Why YC went to DC
ycombinator.com
Why YC went to DC
1–10 of 407 posts
Re: Why YC went to DC
#2[flagged]
Re: Why YC went to DC
#3[flagged]
Re: Why YC went to DC
#4Same reason we all do: lobbying.
Re: Why YC went to DC
#5> Open source AI models allow for greater transparency, collaboration, and innovation by making the underlying code publicly accessible and modifiable.
I feel like open models do virtually nothing for transparency, collaboration, or innovation, and are only modifiable in that they can be fine-tuned. It's "open source" training processes and data that will lead to "transparency, collaboration, and innovation", and I'm unaware of any large company that does this.
Am I wrong?
Re: Why YC went to DC
#6[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Why YC went to DC
#7[flagged]
If you are going to play the founders game (get rich slow, then all of a sudden), then you should not be surprised by the slow and painful part.
Re: Why YC went to DC
#8[flagged]
No, you cannot craft an exploitation narrative out of tech startup founders. We have to draw the line somewhere. Say their directors of engineering and customer success are suffering under the lash of founders and investors, fine, but not one level of seniority higher than that.
Re: Why YC went to DC
#9If you need more things to fix:
* Software R&D Amortization - taxes on make-believe profits
* Patent law - protect small businesses from patent trolls
* Automate government-driven compliance standards - enable small businesses to sell into large companies/government entities, automatic certification when using pre-approved cloud solutions.
* Healthcare insurance - employees of SMBs automatically get access to medicare
Re: Why YC went to DC
#10> Open source AI models allow for greater transparency, collaboration, and innovation by making the underlying code publicly accessible and modifiable. I feel like open models do virtually nothing for transparency, collaboration, or innovation, and are only modifiable in that they can be fine-tuned. It's "open source" training processes and data that will lead to "transparency, collaboration, and innovation", and I'm…
Correct. Worse is that there are models being touted as "open source" that don't allow for a bunch of different uses and specify their own custom licensing (look at what Falcon originally had, Meta's models with specific commercial carveouts, etc.), we need an rms of the new age to call these fake OSS approaches out as they feel more like they are being done to get the OSS marketing shine, without actually being free and open.
Your "source" is not open nor is it transparent if training code, original dataset, model architecture details, and training methodology are not all there.