Show HN: Some Pay Millions for McKinsey, Others Use BrainTerms | Hacker News Reader

Show HN: Some Pay Millions for McKinsey, Others Use BrainTerms

brainterms.ai

4 pointsJderenne11 comments

Hi all !

We built a fantastic full agentic ai system for funders and product managers explore and pilot their product strategies.

With a team of orchestrated, objective drive and self enhanced AI Agents doing strategic expertise you benchmark your pricing, define your GTM strategy, roadmap and more.

We simulate your users and for each segment the system give you deep insights (churn, adoption, which features to develop etc).

Objective is to have a digital twin of your business and take decision based on simulated outcome

Need your help :

We have lots of visitors but few (free) sign up (ok we launched some weeks ago, but we expected more converstion).

We need to understand why. :-)

Tks ! Jerome.

Open articleView on HN

We added a strategic agents for GTM strategies and use it for ourself as well. The results from it and from the community feedback is great with more clarity on our message and an improvement of sign-ups.

By the usage of multiple AI models and a fine tuned architecture (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7342834...) , some strategic agents leverage the hallucination as a great features (ideation for exemple) while hallucinations are very limited and controlled for other agents (references provided, specific setup, cross checking, usage of other technologies than LLM etc..)

There are a few problems I see here...

- As others have pointed out, if you need to ask us how to GTM, then your product isn't effective, as your entire claim is that it will tell you.

- AIs hallucinate badly when it comes to numbers. The techniques for preventing hallucinations need an valid data set to contrast responses against, which either won't exist or exists because you have hard-coded valid GTM strategies into a data set. So the end result is either prone to hallucinations, or is just regurgitating a canned GTM playbook.

In short, while the idea is interesting, I can't imagine it working well in reality under the current LLM stacks.

Tks,

We didn’t hard-code GTM strategies, the agent uses strong prompting + internal logic to get high-quality output from the LLM. It’s not just regurgitating a playbook, but it’s also not freestyling.

Actually our GTM strategy does not cover the design of a high converting homepage. (it give the strategic alignement a.o) We could add that later and see the impact on our homepage.

Financial benchmarking use their specific models and fine tuning. We constrain them hard, structured prompts, known-good data, and refined knwoledge from the agentic system. No room for AI "vibes." The results and projection (financial strategy is not accounting) is actually quite impressive tbh.

For others agents we see hallucination has a strong feature, while obviously it's not the case for financial benchmarks.

> We need to understand why. :-)

Two thoughts:

- Most people will want to try something before handing over their personal details. Many startups, once they have your email address, will start spamming with emails, which gets annoying very fast.

- It's not clear what your product does that o3-pro/Claude4/Gemini2.5/DeepSeekR1 can't do. (Or do well.) Your video is mostly just a marketing spiel. If you can't offer an unrestricted, no-questions-asked free trial, what you want to do is show people a sort of A/B test, with your product vs. a well-prompted leading competitor like o3-pro.

Also just imagine hiring McKinsey in 2025. lmao.

thanks! appreciated feedback !

-There are two video, one positioning the product the other (at the end) walking through it. This one gives more insights ? not the right format ?

-I can let all people in (with some limitation) without any sign up (to remove all friction). I was afraid that It will only increase our AI cost usage without attracting serious "clients" ... wdyt ? any experience with that ?

Video probably isn't the right format. A lot of people (myself included!) won't want to view them. Tables, charts, images, etc. are generally better, easier for any short-attention-span person who just happened across your site and wants to skim through what you have to offer.

I think what you really need to answer is: "What differentiates my product from a good prompt on o3-pro?" Make a comparative table or a whitepaper, and use that for marketing and outreach.

If, and only if, that doesn't work, I'd suggest you offer a zero-friction free trial. Maybe one or two free attempts?

yep, we will move some information from the FAQ to the front page for easy access. Indeed we can try to relocate the video and put table, chart etc.. I like the white paper idea. We know we need to include more information on "use cases" as well (ongoing).

Today the friction to start the free trial is only the google sign in. Difficult to do less. It gives access to 50 % of AI Strategic Agents and data are erased (you retrieved them when you subscribe) after 24hours. AI capacity is limited as well. They can try a new business project every day.

Possible to give full access for two attemps but users will just create other accounts to benefit of a "forever" full free trial I guess.

Is Google login a friction ?

> We have lots of visitors but few (free) sign up. We need to understand why. :-)

Why not ask you genius AI? It surely knows, it is made for that.

Well I can consult you: This thing is shit and will spew out brain dead bullshit. Much like McKinsey, so that part is on point.

How would you like to pay my 250K consulting fee?

Fair point we actually did ask our AI. It gave us 6 hypotheses, a funnel analysis, and a competitor teardown. Now we’re asking humans too they tend to be better at sarcasm :-)

We’ve been impressed by the depth so far (we uses domain-specific agents), often comparable to a solid strategy consultant. Still early, though, and always learning from edge cases and critiques.

What good is your product if you yourself are asking a human?

The idea is to make strategic thinking accessible to the lower layers of any organistation (which is not the case today for 99%) . This does not mean that strategy, once done should not be shared and debated between stakeholder, on the contrary.

What is important is that is done, talked about in quick cycle, and that our agentic ai offer strong qualitative guidance (but flexbilty). Strategy is not a frozen document.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com