Thanks for your reply, though I'm not sure if I get your comment correctly. As in, I agree that marketing is super important but if I had an idea about a certain SaaS product that requires a certain ML model, I need to decide either to build it myself, or using somebody else's APIs.

> We found that as our AI got worse, our product got better.

Interesting. Could you elaborate on this too?

I guess my last sentence was confusing. What I meant was that we fell into the common trap that scientists want to do as fancy science as possible when they leave academia and enter the startup world. Because there's an issue of pride and desire for uniqueness. Whereas good business is not like art, where the mandate is to be as creative and unique as possible. The analogy from sports (which I don't watch) applicable to business is that teams just copy each other's plays and focus on out-executing each other.

So, specifically, our startup started with the idea that high-brow tech would be a key differentiator and give the best user experience. This is the common story trotted out by survivorship bias stories that make good tech news articles.

Whereas making cuts to our R&D time and focusing on UI/UX and working with simpler science ultimately led to better product.

From consulting, sales, and corporate work, one learns that the dirty secret of big-iron large tech companies is that all stuff sold as ML is just nicely packaged logistic regression. Or it was was five years ago. Nowadays I guess it would MAYBE be transformers, but the point being that off-the-shelf ML is what drives 99% of good products.

I guess one could take this lesson from science. What you learn from a good PhD advisor is: a) read the latest work b) note the simple baseline approach constantly trashed as scoring 2% worse than the sophisticated intricate new things proposed and c) implement the simple baseline. Achieve impact not by hillclimbing on a standard metric but define a new problem or arbitrage insights from adjacent fields, etc.

I see. Much clearer! Thanks for the explanation.

Could you elaborate on your last sentence?

> We found that as our AI got worse, our product got better.

I’m not smart enough to decode this. I can imagine multiple conflicting answers.