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

New Requests for Startups

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 407 posts

Re: New Requests for Startups

#81

Post by jeorgun »

seiji wrote: post #63
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far off is singularity? It seems like the question can be rephrased as, "At any point in history, have humans been able to advance technology in a substantial way simply because they wanted to, rather than by stumbling upon a way to do it?" Most technology is incremental. Take flight, for example. The glider had already been around for a substantial amount of time before the Wright brothers solved the "control pr…

In fact, there's no clear way to even define AI, It's easy to define, but the term has been stolen by people wanting more media attention for less work. AI is just "what we are" without all the squishy parts. AI ("hard" AI, AGI) is a fully thinking, doing, feeling software system implemented in non-biology. I've suspected that AI is fundamentally impossible to implement on a Von Neumann architecture. Balderdash. We h…

That's still an incredibly unclear definition (c.f. the Chinese Room Argument, P-zombies, etc., etc.).

And that human intelligence is an entirely computable process isn't exactly universally accepted.

Re: New Requests for Startups

#82

Post by [deleted] »

ericHosick wrote: post #67
akkartik wrote: post #32

> What comes after programming languages? I've been working on this for several years, though a startup seems the wrong vehicle for it. I think the description in the RFS is misguided: "We’re interested in helping developers create better software, faster. This includes new ways to write, understand, and collaborate on code, and the next generation of tools and infrastructure for delivering software continuously and…

I'm also surprised at this one. The software fulfillment process has a lot of issues. We are stuck in a local maxima and jumping the chasm to the next maxima with ideas like "what comes after programming languages" is really really hard. Sadly, one of the biggest hurdles is self preservation because software developers don't want "software development accessible to the widest part of our society". I hate to say it, b…

[deleted]

Re: New Requests for Startups

#83

Post by seiji »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #76
seiji wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, there's no clear way to even define AI, It's easy to define, but the term has been stolen by people wanting more media attention for less work. AI is just "what we are" without all the squishy parts. AI ("hard" AI, AGI) is a fully thinking, doing, feeling software system implemented in non-biology. I've suspected that AI is fundamentally impossible to implement on a Von Neumann architecture. Balderdash. We h…

We haven't discovered any computation problem that our universal computing architecture can't compute because... universal. It's not "universal \ things-that-can-generate-thoughts." Universal simulation machines can simulate things... universally. And yet, the Game of Life is completely deterministic and is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way, even with the new advances. Quantum may change this. There…

Game of Life is completely deterministic and is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way

My computer also can compute 5 + 5 and that is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way too. Not every algorithm results in life [and it requires algorithm + data + continual input, which the GoL doesn't integrate].

is a rejection of the idea that quantum computing allows any new problems to be solved

Because the idea quantum computing solves new problems has no basis in research or reality?

"Quantum" != magic

A tiny, currently impractical, factorization algorithm isn't a new problem current computers can't solve. They just take the long way 'round.

Re: New Requests for Startups

#84

Post by FD3SA »

ealloc wrote: post #79

I'm surprised no one has commented yet on the first couple of these - Energy, AI, Biotech, and Drug design. These have traditionally been domains requiring a huge research apparatus with tremendous manpower, for only very long term gains. Not good for startups. In AI, how can a startup hope to succeed when academia has had almost no success in 50 years (and I am doubtful throwing more CPU/neuron layers will 'solve' t…

Exactly. It is quite optimistic and borderline naive to believe that YC can replicate the Manhattan project in every one of these fields with a few hundred grand and a few months in a dorm.

This is just a huge lack of perspective by people who've only worked on commercial software. Real science is very hard, very expensive, and does not result in billion dollar IPO's within 3 years.

I'm hoping that once YC realizes that such projects will never succeed through a startup incubator, they will become politically active and spearhead the reversal of the current decay of government funded science. Only the government has the resources, time and foresight to fund 50 year research projects in the fields listed in the RFS. I hope this becomes clear in time.

EDIT - Here's a bit more of my thoughts on this issue from a previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7614344

Re: New Requests for Startups

#85

Post by ajiang »

atonse wrote: post #68

While I've always felt a strong attraction to YCombinator (especially the cameraderie that comes from being a part of it) and been very inspired to apply, I can't help but feel that I am in a phase of life that's simply not a good fit for YC, or at least the narrative that's pushed. I'm no longer a mid 20-something that can live on Ramen and 16 hour days. I'm married and have a young child. Are there YC founders in t…

There were plenty of older, married founders in our batch (S14) at YC. Some with kids. Message me directly at andrew at bayesimpact.org, and I can connect you with some to speak to.

Re: New Requests for Startups

#86

Post by seiji »

jeorgun wrote: post #81
seiji wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, there's no clear way to even define AI, It's easy to define, but the term has been stolen by people wanting more media attention for less work. AI is just "what we are" without all the squishy parts. AI ("hard" AI, AGI) is a fully thinking, doing, feeling software system implemented in non-biology. I've suspected that AI is fundamentally impossible to implement on a Von Neumann architecture. Balderdash. We h…

That's still an incredibly unclear definition (c.f. the Chinese Room Argument, P-zombies, etc., etc.). And that human intelligence is an entirely computable process isn't exactly universally accepted.

isn't exactly universally accepted.

Good point. People will always believe in magic and gods and meeting dead friends again too, but while they continue to stand firm in their fantasy beliefs, we march forward creating an actual future.

Re: New Requests for Startups

#87

Post by hackerboos »

ealloc wrote: post #79

I'm surprised no one has commented yet on the first couple of these - Energy, AI, Biotech, and Drug design. These have traditionally been domains requiring a huge research apparatus with tremendous manpower, for only very long term gains. Not good for startups. In AI, how can a startup hope to succeed when academia has had almost no success in 50 years (and I am doubtful throwing more CPU/neuron layers will 'solve' t…

>Energy, AI, Biotech, and Drug design

If you want to advance these fields throw money at universities, not startups.

Re: New Requests for Startups

#88

Post by mindcrime »

ealloc wrote: post #79

I'm surprised no one has commented yet on the first couple of these - Energy, AI, Biotech, and Drug design. These have traditionally been domains requiring a huge research apparatus with tremendous manpower, for only very long term gains. Not good for startups. In AI, how can a startup hope to succeed when academia has had almost no success in 50 years (and I am doubtful throwing more CPU/neuron layers will 'solve' t…

In AI, how can a startup hope to succeed when academia has had almost no success in 50 years (and I am doubtful throwing more CPU/neuron layers will 'solve' the problem).

I would say that academia have had tremendous success with AI research... but that's IF you accept that the goal doesn't have to be "a machine that thinks just like a human" and if you don't hold to an "all or nothing" outcome.

In terms of incremental improvements in techniques that make machines "smarter" and more capable of helping humans solve problems, there's absolutely been amazing progress. Look at Watson, for crying out loud.

So, if you accept that premise (that the goal is just "smarter" and not "thinks exactly like a human") I don't see any reason to think a startup can't make progress in this area. Will they invent the first full-fledged AGI? Maybe not, but I don't think that's the point.

Re: New Requests for Startups

#89

Post by BillFranklin »

cik wrote: post #43

While interesting - the thing that surprised me the most was not seeing "security" (take that for what you will) on the list. Given the year of disclosures, the heartbleed incident, and all other sorts of things - I feel like this field is ripe for a disruption. Between the staid companies that have been providing tools for decades that can be better, the tools that don't really exist that need to - I think we're rea…

Yep, I was surprised too. We submitted our infosec company and hopefully there'll be others who are doing the same thing. There aren't enough easy to use security tools, maybe one of us will be caught in the net.
Post reply on HN