> First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not ready yet.
What?
You're supposed to create the technology, not wait for others to create it. That's why VCs give you money, isn't it?
> We built the most-advanced AI for helping developers at the time, but it fell short of the 10× improvement required to break through because the state of the art for ML on code is not good enough.
Aren't you supposed to advance the state of the art?
What?
You're supposed to create the technology, not wait for others to create it. That's why VCs give you money, isn't it?
> We built the most-advanced AI for helping developers at the time, but it fell short of the 10× improvement required to break through because the state of the art for ML on code is not good enough.
Aren't you supposed to advance the state of the art?
> but the problem is very engineering intensive
So you weren't a technology company?