building ai underwriting to finance all human ingenuity starting with farmers. ex-affirm, ex-granular. family and good quests

San Francisco, CA
Joined December 2012
super excited to share that we were accepted into @StartX fall batch 2026. will be sharing more in the coming weeks about what we’re building at Rizal. onwards!
1
8
335
Daniel Tebes retweeted
These were three of the biggest science results I’ve seen in my lifetime Just absolutely jaw-dropping results Within ~5 years it seems like any scientific result a human is capable of understanding will be knowable I find this incredibly exciting
42
58
3
1,029
54,746
we’re super grateful to be a part of the @StartX community
"It feels like overnight we gained access to an incredible group of people who are a message away.” @DanielTebes (F26), co-founder and CEO of Rizal AI, on the StartX community. This is what happens when Stanford’s best founders help each other.
17
💯
Only 250 ppl spending $10M+ is wild & this is the Anthropic bull case succinctly put. It doesn't matter if margins come down / are thin, basically no one is actually using AI yet, and everyone will.
2
45
Daniel Tebes retweeted
Announcing three major scientific discoveries, one each in mathematics (harmonic analysis), computer science (complexity theory), and physics (quantum field theory). AI starting to help us improve our understanding of the universe! openai.com/index/building-sc…
659
2,009
845
15,893
3,007,261
yep couldn't agree more, the speed of change even feels day-to-day in the trenches... we talk about people being displaced by ai when really we should be talking about entire companies and industries being reinvented ground-up by "ai-natives" @pmarca @bhorowitz @a16z
Marc Andreessen says the gap between what AI-native startups and incumbents think AI can do is the widest he’s ever seen: "The AI-native early stage startups have just a completely different view on what they can do with AI than the typical incumbents in almost any industry, almost without exception." "AI is just racing ahead in capability even week by week... There are going to be a lot of industries that are really up for grabs in a fundamentally more profound way than maybe has been the case in the past." "The founders are gonna have a level of superpowers coming from the use of these tools and these technologies that they just simply haven't had in the past... Had I had Astra and Netscape in 1994, like, oh my God. Like, Ben, what would you and I have been able to do at Netscape?" "Those entrepreneurs are gonna color way outside the lines. We already see this. They're not gonna think of themselves as like, 'I'm just a software company,' or, 'I'm just a hardware company,' or even, 'I'm just an AI company.'" @pmarca @bhorowitz
1
54
got asked this question today - what’s a plan? basically it’s a prd meets tech spec for agents. we’ve built a skill that takes a feature or enhancement request and puts together a “plan” doc that we run through our graph of agents who build it and document precisely who did what (so we can hold each agent accountable given how black boxy this stuff is). we’ve found the key part of the plan is defining a good acceptance criteria. we typically push 10-20 plans at a time to our graph and it builds most of them in parallel coordinating agents and prs to avoid bugs/issues three things i’m most excited about with our setup 1. anyone on the team can create and publish a plan to our graph. we have sales and support people learning from our customers and creating plans in slack with our claude bot and skills. 2. this works for not just building new features/enhancements but improving our own dev process including building plans for an agent-based qa process (that includes retroactive qa via a bug bounty), core infrastructure and database scheme design (we were able to move core infra to mexico in a few days) etc. 3. our team and customer calls are transcribed and connected to our company brain as are in-app usage data and all of these plans and our monorepo codebase (a subject for another post) which gives our agents robust context when drafting these plans alongside a team member. we’re getting close (but not there yet) where we can turn around a feature request in a customer call.
3
2
55
just the beginning
GPT-Rosalind surfaced a new lead for drug discovery: could restoring cholesterol transport protect neurons from degeneration? DCTN1 is a gene linked to Perry syndrome, a rare neurodegenerative disorder. In mouse-brain data, disrupting it increased expression of genes involved in making cholesterol. GPT-Rosalind suggested a possible explanation: cholesterol may not be reaching where neurons need it. That gives scientists a specific mechanism to test and, if confirmed, a direction for developing new treatments for neurodegenerative disorders. With @perturbai_tx and @scrippsresearch, a team of thousands of GPT-Rosalind agents worked in parallel, connecting gene-expression results from millions of mouse brain cells with scientific literature in just 32 minutes. We’re now expanding this collaboration to identify new drug targets. openai.com/index/scaling-ai-…
22
another reason to invest in space
First time I've seen someone understand space drugs on Twitter. Worth a read:
22
good read
One of the most important trends in business over the past few decades has been industries "going quant." Think Renaissance Technologies in finance, Obama's quantitative campaign operation, or Billy Beane's Oakland A's. Applying systematic, data-driven prediction to important decisions improves how an industry works and, more importantly, changes who wins. I think AI is setting up the next wave. My three bets: trial law, entertainment, and general management. Why now? AI makes far more information available for systematic prediction and makes it possible to generate and test alternatives that were previously too expensive to experiment with. In my latest Faint Signals, I explore what makes an industry susceptible to going quant and where the next opportunities might emerge. What other industries would you bet on? What Goes Quant Next? faintsignals.substack.com/p/…
10
come do your life's work with us @rizalaihq millions of good businesses can't get affordable loans or insurance. not because they're bad businesses but because understanding them costs more than the loan or policy earns. a farm loan in mexico takes 4 weeks to underwrite with teams of people reviewing documents, visiting fields and interviewing borrowers. this is true for other types of smb loans too. every time the cost of underwriting collapsed a new asset class was born… us mortgages, consumer credit, e-commerce smb credit. ai is the next collapse. we're building the system that understands a business in minutes and today supports US$250M+ in loans across 25+ institutions in mexico. i farmed for five years and watched good farmers never get the loan. i also helped build these rails for consumer credit at affirm and saw what tech can do to change people's lives. we're hiring builders and partnering with investors who give a shit. dm me. come finance human ingenuity
2
1
63
Pretty cool
Please take a look at the idea database, and if you need funding, reach out to us as well. We want to help get more startups created to solve important problems..
27
Worth a read congrats @nickcammarata
interpretability might be the most important scientific problem in the world right now, as I don't think we can solve alignment if we don't know what we're building. I think I have good news about it. I co-authored early work in mechanistic interpretability at OpenAI and came away pessimistic, because neural networks appeared to fold into arbitrary tangled knots. years later, I started openai's first large-scale automated interpretability project, finding about 2% of neurons legible with the primitive tools we had with modern agentic tools and a much closer look, the picture looks totally different. the vast majority in models up to trillions of parameters are legible, and their circuits beautiful. many famous examples of tangled neurons turned out to be misunderstood. The roadblocks I expected mostly aren't there. I now think ambitious interpretability will be solved by the time we need it most, and possibly quite soon, as automated scientists keep improving. it may be a bitter lesson for interpretability: the simple thing, at absurd scale, works already-clean.goodfire.com/
1
58
From a LinkedIn exchange: One abstraction of what we’re building is an ib team of agents that can underwrite any complex business in the world opening up entire economies to financing that today are constrained by the cost of pricing risk (super manual workflows). One of my cofounders is ex-Google /morgan Stanley ai engineer and my other is ex-ib, chemical engineer and jack of all trades. We’re working with a central bank, some large family offices and exploring private credit partnerships to fund these complex rural business starting in farming in Mexico and are already expanding into other types of rural businesses. Basically an ai leap frog story…teh global rural economy is built on manual financial workflows and we’re building alternative infra from the ground up for agents that will touch trillions is value
2
44
253,405
Sharing from a text exchange with family in the East coast… Hey guys really appreciate you sharing the daily episode and Ezra’s podcasts yesterday. Had a chance to listen to the daily and part of Ezra’s episode with Jensen and another with an ex-OAI safety policy employee. Also did some reflecting last night and wanted to share some quick thoughts. Also bounced some ideas off yui who helps me stay grounded with this stuff. 1. I’m deep in the bubble and I need to be. Building a startup is incredibly hard, risky and honestly crazy especially with kids and a wife in the picture. For me it requires an irrational belief that I am doing something that is going to make the lives of millions of people better. At the same time I’m constantly questioning this belief but the questions are in the day to day execution and less high level / heady debate about the tech being good vs bad — that is outside my control and a distraction from me accomplishing my goal of starting a viable high impact company. 2. I struggle with the nyt coverage of tech and business and honestly have stopped consuming any of its content for a while now. It’s partially a function of having limited time and partially a function of more thoughtful and detailed coverage of tech/business being available elsewhere. My friends and it feels like most of the tech community has also moved on from NYTimes including newer media options like Ezra and the daily. I heard Jensen went on Ezra from a tech podcast and watched spliced clips but didn’t watch the actual episode. 3. There seems to be a gap widening between those building ai and with ai and those who don’t. And this gap is also largely geographic — Bay Area vs everywhere else. This is starting to be reflected in media coverage and culture. Ai safety, data centers, unemployment fears — there’s a consensus view within the ai bubble on these things that is largely informed from the bottom up (the people who are building these things) that is rich with details and nuance — unfortunately I don’t see a lot of these details in more mainstream coverage of Ai. Tbf all this stuff is quite complex and there’s a steep learning curve that makes mass coverage near impossible. 4. I can’t describe well how fast things are moving. It’s like nothing I or anyone has experienced. And it forces everyone who is serious people to be extremely honest and first principled with themselves about what they know / don’t know. It’s also extremely exciting to build in this environment but I can’t express how difficult it is — not in the technical of building but rather in the strategic sense. If we build in the wrong direction (which we and everyone does at times) it can be exponentially (and existentially) costly because the rate of technological change is compounding so quickly 5. So far I don’t see my experience as a founder building an ai-native reflected in media coverage outside the bubble and I think these ground up details matter. I’ll give an example, here’s a great conversation about the state of open source frontier models and what this means for ai safety as well as where the frontier is going that reflects most builders’ take on ai safety now (alignment is an engineering problem we’re going to solve and that needs many people focused on it likely via open source methods). youtu.be/up4sG9RM20M?is=3t3f…
1
323
Amazing mistral’s small model release and llama 3 was only 2 yrs ago… Love what @MishaLaskin and team are building at @reflection_ai. Ty for a great discussion @saranormous @eladgil
ICYMI, new @NoPriorsPod with @reflection_ai cofounder @MishaLaskin on China, safety, market structure of ai, the business model of open models, reasoning efficiency, distillation, and what it takes to ship massive frontier AI “Competitive tension is just good.”
1
60
Enjoyed this. Great point about evals and taste…this is the nature of the game these days @gregisenberg
I spent 48 hours in SF hanging out with billionaires, data labs and AI founders and execs running $1B to $100B companies. My observations: 1. Sooo MANY stories of data brokers making like $2M a WEEK selling company data to labs. I can't tell if it's the beginning or a bubble, and I kept wondering which niches are left. Digging into it actively. 2. At dinner, someone asked the table, "If a new model drops next month, does your company get better or worse?" HALF the table went quiet! I think that's the best question to ask about any AI startup right now. 3. The bar people talk about now is hitting $1B in revenue in 12 months (I guess that's the new unicorn?). What I didn't hear much about is retention. AI revenue can come in fast and leave fast, and I think we're going to see a lot of stories of AI companies with huge revenue and terrible retention. 4. It's pretty clear we're living through the reinvention of the computer. The model is the CPU, the harness is the operating system, and skills and plugins are the apps. Thinking about it that way makes it easier to see where the whitespace is. 5. We're maybe 12 months from an agent that can watch you work for a week and then do your job without any instructions. The screen recording plus agent memory plus local model combination makes this possible right now. 6. Agent harnesses feel like the new GPT wrappers, in a good way, especially vertical ones. The best teams I talked to treat the model as swappable. One founder walked me through routing different models to different jobs: one for taste and visuals, a cheaper one for the everyday stuff, another for text. They use prompts they can move across models over fine-tuning, and A/B test the output on what users actually do with it: do they edit it, export it, share it? A vertical harness is basically four things: the connectors for that industry's data, evals written by people who know the work, rules for what the agent can and can't touch, and a clean screen for a human to review. The model is maybe 20% of it. 7. There's a lot of reverse engineering going on/cloning going on more than I've ever seen. People are decompiling software and rebuilding it with agents, and someone showed a suite of like 10 apps that are worth $5B+ each all that he cloned open source. Me and everyone are still thinking through what it means when software gets this easy to copy. 8. My guess is the value moves to data. If the software can be rebuilt quickly, what's worth paying for in a legacy SaaS company is the years of customer data and workflows inside it. Some SaaS companies are secretly data companies. Gets me thinking about how do you truly value data for this saas companies? Like if we were buying these dying saas companies at 2x ARR before (as example), maybe there is a better metric. Idk, just thinking out loud here. 9. It feels like a good chunk of legacy software won't make it to the agentic era, especially anything built around people clicking through a lot of screens. 10. Every company I talked to wants to pipe its internal data into one place and expose it to agents through MCP. Then they look at the data and realize it's a mess: five versions of the same customer, old Slack channels, PDFs nobody can search. Cleaning that up feels like a big consulting opportunity! 11. A lot of founders are building the basic building blocks for agents: APIs, data layers and tools. Some of the companies I saw barely have a UI because the main user is an agent. I really believe the startups that build primitives to this agentic era will do extremely well. Building blocks is the best way to think about it. 12. Labs can get plenty of training data, but it's harder to get real examples of agents failing inside companies. Whoever has those logs has something valuable. 13. Someone running a big consumer company told me the next fight is over memory. The model that remembers the most about you wins, and the smartest model matters less than people think. 14. Physical AI came up a lot. Astra I think was the first model that got people into AI can actually do CAD, and I think a lot of people are thinking what does vibe manufacturing really look like. The line I keep thinking about came from a robotics founder: the hardest problems in AI are deployment problems now, not research problems. Their robots work on their own, call a human when they get stuck, and every one of those calls becomes training data. 15. Cybersecurity companies are having a moment and are actually cool companies to build now, especially the ones that clean up after a breach. Every agent with access to your systems is a new door into your company, and a lot of those doors were left open. 16. Some startups are worth more dead than alive now. A shutdown company with 5 years of Slack, email and code can get paid for licensing all of it. I wouldn't be surprised if founders start factoring that into when they shut down. 17. People are starting to talk about monetizing the agent web. It feels really early, but when the most popular user of the internet is an agent, what startups should you be building? 18. I think agent insurance is coming. Once an agent makes an expensive mistake, insurers will want audits before they cover anyone. 19. Several people said the hire they want most is someone with taste who can write evals. The models are getting good at generating ideas, so the hard part is judging which ones are good. 20. New trend I observed: startup raises VC, uses venture dollars to become a creator, startup fails, founder falls back on being a full-time creator and incubates other products bootstrapped. 21. Getting SIGNIFICANT distribution is HARD right now. Founders are sponsoring buses, buying billboards like crazy and throwing parties with famous DJs to get noticed. Kinda feels dotcom era in that sense. Attention is what's scarce! The growth guy going viral sharing his UGC strategy from Wispr Flow is a good example. It's the sauce everyone wants, and I truly believe there are probably only 50 people on the planet who know how to scale these types of businesses efficiently in this era. Always good to get that dose of SF. I felt sooo lucky to have such an incredible trip during such an incredible time in building businesses. Surreal in so many ways. Happy to be home and locked in. Until next time!
22
Daniel Tebes retweeted
I spent 48 hours in SF hanging out with billionaires, data labs and AI founders and execs running $1B to $100B companies. My observations: 1. Sooo MANY stories of data brokers making like $2M a WEEK selling company data to labs. I can't tell if it's the beginning or a bubble, and I kept wondering which niches are left. Digging into it actively. 2. At dinner, someone asked the table, "If a new model drops next month, does your company get better or worse?" HALF the table went quiet! I think that's the best question to ask about any AI startup right now. 3. The bar people talk about now is hitting $1B in revenue in 12 months (I guess that's the new unicorn?). What I didn't hear much about is retention. AI revenue can come in fast and leave fast, and I think we're going to see a lot of stories of AI companies with huge revenue and terrible retention. 4. It's pretty clear we're living through the reinvention of the computer. The model is the CPU, the harness is the operating system, and skills and plugins are the apps. Thinking about it that way makes it easier to see where the whitespace is. 5. We're maybe 12 months from an agent that can watch you work for a week and then do your job without any instructions. The screen recording plus agent memory plus local model combination makes this possible right now. 6. Agent harnesses feel like the new GPT wrappers, in a good way, especially vertical ones. The best teams I talked to treat the model as swappable. One founder walked me through routing different models to different jobs: one for taste and visuals, a cheaper one for the everyday stuff, another for text. They use prompts they can move across models over fine-tuning, and A/B test the output on what users actually do with it: do they edit it, export it, share it? A vertical harness is basically four things: the connectors for that industry's data, evals written by people who know the work, rules for what the agent can and can't touch, and a clean screen for a human to review. The model is maybe 20% of it. 7. There's a lot of reverse engineering going on/cloning going on more than I've ever seen. People are decompiling software and rebuilding it with agents, and someone showed a suite of like 10 apps that are worth $5B+ each all that he cloned open source. Me and everyone are still thinking through what it means when software gets this easy to copy. 8. My guess is the value moves to data. If the software can be rebuilt quickly, what's worth paying for in a legacy SaaS company is the years of customer data and workflows inside it. Some SaaS companies are secretly data companies. Gets me thinking about how do you truly value data for this saas companies? Like if we were buying these dying saas companies at 2x ARR before (as example), maybe there is a better metric. Idk, just thinking out loud here. 9. It feels like a good chunk of legacy software won't make it to the agentic era, especially anything built around people clicking through a lot of screens. 10. Every company I talked to wants to pipe its internal data into one place and expose it to agents through MCP. Then they look at the data and realize it's a mess: five versions of the same customer, old Slack channels, PDFs nobody can search. Cleaning that up feels like a big consulting opportunity! 11. A lot of founders are building the basic building blocks for agents: APIs, data layers and tools. Some of the companies I saw barely have a UI because the main user is an agent. I really believe the startups that build primitives to this agentic era will do extremely well. Building blocks is the best way to think about it. 12. Labs can get plenty of training data, but it's harder to get real examples of agents failing inside companies. Whoever has those logs has something valuable. 13. Someone running a big consumer company told me the next fight is over memory. The model that remembers the most about you wins, and the smartest model matters less than people think. 14. Physical AI came up a lot. Astra I think was the first model that got people into AI can actually do CAD, and I think a lot of people are thinking what does vibe manufacturing really look like. The line I keep thinking about came from a robotics founder: the hardest problems in AI are deployment problems now, not research problems. Their robots work on their own, call a human when they get stuck, and every one of those calls becomes training data. 15. Cybersecurity companies are having a moment and are actually cool companies to build now, especially the ones that clean up after a breach. Every agent with access to your systems is a new door into your company, and a lot of those doors were left open. 16. Some startups are worth more dead than alive now. A shutdown company with 5 years of Slack, email and code can get paid for licensing all of it. I wouldn't be surprised if founders start factoring that into when they shut down. 17. People are starting to talk about monetizing the agent web. It feels really early, but when the most popular user of the internet is an agent, what startups should you be building? 18. I think agent insurance is coming. Once an agent makes an expensive mistake, insurers will want audits before they cover anyone. 19. Several people said the hire they want most is someone with taste who can write evals. The models are getting good at generating ideas, so the hard part is judging which ones are good. 20. New trend I observed: startup raises VC, uses venture dollars to become a creator, startup fails, founder falls back on being a full-time creator and incubates other products bootstrapped. 21. Getting SIGNIFICANT distribution is HARD right now. Founders are sponsoring buses, buying billboards like crazy and throwing parties with famous DJs to get noticed. Kinda feels dotcom era in that sense. Attention is what's scarce! The growth guy going viral sharing his UGC strategy from Wispr Flow is a good example. It's the sauce everyone wants, and I truly believe there are probably only 50 people on the planet who know how to scale these types of businesses efficiently in this era. Always good to get that dose of SF. I felt sooo lucky to have such an incredible trip during such an incredible time in building businesses. Surreal in so many ways. Happy to be home and locked in. Until next time!
937
1,985
582
21,228
2,523,645
Required viewing… from one of the 🐐s youtu.be/LfU2Qu4MzZk?is=QUTB…
21
Daniel Tebes retweeted
Assorted things I've been mulling over regarding agents in the economy: • Companies are in some sense the original superintelligence. It's often the case that they can use their amortized cognitive surplus to advance their interests against those of certain consumers: relative to the optimization capacity of companies, consumers can be inattentive, underinformed, irrational, etc. (Think, say, of some of the classic insurance upsells at the end of a booking process, which is typically priced substantially above what a regular policy would cost.) Herbert Simon introduced the idea of bounded rationality, and firms often end up benefiting from it. Thanks to personal agents, we will probably get somewhat more rational in how we engage with companies. • How exactly will outcomes change? Well, certain kinds of price discrimination will work less well (how do coupons work if every agent hunts fastidiously for them?), and certain kinds of customer cross-subsidy will change (today, people who forget to cancel subscriptions subsidize those who don't). Taken across the economy as a whole, I'm not sure what the incidence of all of this will be. • In corporate strategy, people have long debated the relative importance of distribution and product quality. Perhaps you've made something better, but does anyone know about it? Won't people just continue to buy the ACME Corp Mousetraps? Personal agents will, I think, act as a kind of structural subsidy for product quality. How would markets look different if individuals always spent at least 10 hours researching their purchases? On the margin, focusing on making a product better is, I think, going to become a more effective strategy for companies. This is good! • It true, a corollary is that information about product quality will become more important and impactful. Today, most people have very limited ability to aggregate and integrate such data, but agents will have insatiable thirst for such signals. (It's often said that data is becoming more valuable because it helps in the training of models. That's obviously true, but I think there's a secondary way in which it's more valuable simply as a complement to cheaper intelligence.) • A big question is whether agents will increase superstar effects (rational agents all settle on the same product) or increase dispersion (because everyone has slightly different tastes and preferences, which agents are good at eliciting, finally overcoming the artificial clustering we've been subjected to). • Many internet companies have monetized demand routing, which is in turn often predicated on short attention spans. "I'll click on the first thing I see." This has led to some amount of inefficiency, as companies try to propitiate capricious ranking algorithms and incur various placement fees. It's not all deadweight loss (willingness to pay is itself a kind of signal, which is valuable to buyers), but it's not great. How will the nature and value of this routing change in a world of personal agents? I don't know the answer, but I think that the effects might be pretty big. • Much of what I'm writing hinges on the assumption that personal agents will be on the consumer's side. I suspect that that will be the winning strategy, but whether it's true, and what it means to be true, involves a lot of other questions. Taken as a whole, the market is a massively parallelized, decentralized, and highly imperfect value attribution machine, and, taking stock of all of the effects, it seems to me that the quality point may well be the biggest: that agents will change the nature of the backpropagation such that the rewards for better products increase. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I suspect (and hope) that companies that make things that they're proud of will feel that the universe is a little more partisan in their favor.
493
1,027
456
9,630
1,725,122