Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 276 posts

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#61

Post by tomtheelder »

diggan wrote: post #8
paxys wrote: post #4

People look at the top 5 YC success stories and think every company they fund is of that standard. In reality they "graduate" 500-1000 startups every year . They aren't all winners. In fact I'd wager Pear AI is a lot closer to the norm in terms of quality and competency than, say, Stripe or Airbnb. If you look at their recent batches there is an endless parade of thin ChatGPT wrappers.

This is true for every VC no? And the whole idea behind VCs? They aren't exactly only aiming to fund the startups they think 100% will be successful, as then they wouldn't fund anyone, so instead they spread out the risk to catch any surprise winners. Does anyone really look at the line-up of funded startups from a VC and think they're all winners?

For sure- it's just that YC didn't used to operate like that. They have morphed from an interesting higher-touch incubator whose involvement was a strong positive signal into a scattershot VC, but not everyone realizes that so being "YC backed" still carries more prestige than is warranted.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#62

Post by sgarland »

dewey wrote: post #42
stroupwaffle wrote: post #37

I watched the video promoting Continue.dev and just think to myself, these AI editors don’t actually add much value. EMacs and Treesitter is much faster way to “find all references to X” in the codebase. Other questions can be answered with the naive grep implementation and marginal brain power. If all they’re investing in here is to write boilerplate code, well, that takes not much time in the grand scheme of things…

> Am I missing something? Yes, you are basically posting a modern equivalent of the famous "Dropbox reply". "EMacs and Treesitter...naive grep implementation". There's value in these tools, that's why GitHub, JetBrains, Cursor all built businesses on top of AI coding extensions. Personally I don't use the "Write this full function for me"-features but use it as a way smarter auto-complete. People don't really use the…

I don’t think expecting someone to know how to set up an editor (or not; there are plenty of turnkey distros like LazyVim) or knowing how to use the most basic of *nix tools is on par with the Dropbox reply.

> there’s value in these tools, that’s why… all built businesses on top of AI

Or is it because those companies realized they would rapidly lose market share if they didn’t? You don’t have to add value to become popular, you just have to make people think they’re missing out. Eventually your house of cards might come crashing down, but in the meantime, you’ve successfully enriched yourself. If you have a competing product that is technically equal or superior, it can be maddening to see the popular kid surpassing you without merit.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#63

Post by drpossum »

llm_trw wrote: post #14
jazz9k wrote: post #2

This is completely allowed under the apache open source license. I'm not sure why people are so upset about it. If you don't want this to happen, release software under a different licensing model.

This is a conversation I keep having with people who support permissive licenses. >Oh no, you're allowed to do whatever you want, but you shouldn't. >>Then why is Amazon allowed to do it if they shouldn't? >It's not polite. >>...

Not being polite will get you yelled at, as is happening right now, and should not be surprising. Legally there may be nothing and they are welcome to ruin their reputation and suffer the consequences.

I find it baffling in conversations I keep having with people that someone thinks that because something is legally permissible, then it is acceptable. It's the same vein of when people cry "free speech" when they said something reprehensible, as if that somehow should protect them from how people react to their horrible statements.

I think what is driving this is one the of the fundamental problems with the tech industry and its relationship to society: the ingraining of the assumption that because something is legal to do means it is OK to do. They are not and I think there should be more outrage when something like this tries to slide by.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#64

Post by wheels »

llm_trw wrote: post #58
wheels wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I voted the grandparent up about the license allowing it. But things being allowed isn't a benchmark for them being decent. I don't think we should stone adulterers. But I also think cheating on your partner can mean you're an asshole.

> Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like. -- Edward Thurlow

A fair point. But having the internet turn on you before you get any traction is also probably going to be a death-knell for an early stage company. It doesn't bode well for their ability to make or raise money.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#65

Post by HyprMusic »

gyre007 wrote: post #25
hbbio wrote: post #11

The worst part is that instead of backing out and let's say kicking them out of the batch, YC doubled down praising the (pretty poor imho) justification that may also have been written by ChatGPT, like the license :) https://x.com/mwseibel/status/1840846817631879291

I don’t thinks its the worst , but it did feel in bad taste. YC have put money and trust in them, so why would they kick them down? Would you? They haven’t committed any crime so why would they distance themselves (Note: I am not a YC founder or affiliated with YC in any way)

They relicensed the code to their own license[0], which violates the original license, so you could argue they committed copyright infringement.

[0] https://github.com/trypear/pearai-app/blob/e921c7ae272168577...

EDIT: Looks like they have since changed the license to Apache 2.0 but it's still in violation of the original MIT license and does not contain the required copyright notice.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#66

Post by rickspencer3 »

jazz9k wrote: post #2

This is completely allowed under the apache open source license. I'm not sure why people are so upset about it. If you don't want this to happen, release software under a different licensing model.

In my experience, issues like this occur when people project ethical standards onto projects when those ethical standards are not embedded in the license.

In my view, if you believe it is unethical for someone to re-license your Apache code with their own proprietary license, then it shouldn't have an Apache license.

Taking a proprietary fork of an Apache licensed code base and creating an Enterprise product around it seems like a valid business move to me. My guess is that the "uproar" is not coming from the original project creators, but from outside community members who consider such things "anti-social" or whatnot, but I could be wrong.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#67

Post by whiplash451 »

paxys wrote: post #4

People look at the top 5 YC success stories and think every company they fund is of that standard. In reality they "graduate" 500-1000 startups every year . They aren't all winners. In fact I'd wager Pear AI is a lot closer to the norm in terms of quality and competency than, say, Stripe or Airbnb. If you look at their recent batches there is an endless parade of thin ChatGPT wrappers.

There is quality/competency, and there is business ethics.

As an incubator, you own the practices of the companies in your portfolio.

It does not take a lot of rotten fruits to ruin the brand.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#68

Post by CharlieDigital »

I've been in the VC-backed startup space as a lead/principal engineer or technical advisor for the last 4 years.

In that time, I've worked at 1 startup that closed a $100m C, one that closed a multi-million B, one that recently closed a $30m C, and one that started with a $8m seed.

I've started my own startup and worked with founders of other startups on the side advising on the technical side (and once in a while building the initial PoCs).

Some have failed, some have succeeded wildly, some have hit their limits of growth, some have a great product that solves an obvious problem yet get zero traction.

Here is a lesson-learned as far as "copying" goes: it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if there are 3 companies in the same domain doing the same thing; then it simply comes down to insider connections, sales, marketing, and pricing.

In the end, the team that wins isn't always the one with the best product; there is a fair bit of luck and timing, marketing is super important, and having the right leadership team in place makes all the difference. The non-product aspects of a successful business are supremely underappreciated, especially by the technical folks. Bad products can become good products eventually; bad teams can rarely survive turbulence and it is so hard to tell if a team has the right "vibes" or not.

So it makes sense for YC or any VC to bet broadly because the reasons why a team succeeds and another fails is so intangible with so much luck and timing involved as well that making broad bets -- even if two YC-batch companies are very similar in terms of domain and product -- is just sound business.

Edit: to be clear, these are not my principles (no need to attack me personally); these are simply my observations about teams that have succeeded and teams that have floundered. I left 1 company because because in principle, I disagreed with their loose operational style in a regulated space.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#69

Post by whiplash451 »

diggan wrote: post #8
paxys wrote: post #4

People look at the top 5 YC success stories and think every company they fund is of that standard. In reality they "graduate" 500-1000 startups every year . They aren't all winners. In fact I'd wager Pear AI is a lot closer to the norm in terms of quality and competency than, say, Stripe or Airbnb. If you look at their recent batches there is an endless parade of thin ChatGPT wrappers.

This is true for every VC no? And the whole idea behind VCs? They aren't exactly only aiming to fund the startups they think 100% will be successful, as then they wouldn't fund anyone, so instead they spread out the risk to catch any surprise winners. Does anyone really look at the line-up of funded startups from a VC and think they're all winners?

YC does not (cl)aim to be every VC.

Re: YC criticized for backing AI startup that simply cloned another AI startup

#70

Post by soyeahok »

wpietri wrote: post #56
gyre007 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t thinks its the worst , but it did feel in bad taste. YC have put money and trust in them, so why would they kick them down? Would you? They haven’t committed any crime so why would they distance themselves (Note: I am not a YC founder or affiliated with YC in any way)

Is your standard for ethics really, "Well it's not a criminal violation of the law?"

[dead]
Post reply on HN