[dbfclark]

The key question here isn’t so much whether GPT-4 beats the actual human decks as much as what it had to fabricate to do so. The humans are probably constrained by things like “reality” and “what their business has done in it” while GPT-4 could make up anything it wanted. A fair comparison would be to humans given the same prompt and told to invent whatever facts they wanted.

[foobarbecue]

The sensible way to do this experiment would be to have GPT-4 create pitch decks for the same businesses that the humans pitched, putting the constraints of those businesses in the prompts. I skimmed the article and it's not clear to me whether they did that.

Amusingly, the article itself seemed more like a pitch than a scientific experiment.

[moglito]

Great point! Since they are not showing the decks, for all we know these GPT4 pitches may have been proposing they found a cure for cancer.

[EA-3167]

"In addition, my plan guarantees every child a free kitten or puppy, along with the aforementioned immortality."

[civilitty]

These ChatGPT pitch decks might start offering something even more ludicrous, like profitability!

That's the real risk to the startup ecosystem.

[kristianc]

Again, not a million miles from other real world founder decks you could care to mention…

[juujian]

This is what I imagine now: "I am a serial entrepreneur who has created three companies with a valuation of over $100,000,000, and I led one company into an IPO." lol

[paulddraper]

Right!?!

Ideally the most important thing in a pitch deck are the actual facts and substance, not the presentation and storytelling.

So what are the facts used?

[dasil003]

The substance is the base, the presentation and storytelling is the multiplier (and yes the latter can be < 1)

[SkyPuncher]

I'd conjecture that the training corpus also tends to be at either end of the spectrum (good and bad, little in the middle). People don't tend to share pitch decks unless:

* They're bragging, showing why it was so good.

* They're reflecting, analyzing why it was so bad.

[femiagbabiaka]

I wonder, if I could feed true facts into a prompt and consistently get well written decks on the other side. I think I’ll try that.

[Ankaios]

The humans are probably constrained by things like “reality” and “what their business has done in it” while GPT-4 could make up anything it wanted.

You clearly know different founders than I do.

[jstummbillig]

I found that, by far, the most interesting thing ChatGPT has given us up to this point (and there are a lot of interesting things) are new perspectives on things that we humans do and believe, on a entirely plain, non-philosophical level.

"Well, actually" moments, everywhere, all the time.

[checkyoursudo]

Still explainable by GPT4 being able to concoct better lies than humans can.

[echelon]

Wait, lying is an option?

Gross.

[SMAAART]

True.