our business, don’t know our business, and can’t solve — or they’re not even close enough to solving the business problems we may have. And that to me feels like the ones that did bother, they stand apart from the ones that actually learn the business. So try to learn the business to the extent that they can, like did their homework, did their research, and are trying to be relevant to us in that conversation. That’s important.

Walter Thompson  14:12

That’s weird, going in totally cold. Doesn’t make sense to me. But maybe it’s a volume game. They’re just kind of trying to hit so many of the people. Maybe they don’t bother to prepare, I don’t know.

Jack Berkowitz  14:21

I think the thing is, particularly the ones that have raised money from venture capitalists, and I, I’ve raised over $100 million as part of management teams myself, you get so wrapped up into the venture capital world, thinking that they’re they’re your buyer, and they’re your customer. And to be frank, they’re not. They’re bankers. Some of them might have actually worked in a company, but a lot of them haven’t. You know, and I literally just hung up from a VC — of course they’re getting information and trying to build things, but your customers are the technologists.To impress the table at your customers, and so you really need to understand who they are, and what’s motivating them. And what the company does way more important than the PC world.

Walter Thompson  15:11

So, domain expertise, it sounds like we’re kind of, you’re kind of dancing around that word, but perhaps  that’s kind of the middle of this, as far as if you’re going to, if you’re going to tell me you’re going to solve my problem, you need to have some understanding, some frame of context for my problem, and like, the causes and so forth. So how does someone get it? Am I wrong about that? That’s a question, I suppose? Or am I making an assumption here? How much domain expertise do I need to sell to you?

Jack Berkowitz  15:37

You know, my last firm, we did a lot with moving data and moving payments, and things like that. And so, for us, you know, coming in and talking about you know, streaming information on public internet is probably not the thing we were interested in, we’re moving systems into bankings capability. So understanding that at a time is important. 

Maria Latushkin  16:06

It’s always, in my opinion, it’s always better to have a successful first client, successful first implementation versus maybe the biggest one, right? And so picking the first one, or the first couple is really important. If I had to do it, I would go and I would try to find out where my chances of success maximized, and having domain expertise, being able to speak with from the point of like, confidence and authority to some degree about the problems that you’re solving for the customer, does put some, you know, winning points for you in in that discussion, in that partnership in that division and gives credibility. So I would work hard on trying to understand what my connections are, how can I get that domain expertise before I show up to that buyer?

Jack Berkowitz  17:00

You hit it, right? It’s about connections. It’s about networking to go find that information. So, you know, find businesses around the company, find businesses that have sold to the company, find people inside the company that can, you know, “hey, I’ll spend 10 minutes explaining to you what this process is, or that process is.”

Walter Thompson  17:24

Even if you’re not a buyer, there’s a stakeholder who has a problem.

Jack Berkowitz  17:28

Yeah, they’re influencing or they may not even be connected, but they just have context and are giving you context as to what you’re selling into, and what you’re about to get into. Even in that process, you may be like, “well, wait a second, why am I getting the idea that I’ve got this meeting with a C-level person, but we can’t actually help them?” You know, do everybody a favor: Don’t have the meeting, right?

Walter Thompson  17:54

I wanted to talk about creating a framework for enterprise product development for AI startups. Maria, my first question for you is, table stakes: What do enterprise customers want or need to hear before they sign with a new AI vendor in this environment?

Maria Latushkin  19:17

AI is especially interesting, I would say that everything that I mentioned before in terms of the ability to scale, the security compliance, all of the areas of “how will we not get in trouble?” apply. In addition to which, I will try to understand I will pay special attention as a buyer and I will pay special attention as the person that could start up it is in trying to articulate what is it that AI does and being able to show to the buyer the risk that it’s done responsibly and the best practices are in place. And that it’s, again, it’s a little hard to answer because AI is a broad term, and depending what it is they do approach I would have would be different. But if I had to like really, really up level it, it’s ensuring that responsible AI practices are in place would have been my number-one concern, as well as security.

Jack Berkowitz  20:23

And you probably don’t need to be the one who invents it all, you know, talking about how you can take advantage either of things in the company’s environment, or you’ve got partnerships with companies that build data governance, or data security, or whatever it happens to be, because you’re adding the specific things. Now, if you happen to be in a data governance product, that’s a different story. But, you know, do the pieces that make sense for you, and clear about the borders for you. The other thing is, one of the big areas that is concerned right now is intellectual property rights, even of the models, right? So OpenAI works great. Gemini works great. All these other things work great, but what are the intellectual property rights of your company? And how do those relate, that would be an important thing  to be understood.

Maria Latushkin  21:23

Add to that, and data as well, in general, all of the data governance, the ownership of the data origination of the data, especially as data gets transformed, between the companies, they, if there is any data sharing, or data creation, between the enterprise and the startup.

Jack Berkowitz  21:41

Remember, the procurement teams are going to be separate from the technical buyer or the business buyer. And in fact, most companies keep it separate. So don’t ask the business buyer, what the prices [are], don’t agree, because your current team is gonna have a different story, they will actually have a structured set of requirements that you’re going to need to meet, or you’re going to need to at least discuss with them, whether it’s liability insurance, if you have people coming on site, or you know, all those other things that are involved in risk management. And it’s best to get a relationship with their procurement team early, you can ask for it, you can ask the business buyer or the technical buyer, “can you introduce me to procurement upfront, even in the first meeting, because everybody knows that’s going to take time?” And I would suggest you do that, because that’s the checklist.

Walter Thompson  22:34

What does that process look like for both of you? I know it can vary, because we’re talking in most cases, with regard to AI startups, this is brand new, or emerging technology in some ways. So how do you kick the tires, and what does that process look like from the inside?

Jack Berkowitz  22:49

For me, we always will assign an individual responsible to shepherd and take the steps necessary for that company to come in. Sometimes there’ll be two people, one person on technical integration, and one more on technology and business evaluation. Sometimes those would be different folks. But there is always one person who’s going to have to be responsible for overseeing it otherwise, you know, in a big company, particularly, you might have 10, 15 people involved, and it will get focused as it moves forward.

Maria Latushkin  23:26

Same principle with the one person for the same reasons. There’s always this double if somebody takes the lead, but there’s always the second person to them. So sometimes maybe there would be a business lead. And there would be the technical lead, who is the second person, but they’re lockstep or vice versa? Maybe it’s a technical solution, but then you really, really ensure that from the finance perspective, the finance leader or business lead, depending on the situation, is there. And then they are the parties that have veto rights of sorts, right? You make sure that from a legal perspective, they check all the boxes from a security perspectivel m,. So there’s, there’s this one stream that’s pushing it through shepherding it, and the other ones that get involved to make sure that there’s kind of no harm will be done, right. So from the legal security and other depending on the situation, other areas.

Jack Berkowitz  24:22

And those groups to startups may seem that they’re trying to block things, but they’re not. Everybody’s in there to move their company forward. But they’re doing their job. And I think getting warm relationships with them as you go is only a great experience because those organizations are never going away as you continue to grow.

Walter Thompson  24:46

So ballpark it for me: how likely is it that a pilot is going to turn into a long-term contract, just you know, generally speaking,

Jack Berkowitz  24:52

In my experience, it’s about 50-50, about half the time the pilots will move forward. Recently, we just had an example over the past year where we did a pilot with one company, it was very successful. But what we found out was, we weren’t ready for them. And unfortunately for them, a second company showed up that we were better positioned to be able to handle. So that company hadn’t been in the pilot, but we never even needed to do a pilot with the second company. You know, the first company  objected, “well, how can you do that if you didn’t do a pilot?” It’s like, “well, we kind of did, it was as much learning on our side, about how we need to organize and what we needed to do.” And it’s unfortunate, but, you know, that was the case.

Maria Latushkin  25:37

The really important part for startups to keep in mind is that the pilot on the buyer side is not to prove our technology, it’s to provide the business model. And most of the time, on the buyer side, they actually are expecting technology to work. There might be a pre-pilot or POC or something you do on the side, etc. But by the time you get to pilot, that’s where, especially for large companies, they expect the technology to work. And it’s for them to provide the business model to prove that it’s the pilot for that company, to see if they can roll it up. To rephrase your question, if the company gets to that stage of the pilot when the technology works, and it’s a question of the business model, and it’s a question of the user experience, or whatever else needs to happen, then I would also say it’s about 50-50. Sometimes another company shows up with a better business model, or some other circumstances change. But at that point, if it did go through pilot and pilot proved to be working well, I’d say it’s probably 50-50. It’s difficult to get to pilot, I would say that out of the number of companies that we talk to, the number of companies that actually that make it to pilot, that’s the smaller number, because very often, you see that there is not a fit, or the tech is not ready, or something else you’re able to see quickly enough before getting into the pilot.,

Jack Berkowitz  27:09

And then as we were talking earlier, the opportunity cost to take something to a pilot, it’s just, you can only handle so much as a throughput in a company at any one time. Even if it’s the biggest company, it doesn’t have infinite resources and attention and everything else. And those people are doing other jobs all at the same time. And so, you know, it limits the number of companies that can get to a true pilot. A POC is not a pilot, a project is not a pilot, a pilot is, “hey, we’re going to instrument the United States, or we’re going to instrument California,” you know, massive places. Scale.

Walter Thompson  27:51

So for runway-minded founders who are looking at their bank balance — I know there’s no single path for this, but how long between getting a yes, to go into a pilot program, to them getting some money out of the back end, realizing revenue from that pilot?

Jack Berkowitz  28:09

In my experience, we don’t really want to have pilots run that long. And so, you know, you might only see a pilot run 90 days, and if they can’t prove what it’s doing in 60 to 90 days, then we’ve got an issue. In fact, you know, well-run pilots will have almost weekly cadence. And so you know, within a few days, if it’s working, you know, it’s important to have your, your sort of first land contracts backed in parallel. In fact, a lot of procurement agencies and groups won’t allow the pilot to start without having that backend agreed. I think startups should realize that land and expand is probably going to be a better way for any company also. So if the pilot has the scope of California, but the company does business around the world, they expect that the first project is going to be California, right? Because it’s easy to just roll in. And then you know, you’ll get later contracts as it goes.

Maria Latushkin  29:18

I agree with everything. And to add to this, I would always ask to the extent you can in the beginning, what the budgeting cycles are like, what does it take in a company to get further steps because I’ve seen being in a startup, I’ve seen sometimes is that you get to verify the pilot, but it doesn’t mean that this is the time for the contract. And it might be that elapsed time when we think about runway elapsed time between pilots. A pilot can be verified within 90 days, but then there might be elapsed time to the contract may be much longer. And it will depend on a variety of factors, and every company will have its own variety of factors. So for a startup working with the company for the first time, I would find that out not to be then put in a situation where I would be really anxious.

Walter Thompson  30:10

Yeah. Awesome. Thanks. The engineers I’ve talked to — just a few so far, but it seems that many of them really don’t like coding new features for a single client. But that’s something that seems probably likely to come up during a pilot program. Maria, is that a consideration for you? And how often would you be likely to ask for something like a special feature that you knew that would benefit you, but not necessarily their entire platform?

Maria Latushkin  30:33

I try not to do that. I try to explain sometimes they would not. Sometimes they are early enough, where they have not necessarily gone through my cohort of clients, clients like me, and I would [say], “you actually should do this, because there will be more clients like me.” I would, unless this is something so specific for our business, that is without which we can’t do it. The whole idea of partnering with somebody is not to have something really esoteric that can ever be upgraded, that’s done specifically for you. It’s to actually create a platform that would be general purpose enough. That’s like, full of best practices versus something that’s very bespoke and esoteric. Of course, there are cases when we actually your business requires it to be something different. But otherwise, I wouldn’t do it.

Jack Berkowitz  31:33

I think Maria, right. Would you agree? I not only wouldn’t do it, I want them to have other clients. I want them to grow their business, we need them to be successful. We need them to grow to hundreds of clients and, and everything else. We don’t want to be the only customer because it just creates a bad situation.

Walter Thompson  31:56

Codependency is not a good thing. 

Jack Berkowitz  31:59

You know, I think it gets into the thing also, like, are you willing to take a call on behalf of a startup? Well, if it proves to be successful, and everything’s going well, yeah, because your best salesperson is going to be, you know, your early customers and you want them to have other clients, you want them to meet other clients, too. Right? You want that group of customers to be really supportive of you. Because it’s in the best interest of the customer.

Walter Thompson  32:35

So in a pilot, in a scenario like this, what are some of the most common ways where founders are their own worst enemy, where they’re sabotaging their own work or the likelihood of success without realizing it? Have you seen people doing this without realizing?

Jack Berkowitz  32:51

Well, the biggest one to me is the dive bomb, or the helicopter founder. You know, the founder who either a has the initial meeting, and then you know, it’s too important for them to go do other things than to be with you every day or, you know, checking in on the board, dive bombing, where the, you know, the the project teams meet, you know, 30 days in or 45 days in, and then the founder shows up and tells everybody that they’re doing things wrong. I think if the executive team and technical team is on a project, and they’re meeting every week, then the founders, particularly early-stage, should be in those meetings. I’ve seen this sort of helicopter or dive bomb, I don’t know what the right word is. I’ve seen it too many times over the past few years, particularly with the AI startups, to be honest with you.

Maria Latushkin  33:53

To add to this, I would also say that founders don’t listen to their customers. They missed them, they missed the opportunity, they missed the mark. And there’s always something you learn from potential customers, current customers just being good listeners. And that would be my advice to founders. So many times, over the course of my career, I would do meetings, but somebody said, “oh, the other ones showed, more promise but this one really understood my needs, and the needs of our business,” … and that would be the company that got the business. And the reverse of it is true as well. Companies that were the farm especially when it’s you know, founders are so important and founders set the tone for the company in the beginning of its journey. If they don’t listen, if they’re not in tune with the actual needs, it’s okay to say no, but it has to be an educated no, it has to be a no that comes after listening. I would say that that’s really really important as well.

Jack Berkowitz  34:58

Yeah, and you can hear the language, to follow up with Maria said, you can sometimes hear the language of a professional product manager or professional founder who says things like, “well, our customers think this. And quite frankly, you know, our customers are telling us this.” And you’re sitting across the table like, “well, I’m the customer. I’m not saying that — I’m saying something different.” And there’s a couple of big Valley FAANG companies where there’s this vocabulary that comes out of them. I don’t know where it’s come from. But it’s really bad.

Walter Thompson  35:36

I’ve literally heard product managers say things like, “customers don’t really know what they want.” So yeah, there’s a certain hubris there. My last question about pilot programs: success fee agreements, what are they, and how do they work in a pilot program to help everyone come out ahead at the end? Do either of you use them in your practice? 

Jack Berkowitz  36:03

Yeah, I’ve used them quite a bit. And so what we’ll do is, is it’s really on the later stage contracts, right, the later stage of things. And what they are, is essentially agreeing to a business objective, or a commitment to a date. And so you know, something like 75% of the money will be under a normal contract, and then there’ll be a bonus. If you hit certain joint objectives now, that means that the company — the customer — also has to be responsible for seeing through their commitments. But if that’s the case, then you can accelerate through some additional monies.

Walter Thompson  36:43

Maria, is that advice you’ve used in these contracts?

Maria Latushkin  36:44

Yeah, it’s something very similar. We’re also ensure that we talked in the beginning of what happens to the data that we exchange in artifacts, etc. In the case, in both cases, actually, whether we continue on on.

Walter Thompson  37:00

Thanks very much to both of you for the time today. I really appreciate it. It’s been a great conversation.

Maria Latushkin  37:04

Thank you. It’s a pleasure.

Jack Berkowitz  37:06

Thank you.

Walter Thompson  37:08

Thanks very much to my guests, Maria Lashutkin and Jack Berkowitz. For my next episode, I spoke to Laura Bisesto, global head of policy and privacy at Nextdoor. We talked about the regulatory landscape facing AI startups in 2024, and how small companies should start the work of developing their own ethical frameworks. We got into how startups can recognize when they need legal help, recapped some data governance best practices, and also talked about why it’s so important to create a buttoned-down process for rolling out new AI features. If you’ve listened this far, I hope you got something out of the conversation. Subscribe to Fund/Build/Scale so you’ll automatically get future episodes, and consider leaving a review. For now, you can find the FBS newsletter on Substack. The show theme was written and performed by Michael Tritter and Carlos Chairez. Michael also edited the podcast and provided additional music. Thanks very much for listening.

Fund/Build/Scale: Fundraising from Both Sides of the Table (Transcript)

Here is the full transcript of the conversation between Fund/Build/Scale podcast host Walter Thompson, MindsDB CEO and Co-founder Jorge Torres and Mayfield Partner Vijay Reddy:

Jorge Torres  00:02

We humans, we are like these pattern recognition machines. And the more you do it, the more the pattern starts to become second nature. Given that there’s so many unknowns and the journey ahead for any entrepreneur, you want to find investors that not only understand it because it just logically makes sense what you’re saying, but they understand it because they’ve walked that journey before a few times.

Walter Thompson  00:29

That was Jorge Torres, CEO and co-founder of MindsDB. Jorge and Vijay Reddy, AI startup investor at Mayfield, were the first few people I interviewed for season one. We met up at Jorge’s office in San Francisco’s Mission District on a rainy Friday afternoon in November 2023. We dived into pitch tactics and investor outreach, but we also spend time talking about the frameworks VCs use to evaluate zero-day investments, which red flags investors and founders both need to look out for, and how to find an investor you can partner with for the next decade, not just the next funding round. 

Jorge has been through the fundraising process three times and Vijay is an experienced seed investor, so I was glad to talk to them both about fundraising from both sides of the table.

Walter Thompson  01:19

Vijay and Jorge, thank you very much for being here today. So today, we’re gonna talk about fundraising from both sides of the table. Vijay, you’re an experienced investor, Jorge, you have raised, how many times?

Jorge Torres  01:54

Three times? 

Walter Thompson  01:56

We’re in a hype cycle, I don’t think that’s a controversial opinion, which means a lot of future AI founders are probably spirit feeling serious FOMO at the moment, I think. And that leads to a lot of people that just want to pitch and get out there as quickly as they can to get their company going. So before you start fundraising, I guess my first question for you, Vijay is from another early-stage AI founder. What is it that really convinces you to invest in early-stage companies? And what can founders do to get to that point?

Vijay Reddy  02:28

So I think I think it’s fundamental, right? So raising funds for an AI startup is like raising funds for any startup. Keeping AI aside, when we look at the teams, I think every fund has its own metrics, which every fund looks at it differently. For us, we start with a people-first philosophy, “is it someone we can back? Do they have the same values? And is this a team you want to go in bed with in for, like, 7 to 10 years?” And so that’s the first item we’ll look at. And we can talk about how we can screen for that. 

And second is, then we’ll look at the markets. Others look at markets first, and people next, but for us, it’s always people-first, and then we’ll look at the market; is it big and growing and a nice, attractive market to go after? And it doesn’t have to be a day zero, right? Sometimes most of our investments are day zero, there are blue ocean, there’s zero TAM, but can this become a bigger attractor? So once we have those two, then we go into the specifics of that particular company. Do they have the right technology? How good is the team? How good is the opportunity? And then we dive into the product and technology. But that’s more on the latter side after we clear the people and the markets filter.

Walter Thompson  03:54

What does that process look like for you, as far as assessing a team? How do you approach this? What are the balances used to kind of get in there and assess their appropriateness for this product or solving this problem.

Vijay Reddy  04:06

So we invest very few deals there. Very, very concentrated portfolio in the sense that every deal matters to us. So we don’t spray and pray right? For us to make a deal work, we need to make sure the team has some attributes, which we look for. It’s not just the founder, it’s the team that can come together. Do they have the product market fit? Can they attract talent? Can the founder attract talent? Does the founder understand the technology? So there’s a lot of different attributes we’ll look for in a founder. And usually in the first half hour we can get a good sense of hey, is this person in the team, someone we want to spend more time with? And when we do we tend to dig in a little bit. But for the first filter when we do talk to them and we try to meet them in person or not. We can still do the zoom thing, but we tend to spend a lot of time on the human filter. And then we spend more time on technology afterwards.

Walter Thompson  05:09

Jorge, for your perspective, what do you think a team needs before they start pitching before they put a pitch deck together? What do they actually need to have figured out before they go into the market and start asking strangers for money?

Jorge Torres  05:21

Yeah, I think it’s to understand that, at the end, it’s  a risk decision, the one that the investors are making, and frankly, speaking, the decision that as an entrepreneur anyone should be making, it’s being able to understand that you’re taking risk, and then you’re taking an opportunity as well. So the most ideal situation is that you are building something that has, or you’re about to embark into something that has a great deal of an opportunity, and then that you’ve thought of all the possible risks that you can control. And therefore, when you present this to the investor, you’re actually tackling the risks that are in their mind. And I think that risks for investors change over the life span of a company. When you’re starting, you have so very little data that the risks are more about, is this group of founders capable of executing what they’re kind of like about to jump into. And I think that that’s something to to your point like that, that human assessment is the most important assessment that they can be making, because companies that die, I think you guys have been doing this for such a long time that you know, that the chances of a company not surviving, because the founder is not being the right fit for the problem for the execution or even within them are very important risks. 

So founder risks in terms of like, are the founders, the right people for doing this, the founders being able to execute because they work well, they don’t have redundancies, you know, like, you can try to understand that this decision from a risk point of view, then when you pitch it, you have to kind of understand that you have that part covered as well. And be honest to yourself as a founder, like, am I going to be in this company for the next 10 years? Can I dedicate, like sleepless nights because it’s going to be hard to be here for 10-15 years? And if the answer is yes, then you know that you can articulate this: Do I have the expertise or the talent to bring people that will bring the expertise I don’t have. So those are the things that I think is one of the buckets. 

But I think that before you even get to the bucket, there is something that is defined not necessarily by you as a founder. And it’s more as, there must be a problem that is so large, so, so, so large, that it must be obvious to you, because you want to dedicate your life to this thing. But it must be obvious when you articulate it as well, it has to make sense to the people you talk to about it, what you’re doing here is you’re telling “look, it doesn’t matter how inexperience I may be because I’m just starting, you know, you have to build the experience in this. But the market is so large that even if I’m not performing 100%, on the solution that needs to get to market, I will iterate fast enough, where I will have enough times to iterate that I will capture a significant percentage of this market.”

Yeah, so this is a market risk. If it doesn’t make sense, from the point of view of an investor, that you’re going to build a business that at least sells $100 million, then all of a sudden the market is not worthwhile the risk. So for an investor that math seems to be very simple. And if you can answer those three things, effectively at the very early stage, then not only two things are going to happen. The first one is you’re going to meet investors that will definitely ride the wave with you because they will likely want to also participate in the solution of that problem. But you will be jumping into something with the right answers. I think that a lot of entrepreneurs, we jump into this thing because we want to be entrepreneurs because it’s an attractive profession to have. But not being clear about these two or three, like specific questions that you should ask yourself and have a very, very concise answer to. It’s a mistake that many of us make, and then until you figure that out, is going to be really hard to make progress.

Walter Thompson  09:36

Following up on that. So just tangibly, Vijay, if I only had — if I was at the ideation stage and didn’t have a demo, and didn’t have customers and only had slides and an idea to share with you would that be enough to pitch you, or do you want to see more concrete things you can investigate before you make a decision?

Vijay Reddy  09:59

I think every VC wants to see as much data as they can have in a given stage to make a decision, right, the more data is good, right? So for late-stage VC, you look at the financial metrics at a cold market, we have a lot more information. at the seed stage, we tend to invest most, a lot of our deals are at PowerPoint stage. And the question going back to Jorge’s is like what are we underwriting, right? There’s people-risk, market-risk, progress and technology risk, go to market risk. So we tend to see how much we can de-risk at any given stage and the valuation and the resources are kind of going hand-in-hand with kind of going back to the risk analogy here, right. So we tend to take less risk on people and market, because that’s fundamental to what we master. 

So if a team is good, if you have a good sense of the market, those are two things we can telll right at the earliest stages. But we’ll have to take product risk, go-to-market risk, we help with idea-market fit, we help with product, we help with hiring and recruiting. So those are risks we’re willing to take at the seed stage. And so we are more than happy, and in fact, we would encourage founders, even if they don’t have a fully structured plan, to work with us. And we can help shape and dive at the seed stage. And that’s part of being a board member and almost every deal, we do take board seats. So we kind of enjoy that part of the journey. So we would typically encourage founders to come in and brainstorm with us even if they don’t have everything set in stone.

Walter Thompson  11:38

I know somebody who’s building now, and she doesn’t even have a front end for the demo, because she has no designer. So she’s trying to hack it herself. But it sounds like you’re saying that that shouldn’t be a blocker or someone as far as like, they could still come to you. And you’ll ideate together I suppose.

Vijay Reddy  11:50

Yeah, I think for the right things, though, right. So we don’t have the bandwidth. Again. There’s hundreds of hackathons, there’s dozens of startups, we can spend time with every one of them. But for special teams, we call it “n-of-one” teams where you have a special sauce, which you know, either, you know the market really, really well. Either you’ve been involved with companies in the space before, or your the world’s leading expert in that particular space. So hat’s how we look at the n-of-one teams. And if we’re building something very unique, very special, and you have a differentiated way of going to market. That’s what we would like to spend more time on just given that this number of hours today.

Walter Thompson  13:52

I want to keep the conversation positive because this is a hard thing to do, starting up a company. But what are some red flags that you see at that early stage that tell you early on, “this is not the right team, this is not the right person.” Generally speaking, what are just the typical red flags that are an easy no?

Vijay Reddy  14:12

So there’s quite a few of them, right? And sometimes it’s obvious, sometimes it’s not obvious. So there are things which have made them successful in their own fields, which might not translate very well to being a founder. Right? So to give an example, if you don’t know who your buyer persona, or who you’re selling to, that’s an open question. And that’s something you can diligence before you don’t have to build a product for that. You just need to have empathy for a customer and should know what you’re trying to build. Right. There are many founders who really liked the technology but haven’t thought about the business plan. They’re extremely — we call them “brilliant jerks” at large companies that are extremely good at individual contribution, but that’s not a good skill set to start a company. There are some founders who don’t know who the competition is. And these are things which you could have done homework before. So there’s a lot of this nuanced way of how, as, as investors, we’ve seen so many companies, and we tend to pick up on those if not any homework or not in a good listener, right. And sometimes we meet people across different areas, a spectrum. But in most cases, we tend to look for outliers, right? So if you’re brilliant at something, and if you can go build a team, which is very differentiated, and those are things to look for, so we’re still looking for people who are exceptional in some category.

Walter Thompson  15:45

So flipping that a little bit, as a founder, what are some red flags that as a founder make you not want to work with an investor?

Jorge Torres  15:55

I think that now after doing this for some time, for us, what has worked is to look for investors that have done investments that can add value, because of the experience that we had before. For example, we humans, we are like these pattern recognition machines, and the more you do it, the more the pattern starts to become a second nature. Given that there are so many unknowns, and the journey ahead, for any entrapreneur, you want to find investors that not only understand it, because it just logically makes sense what you’re saying, but they understand it because they’ve walked that journey before a few times. And this type of investor will also get very excited about what you’re doing, because they know it, the more an investor knows an industry, the more there is this affinity, this click that happens when you meet them. 

And when that click doesn’t happen, you have to ask yourself, “is it because there is no experience from the other side in what I’m doing?” And therefore, you should be cognizant that every minute that you have in the day is a minute that you’re not going to be able to take back. So every minute that you’re talking to the wrong investor, you’re just barking up the wrong tree. So understanding the people that have the experience, to guide you through the challenges ahead, is what you should be looking to. And therefore when you meet people, and you’re just essentially realizing very quickly that they just don’t have the experience on the industry that you’re about to jump into, or that you have been working on, then you’re probably you know, all money is green as people say, but you need to guarantee that money comes with a lot of value. 

And that has been the trick for MindsDB; like, when we have gone fundraising, after we understood that there are investors that have done very similar investments to what you’re doing. And they’ve had incredible amounts of value, like 30 minutes talking to them will be six months of you like spinning wheels. That’s what we want. And when it’s the opposite, it’s more like, “I don’t really know what he’s talking about. But you know, seems like the market is moving that direction. So I’m gonna throw money this way. It’s okay to add investors, depending on the value that they add. They may add network, but you don’t want to make them the main investor. 

Walter Thompson  18:18

Unike Vijay, most VCs are not former R&D engineers, right. But with a lot of experience, technically. And so I imagine there’s a lot of investor education involved with trying to get an AI startup funded. Is that something you had to do? How much did you have to work to educate investors about the value of what you’re trying to produce? Or did you just find investors who understood immediately?

Jorge Torres  18:43

I think that it only got really well for us, like everything started to get crystal clear once we started talking to investors, where we were speaking the same language. And then once you do it a few times, you learn very quickly to make that discrimination. That doesn’t mean that other investors that don’t really have the experience on their bags are not valuable. I think that you can then strategize how you build around a little bit differently, you first find these people that they’re just going to add a lot of value on top of the money because of the experience that they have. And then you’re going to build relationships with people that make them useful down the line. Yeah. And then when it comes to making the decision of who you bring into the round, then you pick the best of the best.

Walter Thompson  19:39

Everyone always wants to know about pitch deck how-tos or a magic formula for what needs to be on a certain slide and so on and so forth. But it seems like what Vijay was saying before is that getting funding for an AI startup is more or less the same as a startup; there’s some specific problems you have to solve and address and think about it. So, if I asked which slides are most important than an AI pitch deck, how would you answer that?

Vijay Reddy  20:07

I think it depends on what kind of industry they are after, right. It’s enterprise sales, open source. So some caveat in that with a more generic answer. But we would like to see the team and the market first, defend the center, if it’s the right team, going after the right market, and then trying to understand a little bit more about like, Who is the person you’re gonna sell to? Or what do they care about, I think then product, and then you go into the tech, and then finally, the competition everything else afterwards, right. But a lot of times people spend the first 10 slides on technology. And that’s really interesting, but as a secondary effect. First try to understand like, do people care? Will they pay for this and does it work? I think going through the sequence, and then talking about the AI would be really helpful. But if you’re an AI specific company, and they see too much of like the AI upfront, and that’s good, but usually ask the question like,”how is AI helpful?” Like it’s a tool in the toolbox? It’s not the and not.

Walter Thompson  21:20

A lot of founders I’ve talked to seem to have a lot of mental blocks or cognitive dissonance around calculating their total addressable market. For an AI startup, is there anything different or special about calculating TAM? Or is it still the same kind of traditional bottom up approach?

Vijay Reddy  21:37

I think a lot of times TAMs don’t exist in some use cases, right? I think you need to figure out, what can the TAM be if the market forces align right, I think, said a lot of cases when you look at the translation market, we’re just talking about this before, the software market for translation is not that big. But then if you take the human capital market, it is a $20 to $30 billion market. So then given the time very differently, than if we’re selling a software into translation company, right? So knowing who you’re selling to and how we can charge for it will help you address the TAM for a founder, a first-time founder. But for us, I think large markets, which are attractive and can support margins tend to have better outcomes then maybe larger markets don’t have margins or small markets which can go into large markets. So there’s some markets we stay away from because it doesn’t fit the profile for us. But when looking at a TAM, it’s good to do a bottoms-up and a top-down and just extrapolate to see what makes sense. What doesn’t make sense.

Walter Thompson  22:39

Jorge, if you were doing a pitch deck today, and you are a first timer working on your TAM slide, who would you show it to before you showed it to Vijay? To check your math and make sure you weren’t just totally, you know, out over your skis?

Jorge Torres  22:53

So as many people as possible. I think that is more than the order in which you show it to people. I think that investors, also their time is money, right? Like the amount of time that you haven’t days limited. And you don’t have that many kind of second, third choice, or shots with them. So what you want to do is you want to identify what are your most ideal investors, and save that to, once you’ve had feedback from the people that you know are not necessarily your most ideal investors, but they can give you feedback on those very initial things. Because every investor will know, if you’re far away from something that makes sense. If you’re close to something that makes sense. So, to be more precise, don’t wait too long to show it to an investor. It’s just that there are so many investors out there. And you can always strike and start with or like, well, here, I’m just spinning wheels to understand, you know, where the traction is happening.

Walter Thompson  24:02

In an idea-stage startup, there’s no social proof to validate your idea. We touched on this a little bit as I suppose but like, can you give some granular specifics as far as what are those tangibles? Like what do they look like when they’re actually like, oh, there’s a market exists for this, like, “even though I don’t know what the TAM is?” Like, what would that look like for you exactly as an investor?

Vijay Reddy  24:26

At this stage, in our AI Start seed fund, we don’t have Gartner top-right quadrant startups. There’s no Gartner quadrant in most of them, right? We don’t have in some cases, the TAM is not defined yet. The categories are not defined yet. And so what we tend to look for is, is there a buyer out there or customer enterprise, who has a really strong pain point, not a nice-to-have, a must-have and is the startup solving them? And we tend to usually do when you do reference calls, we tend to not look at how much revenue if the customer is charging or what the sales cycles are, but it’s more like, how big a pain point was that, and —

Walter Thompson  25:09

— this is the painkiller/vitamin mindset.

Vijay Reddy  25:13

That’s right. And also, how valuable is it for that particular user? So I think narrowing down on who your target buyer persona is, and then finding so much value, not one and a half x, but 10x. So there’s some, there’s lots of founders who really hone in on that and build a 10x better product. And that’s a good validation for us. And if it’s a larger company, and they see a 10x value, that’s even better.

Walter Thompson  25:44

It seems as though major AI players are commoditizing different products quickly, if OpenAI updates their product roadmap, that could create an extinction level event for the wrong startup. How are founders dressing this?

Vijay Reddy  25:56

So I think that’s recently, we’ve seen some companies where they’re trying to build products, which are built on top of other companies’ product lines, and there’s not enough differentiation if that company they’re relying on actually builds that. So for example, if you look at Slack, or Zoom, they have mass market reach. And so they have distribution. And they have data on which the startup is supposedly building a differentiated product. Now, the question you ask yourself is what happens if the companies that you’re relying on add a feature which, which is makes logical sense for them, right, and, and each time Microsoft comes up with a different feature, or Slack or Zoom, a lot of companies have to pivot really quickly, which you could have avoided, if you knew that you were in the line of fire. 

And so I think some founders are really good at understanding that “my core strength is in understanding the customer side of things, and I want to go and use this product in a very differentiated setting,” that’s okay. But if we’re just building a consumer product to go against Microsoft Word, using an AI bot, and if Microsoft adds that feature within the core product, your business has an extinction-level thing. So lots of founders are very good, I think, as Jorge mentioned, we know startups pivot, and that’s one of the things we’ll look at is how, how savvy are they to see market forces and then pivot their business? Well Ahead before they install it.

Walter Thompson  27:47

So if you are an early-stage, if you’re a seed stage idea-stage AI startup, how do you dig a strategic mountain at that point?

Jorge Torres  27:55

I think that the earlier you are, you shouldn’t be bought into a solution that strongly, because the solution is likely going to change, such as your understanding of the problem. I think that therefore, it is more important to be focusing on, “is this the right problem to be solving?” Moat is something that starts coming once you get enough data about the problem to then understand, okay, “what are the players that are working on this problem? And how am I going to identify Is there a cap here that I can get into, and that can be first player? And if I’m not the first player, then how are the people solving it inefficient, and I can solve it 10 times better, 100 times better?”

But if you don’t do that exercise in that order, you may be at the risk of solving a problem that either is not that big, a problem that already has players that can again turn you into an obsolete feature if you if you don’t do all this exercise in this kind of order. So the problem is the most important thing at the very early stage. Moat comes when you understand the problem, and you understand the players of the problem and their solutions. And then you understand the gaps. And if there’s a gap that allows you to be the first player, then your moat is to be always on the forefront. And if there is no gap, but there is just like, very, very bad solutions to the problem, then your moat is that you’re 10 times better or 100 times better than what is there to solve a problem.

Walter Thompson  29:51

Are technical founders better off with a nontechnical partner?

Jorge Torres  29:56

100%. I think that you will soon realize that a company is a symphony of many different instruments. You don’t go to a symphony to hear just one single instrument played by 20 people, you want to guarantee that even if there’s like people that have the same instrument that they’re playing different parts, but at some point, you need to add other instruments. Being very aware that a business is a combination of reading the market, going after that market, and then being able to build a product that can deliver. It’s a good recipe for success. 

And also, it’s a good recipe to understand that maybe those were there is a team and  one person has tendencies to be more driven for business-like operations, and then someone that has a tendency to be more technical, and to put together a solution — these stories can repeat themselves, like Apple is one great example of those, but you keep seeing very successful companies. And even if it’s not out of the founder’s states, you will assume that very early, these teams add someone who will complement one or the other.

Walter Thompson  31:15

Based on your own personal experience, what you’re seeing anecdotally, around how long is the typical fundraising journey these days from going out into the world with a pitch deck and then going home celebrating over a term sheet? What are we seeing as far as average timeline, roughly? Or is there an average?

Vijay Reddy  31:32

I think it’s a very wide range, right? Some companies can raise quickly, if they meet the right co-founder, they have product- market fit or idea-market fit, it’s fairly quick. In some cases, it’s longer, I think it’s, it’s less of a concern, if it takes a longer time, it’s finding the right partner that is more important. So even if it takes you longer, I would suggest looking for the right partner. And when I mean partner, it’s not the fund: it’s the actual people within the fund also. And it’s a huge range. within larger and larger quantities, this is people who will probably want to partner with these people who have completely different philosophies. So let’s say, trying to find the right person within that fund is as important as finding the raising fund itself. So it’s not a race in many ways, but at the seed stage, find the first set of founders who could be who have your back end have the same shared values.

Jorge Torres  32:38

Yeah, I think that one story that’s almost telling me that I think that is relevant here is for an investor, the clock’s start ticking from the moment that they make the investments. So it doesn’t really matter what happened before. In the sense of, if it took you some time to get to that point where you’re ready. The investor only cares like you’re ready now. And from now on, the clock is ticking. Therefore, what they’ve been looking at is more like, what is the vectors of growth that have accelerated in the past few months? If it took you something before that, a while even to figure this out, it doesn’t really matter that much, because their capital was not ever, like waiting there for something to happen. Therefore, my observations are these deals tend to happen very quickly once things are starting to move very quickly in one vector of growth in your company, because all of a sudden, there’s an inflection point. That means that you figured out something that makes your opportunity less risky. And therefore, when an investor sees this, they also understand that the opportunity for them has a limited window of time, because if they don’t get it, someone else will. And that’s the best type of view. An investor doesn’t want to be the only investor interested in a company, because you rarely find gold that nobody else sees.

Walter Thompson  34:05

And last question: I guess typically, for let’s say, a B2B SaaS startup, maybe 18 to 24 months of runway is the recommendation. If you were launching an AI startup today, in November of 2023, how much runway would you want after you closed your first round of funding?

Jorge Torres  34:24

I think that for me, it’s important to translate that into risk. So if you think that being concerned about money will deter you from making the right decisions, then you need to raise for the path of money that will guarantee that you can operate mentally. I think that there are entrepreneurs who are okay with 12-month runways and they’re cool as a cucumber. There are other people that cannot operate very well when that stress is upon them. So as a decision of risk, is more of, what will guarantee that you can succeed, if where you succeeding is, “I’m okay, so long, I have 12 months of runway, I’m okay, so I’m gonna have 24 months of runway.” 

And I think that that defines the behavior of a company, you start raising when you’re getting closer to that length. It is important that any round that you raise, in my opinion, has to be raised because of an opportunity, not because of necessity — it never goes well. So you have to guarantee that that timeframe that you have, is not putting you in the necessity for your own personal thing. Again, there are people who are okay, with very short runways, they manage to do it. And that’s fine. There are people that are not. So it just really depends on how you can operate a team. And again, when you’re early on, you may be okay with this, like six months, 12 months, 24 months. But as you start to have other people on your team, it is very important for them to know, “well, if I’m going to join six months on the road, I don’t want to be sweating bullets with you.” So different stages of a company also make that difference. And it’s important to be well capitalized, because it gives the people are going to join you that have the option to join somewhere else as well great awareness that they’re not going to be stressed for that that thing that is not the thing that they signed up for.

Vijay Reddy  36:25

The best time to raise capital is when you don’t need the money, and so at the seed stage, there’s this is notion from founders and VCs, that there’s a clock, it’s get 24 months and keep raising. It’s not right, I think, at the seed stage, you’re building a team, you’re getting a product to GA, you’re selling your first set of products to a customer, and then you realize maybe you have to pivot, right. And so you have to plan for that. You don’t want to learn from the get-go because you have an 18-month clock. But you have to plan appropriately to the risk you’re taking. And most founders don’t realize how many times you have to pivot before you get to a product-market fit, and that’s okay. So I think having enough capital to make those pivots, and not having to worry about doing bridges — it always takes longer than you think, to go get that first product-market fit. So I think having enough buffer and not being forced to go raise because your peers are going and raising at a faster cadence and usually see this. There’s three or four companies. This seems like a race, that if I raise quickly, and I keep going, I can grow faster. But you might be growing faster in the wrong direction and maybe going after the wrong customer persona. So I think being deliberate about which market you’re going first and then trying to add fuel to the fire once you know, it’s actually a better approach than just raising because you can.

Walter Thompson  37:59

Vijay, Jorge, thank you for a fantastic conversation. I really appreciate your time.

Vijay Reddy  38:03

Thanks for having me.

Jorge Torres

Thank you.

Walter Thompson  38:08

I’ll be right back with some show notes after a word from our sponsors. 

For the next episode, “Breaking into enterprise sales,” I interviewed Maria Latushkin, GVP of Technology & Engineering at Albertsons, and Jack Berkowitz, Chief Data Officer at Securiti. 

Maria and Jack are experts in enterprise sales. Both of them have years of experience working inside early-stage startups and buying software for Fortune 250 companies. 

 

What My Sports Movie Heroes Have Taught Me About Teamwork and Life

83 movie poster horizontal

As we get ready with the popcorn to watch the red carpet and the Oscars, where Oppenheimer is going in for the win, I got to thinking about sports movie heroes who have inspired me. Besides the hockey coach of Chak De! India, some include the boxer from Rocky (Eye of the Tiger is my anthem song); the father of Serena and Venus Williams from King Richard (Serena and I served on the Poshmark board together); Michael Jordan from The Last Dance (I’m a huge Warriors fan who had the honor of hosting Steve Kerr for a fireside chat); and of course 83, a movie about my favorite sport, cricket, which tells the story of how captain Kapil Dev led India’s team to their first World Cup win in 1983. The movie captures that experience, and having enjoyed the privilege of meeting him and becoming an ongoing friend with weekly interactions since then, here are some learnings from the movie but also from my personal interactions with Kapil.

Kapil Dev Navin Chaddha cropped image

Serena Williams Navin Chaddha cropped image

Steve Kerr Navin Chaddha cropped image

First off, for those who don’t know cricket, it’s similar to baseball in that you have players who specialize as batsman (hitter) or bowler (pitcher) and everyone is a fielder. The main difference is that the game used to be played over five days which has now evolved into one day and half day matches. 

  • Kapil sets the bar high by announcing at the first press conference in England that they have come to win the World Cup, a feat that seemed impossible given their underdog status, lack of funding, and the demotivating racial discrimination by the Western media who mocked them as having come for a paid vacation;
  • Kapil creates a confidence cult for the team by repeatedly saying if you taste success once, the tongue will ask for more, and reminding everyone all the time that we are here to win;
  • He was empathetic to teammates for example to one whose fiancee had broken up with him minutes before an important game;
  • He leads from the front and plunges in as a batsman when needed (goes on to score a record 175 runs while his strength is as a bowler);
  • He takes the critical catch of the world’s best batsman in the final which clinches the championship – but the enduring image is that of the team win;
  • He was captain cool who kept his calm demeanor amidst unfavorable circumstances and always demonstrated a fighting spirit to win against all odds;
  • He is an unapologetically authentic leader who always demonstrated humility (he allowed his team members to make fun of his heavily accented and broken English in the movie) and having met him in small and large gatherings, I know that he brings his natural self to every interaction;
  • He created a safe, friendly and fun atmosphere in the players room off the field. The team used to banter, make fun of each other, but be supportive of one another which allowed them to be friends on and off the field and share their personal problems openly;
  • He was always approachable as any player on the field could go up to him and offer advice and he would listen;
  • He had great ability to handle criticism and did not react to reporters or fans. He advised his team members to be calm, not react and the let their play in the game to do the talking (i.e. demonstrate results);
  • He is dedicated to helping others – twenty years ago, Kapil founded Khushi, a nonprofit that helps children stay in school, which has transformed the lives of 1.5 million women and children.

Fund/Build/Scale: Tapping into the AI Developer Community (Transcript)

Here is the transcript of the conversation between Fund/Build/Scale podcast host Walter Thompson and Ozzy Johnson, Director of Solutions Engineering at NVIDIA:

Ozzy Johnson: Some things we’ve talked about a bit earlier is how you don’t necessarily need to be a fully technical founder. You don’t need to have that background because AI is enabling so much in the way of, again, anyone who can solve problems. Anyone who can think in a structured way can be to some degree, a developer.

Walter Thompson: That’s Ozzy Johnson, Director of Solutions Engineering at NVIDIA. In his role, he’s a bridge between the company’s internal product teams and its global developer community. The team he leads also offers technical guidance to NVIDIA’s Inception program for startups. 

We talked over Zoom about where early-stage AI founders need the most help and how people from academic and research backgrounds more easily shift to an entrepreneurial mindset. And we also spent some time exploring strategies for nurturing a successful AI developer community. He also shared some thoughts about balancing initial spending, with the need to drive early growth, and which trait successful AI founders have in common. (Spoiler: they aren’t all developers.)

Welcome back to Fund/Build/Scale. I’m Walter Thompson. I am talking today with Ozzy Johnson. He’s Director of Solutions Engineering at NVIDIA. Ozzy, thanks for being here. 

Ozzy Johnson: Thank you. Glad to be here. Looking forward to it. 

Walter Thompson: Based on what you’re seeing: developers who are trying to turn themselves into early-stage AI founders, where does that cohort need the most help initially?

Ozzy Johnson: The thing I think about most there is really a notion called fundamentals. I see when a lot of people are founding, they get really, really determined, really focused on a vision, or maybe a particular clever idea that they miss out on these fundamental habits that are required to get there — how to really execute how to create a valuable, saleable, differentiated product. 

And a bunch of that is, in a way, is not exactly the fun part. It’s not the visionary work, it’s just sort of showing up. And in doing what can sometimes feel like mundane iteration day after day to get gradually better, that’s actually going to get you to that goal to to realize that vision. 

Walter Thompson: Do you meet many founders who are not developers? I mean, it’s one thing to contribute to a project, but transforming that into a profitable business is something else entirely. So how hard is it to make that transition? And how do you see people making that shift in mindset?

Ozzy Johnson: Yeah, yeah. So I do, I do definitely see founders, who are not developers, you know, the very typical classic founding duo, CTO, CEO, CEO may not be a developer, sometimes they are. I think, though, in modern times, this is increasingly rare. You know, code generation has made development extremely accessible. And it’s really a matter of just having structured thinking and problem-solving more than knowing a specific language or framework. Really, the transition from taking a project to a product can be quite hard, but I don’t think it has to be. 

I think the fundamental difference there is that when you’re defining a project, you’re essentially finding your own criteria for success. It’s like, what do you want to do? What is your vision, whereas a product success is absolutely and ultimately determined by the market. So those are a bunch of factors and things that you can’t control the chapter, observe the chapter, listen to and adapt. 

Walter Thompson: So, from your perspective, you’re saying you don’t need a deep bench of AI machine learning talent on board to put together an idea and approach an investor?

Ozzy Johnson: No, I don’t, I don’t think you do. But you do need to build something, right? I tie back to what I was saying earlier about good ideas, that you’re not likely to be particularly popular if you’ve got the idea. and you’re looking for folks to realize that the world is full of good ideas. The multiplier that really makes something successful is the execution. 

So at the very least, you know, with these enabling technologies, you know, go out there, prototype it, build it, demonstrate what it is, and then, you know, use that to recruit the folks that can refine it, they can scale it, they can extend it. I don’t think there’s, there’s much of any reason in 2024, for not being able to rapidly get to that prototype, you know, that’s not necessarily going to be your saleable, you know, scaled production product. But, you know, you should be able to build something.

Walter Thompson: Most of the founders I’ve come across so far since starting this project are coming out of academia and research, which means they don’t have a lot of fluency with bizdev, and sales and marketing, or building a brand. But VCs tend to say the best storyteller on the founding team is the de facto salesperson. What’s your perspective on this?

Ozzy Johnson: I actually really strongly agree with the spirit there, right? I think that having a story is absolutely essential, and being able to tell that story really concisely, in a way that resonates with, frankly, different audiences and people is essential. You need to be able to tell that story, both to folks who are potentially going to invest in you, you need to be able to tell it to your customers, and depending on who your customers are, you might need to be able to tell it to line of business leaders, an executive, an engineer, you know, a practitioner, an end user. 

So you have to be able to just be really dynamic. For that reason, I think the person who can really weave and refine that story doesn’t necessarily have to be the one who goes around telling it. And ultimately, with all of this landing, whether that’s landing your funding, landing your customers, is something that involves a lot more than just creating or just telling the story. So kind of overall, that story is absolutely necessary, but it’s not sufficient.

Walter Thompson: Which leads into my next question: if you don’t have that skill set on the team, where do you start looking? I mean, you can always look on LinkedIn to find somebody who has experience with enterprise sales. But that seems like a really general approach.

Ozzy Johnson: Let’s sort of take that in two parts, right? Where to find people initially, yeah, it absolutely could be a developer community. But I would kind of warn against going and treating that like, you know, a direct recruitment effort or job postings, unless, of course, you know, it’s a community that kind of welcomes that sort of thing. There are places that do monthly or weekly threads about, you know, looking for help, right, trying to, for exactly this purpose. But if you’re not dealing with that, and say, you are like a non-or less technical founder, and you’re looking to pull people in, or the other way around, go be part of a community just have conversations. 

I think it’s really a common mistake to think about. Recruiting and building a company is something that’s transactional. When you’re joining a company, when you’re creating a team, particularly a startup, you know, it’s not a transaction, it really is a collective relationship. And it’s a journey: you want to know the people that you’re going on with, you don’t want [someone] who just responded to an ad. The kind of second part of that is that there’s real discipline in, say, enterprise sales is very different from, you know, going and marketing a product that is looking to scale and be direct-to-consumer. 

That’s really a matter of timing of knowing if that is the market you’re going after, and if you’re ready to do that, you really want to try to bring in the folks that have done it before. But even in that case, again, you know, you don’t want to make a transactional, you want to try to have that conversation, start that relationship, and grow from there.

Walter Thompson: Pretty much everyone I’ve talked to has emphasized how critical it is to start digging a moat early. but is there such a thing as doing that too soon? From the outside, it seems likely that a team will need to pivot at some point, or maybe not pivot, but continually iterate. So can you carve too deep a moat too soon?

Ozzy Johnson: I think it depends on the type of moat, right? Like some of it is just implicit, right? You can’t, you can’t leverage something that is built on you know, locked in or network effects until you’ve got the user base to really support that, otherwise, you’re just adding friction to growing it in the first place. So to kind of run with the notion, if you’re digging the moat before the castle was built, it’s just putting you on an island. That may not be that interesting to begin with, and this whole thought I really tie back to a bit of what we were talking about earlier with fundamentals and storytelling. If you know why you’re doing something, what sort of information went into those decisions, how you’re different, and really what you expect to happen, then you’ve really got everything that you need to know, not just to start, but to kind of, you know, feather the throttle there. 

So, yes, start digging early, and speed up, slow down, or change the route based on that new information. And that sort of loop is what I am talking about when, when I’m saying fundamentals — just sort of day after day. What are we doing? Why are we doing it? How are we different? Do we need to speed up? Do we need to slow down? Do we need to change course? If you’re doing that, I think your moat is going to be fine.

Walter Thompson: Given that we’re in the midst of this hype cycle, do you think enough people are really spending enough time with the customer discovery process? Or are they just kind of rushing so they can bring something to market because technology moves so quickly? Is that OK, or is that a problem?

Ozzy Johnson: So I think it is fundamentally a problem, if it’s something that you’re that you’re not doing. I think when things are moving fast, you do kind of have to, you know, keep your head on a swivel, right? You need those loops to be to be short, or at least short or shorter. But I do think this is something that can be missed, to literally just talk to people and understand where they’re challenged. 

One of the things that I think about a lot with this is very often the thing that is most valuable, that is most saleable to folks, the things they will buy? It’s not the things that they are not doing now that you are potentially going to introduce them to. It’s the things that they have to do that they are doing now, but they find kind of miserable, or are so important that in a way they can afford to do them well or not do them well. They can afford to, you know, do this with people in a way that’s really arduous. It’s really manual. 

And if you’re finding a problem like that, you’re solving it, you’re making it better, you have you have gold there. If you’re not talking to folks, you don’t you don’t know what they’re really, really doing. And you could be solving a problem that feels interesting and feels clever to you. But isn’t actually something that anybody is looking for or isn’t necessarily going to benefit from.

Walter Thompson: Personnel costs in an AI startup seem like they’re usually the largest expense. But R&D is pretty expensive, as you know. Investors and founders, they both want to scale quickly, but can you share some advice and how to balance initial spending while driving early growth? My sense is that a lot of founders were really happy to spend on tech, but less so on software, like you know, people, that kind of thing.

Ozzy Johnson: This is a huge topic. So I’m going to try to take just a small piece of it or a few aspects, right, but what I would prioritize is what I think is kind of most important here. So kind of the first part of this, the I would say just practice looking through or looking at costs through several lenses, I think it’s really easy to fall into a mindset, that one category of costs is good or bad, or strictly preferable to another.

For example, it definitely resonates with what you say there about a lot of attention being put on personnel costs, but a true gem of a person is going to return a huge multiple. So, right, you want those folks you want to spend on them. The second part of this is really putting your resources, whether they’re direct or indirect costs, into what I call saleable differentiation, like, really, how are you different? What can you sell, as opposed to say, plumbing or things that could be real commodities there. And that can also be really about enablement, as well, to tie it back to the first point, it’s one thing to have a gem of a person, but you might need structure around them, you need to enable them, you need the infrastructure that’s actually going to get the most out of what they’re capable of. 

And this too kind of goes back to the same big idea earlier, that it isn’t just about the idea. It’s also about the execution there. So yeah, I’d say, always just look at these things, not as buckets, but as an overall number. And what is that number turning into, in terms of value, you can sell, if you can’t tie those things into some expected value for your product for your growth in a relatively direct way you really shouldn’t be doing.

Walter Thompson: What are some of the top traits — it’s a hard question to answer I know, because there’s no checklists for who is a good AI founder. But if we were looking back at founders who you’ve come across who successfully launched their own open source projects, whether they are independent or VC-backed, what do they all have in common? Is there a common thread that connects these people?

Ozzy Johnson: I would certainly say there’s some, I don’t know if it would necessarily be specific to open-source projects, but just sort of successfully founding in general, I do think you have to have a certain amount of hubris and kind of unrealistic belief in yourself, right? Because you are doing something that is necessarily hard, you’re doing something that’s truly innovative, it’s not something that has been done before. 

So that’s almost like a bit of a baseline there to have that. Confidence, though, again, that’s one of the things that is common, and I think necessary, but it’s not enough. Because if you are going directly at some goal, not necessarily executing, it’s not enough just to be motivated. So these folks also are going to be intensely reflective, right? Because this is getting into that iterative loop that you need to succeed. And it’s also the point where you might need to pivot in terms of your product, or that you might need a different team, because the folks who can build the thing, initially are not necessarily the ones who can sustain it or accelerate it. So I’d say it’s, it is a really important balance of confidence, and reflection, and agility there, right? Those, those are probably the three things.

Walter Thompson: Given where we are in this hype cycle, are you seeing people just kind of launch interesting projects to put themselves on the map? And is that a viable strategy?

Ozzy Johnson: Say it’s viable, but it’s not really sensible, right? If something’s viable, it can work, but generally the thing that or at least the way I try to think about this, I want to do the thing that is most likely to give myself the best chance of success. So, you know, really creating a project for the purpose of getting on the map is like, what’s the goal there? Wouldn’t it be far more efficient or just more sensible to make a real product that solves a real problem? 

If you’re making a product for press or for notice — if that’s the goal that’s driving it, I just have to question whether that is really going to be representative and useful. Why not spend that time literally solving someone’s problem? And right there, you’ve potentially got your first hook for your first product. 

Walter Thompson: What is your role with NVIDIA’s Inception program? Give us a brief overview.

Ozzy Johnson: My team sits here in developer programs. Inception is one of the major parts of the dev program, essentially, it is our strategy for startups. So the way my team works with Inception is really learning from what’s out there in the market by working with startups, if there is something that many startups are trying to do, we want to learn from that. 

We want to understand, you know, what is difficult to adopt, what is really resonating with them, what’s going to help them build the next thing, because ideally, we want certainly all the most successful startups to be building on our platforms to be using our stack. And really, the best way to do that is ensure that they all are. And the way we can do that is to know what they need to have those things ready. And to support them in a way that really scales and again, provides value. So yeah, it’s a whole loop we learned and we try to then provide examples.

Walter Thompson: I’ve talked to a couple of people who are students at this point who are interested in starting up. And one of the things that they’ve come back to me and said a couple of times is that they’re looking for a place where they can see what other people are working on and share what they’re working on, but in a kind of a non-competitive environment. Is that any aspect of what you’re offering?

Ozzy Johnson: There’s certainly places for that, you know, also in our developer program is access to our community forums, there’s all sorts of discussion there. Through Inception, we do highlight the work of our members, we’re always welcoming folks who want to talk about their solutions, built with our tools, built with our products, [they] can publish those things through some of our blog platforms. And that is a really great way to do that, it gets you to a large audience. And then, of course, the folks that are consuming it are seeing how, you know, others have been successful. 

We also organize a certain number of community events as well. Generally, we might be talking about a particular technology there that is new for us that we think may be helpful, interesting, etcetera. But it’s also time for folks to just mingle, share experiences, you know, talk with folks from my team, potentially others who are in attendance. So, yeah, this is absolutely one of the things that the program facilitates.

Walter Thompson: Does this also include, I mean, just not to be mercenary, but can you facilitate connections with investors or help someone connect with a potential customer?

Ozzy Johnson: Yeah, absolutely. So both connections to investors, sort of mutual matchmaking is absolutely part of the program, we call this Inception Capital Connect. Connecting to customers is as well, but the way we really think of this is just the general category of go-to-market help. So it would be doing this through visibility, right? This is being featured in a blog, or things of that sort. It can be much more direct. But that really depends on the product, on the needs. 

And really the best thing anyone who is in the program can do for that is to really keep us informed. What are you doing? What does your product do? So that you’re on the radar, so that when we are talking with, say, you know, an enterprise company, or perhaps another startup, we’re able to say, “hey, actually, these folks over here do exactly what you need.” So let’s make that introduction.

Walter Thompson: Which leads to my next question, which is about actually landing those customers landing your first enterprise customers, it’s got to be really exciting. But it also comes with, you know, some liabilities and some opportunity costs. What are some of the downsides of working with a big company? And how can AI founders mitigate them?

Ozzy Johnson: The challenge with working with a big company is really, they’re kind of, I wouldn’t say special, but specific expectations. When you work within an enterprise or say, a consumer product. One, just the start, they tend to have a lot more stakeholders in the room, because you’re not just talking to, you know, maybe a practitioner that can work with total autonomy, you also need to convince the manager, you might need to convince a chief architect and executive, etc. 

So that is where to tie this back to what we talked about storytelling, you need to be able to tell your story to everybody, you need to be able to present your product in a way that resonates with the different wants, needs and goals have all of those folks, and you likely need to do it in a way that that will work, when they’re all in the same room together. Without making one or the other feel any more or any less important, then once you’re working with them, you know, there’s a big challenge with an enterprise, they may have feature requests, there may be things that they expect that they need. And it can be really tough to pick exactly how far you’re willing to go, to land the deal, without letting the company essentially dictate your roadmap. 

And this, I think, is a really high power skill of a good founder or a great product leader — to be able to understand that a certain amount of this information or what you’re getting from this company, may be gold, right? Because if they are in a particular space, whether it’s, you know, maybe they’re in finance, HLS or something else, very likely the things they are asking for are going to be representative of folks in that industry of that size. And it’s a great thing if you’re building to features or expectations that are then going to be saleable to the next two or three folks that fit that pattern. 

At the same time, if it’s not saleable. If you can’t scale that, then you’re sort of putting yourself potentially in a world of hurt. So yeah, I’d say those are things to really be aware of. It really is different messaging, you need to have a clear and different story than you would otherwise. And yet there’s a lot to learn, but you have to be really protective of your own resources and your own roadmap when you’re doing that.

Walter Thompson: This is a transformational moment in tech that’s really lowering barriers for people who want to build something. From your perspective, what is this opening up with regard to expanding and diversifying the developer community?

Ozzy Johnson: Yeah, I think that’s a great question. And I think you’re exactly right. And that’s kind of the core point that it is lowering barriers. One of the things we’ve talked about a bit earlier, is how you don’t necessarily need to be a fully technical founder, you don’t need to have that background. Because AI is enabling so much in the way of, again, anyone who can solve problems, anyone who can think in a structured way can be to some degree, a developer. It really is democratizing access to information, generation of code, etcetera, etcetera. 

What’s really exciting, what’s really great about this, to me, is basically, if you are a subject matter expert in something — whatever background you’re coming from, whatever that expertise is — you now have this opportunity to build something, potentially just starting with a team of one by yourself. And this isn’t a thing that we really had before, you needed to have a certain kind of pedigree, you needed to speak the language of code to do this. But now, it’s really anyone who has experience, an idea and a will to do that now has an avenue to do so. 

And with the tools that are out there, you can do so really quickly, not at a huge cost. And what I think we’ll see come of that is just a huge increase in the diversity of people who are starting things who are building things, and frankly, of the solutions that are available. Some of the things that are most interesting to me to see come out of the current kind of revolution with generative applications are things that really help people who may have been previously underserved in ways that are kind of invisible, right? If you have tools that help you communicate better, help you phrase or rephrase or change your tone, or that you can self educate with, that is like truly kind of democratizing our future in a way. So, absolutely: I’m extremely optimistic and have really high hopes for what this is opening up for the future.

Walter Thompson: My final question, do you have any advice for someone who is interviewing for a job with an AI startup in 2024? If you were sitting across the desk during the interview process? What kind of questions would you ask the CEO to make sure this company was on the right track? And was something you wanted to take a bet on?

Ozzy Johnson: Yeah, that is a great question. Probably the biggest, biggest thing, asking back if it is a startup is, first I want to hear the story. Right, exactly. “What is it? Why is it? What are we doing here?” Very often, there are folks who can speak to this. And in a way that sounds good. But it’s like, “why is someone literally going to buy this product? How is it truly different? Is it better than what exists? And then as an extension of that? Where are we headed? What’s the goal?”

You know, it’s one thing if we’re saying “yes, this is how big we think we’re going to be, this is how we’re trying to exit, this is who we think is going to require us?” It’s another? If someone is saying, “well, yeah, this is my vision,” because vision is something that will necessarily change and can really only be understood by the person who has it. 

So I’d be looking for real concrete direction and goals. And, “how are we different? Where are we headed? How is this different?” Essentially, just play me the movie of how this is all going to work and where I fit into it. “What is my role in making that successful?” That’d be the core.

Walter Thompson: Ozzy, thanks very much for a great conversation. I really appreciate the time.

Ozzy Johnson: Yeah, thank you. It was wide-ranging. Interesting. You really made me think in several places. I hope somebody benefits from it.

Walter Thompson: I’m sure they will. Thanks again. Take care.

Ozzy Johnson: All right, thank you.

Walter Thompson: I’ll be right back with some show notes after a word from our sponsors. 

Thanks again to my guest, Ozzy Johnson, Director of Solutions Engineering and Nvidia. For my next episode, fundraising from both sides of the table, I interviewed Jorge Torres, CEO and co-founder of MindsDB and Vijay Reddy, AI Start investor at Mayfield. 

If you’ve listened this far, I hope you got something out of the conversation. Subscribe to Fund/Build/Scale so you’ll automatically get future episodes, and consider leaving a review. For now, you can find the Fund/Build/Scale newsletter on Substack

The show theme was written and performed by Michael Tritter and Carlos Chairez. Michael also edited the podcast and provided additional music. Thanks very much for listening.

This transcript was edited for space and clarity.

Cognition-as-a-Service (CaaS): The Rise of Digital Assistants & Co-Workers

When I observed that AI+Human=Human Squared back in September of 2023, I did not predict the velocity of that change. At Mayfield, in January 2024, we shared our investing focus on the cognitive plumbing layer (middleware, data, models, cognitive cloud infra) as a rich area of opportunity for startup innovation. However, I think the industry is going into a deeper sea change — the era of Cognition-as-a-Service (CaaS) — which follows the mega waves of IaaS (Infrastructure-as-a-Service), PaaS (Platform-as-a-Service) and SaaS (Software-as-a-Service).

Cognitive Plumbing tech stack IaaS CaaS

Every day, we are seeing AI elevate our lives by automating our daily tasks and augmenting our capabilities. I am bullish about the concept of digital assistants or co-workers, intelligent pieces of software (which are built using Large Language Models) that humans interact with using English or their native language that research, plan and take action to complete daily tasks.  

In business, digital assistants are going beyond content creation and code generation to fundamentally transform essential enterprise workflows. Our company Sema4 has developed an automation-as-code platform that builds digital assistants that go all the way from intent to action. For example, a bank manager can go beyond simply chatting with an LLM (if they have implemented one) on what to do in the case of a fraud alert to actually taking action on blocking the transaction and sending the customer the recording and remediation forms. It’s a matter of time before digital assistants for every persona are available, creating a cadre of digital co-workers who work alongside humans to not only automate mundane tasks, but to also complete high-level intelligent tasks that could only be done by humans. 

On a consumer level, whimsical examples of assistants that sort your laundry or design stickers are being discussed. I would love to see one that simplifies my travel — finds me that perfect beach to vacation at as a group of 7 including our pet Labradoodle Toby, books my hotel and flight, remembers to ask if I need a car or two, records and communicates my diet preferences, checks me into my flight, and delivers my boarding pass. 

I see a future where every persona gets a digital co-worker, enabling humans to behave like superhumans.

Learnings from Leaders: Satya Nadella/Microsoft

Navin Chaddha Satya Nadella

In 2013, I had the honor of hosting a TIECON keynote conversation with Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft. I was reminded of this chat as I get ready to host a conversation on May 2 with another great leader I admire, Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA. He is an amazing leader of one of the most significant companies of our time, a founder who discusses his 30-year journey with unshackled honesty, and as I have personally experienced, a consummate host. We plan to chat about what the world will look like in the future with GenAI, learnings from his journey, and our shared experience as immigrants.

Satya and I worked together at Microsoft in the late 1990s when it acquired my first company VXtreme, which pioneered video streaming over the Internet and grew into Windows Media. When I chatted with Satya in 2013, he was the President of the Server and Tools division that put Azure on the map.  Many themes from my conversation with Satya are still relevant today as he continues to lead the most valuable company in the world (market cap of over $3 trillion) and at the forefront of the GenAI era.

Keeping his eye on the prize: As we discussed trends such as consumerization of IT, the rise of clouds, and unleashing the power of data, Satya’s excitement was palpable and it was clear that he was watching where the puck goes.

Valuing community: His comments on how game and other developers are going beyond product to help with marketing and design illustrated his view on the power of individuals to influence trends.

Being founder friendly: His comments on how startups can align with Microsoft to benefit from distribution, how founders of acquired companies can bring their risk taking mindset to grow into leaders at Microsoft, and how Microsoft wanted to stay close to Silicon Valley presaged his partnership with Sam Altman, the legendary AI founder of our age.

Having clarity and humility as a leader: His comments on how once you stop learning you stop doing anything useful; how concept, capabilities and culture have to be in lock step for companies to thrive; and how when he complained about his first review, his boss told him how careers can be short-term inefficient and long-term efficient.

Bringing his whole self to work: His open discussion of how being a parent to special needs children has given him perspective and helped shape his attitude which is reflected in how everyone who interacts with him remarks on his empathy.

His final advice to founders was to take advantage of the cloud renaissance to Be Bold – a motto that is even more relevant today as founders soar to great heights in our Human Squared era of AI!

Watch the full video on YouTube.

 

Arvind Gupta on Innovation, Investing and Planetary Health

Mayfield Partner Arvind Gupta recently appeared on “Move Fast and Fix the Planet,” a new podcast about climate and sustainability entrepreneurship from STVP – the Stanford Engineering Entrepreneurship Center. Listen to the episode where he discusses his mission to invest in science-based companies that could change history with Professor Mike Lepech, or read the full transcript below:

Arvind Gupta: We don’t innovate until there’s pressure to innovate. Problems don’t get solved, because they exist. Problems get solved, because there’s a reason to solve it. And so now there is pressure to solve problems that we haven’t really bothered to try to solve. And we’re seeing new technologies that are able to solve it with great unit economics that is not philanthropies, that they’re actually businesses. And so, what gives me hope is I do believe capitalism is going to be able to solve climate change and reverse climate change for humanity.

Michael Lepech: Hi, and welcome to the Move Fast and Fix the Planet. I’m your host, Michael Lepech, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford. I’m also an associate faculty director of STVP, the Stanford Engineering Entrepreneurship Center, where we empower aspiring entrepreneurs to become global citizens who create and scale responsible innovations. Of course, one of the biggest global challenges we face is climate change and the sustainability of our planet. In each episode of this podcast, we’ll talk to a different expert about entrepreneurship in climate and sustainability, and what’s different about it, if anything, from entrepreneurship in other spaces.

On today’s show, I’m thrilled to welcome Arvind Gupta. Arvind is a partner at Mayfield, focusing on investments in human and planetary health, where his mission is to invest in science-based companies that could change history. He’s also the founder of IndieBio, a development program for biotech startups trying to solve major world problems. Prior to founding IndieBio, he was design director at IDEO in Shanghai. Arvind is also the author of Decoding the World: A Roadmap for the Questioner, a firsthand account of the science that’s shaping our future. He was honored with the F50 Global Award for Impact in HealthTech Innovation and is a frequent speaker at TechCrunch Disrupt, Slush, TEDx and Future Food Tech. Arvind received his BS in genetic engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and holds eight patents. Welcome, Arvind.

Arvind Gupta: Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

Michael Lepech: Yeah, this is a lot of fun to have you here today. I want to dive right in, and you’ve been a pioneer in investing in science-based companies that look to tackle some of the world’s most pressing challenges. You’ve looked at reinventing the food system, to combating climate change, to a host of other really tough problems. How did you first get involved in human and planetary health? And maybe if even before that, you can discuss a little bit about what does planetary health mean to you?

Arvind Gupta: Yeah, thank you. Thanks for that question. It was a long and winding road to get to today, and I’ll share some of that with you guys, because it is interesting and there are some lessons that I’ve drawn from it. But to address your second question first, planetary health just refers to the idea that our planet has health, just like human health. People, we think of our own bodies and we get sick, we take medicine, we heal ourselves. Our planet also gets sick, and we have been making it sick. And there are ways we need to give it medicine to make it better and make it better for everyone, because when the planet gets sick, people die and a lot of people die. It’s projected over the next 50 years, more people will die from climate change related activities than all diseases combined. So, that’s a significant impact.

Also, as the planet gets sicker, what’s going to happen is our resources become much, much more scarce. And with scarcity, prices get driven up. Inflation goes up, as everyone talking about today, and that causes prices to rise and it increases inequality. So, planetary health is linked to two of the biggest problems that I see in the next 50 years, which is climate related deaths and rising inequality. Those are big problems to tackle, but the good news is human ingenuity and capitalism, combined with opportunity, can solve these problems in a way that we’ve never seen before.

Michael Lepech: I really like the way that you started with grounding this in the environmental health of our planetary ecosystems, but then interestingly, and I didn’t necessarily see it going this way, you use the economic piece to then connect it over to equity and inequality. And that brings together that triple bottom line that we often think about when we talk about sustainability. And it also relates it very closely to the topic for this podcast, which of course is a capitalism investing venture type topic. And so, I really appreciate the way that you were able to weave all of that together. So how did you get into this?

Arvind Gupta: Yeah, well, it’s an interesting question. I didn’t grow up knowing what venture capital was. I didn’t grow up knowing what entrepreneurship was. My dad’s a professor at UCLA, my mom’s an accountant. They’re immigrants from India. I’m first generation, grew up in Los Angeles, and it was in Van Nuys, which isn’t the world’s best neighborhood. And so, this idea of going out on your own and building a world changing company was completely foreign to me until just recently, really in the last decade or two, last 10 years. And so I grew up thinking, “Okay, I’m going to be a scientist.” And so I went to school at UC, Santa Barbara. I studied genetic engineering, got interested in economics through thinking about how DNA self-assembles and economics is basically the self-assembly of society. And so, thought there was overlap there.

Michael Lepech: Wow, that’s a very interesting jump there from saying that, “We were studying the genetics of DNA and the assembly,” and then you connected that to, “Wow, I think this is a lot like economics.” I just want to recognize that. That’s an interesting jump that I don’t know everyone would make.

Arvind Gupta: Yeah. No, thank you. So the way DNA coils itself, this is in 1992, ’93, ’94, it was a lot less known about genetics back then. And so in thinking about; how does miles and miles of DNA filament pack itself down into inside a tiny little cell, in a nucleus of a cell, and then unpack and get read to drive the instructions and then refold back up to… It’s fascinating to think about that. And so for me, just thinking about what are all the things that create this self-assembly, it just naturally led me… I don’t know. My curiosity led me there. And then I remember my first economics class, I was hooked. It was macroeconomics, introduction to macroeconomics. And the first lines of the class, the professor said, “Human desire is unlimited. And because of that, we have the study of economics, because economics is a study of scarcity.”

And I think that stuck with me in a way that I still to this day think about. And it drives the way I think about investing in planetary health, because I do take that to be a fundamental truth, a truth as much as gravity. And so, if we think about that and then look at the economic system we have, capitalism, capitalism will always deliver what the consumer wants always. Always.

Michael Lepech: I guess the equilibrium of economic theory is in itself a self-assembling construct and that equilibrium that we achieve in markets, whether they’re micro or macro in scale, I can absolutely, now that you’re discussing it, see how you would make that jump. So you’re studying genetic engineering, and then what next?

Arvind Gupta: So what next? Yeah, we could continue on tangents for several hours. So basically, genetic engineering I saw was extremely powerful, even in the mid-’90s. When you think of it at a high level, the ability to reprogram life, it’s just obvious that it’s going to be powerful beyond belief. The issue was back then, it was really a set of protocols. It was not a technology yet. It was restriction enzymes and random walks. And the things that we were doing were extremely basic by today’s standards and what would take me a week or a month of prep, now you do overnight and by mail, by mail order. And so I thought to myself, “Okay, well, I don’t know really, I don’t want to be a doctor, and I certainly don’t want to be a bench scientist. I know this is very powerful, but what else can I do with my mind?”

And so I go back to economics and I say, “Well, okay, if there’s a lot of different variables, all that are changing at the same time, maybe I can try to predict how those variables play out and make a bet on it. Where could I do that? The stock market.” So I moved to San Francisco and stood on the steps of the Pacific Stock Exchange. And everyone that came out, I asked, Hey, could I get you some coffee or something? Just give me a job.” And one guy was like, “Yeah, I’ll give you a job and you can get my coffee and check my trades.” So I got on the floor. There I started to learn what was going on. I asked a lot of questions, and a small trading firm backed me to be a market maker in the Microsoft pit. That’s where I learned making money without creating value leads you to a life of consumption as a way of measuring yourself.

Michael Lepech: Interesting. I’d also like to point out someone took a chance on you.

Arvind Gupta: Oh, many people over and over again in life have taken chances on me.

Michael Lepech: Yeah. And so now, I think ultimately we’ll get to you as a venture investor where your job is in some extent taking a chance on people, but I think that’s an interesting point in life when you think about the people who took a chance on you.

Arvind Gupta: Yeah, I can name… You’ll hear in my story crucial moments where I would certainly not be where I am today if it wasn’t for a number of people that believed in me. And so, because my life goes in a way that it wasn’t a straight line, and so therefore, when you go in a different direction, someone has to take a chance on you, because you’re not obvious. So anyway, I got on the floor, started trading, realized that this wasn’t the life that I envisioned for myself, and I knew I could do it, I knew I could make money from trading and options, market making. So I said, “Okay, well, let’s run the experiment. If I do nothing, whatever it is I do, when I do nothing, if I can make a living doing that, then I’m on vacation for the rest of my life.”

So, I decided to run the experiment, close my positions down, walked out the floor, and that’s when I learned basically to find the art side of my life. I started reading a lot of the classics. I basically lived in Moe’s Books in Berkeley. And I started to write poetry, things like that, make my own furniture out of driftwood. And a friend of mine, who I was teaching how to bass jump, I was a bass jumper at the time, and a big wall climber. He was like, “Oh, you should be a designer.” And I was like, “What’s that?” And he’s like, “It’s solving problems with science and art and blend it together.” And I’d never heard of design ever in my life. I was like, “You could make a living?” And he was like, “Yeah.” And so I enrolled in a master’s program at SF State. That was another person that took a chance on me. I had no background in art and Stefano… I was, “Hey, how could I be a designer? All these kids know how to draw and all this stuff.” And he’s like, “It’s not about drawing. It’s about life experiences and using that to solve problems. It’s about the ideas, that matters far more.” And I said, “Oh, okay.”

So that gave me the courage to even try. And then the head of the program took a chance on me that here’s a guy with no portfolio, no nothing, “Yeah, sure, come in.” So, two years in, I had a student show and a global lead of industrial design from IDEO, a guy named Paul Bradley, saw my work and he said, “Hey, you should come and work with IDEO.” And I said, “Okay,” so he was another guy that took a chance on me.

Michael Lepech: He’s coming from the IDEO office in Palo Alto, I imagine?

Arvind Gupta: Correct, with David Kelley, Tim Brown, the people that you know at the d.school for Stanford. And so that’s where I started really understanding. So design was formative for me, because fundamentally I’m still a designer. And what that means is I look at the world through the lens of finding problems and problems are far more important than solutions to me, because problems are persistent. You never just solve a problem. It’s funny, right? Humanity has the same set of fundamental problems that it did a million years ago, or even 200,000 years ago as homo sapiens. And we just solve it with different technologies. And human connection is the same fundamental problem. Now we have TikTok and Tinder and all these apps, Instagram.

Michael Lepech: Zoom.

Arvind Gupta: Zoom, we have… But the connection hasn’t been solved. It’s not like, “Okay, we can move on from that.” I’m hoping climate change is different. I actually hope we can solve that and move on from it. And I think we can, we’ll get to that in a bit. But problems are really… I always said as a design director, the better the problem, the better the product. And so you might as well spend your time honing and refining your problem. And that includes all the constraints around your problem, because the more that you find the constraints, the more your product design is itself in the right way. And if a designer is spending too much time trying to design, they haven’t found the actual problems they’re trying to solve, and their solution is going to suck. Their design is just not going to be something that resonates with people, because it’s too much of the hand of the designer and not the hand of the problem.

So from there, I always thought; what else can design do? How do we find more constraints? I started building businesses through product, as we started expanding what design could do at IDEO with business design and things like that. And I was doing a lot of the technology products and designs to the Samsung Galaxy Curve. I did a project with LG where the design brief was; design a $500 million business. And we did that with McKinsey. So I learned all these tools, and that’s when I was in Shanghai, my wife had this idea for a fitness startup when we were walking around in Xi’an. She built it, launched it three months later, and it was being used very quickly all over the world, thousands of people. She was getting emails from people saying, “Hey, you changed my life, because you helped me get started on my fitness journey.” And I was like, “Man, I’ve designed all this stuff, I’ve won all these awards, but no one’s ever emailed me that I changed their life.” It was a remarkable experience for me.

And so we were coming back to the Bay Area, and my friends had left and become early stage employees at Square and other startups. And this is 2013. And I met this guy named Shaun O’Sullivan who was running basically a family office, but he had this idea to start these accelerators that are vertically focused. And he had one in Shenzhen called HAX, and it was a hardware accelerator, first of its kind. And I saw that, and I thought always back to genetic engineering, I never lost my love of science. I kept up with papers, so I knew the advancements that were happening in the field, and I was thinking about blending them in with design the whole time. And I wrote a paper actually in the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology in 2011 that you could look up that asked the question; what happens if you mix design thinking with scientific method, and you can actually speed up R&D?

So, I saw this thing that Shaun was doing as an idea, as a test bed for what design and investing in early stage biotechnology could do. I thought, “Okay, well, what would a vertical accelerator for biotechnology, synthetic biology and genetic engineering look like? And what can we do with it?” Well, when you reprogram life, you make it more efficient. What’s the most pressing problem of our time that I could spend the next 50 years of my life working on? Climate change, disease. These are the things that are persistent don’t go away and expertise in that can continue over time. So I basically said, “Shaun, look…” He was saying, “Hey…” I gave a talk at HAX, and he was like, “I think you should be a VC.” And as I thought about it, I thought, “Okay, yeah, you’re right. We could do something like this and reinvent what financing early stage biotech companies look like.” And all of these postdocs were coming free. And there’s a phrase called the postdocalypse, where postdocs basically don’t have jobs to go to, because professors aren’t retiring and there’s more postdocs than positions available.

So, I saw this stock of human talent, real talent, it takes a lot of talent to be a postdoc, and they’d had no options. But if you give them a chance to work really hard and work on a hard problem, I bet they could solve it. So I proposed that to Sean. Sean agreed. So I joined SOSV, as a partner, and built IndieBio here in San Francisco in the Bay Area. And that was the simple premise, but no one really believed it at the time, because one biotech had to be expensive, and I was proposing financing it for a 100K, which is laughable, literally laughable. It’s naive to me even today to think about that, and that postdocs could be entrepreneurs, laughable. No one believed that. And that biotech had to be only for drug making, which you could make things cheaper and more efficiently. So, why wouldn’t you have economic value there?

So anyway, those things turned out to be true, and IndieBio took off, and we funded companies like Memphis Meats, now, Upside Foods, the first cell based meat company, Clara Foods, now EVERY Company, egg whites without chickens, a host of agricultural companies and a couple dozen therapeutics companies. The combined market cap is north of $5-$6 billion today. And about three years ago, I realized after building a New York office, I really wanted to work with fewer founders deeper. And I hired Po Bronson who I wrote a book with, and I knew he was more than capable of growing IndieBio and keeping its true north. So I thought to myself, “Well, why don’t I learn how to help these companies grow all the way to maturity and join Mayfield as a general partner in order to do that?”

Michael Lepech: Because 100,000 doesn’t get you very far.

Arvind Gupta: No, but the ecosystem of follow on financing does.

Michael Lepech: That’s exactly right.

Arvind Gupta: That’s right. And so, well over a billion dollars have been raised by IndieBio companies. But I was just spread really thin, and I worked very closely with every single company that moved through IndieBio for the first 10 batches. Every single company I worked with on a personal basis for four and a half months, and then stayed with them afterwards. As too many founders, you just don’t have time, so now I’m focused much, more focused, and selective in the problems that I’m working on. So yeah, that takes me to today.

Michael Lepech: Yeah. Wow. Well, so that leads me to my next question, which with regard to having a front seat to seeing the evolution of startups in this space by being such a force in IndieBio and then now being able to do rounds of follow on at Mayfield, do you think that investing in the climate and sustainability startup space is different than other sectors, whether it’s tech or medtech, or any other vertical for that matter?

Arvind Gupta: Yeah, it’s very different. The fundamental physics of business are always going to be the same, but the companies in planetary health often have different business physics, because of their sectors. In other words, software typically has very low manufacturing costs.

Michael Lepech: High margin.

Arvind Gupta: Copy, paste. So that generally leads to high margin. Now, that’s not always true, because oftentimes these companies spend a lot of money on marketing, on distribution. With the recent AI companies, manufacturing costs have actually gone up, because you do have to pay to train models or do API token calls. So, some of that’s changed. But basically, planetary health companies oftentimes are physical products, and so therefore you have very different gross margin structures, fundamentally.

Michael Lepech: Capital intensity is very different.

Arvind Gupta: Much higher capital intensity. Oftentimes, scale is the one thing that gets you to positive unit economics, which means $200 million might need to go into the company prior to seeing any real profit margins. You might see revenues before, but you’re paying through the nose for them. So, those need to be very respected, and you need to design businesses that could survive that kind of growth. So, through the valley of death, which is you have to get through that capital intensity in order to get to positive unit margins. And that’s typically called the valley of death. So, it is different that way, but it’s not different in the entrepreneurial pluck that’s required, the animal spirits that are required to find customers, land them, deliver to them, and have them order more. All of that is required. That’s the same.

Michael Lepech: Yeah, the business of business is still business-

Arvind Gupta: Correct.

Michael Lepech: … as they say. But that brings up an interesting question, and I know this is an odd question to pose to a venture capitalist. Is venture capital the right funding mechanism for these types of companies?

Arvind Gupta: Yeah, it’s a great question. I’m glad you ask it. There is no one universal tool. And so, a lot of these companies have different business physics, which lend itself to different rates of return. There are vast amounts of capital seeking different rates of return. So venture seeks extremely high rates of returns, the highest on the planet, the highest on the planet that I know about, and therefore only certain business physics will match that.

Now, for physical products, that means a very, very high total addressable market. So, $50 billion total addressable market, or more, preferably a lot more than that. So there aren’t many categories that have that high a TAM, which you could then make up for a lower gross margin in revenue. So let’s just say your price to sales or price to revenue multiple in your sector is usually, I don’t know, three. I’ll make up something. Consumer packaged good is usually lower than that, 1.5 to 2.5. Let’s just say it’s three. You could still get to a multi-billion dollar valuation, $10 billion on 3 to $5 billion of revenue. Now, it takes a long time to get there. It takes longer… So you have to figure out how you’re going to fit within your time horizon, investment horizon, which is 10 years typically for venture funds. You have to figure all that out, but if you can know your destination, you can design your way there. And I’m a big fan of destination analysis; where where am I going? What does it look like? Paint that picture and now draw your map and you have your assumptions and go test your assumptions on the way to victory. So I think that’s the way to think about it.

Michael Lepech: One of the things that we like to call that in our book is future back planning, draw out your future and then back plan.

Arvind Gupta: Great phrase. But is that venture? There’s private equity, there’s other pools of capital, there’s debt financing that have different return requirements, that might be better suited for different types of businesses. So I think that’s something that great founders can do, or even different times. Seed stage can be venture, but later on you can go find alternative non-equity forms of financing.

Michael Lepech: Yeah. Well, I guess that connects me to my next question is that you talk about the returns for venture being very high, but of course that’s necessary to offset the extreme risk associated with most venture investments and the Power Law of returns. If you’re only going to get a small fraction of companies that do provide returns, then they have to offset everything else. And so, do you think there is a model in this space where maybe the risk, because the TAMs are so large, because these problems are so fundamental, that maybe the risk of failure is lower and therefore you don’t need to get those high returns on the winners that you do pick? Or is the risk of a failed startup, in your experience, equally as high, and so therefore that Power Law that is the fundamental, underlying principle of venture portfolio theory, does that still hold in this space, or can it be broken?

Arvind Gupta: It’s a good question. I think in the end it goes back to what are your goals? So, our goal at Mayfield is to be a top fund, consistent top fund, which it is. And so, that means having consistent top returns. Top returns are always driven by outliers. And so, you can get more consistent. Let’s just say we’re going to do CPG. You can do something where you’re doing 200 to $500 million exits by building a certain revenue that then gets flipped at Nestle. But one, you’re not going to solve climate change when you sell to Nestle, generally, because they have different goals. And two, you’re not going to generate the world-changing types of returns either. So I think that goes back to the goals. For me, I want to invest in companies that can make history, and that means reinventing or reshaping sectors. And Tesla is a great example of a sustainability company in my mind that is a better car, and cars are a $1.5 trillion TAM, and it’s one of the great successes of Silicon Valley. And it’s an example of the number of sectors that are going to be reshaped by entrepreneurs in planetary health and the types of returns that are going to happen in doing so.

Michael Lepech: I think that’s a great example. If you were going to advise a startup founder in this space of just one or two things that you would make sure are right in order to talk to, whether it’s somebody at IndieBio to get some of that initial funding, or to go on to pitch to a general partner at Mayfield and say, “Look, I’m in the climate and sustainability space, but this is why I’m a great investment,” what are those couple things that you would advise them to make sure are right?

Arvind Gupta: Yeah. Well, one, I think they have to be uncompromising. What I look for is uncompromising founders. It’s the one key trait that I see that’s been common to all the great founders that I’ve backed in my own personal experience. And the one common trait when I look out to the entrepreneurs that I admire, people like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs, Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia, all of them are uncompromising, 100% uncompromising, and that leads to controversies at times. Steve Jobs was not an easy person to work with. Elon Musk certainly not an easy person or personality. I don’t know Yvon Chouinard as well, but they were all uncompromising in their values and what they were trying to accomplish. So I think if you go in to pitch, show how you’re uncompromising in what you’re building and how you’re going to use the market forces to solve the problem that you’re setting out to solve.

Second, I think you need to have an amazing team. No one person can build a company. And I think there’s a lot of founders that think about the product they’re building versus the company they’re building. And founders that think about the company they’re building invariably go much further. Finally, the physics of what you’re doing. If there’s only one thing to think about in terms of business physics, it’s the product. How are you 10 times better than your closest substitute? Now, that also determines your very specific total addressable market. So Beyond Meat was 10 times better, arguably, than a Boca Burger, a veggie burger, the frozen… It was not 10 times better, it still is not 10 times better, in most people’s opinion, to a ground beef from a cow that you could buy at Whole Foods or whatever. And so meat eaters don’t switch to Beyond as fast as everyone hoped, because it’s just not better yet, it’s not better health-wise, it’s not better taste-wise. So the market size of Beyond is actually a lot smaller than the market size of meat. It’s the market size of veggie burgers. So that’s how you get to think about what your actual TAM is.

Michael Lepech: Yeah, I often get questions of when I say, “You must be 10x better than your next closest substitute.” Folks will often ask me, “Well, what does that mean? Does that mean 10x cheaper? Does that mean 10x faster?” And what I tell them is you have to understand your customer. What does your customer value and what their most important value proposition is, you have to be 10x on that metric. And if you’re asking the question, “How do I need to be 10x better?”, you don’t know your customer well enough.

Arvind Gupta: Yeah, that’s a good way to say it. I think for me, there’s two parts to it. One is a simple definition of 10x is once I use the product, I can never imagine going back to the old way. So once you use an iPhone, you can’t imagine going back to a Blackberry. Once I use a Tesla, I can’t imagine going back to a gas car. These are 10x products. Now, can you be 10x cheaper? Can you be… Absolutely. So the whole idea to me, so the second part is understanding the dimension in which you’re 10 times better than anyone else. So, does a 10 times cheaper car have a place? Yeah, it definitely has a place in the world. So, that’s what I mean by then you’ll understand what your true addressable market size is, because how many people want a 10x cheaper car? That’s your actual TAM, not $1.5 trillion. So, when you get very specific, it’s very helpful. And that’s what new market creation does, is it takes from the total TAM into where you’re going. So, I think that’s the most important way, that’s why it’s a simple idea, but when you take it very seriously, it becomes a very powerful tool.

Michael Lepech: Yeah. I like that a great deal. So one of the things you had said a little bit earlier really caught my attention, “When you combine design thinking with scientific method, you can accelerate R&D.” And I really like that, because to me what that says is that the first couple stages of design thinking always focus on customer empathy and the definition of a problem. Whereas in the scientific method, we start with asking a hypothesis. And we’ve seen a lot of interesting work come out around hypothesis-driven innovation at startups, and it’s always an interesting mix, but you have a background in design and creative thinking and shaping solutions. How do you see all of this coming together as it relates to planetary health?

Arvind Gupta: Yeah, so for me, the simple way to think about it is scientific method does not presuppose a destination. Design thinking starts with a destination and comes backwards to today. So when you blend the two, you actually get a very powerful tool to accelerate research and develop to solve a problem. So that’s the high level takeaway. And so when it comes to planetary health, every single sector that we have has carbon flowing through it. So when you think about… A simple way to stratify the world is all the carbon humanity creates flows through three general buckets; one is feeding the world, the second is building the world, and the third is powering the world. And that is $100 trillion of market value in terms of global GDP. It’s an incredible amount of opportunity.

So when you think about it, let’s just take energy, I’m just making stuff up really quickly now, let’s just take airline travel, how do we decarbonize airline travel? You get to really start thinking about, “Okay, we have a range of advancements in biology, physics, AI, all of these in pure science.” You’ve got these problems out there, and you’re basically taking from this toolbox of scientific advancement and applying those advancements to that end problem of, say, airline emissions. And then you work forwards using the business of physics to understand how you can create a sustainable company that lasts 20 years and reshapes the sector.

It’s that simple, and great entrepreneurs do this implicitly. So what I’m saying is, it shouldn’t be a shock to anyone, it’s pretty obvious when I say it out loud, but that’s how I believe every single sector we have is going to get reshaped. And I’m very positive and hopeful about the future, because I’m starting to see market forces start to ramp up and start to reward companies that are thinking this way. Oil and gas really is paying for solutions. Now, call it greenwashing or not, they’re paying for solutions. If you look at the fashion industry, they’re paying for solutions. MycoWorks is alternative leather made from mushrooms that was funded by IndieBio, and they’re doing great. So food and ag, enterprises are paying for alternative protein. So, I think that’s where I see how all of these scientific advancements are going to be funneled into products, delivered through capitalism to fulfill the unlimited desires of people. But in doing so, we create a sustainable capitalism.

Michael Lepech: Yeah. I would agree with you that the opportunity is not just large, but unparalleled in human history to some extent. But that opportunity will take time and capitalism and markets take time. And so how do you think about balancing the need for urgency to treat a planet, that is not the healthiest it’s ever been, with the patience and resilience that’s required for building really big solutions? Those two things, how do you square them?

Arvind Gupta: Well, historically, private sector has started the big ideas, and then the public sector has scaled them. So, it’s interesting, fission reactors started privately, and then the government helped figure out funding, how to scale them into actual workable reactors. I don’t think this going to be any different, because as the problem becomes bigger and bigger… Unfortunately, we as a society focus on problems that are very short term. We don’t tend to give stock to problems that are smaller and further out, because we just don’t think it warrants our attention.

Michael Lepech: Going back to your economics analogy, we have a very different way of discounting future value in our minds than things that are valid today.

Arvind Gupta: Yes, absolutely. And so I think what’s going to happen is as climate change gets worse and crops start getting lost, people’s economic livelihoods start to get lost, migration becomes… Well, yeah, the governments are going to step in. There’s going to be a lot more money flowing through. IRA has already fueled a lot of innovation around hydrogen, for instance. I’ve seen more hydrogen companies in the last year get formed than all the prior years combined. So, the government does have a large role to play, and it will have a large role to play. And even in our more divided political system, it’s going to be a topic that does get attention, and it does get attention worldwide. Europe is leading right now in climate funding and getting initiatives through governments in Europe. So, I think that’s where… It’s going to take all capital to solve this enormous problem, and it will take time, but I believe in humanity. I’m a big believer in people and the power of ingenuity and the power of what we can do when we put our minds to it. I have a front row seat to it.

Michael Lepech: Yeah. I guess the analogy I would make is then when we were all locked in our homes, your field of genetic engineering was able to solve a global problem, because there was a global pressing need in a timeframe that we have never witnessed before.

Arvind Gupta: Exactly. And the pace of acceleration of these technologies is just increasing with AI. It is an amazing time to be alive in that sense. The pace of innovation is going to continue exceeding every year, the year prior by a lot.

Michael Lepech: It is a fascinating time, and this has been a fascinating discussion. Before we finish, we like to do a little segment on our show called Four to Fix the Planet. And so it’s a series of questions that we ask every guest. You ready?

Arvind Gupta: Okay, let’s go.

Michael Lepech: All right. What’s on your bookshelf, playlist or feed right now?

Arvind Gupta: Let me see. I’m listening to a book called “What It Takes” by Steve Schwarzman, “Lessons in the Pursuit of Excellence.”

Michael Lepech: Wow. Sounds pretty good.

Arvind Gupta: Yeah.

Michael Lepech: What’s keeping you up at night?

Arvind Gupta: So far?

Michael Lepech: Yeah, so far. What’s keeping you up at night?

Arvind Gupta: I think just making sure that we can design planetary health businesses in a way that creates resilience in this high interest rate environment, and that we’re able to find the enterprise customers and business customers for these companies that really do pay the premiums that are required to create venture returns for everyone. And I think, I wouldn’t say it’s keeping me up at night, because I’m seeing wins in that direction.

Michael Lepech: You talked about it being a great time to be alive.

Arvind Gupta: Yeah.

Michael Lepech: What’s giving you hope?

Arvind Gupta: A lot of stuff. How much innovation and how… We don’t innovate until there’s pressure to innovate. Problems don’t get solved, because they exist. Problems get solved, because there’s a reason to solve it, and it’s Darwinistic in that way, requires a pressure. And so now there is pressure to solve problems that we haven’t really bothered to try to solve. And we’re seeing new technologies that are able to solve it with great unit economics that is not philanthropies, that they’re actually businesses. And so, what gives me hope is I do believe capitalism, the greatest system for innovation humanity has ever produced, is going to be able to solve climate change and reverse climate change for humanity.

Michael Lepech: That is hopeful. What’s your favorite sustainability hack? Something that people could do to add to their day-to-say lives that you like?

Arvind Gupta: Gosh, I don’t know if I have anything super clever here. Yeah, for me, I am an athlete, and so I require high amounts of protein. I eat very well and healthy. And so being vegetarian has been hard for me in the sense that it comes with a lot of carbs in general. The protein that I get from whole legumes and things like that doesn’t have the same balance. So, for me, you probably saw it earlier, I drink these protein shakes as a way of getting the protein that I need and it’s milk-based, but that’s okay for me. And so that’s what I’m doing as my hack, I’d say, is from my own personal life, that was the way I found getting off meat to be the easiest and still maintain my competitive and fitness goals.

Michael Lepech: Very cool. One other thing that I’m wondering, because you brought it up, what’s your favorite classic?

Arvind Gupta: Oh, wow.

Michael Lepech: You spent all that time at Berkeley reading classics.

Arvind Gupta: I did. I did. That’s an interesting question. Jorge Luis Borges, I don’t know if it would be considered a classic, but he was probably one of my favorite authors. Also, Hermann Hesse influenced me a lot along with Albert Camus. The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus was probably the most influential book for me at that time. And this idea that loving toil… My takeaway from the book was if you’re rolling a ball up the hill every day, and that’s supposed to be be hell, because you never go anywhere, well, obviously it’s the absurdity of life is a metaphor for that. And so the only escape from hell is to love that toil, to love that rock, to love every rugosity, every divot, every crack in it, and to learn it. And then you’ve escaped hell and you’ve given yourself a way, a mechanism of really taking something from the toil and making it your own experience and reframing it in a positive way. And that goes a bit to Viktor Frankl’s thinking as well, Man’s Search for Meaning, another great not a classics, but I think important work. So, anyway.

Michael Lepech: Yeah. And I like that as an ending, because that actually connects well to being an entrepreneur.

Arvind Gupta: Yeah, absolutely.

Michael Lepech: You have to love the problem, not the solution.

Arvind Gupta: Yeah. You got to love the toil. I think work is… When you find what you love to do, the work is truly a vacation. It doesn’t mean it’s easy. It doesn’t mean it’s not stressful. It’s extremely stressful, because you have goals and those goals are hard, and building things and putting people together and leading, none of that’s simple. And so, yeah, I think loving it is what makes it all worthwhile, because there’s a good chance it’s not going to work anyway.

Michael Lepech: For sure. Well, thank you so much, Arvind, for taking time to talk with us today.

Arvind Gupta: It was my pleasure. I really enjoyed it. Great questions, Mike.

Michael Lepech: Today’s guest has been Arvind Gupta of Mayfield. If you enjoyed this show, be sure to subscribe to Move Fast and Fix the Planet wherever you get your podcasts, and help others find it by rating, reviewing, and sharing it. Learn more about this podcast and related work at stvp.stanford.edu/sustainability. Move Fast and Fix The Planet is hosted by me, Mike Lepech, and produced by STVP, the Stanford Engineering Entrepreneurship Center. This episode is supported by Stanford Ecopreneurship Programs. Our producers are Holly McCall and Anthony Ruth. Editing is by Stanford Video. For more podcasts, interviews, and articles, please visit stvp.stanford.edu/ecorner.

Fund/Build/Scale: Digging Your Moat: Customer Discovery + PLG for AI Startups (Transcript)

Here is the full transcript of the conversation between Fund/Build/Scale podcast host Walter Thompson and Rodrigo Liang, co-founder and CEO of SambaNova Systems:

Welcome to Fund/Build/Scale, a podcast that explores the tactics and strategies founders and investors are using to build early-stage startups. I’m your host, Walter Thompson.

Today, I’m talking to Rodrigo Liang, co-founder and CEO of SambaNova Systems.  

Launched in 2017, SambaNova has raised more than a billion dollars to create a full-stack LLM platform.

Our conversation covered a lot of ground, including his thoughts on digging a competitive moat, product-led growth strategy for AI startups, and the importance of aligning the needs of customers with the technology you’re developing.  

Before we wrapped up, I asked him to share some advice for founders who are fundraising in 2024 — and for anyone who’s thinking about joining an AI startup. More after this.

Fund/Build/Scale is sponsored by Mayfield, the early-stage venture capital firm that takes a people-first approach to helping founders build iconic companies.

The podcast is also sponsored by Securiti, pioneer of the Data Command Center, a centralized platform that enables the safe use of data and GenAI.

Walter Thompson

Thanks very much for joining me today. I appreciate it. Just a general question, what does SambaNova Systems do, and how did you initially get involved with the company? How did you initially connect with your co-founders?

Rodrigo Liang

So SambaNova, we’re an enterprise AI platform company, we’re focusing on helping companies train and deploy large AI, generative AI models, in a secure and private environment. And so when we started the company, there are two, three of us — two Stanford professors and myself — and we, we’ve known each other for years. 

And so a lot of the common history, common threads really pulled us together, as we started thinking about this next wave of technology transitions that the world was starting to experience, which is artificial intelligence, machine learning. And now Gen AI.

Walter Thompson

How long did you know them before you decided to join up and become a founding team?

Rodrigo Liang

The three of us — Kunle Olukotun is a professor at Stanford, he’s been there for 35 years, I want to say thirty-plus years. And so he and I have known each other for over 20 years now, probably 24 years now. And so it’s a long, it’s a long relationship that we’ve had, and certainly with Chris Ré, who’s the other professor at Stanford, in fact, we’ve known each other for over seven years, as well. And just being able to build that common thread of understanding and kind of how you would build companies, how you would innovate, how you deliver new products, new ideas — those are really, really important things that, you know, founders and co-founders have to share in order for you to actually have a common vision, a common destination, as the market evolves and as your company evolves.

Walter Thompson

In your mind, what sets AI product-led growth apart from traditional SaaS companies?

Rodrigo Liang

One of the really interesting things with artificial intelligence and the companies that you see today, coming into the artificial intelligence market, is that for the first time, you’re seeing products having to span a very broad market from consumer all the way into the enterprise. And so the technology for artificial intelligence is applicable broadly. And so historically, you’ve seen companies that come into the market and they do one well, but not the other. Right? You have companies like Dropbox or Zoom that you can look at, they were very focused on being able to address the rapid adoption of one of those markets. 

But with AI, what you’re seeing is this challenge of having to create something that applies broadly and you really haven’t seen that since probably companies like Apple and Microsoft started creating technologies that really crossed the entire segment of the marketplace. So AI presents an interesting opportunity and challenge and, and you also see some really interesting market dynamics around margins and things like that when people kind of release products and try to figure out well, how do you create something that allows you to continue to innovate, allows you to continue to actually build value. But you can’t just do it without a commercial model that works. So I think you’re seeing a lot of that play out on the market today. And I think you’re gonna continue to see that evolve.

Walter Thompson

So, you brought up Zoom. Zoom took off during the pandemic, because it was an easy, cheap way to stay connected. It’s a pretty classic example of PLG in action. Enterprise buyers have layers of compliance and procurement for companies to navigate. So how has PLG impacted your go-to-market strategy?

Rodrigo Liang

Zoom is a great example. Prior to the pandemic, it was competing with a number of other solutions that were at least in enterprise perceived as high security, high availability, high many things right, and so for the enterprise need, and then the situation, the commercial market showed up and the situation showed up that allowed you to kind of come in and advocate for a value proposition where some of these other issues that you were dealing with was of less priority than being able to be widely available at a low enough cost. So you can deploy uniformly across the entire enterprise, right. 

And so, so I think we’re seeing this as well, that you’re finding that artificial intelligence and Gen AI as a wave, it is challenging most companies in terms of their traditional policies, the traditional policies that they will otherwise adhere to, things about data security, data privacy, being able to use models that maybe you know, you you didn’t create there, there are a lot of things that companies have held for a long time, which are being challenged as a process because the value of artificial intelligence is so great, right, that you’re solving such a big problem that you have now have to revisit those constraints. 

Now, SambaNova, what we’ve done is, since we’re enterprise-only, really focusing on the enterprise need, and we’ve been in this market for a long, long time, we try to mitigate those, so that companies don’t have to throw out 20, 30 years of investment in security and data privacy just to take advantage of Gen AI. So what we’ve done is created a platform that allows you to get all the benefits of the best Gen AI technologies out there, but allows you to then retain a lot of the protections that you might want for data privacy, data security, and making sure that your data does not leak inadvertently into the open domain.

Walter Thompson

Can you describe your ideal customer? And how long did it take you to triangulate your ideal customer profile?

Rodrigo Liang

Well, I think for us, you know, because we knew from the very beginning where the value proposition was going to be, it was all around mission-critical applications. And this is, by the way, and we can talk about this a little bit, but I think, as we start, having a clear identity of what problem we’re trying to solve is really important. And that’s something that my co-founders and I had very early on, which is we need to create a platform that allows enterprises to be able to deploy this in a way that you can actually feel comfortable with all the policies and processes that you already invested decades into, right. And so we came in thinking about these mission-critical applications, by the fact that you have latency sensitivities you have, you know, availability sensitivities, you have scale sensitivities, you have security, privacy, these are all standard things that it doesn’t matter whether you’re selling hardware or software, right doesn’t matter whether you’re selling SaaS or services, it doesn’t matter what product you’re selling into those environments, they all remain true, right? 

They have to be scalable, they have to be available, they have to be mission-critical, they have to be secure, they have to be data private. And so we came in with a very, very strong thesis around the fact that artificial intelligence will be the dominant technology for the next 10-15 years for enterprises. And you have to solve these basic tenets of what enterprises care about. And so when we started, we effectively just focused on customers for whom those were the most true, right? That some enterprises, many enterprises will say that those things are important, but there are some enterprises, imagine a highly regulated one, you know, highly-regulated companies or highly-regulated organizations, governments and things like that, where that’s most true. That’s where we started. We started with places where, you know, our customer need was the strongest to allow us to actually be able to articulate and demonstrate the value proposition that we’re bringing.

Walter Thompson

So break it down for me a bit, your customer discovery process, how long —  just roughly ballpark it? How long did that take before you were certain that you had enough information from potential customers to validate the thesis you’re talking about?

Rodrigo Liang

I think, you know, for us, and I’ll say that this is non-standard, because many things about artificial intelligence and this cycle of, of technology transition has been non-standard, right from, you know, companies like OpenAI getting 100 million users in two months to, you know, to like the new technology companies getting funded, like we raised a billion over a billion dollars in cash through the first three years of the company, there are a lot of non-standard things that many of your audience who may be have, have been in the startup ecosystem for a long time, or they’ve been in technology for a long time, they know that those aren’t things that you you perhaps witness every day, over, over a long period of time. 

But in that construct, I would say that we had two classes of customer: there’s some customers that had been evaluating artificial intelligence on their own, and when we showed up, it was just so clear that they needed something, they weren’t entirely clear exactly where were all the perfect places to apply. But they were going to invest very, very aggressively. And so in those cases, which we have many customers like that, I mean, it was just a matter of a few months? 

There’s kind of traditional again, this enterprise conversation, you know, just being able to demonstrate what you do, for them to understand the capabilities, bring the technical people together, so that’s frequently the way that these kind of very transformational buyers think about it: “I know I need it, I don’t have to figure specifically all the places that I’m going to use it and how to calculate the ROI and all these different individual cases, because it’s a platform I need, and I’m going to need to what’s more important for me is to get going because it’s a competitive advantage for me, right?” And that’s a big class of our customers. 

There’s another wave of customers that’s basically looking at this as, “okay, how does your technology differentiate from the other offerings out there? You’ve got OpenAI and ChatGPT doing some stuff, and Google does some stuff, all these different people do their various different things? How does your technology fit into my overall hybrid solution that I wanted to plug with various different things?”

And in those cases, there’s a little bit more evaluation: “Okay, where would you fit? And if you fit in places where I have a couple options, what is your differentiation? How do I evaluate the choices?” And it’s a bit more granular in the way that they’re deciding: “Do I use A or B for particular tasks, maybe if you’re not good for B, I can use it between C and D?” So there’s, there’s a little more than that’s a little bit more like a SaaS cycle, traditional, SaaS buying cycle, but what you get out of it are customers that have a very clear idea on the value proposition to your bringing. They have a very clear understanding of how your technology compares to everybody else. 

And you’re able to then lean on that to then create replicable use cases within those companies. You can say, “look, use case A looks like this, your successful use case B also looks like that, so you can be confident that we’ll be successful.” And that’s really important to be able to actually build value for customers quickly and build their own confidence that using your technology, they can get value.

Walter Thompson

When did you decide to bring on a full-time marketing person in that customer discovery journey? Was it kind of after the process you just described? Or before? Obviously money wasn’t an issue as far as bringing on marketing support, So when did that become something you pulled the trigger on?

Rodrigo Liang

Well, I think all founders will know that a big part of your job from day one is marketing. Yeah. Because all you have is some slides, right? And you have to be able to clearly articulate your value proposition to investors Day 1 and it bleeds right into articulating your value proposition to the customer. And so I think so I think, as your audience is listening to this, and probably resonates with many other founders that they have to play the role, and depending on the capabilities of the founding team. If you have it, then you don’t need to bring a dedicated person right away, because one of the people, somebody has to step into that role very, very early.

And if you don’t have somebody, which sometimes you have startups done by folks that aren’t as comfortable with the whole explaining and articulating the ideas and and the concepts in the value proposition in a way that the non-technical folks or the people that aren’t in your industry can understand — which is ultimately the job of marketing. How do you take this very domain-specific knowledge and translate it into something that is actually understandable by a much broader audience. If you don’t have that, then you have to bring it on fairly early because a big part of startups is to articulate, “why this new thing?” There’s this new thing, which is, by definition, the charge of a startup — you’re creating new things. “Why is this new thing so much better than whatever else is already out there. And whatever else I already know?” 

And so having somebody that can articulate that is really important, we just happen to have I mean, we have got two incredible co-founders, professors that are so well-suited in being able to explain the technology side in a way that most people can understand. And then as part of our founding team, we had lots of people that came in with some background and being able to help articulate some of the more complex ideas around machine learning and artificial intelligence to a fairly broad base of customers, some very, very technical and some a little less technical and be able to then still convey the value proposition that we brought.

Walter Thompson

I read an interview where you said that SambaNova had “transitioned to a much more internally-led, and probably now even more customer-led, and customer-centric culture.” What led you to make that shift? Or was that always baked into the company’s recipe?

Rodrigo Liang

I think it’s always been part of the culture of the company, and harder to do early on, when you don’t have clear customers that have a clear view of exactly where they want to go with technology. And so, so I would say, in the first few years, again, we build our own chips. So we don’t use any NVIDIA chips, we build our own chips, we build all the way up to the foundation models, these trillion-parameter models that you see with GPT-4 and that class. And so for us, when we’re building that new one, we’re in that first few years of the company, when you’re building the investment stack, there’s nothing like it on the market. One, there’s nothing like it in the market, nobody knows exactly how to kind of get all that in an integrated fashion. And then, two, the people that see the value, they aren’t entirely understanding how that would fit into the rest of the ecosystem that is evolving. 

You have to have a conviction around how you see your product fitting into the broader scheme of the market. As we started getting customers 1, 2, 3, by the time you get customer 20, 25, 30, now you’re starting to get a very clear point of view of exactly how the customer is going to use it. And by the way, most customers are going hybrid with artificial intelligence, nobody wants to be single-source in a single vendor, everybody wants the latitude and freedom to be able to choose who they want over a period of time they want, they don’t want lock-in. So we come in with the idea that we’ve got to win every use case with every customer and allow the customer to choose us. 

Ultimately, if you start with that belief, that every deal every year, every month, every year that you go out and talk to customers, you have to win the customer again, that drives the behavior in the company of you’ve got to serve the customer’s need, versus the example of if the customer is locked in, there’s no choice. The customer’s need is maybe a little bit less important to the developers, because whatever you build, they have to buy.

Walter Thompson

It’s interesting. I mean, are you ever worried about taking on like a one-off problem, so to speak, like a problem that doesn’t really have a broad scale or scope. You’re creating a new feature for one customer that might not really scale or pay off down the road?

Rodrigo Liang

Yeah, every day, every day. We have meetings all the time about this and this is one of the hardest things, especially in a market that’s still evolving. If you look at Gen AI in the market that’s still evolving, you’re trying to figure out well, “customer A has these three classes of problems, it’s trying to solve it all through one supplier.” Maybe the right way they need to solve this is, “supplier A does problem one, supplier B does problem two,” but they haven’t arrived at that conclusion yet. Of course, as a new company, you always want to get as much of that business as you can, but what’s important is to be able to deliver that sustainably. What you don’t want to do is, say you can do it when you cannot do it. 

Or you can do it, but then it’s such a big push and such a journey outside what you’re good at that it takes up all your resources delivering that. And sometimes what you end up having to do is just really break the problem down to, what is the customer ultimately trying to do? When the customer says, “Hey, can you create this model for me?” And if it’s a model that we don’t necessarily want to create or we don’t understand why they want to create, be understanding what are you trying to do? “Oh, I’m actually trying to do this task and I want Gen AI to actually produce this result.” “Oh, okay. How about this model that we do do?” 

And so there are ways that you can actually really understand the ultimate problem that customers have, and try to potentially align it better with what you’re already doing, because two things happen in that case: one, your ability to deliver in a higher quality is much better because all your people are working on a focused set of things, right? You’re just gonna hit the dates better, your quality is gonna be better. 

But the second thing is, you’re going to be able to then leverage that technology into the field and actually get more customers using and robustifying on your behalf and expanding the feature set on your behalf so that all your clients can benefit from that experience.

Then all your clients come in and say, “oh, it would be great if you also put in these five features.” And so you’re getting that collective feedback on a single product, versus getting all these, you know, distributed feedback on products that aren’t shared between clients. And so then everybody ends up having a subset of the feature set. 

Even if you are really, really good at mapping the needs to kind of what is the main products that you have, they’ll always be cases where a very, very important customer or very, very critical need of a particular customer who creates a requirement that’s a one-off and those are individual decisions, you always have to make. It doesn’t matter if you are your three-year-old startup, or a 30-year old company, when I was at one of the largest companies on this planet, we were still making those decisions of special customers asking for this one thing, should we do it? And so I think that that scenario never goes away.

We’ll be right back after this word from our sponsors.

Are you thinking about launching an AI startup?

Mayfield’s $250 million AI Start seed fund is actively searching for idea-stage entrepreneurs who are working at the cognitive plumbing layer. That’s models, middleware and tools, data, infrastructure, and semiconductors/systems.

Mayfield has a long track record. Since its founding, the firm has been an early investor in more than 550 companies, which has led to 120 IPOs and over 225 mergers and acquisitions.

If you have a fundable idea for an AI-first startup, email aistart@mayfield.com

Every business that incorporates AI has to account for data privacy, compliance and governance. 

That’s why Securiti developed its Data Command Center. Instead of setting up different tools that can eat up time, money, and add complexity, Securiti’s award-winning technology: automates compliance with global privacy regulations; includes a library with more than a thousand integrations across data systems, and identifies data risk to enable protection and control. To learn more, visit Securiti.ai.

Now, back to my conversation with Rodrigo Liang.

Walter Thompson

A B2B SaaS startup might share their product roadmap with an early customer to get buy-in. You’re one of the best-funded AI startups in the game. Is that something you can afford to do? How transparent are you with customers as far as, “here’s what we’re thinking of, or here’s what we’re working on.”

Rodrigo Liang

Again, our stack includes chips through servers, through a variety of things around what we call the AI operating system, right? If you think about how these models all have to interact with each other, and interact securely, and privately, all those things will kind of generally name it in the category of AI OS, just being able to have many, many models, operating concurrently on the platform. So if you think about all those features, that to us, our unique advantages, we tend to be able to give them directionally what we’re doing, but not the specific features, just because these are things that competitively are important for us to make sure that we’re able to drive differentiation and ultimately deliver as well. 

As you get up into the use cases, we’re actually quite transparent. Today, we build our trillion-parameter mall models off oftll the most popular open source and we tell them “okay, we’re using Llama 2, we use Mistral, these are all the types of models we use. And the next wave, we’re going to use these models, these models, these models, these are the configurations of the models, these are the sequence length, these are the batch sizes, the vocabulary sizes, we’re very transparent about what we do as far as kind of how we do these large, large models, and then how those models then are then translated into AI business tasks that you can take advantage of.

Because you’re working on business features and tasks that you don’t care about, then what am I doing? So we’re very, very direct about saying, “look, here’s your call center support, here’s the code Gen support. Here’s  your legal assistant, here’s summarization, here’s your named entity extraction.” It will give you all the very specific things that we’re supporting, so that they can come back and tell them “Yeah, I don’t know, I’m not using those things, but I care about that.” And so we’re able to then, using feedback, adjust what we support more of, because it is all about making sure that the customers when they get a platform, they get ultimately what they need to accelerate delivering value into the corporation.

Walter Thompson

Interesting. What challenges are you seeing with regard to AI adoption, and how would you advise a smaller startup that’s trying to get buy-in with C level executives? My sense is this is something you do over time by building relationships, but how do you get that ball rolling initially?

Rodrigo Liang

A lot of it is a function of the timing of the market as well. When we started the company back in 2017, there wasn’t a very great understanding in the commercial enterprise of what AI could do for us. It took ChatGPT showing up for a lot of people to really, for the first time in a very hands-on way, get a sense of, “oh, I see what Gen AI is all about.” And so I think it depends on the market. Now, as you kind of move forward from here, I think there’s a lot early education that’s taken place, and I think a lot of the enterprises are starting to realize, “okay, in the flow of work for for AI, there are things that I can get from these vendors and the suppliers that exist, you know, SambaNova or NVIDIA or OpenAI, there are places that are delivering these technologies into the enterprise. And there are things that I’m not exactly sure how I could solve. And I think that customers are starting to get that level of insight into what can I do for them?

I think that having that very, very active conversation with customers, a broad range of customers, they don’t even have to be customers today. But our mentality is one where everybody we talk to will one day be our customer. Right? It might be tomorrow, it might be five years from now, but one day, right? And so if the mentality is one where you’re trying to find out what are they thinking about and how could we potentially solve it? I think it actually starts opening a lot of doors for people to say, “okay, well do we have something to my favorite problem and a gap, something that might exist?” So that’s kind of a very just — is there a product-market fit with a need that you might have? 

I think the other aspect for new companies that are trying to enter the market and trends we talk about is, look: another thing that’s interesting about AI is the cost of actually validating your technology now is extremely high, extremely high, right, you look at the cost of running these GPU cycles on the cloud. I mean, a lot of companies are trying to offset that by raising hundreds of millions of dollars in venture funding, right, but not everybody can do that. And so you kind of have to think about effective ways that maybe you can partner with folks, partner with other companies to leverage kind of the relationships that they might have and leverage some of the technology and tools they might have to kind of prove out some of the things that otherwise you have to do all on your own.

We’ve been very open about the partnerships we have with companies like Accenture, with the US government, with other startups, that is a very, very important way that you can actually engage your technology with others and in some ways actually get fast feedback on how well that technology actually solves a particular type of problem. Those types of interactions that allow you to shorten the cycle, allow you to actually prove it faster, allow you to actually make sure that you connect to a problem that people are actually struggling to figure out how to solve, right, those are very, very important before we even get to that commercial conversation that we have to find a procurement person inside that company. Solving a problem is much more expensive these days than it was before, just because of the cost of the computation. But still, the process of solving the problem and process of making sure that you have value in your tech, finding a very efficient way to do that before you enter the procurement process is really, really important.

Walter Thompson

For product-led growth to work, you really need to build consensus and alignment within the entire organization. A lot of companies don’t have that much in-house expertise. Has that been a challenge for you? Or is or is just kind of, “game on, as far as we want generative AI? How can we get it?”

Rodrigo Liang

No, it’s absolutely true. I think intersecting the customer will, wherever they are in their journey, obviously, of companies that are incredibly savvy in AI, they’ve been doing artificial intelligence for a long, long time, they have thousands of people in there. And so you have companies like that. And there’s some companies that are just getting started in their journey, they maybe just hired the first couple of people to really look at it. 

And so understanding where customers are under journey, figure out kind of what you can offer for each of those types of customers at those stages. SambaNova, because we’re a full-stack company, we can go from chips all the way to models, the reason we took it all the way to the highest level of abstraction was we wanted enterprise customers to have an interface that looked like ChatGPT. If you look like ChatGPT for the open market, I can give you the private version of that. It takes a lot of investment to take your technology stack all the way up to that level of abstraction. But what it did for us was, it opened up a whole class of customers that otherwise if we’re down below where we’re actually teaching you how to program our chip, there was no chance that they would actually have enough expertise to be able to do it. 

Now certainly, we have a large number of customers with that level of staffing for artificial intelligence that are able to come in and say “I want to create my own model on your hardware, and I’m going to just do it ourselves.” Certainly we have loads, but being able to then manage out your customer base and be able to map the offering you have to their lifecycle into where they are in the journey itself, I think is really, really important to actually be successful in this market.

Walter Thompson

How does your PLG approach enhance the customer experience in a way that encourages people to become advocates or evangelists?

Rodrigo Liang

We really are focused on getting quick proofs of success.So we have these things that we show a customer called previews and what the previews are is basically, if you think about use cases for AI, a lot of people look at, “oh, I see this model on the web — GPT this, GPT-4, GPT-3.5, I see Mistral.” Those are not use cases for the customer. Those are amazing models that ultimately integrated into a workflow that will deliver end benefit to the customer. And so what we’ve done is, we’ve created these previews, and these are business outcome previews, “how do I take the technology that we have, but instead of showcasing how much better technology is compared to somebody else’s technology, let me show you how this technology feeds into a solution that is important to your business, right? How do I create value for you and deliver something you can’t get from anywhere else to give you a sense of how quickly you can take this technology stack and actually create benefits into your business?”

And that’s an incredibly important way to actually create acceleration, because otherwise, you leave it to your customer to figure out how the heck do I actually show value? And we want to actually make sure that the customers can show value very, very quickly. 

Walter Thompson

Last few minutes of our interview here, but if you could share some advice for people who are starting  out  or  who  are thinking about starting out with an AI startup. You mentioned, pretty clearly,  SambaBova has raised more than a billion dollars in its first three years. Do you have any  general  advice for early-stage AI founders  who  are  trying  to  raise  a  seed round right now in  2024?  

Rodrigo Liang

Two things: it’s much better to be raising now than it was last year, right? So your timing is much better, I would say, the understanding in the market and investor community around what AI can do, and what all the possible things that add value, I think is significantly higher than it was say, three, four years ago. And so I think be very, very clear about the value proposition that you bring, just having a tech that does X, Y, Z. Imagine these investors are seeing this probably, you know, 20, 30, 40 times a day and so there are a lot of ideas out there, and many of them aren’t going to be able to actually deliver value into the customer base. 

Think about something that is of significant value and think of something that is of significant value over a protracted duration of time, not as only valuable today, but you can see how it accretes value over time and allows investors to actually buy you time so that you can actually deliver more and more traction in the marketplace. Right. And so those are the two important things that I can think of.

Walter Thompson

I think a number of my listeners are likely people who have an engineering or an academic background, if they’re, they’re thinking about starting up. But becoming a CEO kind of takes an entrepreneurial mindset. So was this a challenge for you way back when you did your first startup, and do you have any advice for helping someone overcome this hurdle? It’s just a mental hurdle, but it’s real. 

Rodrigo Liang

Some people will say this is still a challenge today. Every day is a challenge, you know, the role of and it’s not just a CEO, but the role of leaders in a startup. The startup needs what they need from you changes year after year, and you have to sit down and figure out what it is that the company needs from you. 

That was never my case, because we just had such an amazing technical team that could deliver on the technology that I didn’t have to be that person. But for many of your audience, you might be, you might be the technical guru for the company. And so there’s a stage where what the company needs you you figure out is to solve that hard problem, right, solve that really hard problem. And many, many startups in the early stages are formed because you have an incredibly amazing technical solution driven by your own capabilities. And as we grow, then the company’s needs start changing, because the hard problems have been solved. Now, it’s all about scaling, robustifying, creating all sorts of other things. And yet, what the company needs next for you to take this incredibly sophisticated, amazing technology and explain it to somebody, to a layman in a way that they can understand value. 

Now, suddenly, you became a marketing person, right? And so that’s it: the needs of the company change, change what you have to do very, very quickly, and our ability to go from fundraising, to explaining the value proposition to customers, to helping customers actually incorporate into your change management, all of those things, those end up adding skills that we sometimes have from before, but oftentimes did not. And so I would say, for entrepreneurs, if you want to become an entrepreneur, lead a startup, be very, very adaptive, be very open to learning new skills, that you’re not going to do them perfectly. But the company needs you to do some of it.

Walter Thompson

How would you advise someone who’s looking for a job with an AI startup? What should their due diligence process look like and what are some questions that you would ask during the interview process?

If you’re sitting across the table, like you want a job with an AI startup, what are some of the questions you’d be asking them to kind of figure out like, you know, “is this a job worth taking? Is this a bet I want I want to make?”

Rodrigo Liang

Yeah, okay. Yeah. So same, same question: “why did you decide to tackle this problem?”Try to try to align that with what you’re interested in? Why, why did they do it? Right. And the [answer] is, “I wanted to just make some money,” that’s not a great answer, right? There’s lots of ways to actually create companies that add value. And can you can do that, and frankly, you know, startups. You go in for many, many other reasons than that. So find something where your passions, your interests, your wellness, technical, or often a few perspectives match what they want to do, right? I think that that is really important, because near the journey of a startup is a lot of ups and downs, and incredibly exciting, incredibly exciting, but you got to the same page as the mission of the company. 

I think beyond that, the very, very next question that I would ask is, “why is it long-term viable? Why is this technology, whatever you’re building, long-term viable.” It’s an incredible competitive environment. The environment that companies big and small are tackling, it is not just the small players. I sometimes use the phrase, it’s a stampede of the largest creatures in the world. And you know, if you’re sort of in the middle of it, you’re scurrying around, right? And so you have to understand it’s a competitive environment. So you have to believe that there’s a moat in the technology that allows you to be able to differentiate, and differentiate not today, but for a long, long time. 

And then finally, I mean, with startups, you’ve got to have money, right? It’s a very expensive endeavor, especially today with the costs of actual building these things. So “what is your cash position, and how do you intend to fund your venture all the way until you’re profitable?” These are somewhat pragmatic questions, but it’s a reality that it’s a competitive environment and having cash is going to be very important.

Walter Thompson

So if I’m interviewing at an AI startup today in 2024, how many months of runway do you think they should have for me to say “yes, I’m willing to get on board a year, year and a half, two years.”

Rodrigo Liang

The way I think about that is if you’ve got to match it to the milestones that you have, and different companies have different strategies, and it’s probably a subject for a whole other podcast around how fundraising works. But I always advise folks that you don’t have to raise funds right away, but it’s always better to have more than enough, right? That’s step one, right? It’s always better to have more than enough. But the second one is to make sure that you have a clear idea of what those milestones are that you think will drive value. Right? 

If the next big milestone for your company is three months away, well, you should have money for six months. If that next milestone is a year away, maybe you need significantly more than a year, you know, I mean, like, you want to be able to actually have cash until that big milestone because those milestones drive confidence in the investor base that your technology is actually producing value. But these things are imperfect, right? The market is changing, you might have some surprises, and so you want to make sure that the cash covers the next big step in your milestone — step function milestone — in order for you to get to that.

The worst thing would be — this is kind of the tragedy I see sometimes — the worst thing is when you run out of money just before that big milestone, right. So you never want to be in that situation. You always want to be in a situation where the cash covers you past that major milestone, and make sure that when you raise, you raise enough money to cover the next milestone after that,

Walter Thompson

Rodrigo, thank you very much for your time. This has been a great conversation. I appreciate it.

Rodrigo Liang

Thanks for having me.

Walter Thompson

I’ll be right back with some show notes after a word from my sponsors.

Fund/Build/Scale is sponsored by Mayfield. If you have a fundable idea for an AI-first startup at the cognitive plumbing layer, email aistart@mayfield.com.

The podcast is also sponsored by Securiti, pioneer of the Data Command Center, a centralized platform that enables the safe use of data and GenAI. To learn more, visit Securiti.ai

Thanks again to my guest, Rodrigo Liang of SambaNova, for appearing on the podcast.

Coming up next: an interview with Ozzy Johnson, Director of Solutions Engineering at NVIDIA.

Ozzy and I talked about where early-stage AI founders need the most help, how people from academic/research backgrounds can more easily shift to an entrepreneurial mindset and we also spent some time exploring strategies for nurturing a successful AI developer community.

He also shared some thoughts about balancing initial spending with the need to drive early growth and which traits successful AI founders have in common. (Spoiler: they aren’t all developers.)

If you’ve listened this far, I hope you got something out of the conversation. Subscribe to Fund/Build/Scale so you’ll automatically get future episodes — and consider leaving a review.

For now, you can find the Fund/Build/Scale newsletter on Substack.

The Fund/Build/Scale theme was written and performed by Michael Tritter and Carlos Chairez. Michael also edited the podcast and provided additional music.

Thanks very much for listening.