top of page

The Challenges of AI-Assisted VC Funding: Unpacking Historical Bias and Diversity Issues

Updated: Mar 18

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven itself to be an invaluable tool in various sectors, not least in Venture Capital (VC) investment. The integration of AI into VC decision-making can provide the ability to process vast amounts of data at unprecedented speeds, potentially unearthing correlations and patterns that might be invisible to human analysis. However, this revolution in decision-making is not without its flaws. Specifically, the introduction of AI into VC funding decisions has also ushered in concerns about the perpetuation of historical bias and a lack of diversity in investments.

The Cycle of Bias in AI Decision-Making

AI systems learn from the datasets on which they are trained, identifying patterns that have led to past successes and using these to predict future outcomes. However, if the historical data fed into these AI systems reflects a bias towards specific types of founders - often Ivy League-educated, non-minority individuals - the AI will inevitably perpetuate this bias. The result is a vicious cycle where the same types of founders continue to receive funding, not necessarily because they are more likely to succeed, but simply because they resemble those who have been successful in the past. This is a manifestation of algorithmic bias, where the prejudices implicit in the training data become reflected in the outputs of the AI system. This might lead to VCs, under the guidance of AI, to consistently favor certain types of founders over others, thereby reinforcing the barriers to funding for underrepresented founders. The lack of diversity in funding recipients can limit the breadth of innovation, as the diversity of ideas, products, and services being developed can become constrained by the homogeneity of the founders receiving funding.

Confusing Correlation with Causation

The principle that correlation does not imply causation is a fundamental tenet of statistics. Yet, this distinction often becomes blurred in the context of AI-assisted decision-making in VC funding. AI systems, as currently designed, are adept at identifying correlations and patterns within large datasets, but are inherently unable to discern causal relationships. Just because past successful ventures were founded by Ivy League-educated, non-minority individuals does not necessarily mean these characteristics caused the ventures' success. The danger is that VCs relying on AI systems may be inadvertently favoring these factors, overlooking potentially successful ventures that do not fit these parameters. This conflation of correlation with causation can lead to missed opportunities and a homogenization of the types of ventures that receive funding.

Strategies for Mitigation

The challenges posed by AI in VC funding necessitate a multipronged approach to mitigation. Recognizing the biases implicit in the historical data is an important first step, but it is not enough. Active efforts need to be taken to gather and incorporate more diverse data. This could involve collecting data on a broader range of ventures, including those founded by individuals from underrepresented backgrounds. Beyond the data, the AI systems themselves need to be regularly tested and audited for potential biases. Transparent reporting on these checks should be made mandatory, ensuring accountability. However, perhaps the most crucial step lies in the hands of the VCs themselves. Rather than relying solely on AI for their decision-making, VCs need to continue to leverage their human judgement, intuition, and willingness to take risks on unconventional ventures. Striking the right balance between the use of AI and human intuition can go a long way in ensuring a more equitable and diverse funding landscape.

The integration of AI into VC decision-making holds great promise, potentially enabling smarter, faster, and more accurate decisions. However, it also poses significant challenges, particularly in terms of perpetuating historical bias and limiting diversity. As the use of AI in VC funding decisions continues to expand, it's crucial that the stakeholders involved are cognizant of these challenges and are proactive in taking measures to mitigate them.

Continued Education and Advocacy

Stakeholders across the board, from VC firms and policymakers to the founders themselves, need to be educated about the potential biases and diversity issues associated with AI-assisted VC decision-making. Conferences, seminars, and training programs can help spread awareness and stimulate discussions about these issues. At the policy level, regulations should be considered to ensure that VC firms are held accountable for the diversity of their investments and the potential biases in their decision-making processes. Encouraging transparency in how AI algorithms are used and audited can play a crucial role in ensuring accountability and promoting fairness. Moreover, advocacy for diversity in VC funding is necessary. This can come from investors themselves, non-profit organizations, or initiatives aimed at promoting diversity and inclusion in the tech industry. By championing the benefits of a diverse range of founders and ideas, these advocacy efforts can help to shift norms and expectations within the VC community.

Pioneering Fair AI Technologies

Advancements in the field of AI should not just be about making algorithms more efficient, but also more fair. This can involve the development of AI algorithms that are specifically designed to counteract biases in the data they're trained on. The field of fairness in machine learning is a burgeoning area of research, with techniques such as fairness constraints and adversarial debiasing showing promise. In addition, interpretability in AI, which involves understanding why an AI makes certain decisions, can also aid in identifying and mitigating potential biases.

Investing in Diverse Founders

Finally, VCs themselves can play a major role in addressing these issues by actively seeking to invest in a more diverse range of founders. This does not just mean investing in founders from underrepresented backgrounds, but also those with diverse ideas, business models, and target markets. Not only is this the right thing to do from an ethical perspective, but it also makes business sense. Research has shown that diverse teams often outperform their more homogeneous counterparts, and that diverse companies are more likely to understand and meet the needs of a diverse customer base.

While the integration of AI into VC decision-making poses significant challenges in terms of perpetuating historical bias and limiting diversity, it also provides an opportunity. By acknowledging and proactively addressing these issues, we have the chance to create a VC landscape that is not only more fair and inclusive, but also more innovative and successful. The journey will not be easy, but with concerted efforts from all stakeholders involved, a more equitable and diverse VC industry is within our grasp.

56 views2 comments


Brian Bell
Brian Bell
Jul 22, 2023

Your concerns about the perpetuation of historical biases and lack of diversity in AI-assisted VC funding are valid and well-articulated. It's important to acknowledge that AI systems, indeed, are only as good, unbiased, and objective as the data used to train them. However, it's equally crucial to remember that AI can be a tool for objectivity and fairness if appropriately employed.

AI systems do not inherently perpetuate bias. The bias, as you've mentioned, is a manifestation of the data sets used for training. Therefore, the onus falls on us—the users and developers—to provide diverse and representative training data to ensure that our AI tools do not merely replicate past mistakes.

Moreover, AI systems can and should be regularly audited for…

Aki Kakko
Aki Kakko
Jul 22, 2023
Replying to

Agreed, it is a tool and how we use it makes all the difference. For example with hosted black box LLMs tackling bias issues is currently still rather difficult but there is some promising tools and methods being developed like adversarial debiasing

Do you see any promise in causal inference when assessing causality in startup evaluations?

bottom of page