Kevin BeaumontMay 20
Another one bites the dust https://www.ft.com/content/9fdb4e2b-93ea-436d-92e5-fa76ee786caa
Microsoft-backed UK tech unicorn Builder.ai collapses into insolvency

Once high-flying group founded by Sachin Dev Duggal says its was unable to recover from ‘past decisions’

Financial Times
Show threadKevin BeaumontMay 20

The builder.ai story is wild. Microsoft put almost half a billion dollars into them (and lost it all). Everything crumbled when the Financial Times did a tiny amount of research on them, and realised their accounts were signed off a friend of the CEO. As soon as they hired a real auditor, they collapsed.

https://sifted.eu/articles/builder-ai-auditor-founder-news

Show threadRairii   
@GossiTheDog

you'd think MS would have uncovered that when doing due diligence?
May 20 at 1:50pmWeb
Show threadmei | 絶望動物 (@ TYPES 2025)May 20
@Rairii @GossiTheDog ah, no, no, by a law of nature, big corpos don't think straight when AI is involved. it's the corporate equivalent of getting a boner and having all your blood leave the brain to tend to more pressing matters.
Show threadUSB Type-Steve May 20
@Rairii @GossiTheDog They're all too busy microdosing to do that.
Show threadGraham Sutherland / PolynomialMay 20
@Rairii @GossiTheDog at this point I honestly believe that they're paying serious professionals to do the due dilliegence, then sweeping the findings under the carpet and proceeding anyway.
Show threadRairii   May 20
@gsuberland @GossiTheDog ah yes, the "pentest to show compliance but never actually fix anything" method of performing company acquisions
Show threadGraham Sutherland / PolynomialMay 20
@Rairii @GossiTheDog yup, except in this case it's a departure from the norm - fiduciary responsibility is something they are intimately familiar with and usually take seriously, because it has actual personal impact, but they seem to be so utterly drunk on the idea that AI investments will net them the infinite hockey stick growth that has eluded them with every other get-rich-quick investment.
Show threadRay—Golden Retriever Whisperer—🔝InsightsMay 20
@gsuberland @Rairii @GossiTheDog we’ve been seeing this for decades with boards of directors. The role of the BoD is a check on idiocy. But when the CEO is a board member, and develops a cult of personality, the directors become sycophants. And these days, C-levels become directors of other companies, so it becomes a mutual back scratch environment, to put it politely.
Show threadshironekoMay 20
@zarchasmpgmr @gsuberland @Rairii @GossiTheDog the board is ultimately selected by the shareholders, it would be interesting to study if having a dysfunctional board have any impact on the share price.
Show threadJeff GriggMay 20

@shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @zarchasmpgmr @Rairii

*In Theory*, the shareholders elect the board of directors, who hire the CEO, and who manage and direct the CEO, and kick them out and replace them, if needed.

*In Practice*, the CEO invites their friends to be directors, and they do likewise, so they're all directors and CEOs to each other, and the shareholders just "rubber stamp" the whole thing, as what else are they going to do?

Show threadRay—Golden Retriever Whisperer—🔝InsightsMay 20
@JeffGrigg @shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @Rairii *exactly.gif*
Show threadshironekoMay 20
@JeffGrigg @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @zarchasmpgmr @Rairii Occasionally activists investor do come in and fire the whole board, and at the minimum they can choose not be a shareholder. Which is why I say if it would be interesting if this have any measurable effect on the share price.
Show threadRay—Golden Retriever Whisperer—🔝InsightsMay 20
@shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @Rairii @JeffGrigg I hope some Ph.D. in a business school has studied this. But with dissertations locked behind firewalls…
Show threadRaven667May 21

@JeffGrigg @shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @zarchasmpgmr @Rairii in a better world we'd regulate these self-dealing relationships out of existence, you can't be the one the board of more than one company, you can't be an executive and on the board of any company, you can't be on the board and an employee of a direct subsidiary or supplier, etc.

Make Finance Boring Again; regulate all the shenanigans and crazy deals out of existence until the only way that anyone makes money is by _doing_ _something_ _useful_ for the public.

Show threadJeff GriggMay 21

@raven667 @shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @zarchasmpgmr @Rairii

We've let them convince us that corporations exist to serve their shareholders. And to reward top executives.

No, they exist to
1. Provide goods and services to customers.
2. Provide employment and fair living compensation to employees (including "executives")
3. Be socially responsible -- paying for infrastructure they use, and not causing harm.
4. Provide reasonable compensation to their investors and lenders (banks)

Show threadJeff GriggMay 21

@raven667 @shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @zarchasmpgmr @Rairii

Also, I should not even have to say this, but ...

A corporation is not a person. No, they don't have the same freedom of religion, or personal rights.

Spending money to influence politics is not individual free speech.

"Public" forums should be reasonably unbiased, and based on facts and reality.

Not knowing exactly who your hateful speech harms, how, and when does not mean you're not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Show threadRay—Golden Retriever Whisperer—🔝InsightsMay 22
@JeffGrigg @raven667 @shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @Rairii if a corporation is a person, then there should be capital punishment. Instant liquidation. Stocks zeroed out and worthless, causing portfolios to instantly drop.
Show threadJeff GriggMay 23

@zarchasmpgmr @raven667 @shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @Rairii

Yes, and workers and bystanders dying because of the corporation's greed and carelessness is *Involuntary Manslaughter*, and should be dealt with as such -- including, if corporations are "persons," the dissolution of the same, and liquidation of all assets.

Show threadRay—Golden Retriever Whisperer—🔝InsightsMay 20
@shironeko @gsuberland @GossiTheDog @Rairii but so many of the directors are shareholders themselves, which brings in the management dilemma. Sure they want to do well, but sometimes they’re too close to see the bigger picture, plus they’re getting spoon fed information for the most part.
Show threadJeff GriggMay 20

@Rairii @gsuberland @GossiTheDog

I was working at a very large well-known international company, and learned that they paid for professional pentests, yearly.

And *every single year*, the testers "won."

Like, regardless of the "targets" they were asked to get/penetrate/violate, they *always* succeeded, regardless of corporate security or barriers to access.

🙄

Show threadGraham Sutherland / PolynomialMay 20

@JeffGrigg @Rairii @GossiTheDog yeah, I've been doing those exact assessments since 2013 and it's just kinda part of the fabric at this point. I'd estimate at least two thirds of orgs are like that for the majority of their projects, at the absolute minimum.

luckily these days I'm not in the trenches doing the 2-3 day minimally-scoped checkbox nonsense where nothing ever really improves beyond fixing the criticals. I got burned out on that a very long time ago.