The privacy policy and security model isn't as reassuring as I'd like. Knowing industry practices and competency, I wouldn't trust this Web site with any information I didn't want leaking out.
belter•3mo ago
How is this not just another LLM wrapper ?
davik20•3mo ago
Beyond the conversational LLM, we've built:
(1) Investor persona engine maintaining consistent VC behavior across multi-turn conversations,
(2) Beyond conversation, we've built specialized analysis that evaluates pitch answers for clarity, specificity, confidence, and directness, identifying exact problems like "you avoided the metric question" or "your answer was too vague" with actionable improvement suggestions
(3) Conversation orchestration with stage-appropriate and vertical-specific questioning,
Thanks for the reply. You did not convinced me yet... :-) but I really appreciate the additional insights you were willing to provide.
davik20•3mo ago
We understand founders are sharing confidential business information, financials, strategies, competitive positioning. That trust is sacred. We're treating security as a core product feature, not an afterthought, and we'd welcome specific feedback on what would make you feel comfortable using the platform.
lwhi•3mo ago
I think the only thing that would convince me, is the ability to self host or setup using infrastructure I own / have full control over.
neilv•3mo ago
The industry-wide concerns is that the default environment is:
1. Almost no company (with very few exceptions, like Google) can secure their systems.
2. A tech industry culture of treating customer data as something to be captured, often secretly, and leveraged, as well as a culture of being "naughty" about bending rules and regulations in general.
If you want to do much better than this, that's awesome.
You're probably aware that the following common measures aren't adequate:
* Corporate compliance checklists, which are done because they're required, or for show, while denying responsibility, and knowing that they are ineffective.
* Making security a marketing brochure checklist item or selling point, but having no idea how to do it better than the abysmal industry practice.
* Projecting confidence.
* Trying to make the customer comfortable, rather than actually securing the data.
neilv•3mo ago
The privacy policy and security model isn't as reassuring as I'd like. Knowing industry practices and competency, I wouldn't trust this Web site with any information I didn't want leaking out.
belter•3mo ago
davik20•3mo ago
(1) Investor persona engine maintaining consistent VC behavior across multi-turn conversations,
(2) Beyond conversation, we've built specialized analysis that evaluates pitch answers for clarity, specificity, confidence, and directness, identifying exact problems like "you avoided the metric question" or "your answer was too vague" with actionable improvement suggestions
(3) Conversation orchestration with stage-appropriate and vertical-specific questioning,
(4) Progress tracking showing measurable improvement trajectories
(5) Feedback systems trained
belter•3mo ago
davik20•3mo ago
lwhi•3mo ago
neilv•3mo ago
1. Almost no company (with very few exceptions, like Google) can secure their systems.
2. A tech industry culture of treating customer data as something to be captured, often secretly, and leveraged, as well as a culture of being "naughty" about bending rules and regulations in general.
If you want to do much better than this, that's awesome.
You're probably aware that the following common measures aren't adequate:
* Corporate compliance checklists, which are done because they're required, or for show, while denying responsibility, and knowing that they are ineffective.
* Making security a marketing brochure checklist item or selling point, but having no idea how to do it better than the abysmal industry practice.
* Projecting confidence.
* Trying to make the customer comfortable, rather than actually securing the data.