[ElevenLathe]

Unless you own the business, you work for your investors.

If investors only want AI, then you will either be forced to do that (whatever it means), do something else but make it look to them like AI, convince them they're wrong, or quit.

Things are a little more nuanced if your existing investors side with you but all new investors are AI-driven. Then you don't have to quit, but you do have to run the business without new outside capital. This may or may not be possible. If not, you still have to quit.

[danjl]

At a smart business, you work for your customers. If you're at a company that works for your investors, you're going to have this problem over and over again. In fact, you might as well give up on the idea of planning and decision making based on what would be best for the product and your customers.

[lenerdenator]

> At a smart business, you work for your customers.

Well, then you're bound to the amount of money customers can give you.

It's usually less than a VC partner with a god complex can give you.

[TheNewsIsHere]

> Well, then you're bound to the amount of money customers can give you.

You’re _always_ bound by what the customer is willing to pay.

Speaking more expansively, it’s just a proxy for whether the market will bear your prices/wants your product, and whether you are in the right place and/or positioning your product correctly.

VCs just add a temporary runway so you don’t have to be as concerned about that.

[lenerdenator]

The market can be twisted to bear more through VCs. Uber's a great example.

[ElevenLathe]

I agree, having a boss sucks. Unfortunately raising investment from other people is not a way to escape it.

Note that starting a business with your own capital is not a way to escape it either, since you still have to answer to customers.

[ryandrake]

Difference is that customers are not (in general) asking to bolt AI onto everything, but investors are.

[TheNewsIsHere]

I think that’s an advantage.

[llmguy]

The ceo likely has more voting shares alone. The issue for a cashflow negative business is attracting new money.

[danjl]

It is exceedingly rare that voting shares play a role in any of these decisions. When you need cash to pay salaries, the decision lies in the hand of the stakeholder with the cash, not the shares.

[llmguy]

Like I said, if the business is cashflow negative the issue is attracting new money.

I think you’re going a little far with absolutes on your reply but it’s not really relevant anyway.