[HN Gopher] Ways YC has changed in the last year
___________________________________________________________________
Ways YC has changed in the last year
Author : yimby
Score : 28 points
Date : 2023-09-23 21:24 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| It's a risky investment strategy to put so much emphasis on AI
| startups. Not only do you have the already volatile nature of
| early-stage software companies (which YC is of course used to),
| but this is a bet on whether machine learning, chiefly LLMs, are
| going to continue to outperform other technologies and become
| sustainable to run.
|
| There's no question in my mind that 'Open'AI is subsidizing the
| vast majority of LLM research and use today. If the efficacy of
| LLaMA and its derivatives actually start to approach GPT4+ in any
| meaningful way, there is quickly going to be a shortage of
| suitable compute that will completely dwarf the now-subsided
| Bitcoin mining craze. Plus, untainted training data is going to
| be harder to find amongst the text contaminated with mountains of
| early LLM drivel.
|
| As a technology expert, I couldn't in all honesty say that I
| would want to have money in the YC fund right now. But if it pays
| off, it could be the biggest software windfall since social
| networking took off at the beginning of the 2010s.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| I guess what you are saying is buy calls for Nvidia
| epolanski wrote:
| Please don't turn HN in low effort WSB-like comments.
| version_five wrote:
| If this was NFTs, what would the winning strategy have been?
| Strike when the iron is hot and hype is at the maximum and hope
| to get some exits or subsequent rounds asap, or draw it out.
| From a portfolio perspective, it's just one batch, might as
| well go all in and maximally capitalize on hype, no?
| gxs wrote:
| You are being luddites.
|
| COVID having forced you to be remote is not enough to validate
| this constant preaching from SV leadership (and only leadership -
| no one without millions in equity ever lobbies for this) that
| nothing can replace in person.
|
| The fact that Paul Graham compares it to communism is fitting for
| so many reasons.
| yimby wrote:
| https://nitter.net/snowmaker/status/1705643839443403263
| debacle wrote:
| @dang, please change the root link to the nitter thread.
| voytec wrote:
| On one hand, this suggestion stands in opposition to HN rules
| (link to source) but on the other is more reasonable as
| linking nitter provides viewer with more information, as an
| addition to single post that non-registered Twitter users
| would be able to see.
| shkkmo wrote:
| It is like suggesting that the link on a paywalled article
| be changed to an archive link without the paywall. That
| isn't the way NH has decided to operate.
|
| Instead, users get taught to visit the comments first and
| upvote a comment with that link.
| carabiner wrote:
| Wow, even the bleeding edge, move fast and break things,
| disruptive crowd has reaffirmed one tradition: "in-person is the
| best." I think this settles it. WFH is less productive.
| epolanski wrote:
| No, it only reaffirms, if anything, that fast moving startups
| benefit from in-person relationship, guidance and communication
| with peers more than they would over Teams.
| Topgamer7 wrote:
| Twitter is such a garbage way to convey this kind of information.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| It's ridiculous how long a character limit based on text
| messaging has persisted on that platform and also helped ruin
| human communication across the globe. It's just one of those
| weird butterfly effect moments that aliens would shake their
| heads at.
| [deleted]
| epolanski wrote:
| It also limits the audience to people with Twitter, I can only
| see the first post.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Well then, i suppose our overlords have decided we must be in
| person. But since they will "free" us with ai soon what's the
| point?
| ShamelessC wrote:
| > Before covid, founders often asked us to run YC remotely so
| that they would't have to move to SF to participate. We never
| did...[we feel justified in our decision]
|
| Completely ignoring the founders who still have to move,
| apparently?
| jacquesm wrote:
| And not the most elegant display of the power dynamic between
| investors and founders, to put it mildly. Note that this self
| selects for people able _and_ willing to jump through hoops for
| their investors.
| startupsfail wrote:
| YC is a one-trick-pony. If you have a simple product, it can
| guide you to get users, investors and to scale it up.
|
| But don't expect anything else. It would not help, if you are
| outside of that scenario. It easily can screw you, by using any
| product ideas that you've refined and sharing these freely with a
| relevant startup in the batch.
| debacle wrote:
| > by using any product ideas that you've refined and sharing
| these freely with a relevant startup in the batch.
|
| Do you have an example of this happening in the past?
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| One trick pony? They have created 5-10% of all unicorns in
| existence
| jabradoodle wrote:
| Source?
| officialchicken wrote:
| Be honest about winner's bias... there are a lot of dead
| horses in their graveyard too.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-23 23:00 UTC)