This scoring system would also give “Nvidia” or “Lex Fridman” a low ranking based on Year 1 metrics - it’s the nature of scalable projects to make a large upfront investment in future results, and the methodology of matching up year 1 investment with year 1 results (and then comparing to another project’s year 1-10 investment with year 1-10 results) is a way to systematically rank projects higher when they’re later in their growth curve. Which could plausibly be what some people want to do, but it misses good early stage investment opportunities IMO.
Doom Debates host here. I personally prefer to measure expected value by factoring in the possibility that the show continues to grow exponentially to become a big influencer of AI discourse in the near future :)
Yeah, worth expanding on that IMO…
This scoring system would also give “Nvidia” or “Lex Fridman” a low ranking based on Year 1 metrics - it’s the nature of scalable projects to make a large upfront investment in future results, and the methodology of matching up year 1 investment with year 1 results (and then comparing to another project’s year 1-10 investment with year 1-10 results) is a way to systematically rank projects higher when they’re later in their growth curve. Which could plausibly be what some people want to do, but it misses good early stage investment opportunities IMO.
Thanks, yep agree on both counts
Doom Debates host here. I personally prefer to measure expected value by factoring in the possibility that the show continues to grow exponentially to become a big influencer of AI discourse in the near future :)