How Universities Should Prepare Founders

> 30 years ago you needed PG / YC to have a startup.

What's a "startup"? For the most part, you're just building a small business. You deal with local bureaucracies, learn about accounting, hire first employees, struggle to find customers. People have been doing this for ages without VCs. And 99% of startups never progress past that stage.

The only thing that VC funding changes is that it lets you grow faster than justified. This can turn you into the next Google, but most often, it puts you on a completely unsustainable path where you only have two outs: writing the project off or offloading it to a FOMO buyer for more than it's worth. The VC ecosystem is exceedingly good at that second part.

I think there's a very interesting history to be written/read about the emergence of the persona of 'founder'. I'm seeing it all over the place these days (alt. 'entrepeneur' or 'changemaker', the second of which really grates on me). It feels (to me) very much like 'small business owner' or 'the kids' or something: an idea or prototype of a person who is to be managed and possibly even produced by society. Not saying this in a critical way, I think every era has it's various typologies of 'person in society', but this one seems kind of unique in some interesting ways; very much a product of the last ~50 years of US history.

edit: I'll say that in my personal opinion the critical thing a founder needs is a strong internal locus of control. I feel that this is also an important product of a liberal arts education, so I see some natural alignment. I worry about the degree to which the 'total university' strips 18-22 year olds of important rites of development: learning to feed for yourself, find housing, meet friends organically (as opposed to because you share a dorm), etc. I could see a more pared down, "education-mostly" school in a large city being an interesting avenue for new models of university.

That's not my experience -- there's a whole pretense about being experts in a field, which is exactly what the poster above bought into. Having a PhD doesn't make or prove you're an expert about anything. It just proves you know how to do research in a thing, but that doesn't stop us from presenting PhDs in front of juries as if they're the only ones who know what they're talking about.

This I think is a medium-term path/window only. Eventually the low hanging fruit of "whatever we can do a small release quickly to get $1M ARR" will be relatively picked clean. Sort of like how the App Store boom had things like flashlight apps make a large number of sales, when realistically it made the most sense for it to be a first-party application.

With AI tooling, I think things like "quickly generated dashboard" will fall under this category, which is unfortunate because the only way to tell a well-thought UI from a poorly thought out one is by using it a lot. I suspect we are going to see a wave (already seeing really) of people launching small companies with barely functional products, which will burn user trust (low bar for software already).

For startups, this means the AI-code gold rush may ebb and most users will flock to larger corporate products that "just work". In this way, it follows the VC's with the most money to burn will be able to stay competitive after a few years of drought.

What I'm really interested in that this time they'll need to compete not just with each other, but with other institutions (assuming the software engineer's market rate stabilizes). It's not the 1990's anymore, every business and government knows how valuable software is (even if they don't have experience making it). How will they adapt the lower barrier to entry allowed by AI tools?

On the one hand, sad day for the rest and vest crowd, as well as founders. On the other hand, wouldn't it be interesting to see university or government managed Linux distros?

> im slowly getting confused on what founding a company even is.

> i dont want to sell anything. i just want to build things.

These are incompatible. If you start a company, whether you're CTO or CEO, you'll need to sell things. Both founders have to focus on the product, since it's being sold to people. And people refuse what they don't like. Which means your most valuable feedback mechanism comes from trying to sell something and then doing something different in response, until people buy it.

> could i just pull up with a list of my research interests, convince people its a sellable product, and score funding?

You can, but your company will eventually die because you won't be able to raise more money. VCs want signs that a company is growing. So if you raise money and then ask for more without strong sales, they won't give you more.

> then pitch myself to vcs with hope of funding whatever topics im interested and have my company function like a research group except instead of publishing papers we build products? like no profit no big deal, i never intended to profit. which, is this not what openai is doing?

That's not what OpenAI is doing. They're so focused on selling that they were even willing to sacrifice some of their research culture just to get everyone on the same page of "we have to make money, otherwise research can't happen." Sam explained to everyone that money comes from sales, not research, and money is a requirement for research. Thus they had to focus on selling.