Is software the wild west? And should AI companies be held up to a higher standard?

Most start-up founders in the tech industry will probably be characterized as visionary and charismatic. They are all driven by an inner fire to create something, something great, something that can change the world — possibly make it a better place. I know it myself!

It's people who make things happen, they execute and it goes strong. Their charisma is also what makes them attract other people who end up being equally passionate about the vision and the goal. There is no doubt that society needs entrepreneurs to create innovation, someone who dares to dream big, say it out loud and put everything on a board.

But is there a reverse side of the coin or is it externally powered? In any case, more and more examples of speed blindness are emerging when it comes to communicating what is vision and ambition and what are actually results achieved. We have seen very glaring examples, including from the United States where Elizabeth Holmes faked her product in Theranos. At home, we had the IPO of MeeW, as well as a series of lesser-known examples where fundraising has fallen on a due diligence that uncovered large gaps in product, business model, customers, turnover etc.

I cannot decide whether it is driven by the shadow side of the personality, or it is external factors such as the ownership circle pushing too much, the board wanting to appear in a good light, the media pushing for the sensational in order to gain slot space, or whether it is simply an unfortunate series of coincidences. But one thing is certain: this is something we should all be aware of, both in our own teams, among our investors and, not least, with ourselves.

At Proprty.ai, we work with artificial intelligence and our product stands and falls with our integrity and credibility. If our behavior or that of the product opens up doubts about the integrity, openness and honesty about our precision advanced by the artificial intelligence, then the product is not worth anything. We feel carried by a higher ethical obligation to ensure unquestionable integrity, openness and credibility in the way we conduct our business and develop products.

This means that we have taken very special precautions in how we communicate our vision and mission, as well as how we document and communicate our results.

We are constantly working with hypotheses alá one can find a correlation between the variables in the dataset and the stand of a property. Yes we can and there is a high degree of correlation in the data set. Ok, can we then build a simple model that can make a prediction of condition without a set degree of probability. Well we can do that, can we then make one with 50%, 70%, 80% 90% probability, etc, etc. This allows us to be clear about the results we make and thus can also document and communicate how close we are to our vision of reaching a safety of +80%.

We further work in a so-called 'co-creation' model with our customers, where there is full transparency on the product roadmap, the solution, results with AI, etc. Bla.a all customers have full access to see daily what we have deployed of new functionality in our app.

Both Ian and I have dealt with a collaboration where we call each other's blind spots and help to spot what we don't see ourselves. In addition, we are affiliated with Rasmus Hauch, who is a council member of the European AI Alliance and SC-42 at the Danish Standard, which defines the future standards for AI and AI Governance. We consider this to be the right place to start and that needs to be built on all the time.