[bartozone]

> There's a huge difference in return to investors between skilled data scientists doing one-offs, and an engine that does the work on its own

This is kind of the crux, right? If the investors believe that there is a future roadmap to essentially automate what the team is doing ... That's one thing. If they are investing today because the CEO is saying "Look! It's automated!", then that's pretty much on them.

That said, these investors have literally millions of dollars to complete due diligence, and if they miss on something like that, it's on them. Investors are putting so much money into these companies on "demos" and without really looking under the hood. So if they complete their due dilligence, their essentially saying "we are investing in your current product and our current understanding of it". I don't think there's going to be a fraud lawsuit here.

Theranos was changing the output data that the investors saw, not just saying "we do blood tests better!". That was straight up fraud because the data reviewed in due diligence was false.