Looking for a co-founder for an AI related project

I have many ideas and I’m looking for a teammate to one of the below projects. I’m not decided which project I’m going to work on yet, it depends what teammates I will find for any of the project and a couple of other factors.

I have ideas that are related to all of the below subjects.

The things that I’m interested in (the projects that I’m considering):

  1. A powerful general-purpose AI agent - more advanced version of AutoGPT.
  2. A democratic system of organization for companies/projects - I simply think that the way companies/projects are organized is not the best possible way, and there are better ways to organize and govern a company/project.
  3. A democratic system for deciding rules (e.g. rules that AI systems should follow) - I have already applied for OpenAI grant with my idea, but if anyone has interest in that, I’d be happy to hear. If my experiment is chosen, I will surely work on the experiment.
  4. Code generation / developer tools - that’s what I’ve been working on so far ( https://codeassist.tech ). I think there is still a room for improvement in the existing developer tools.
  5. Code generation directed for non-technical users - using large language models to generate code, but in a way that lets non-technical users develop applications.

I plan to focus on one of the above in the end, but I haven’t decided which and it depends of what I’ll find a co-founder / teammate for (not only that).

If you are interested, send me a message.

I’d be happy to know the following things about you:

  1. What project/projects out of the above are of interest to you?
  2. Do you have any ideas with regards to the project of interest (yes/no)?
  3. What programming languages / frameworks are your go-to programming languages / frameworks? If you start a new project and work alone on it, what programming language / framework would you use?
  4. What programming languages / frameworks would you be willing to work with (you don’t need to list all of them, it might be a general answer)?

I think those projects are too large of scope. As a solo dev or even having multiple people it would be months and months of programming while having no product and making no income.

And after it’s made you have to sell it, and in these verticals you are competing with companies with hundreds, thousands of employees and millions of dollars investment. This isn’t to say it can’t be done but you are in such a weak position trying to go these routes, in my opinion.

Instead I think you should focus on a SMALL project. Solving a problem for a small group. Something that you could sell the idea of to them before you even began programming it. I.E. creating a solution that they need, that makes their business run smoother. Something you could program in a week. Because the hardest part about a project often times isn’t the engineering, it’s getting people to see it and getting them to pay up.

1 Like

Thanks for sharing your perspective. And thanks for giving me some food for thought.


  1. I think you should do what has the highest value to the world divided by the time it will take you to do that (although, I chose to focus on my existing project (CodeAssist) with a different mindset). More or less, there are some other factors that might be taken into account as well.
  2. General problems take more time, but they also have more value. Investors can help to mitigate the risk related to do things that take more time or have low probability to succeed.
  3. I plan to start from something simple, and then incrementally improve it.
  4. I probably don’t have any idea that I could implement in 1 week and get significant income from that in 1 week. If I could get significant income in 1 week, then I would do that.

Let me write it in my own words so that I can process it. If I twisted your words below, then feel free to correct me.

"The projects that I have described solve problems that are too general. You should do a project that solve more narrow problem because:

  1. It will take you lots of time (months and months) to get to any income.
  2. Big companies solve general problems too, so you will have to compete with big companies for users.

You should do something where you can sell the idea before you even start programming.

You should do something that people need.

You should do something you can program in a week because:

  1. The hardest part is not programming, but getting people to know that the product exists and get the to pay for the product."

Ok, so I will analyse each part now. I don’t know if my answers make sense, I will maybe reconsider them later, when I have more time.

“The projects that I have described solve problems that are too general. You should do a project that solve more narrow problem because it will take you lots of time (months and months) to get to any income.”

With solving general problems comes greater value, but they also take more time. I choose to work on problems where the ratio of value to time is the highest, and when that the time doesn’t exceeds the amount of time that I have until I runaway of money (if the amount of money exceeds the time that I have, I can work on that too, but I need to create a proof of concept and then find an investor). That is because choosing the projects that you will work at is the Knapsack problem (where time is the cost, and the value of the project is the value). One of the solutions to the knapsack problem is the greedy solution (as you can read about it on Wikipedia) and I’m applying that solution. In my case, out of the ideas that I have those happened to be general problems.

So to sum it up, I agree that general problems require more time, but they also give more value, so that bigger value compensates that time. Although I still would prefer to work on something that doesn’t take lots of time because there is a higher probability that I will finish it because with a goal that takes lots of time, I might switch to something else (and sometimes its rational to switch to something else before you finish the previous thing).

“The projects that I have described solve problems that are too general. You should do a project that solve more narrow problem because big companies solve general problems too, so you will have to compete with big companies for users.”

The way I see it as follows. The more we go to the future, the more the reality is that there are few companies that solve a general problem. The more we go the past, the more the reality is that there are many companies solving narrow problems. I think the endgame is that there will be few companies solving general problems, and many companies that solve narrow problems will die because people will simply be able to use general tools (like ChatGPT) for solving those problems. So I think that the way to create a company that will survive for a long time is to create something that will be either integrated into a product of a general company (e.g. ChatGPT), or create a general problem company. I agree that it might be difficult to compete with a big company, but as long as what you create is based on a unique idea, then the big company has incentive to accept and integrate into their product in some way (either by creating API on which people can create plugins, acquiring the company or in some other way). And if none of the company is open for people’s contribution, then that company will simply lose the competition with someone who will attempt to create a general problem company that will be open to contributions.

So as long as you create something that is unique or works in a unique way that fits somehow into the endgame puzzle, I think you should be fine.

“You should do something where you can sell the idea before you even start programming.”

I agree, although not fully, because if you try to sell the idea before you start programming, then sometimes people simply don’t see how it can be useful. From my experience (I’m stating that based on my experience with CodeAssist ( https://codeassist.tech) ), whether or not I would use my product myself is a better estimation if people will actually use the product.

“You should do something that people need.”

I agree and I think that the ideas I suggested are things that people need a lot.

“You should do something you can program in a week because the hardest part is not programming, but getting people to know that the product exists and get them to pay for the product.”

I understand that the logic behind that statement is that if you create something for a long time, then after a long time of creating it, you might meet the reality and learn that people don’t need it, and then you’ve wasted your time.

But when you create something big, you can start with creating something simple (that takes a month to do), and meet the reality with that.

I also think it depends on a project what the hardest part is. For example, if you build a social media site, then the hardest part is getting users. If you build AI with capabilities that are clearly useful, but nobody has done that yet, then the hardest part is engineering/programming. So I also think in case of a project where the biggest difficulty is engineering that logic doesn’t make sense because the probability that people won’t want the solution is very low. And you don’t need to learn about what people want, in that case, but how to create it.

So with my projects, depending on the project, with some projects, where the hardest part is getting users, I’d start by looking for users, and then surrender if I fail. With other ideas, where the hardest part is getting things to work, I’d create a proof of concept, and then look for an investor. If I fail to find an investor, I’d either surrender or simply work on the project months and months, gradually iterating to make the thing more complex and work better.

Hi damc4, as a gpt experienced full stack developer, I am interested in this side. Could we discuss about your idea in other chatting app? I want to hear more about your project. I can connect with discord or telegram. which one do you prefer?

1 Like

I worked many years in a VC firm. Prior to that I was involved with several startups, one of those startups I sold/exited through that VC firm I went to work with later. I earned enough to “retire” at any point where it was no longer interesting and prior to that, I worked with over 120 businesses that we funded, any many hundreds more – people that pitched us.

In short – I’ve run into thousands of startups and from experience, I want to warn you against your current path. You’re proposing to enter a model squarely within the most agile segment of an exceptionally agile industry, and you’re thinking far too generally. That’s a simple starting point; I could give you 10 pages of explanation of how you are about to embark on something that will cause you a great deal of stress/lost opportunity/monetary loss.

Please don’t take that as a negative. Imagine you spent a lifetime mastering something, say golf, and someone came to you with a poor swing and said they wanted to invest all their time/money in becoming a pro golfer. The best advice you can provide is to explain, either: (a) how to re-learn/correct their issues, or (b) choose an alternative direction.

In short: I’m not suggesting you forego your idea of entrepreneurship. If that’s the direction you feel you must go, that’s fine.

However, you have a great deal of market-research / re-thinking of your direction, before you should give any thought to investing your time/money.

If you haven’t already read “The Lean Startup” by Eric Ries, start there before you do anything else. It’s a simple read; about 30 minutes. It’s also a simple concept that you can implement immediately and it will save you thousands of lost hours/funds/frustration.

There have been dozens of new/abstracted versions of this book; however, the original is simple, straightforward, and told by someone that lived it – which is far more valuable than all of the copy-cat versions that attempted to profit from a twist on the original work.

Again, none of this is negative – I’m not discouraging you from following your dream. However, if you’re going to go that route – you’ll need a bit more research – which will lead to a substantial amount of refinement/alternative approach.

I wish you the best!


Thanks for the book recommendation. I’ve ordered it and I’ll read it.

What do you mean when you say that I think too generally? Do you mean that I focus on a problem that is too general, instead of focusing on a narrow problem?

What exactly is wrong with my approach?

First, to be certain I haven’t miscommunicated – nothing is “wrong” with your approach; rather, your approach will simply result in a great deal of time/effort/heartache that in the end, you’ll have looked back on – and wished you had done things differently based on what you know at that point.

I’m merely attempting to help save you some of that heartache/lost years of your life. Nothing more. I have zero interest in proclaiming something to be “right” or “wrong”, but only to help you avoid the pitfalls.

As I wrote originally, I could go into 10+ pages of detail on this. However, if I had to answer your question in the most succinct, simple method possible, I would say…

You’re starting in reverse. Marketing (and understanding the “itch you’re scratching”) drives successful business.

Understand a very specific, very marketable niche. One that has some viral aspect because marketing, particularly to get off the ground, is one of the most substantial hurdles/expenses, not the technology. No one in tech believes this until it’s too late, unfortunately.

I’m no different. I was in direct competition with Elon Musk; we both began the same type of business as the same time along with two other competitors. We were both young and (relatively) broke at the time. Elon didn’t care about building the best tech – he cared about marketing it (and raising money to market it). I cared about building the best tech on a shoestring – because I thought that would essentially “sell itself”.

I’m a science/tech/intellectual property person – so I thought Elon was making a mistake. He sold his company (Zip2) for $300+ million in ~99, went on to fund PayPal, end the rest is history.

While he’s a billionaire, I’m merely a content person. And I only reached that point because I learned the lessons that seem counter-intuitive to you now.

In short…

Marketing and the desire/virality of your product/service is the most significant hurdle, then scalability. The tech, as counterintuitive as this sounds, is essentially tertiary or later (depending on whether you classify building the right team in this hierarchy, etc). Musk knew this from the beginning; I learned much later.

With this in mind, take a look at your post:

All of these are things you’re interested in, from a technical standpoint. Not one of them will sustain the growth of a profitable business, all things considered.

They’re great ideas for an open source project. If that succeeds and develops enough momentum, sure, attempt to build a business in that niche (it would still be an uphill battle, but momentum is everything).

Yet you’re thinking from the wrong perspective. And worse, it’s so generalized and short-lived (relying to a degree on such an agile niche), that its end is already written.

Think instead about what people/businesses need, and how you can make it better. Not from the standpoint of tech, but the use case. And AI should merely be one of many tools that facilitate that. Building an “AI” business without a substantial amount of talent/cash at this stage is a fool’s errand. Much like the people that believe they can become a Youtube influencer (in a related post I’ve submitted here).

Once you read “The Lean Startup” you’ll understand the importance and alternative perspective/approach of testing the market first, then building the business second (essentially). That should help cement the point I’m attempting to introduce you to, here.

Good luck to you!