Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sit on an AI evaluation committee for a huge law firm (It's just a regular old consulting gig) - we get so much inbound from (mostly kids) folks trying to build wrappers for some aspect of legal workflow, but behind the scenes thomson reuters is slowly adding everything they're going to need to software they have been using for 10 years now.
In many fields there is no moat. It’s an execution battle and it comes down to question: can the startup innovate faster and get to the customers or can the incumbent defend its existing distribution well enough. Microsoft owns GitHub and VSCode yet cursor was able to out execute them. Legora is moving very quickly in the legal space. Not clear yet who will win.
What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
101–110 of 121 posts
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#102Do "AI Startups" even make sense? There appears to be a pattern. Unmet need is identified: "I want ChatGPT -- but able to read PDFs" or "I want ChatGPT -- but able to do research and produce lengthy reports." Startup gets funding for this and, if they're lucky, releases a rough beta that leans heavily on the OpenAI API. Two months later OpenAI launches a better, much more polished and seamless version, which is integ…
I'm doubtful. Remember when Google said their strategy was AI First? Baidu too? I'm old enough to remember that the criticism then was along the line "AI is technology. What problems do you want to solve?". The line of thinking seems still relevant to me today.
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> going so far as to download the fulltext of every legal ruling ever made in the US -- something like 400GB Where can I find this?
Start here: https://com-courtlistener-storage.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com... The "opinions" are what you want. These are huge files heavily compressed, so they're quite difficult to handle.
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's often potential customers. It's common to have other HW companies invest in HW start ups. Unfortunately there are not many good VCs for HW development. Even the ones marketing themselves as much don't like the meager returns in 5 to 10 years.
Might be a ridiculous question (I'm a software guy,) but is it at all possible to go the other way and increase the velocity of shipping and iterating on hardware to make it fit into the standard VC timelines?
- We only use models to simulate the chip, and this is at best partial. Verification coverage if the code is one thing. There are thousands of effects from power supply network to thermals, reliability (device aging, electromigration etc) and a bunch of analog stuff which has weird failure modes which is almost impossible to fully cover before shipping it. So, we never actually know what would fail before tapeout. - Tapeour cost is immense. A full mask cost of an advanced node is easily $10 Million or more. You can always go to an MPW, but then they are rare for advanced nodes (1-2 times per year), putting an immense pressure on schedules. - Chip production takes time. For old nodes ~3 months, advanced nodes it's getting close to ~5 months. - Package design, test PCB design, their production takes a lot of time and money too. Typically package costs as much as the silicon to produce if the design is heavily IO limited and uses and advanced packaging solution. - Lab test preperation and test itself takes time. Typically you would need months of test to get a meaningful picture of the issues. You woul need to go through temperature and voltage cycles, on/off cycles etc. This of course depends on the end application. Automotive and data centers are quite demanding. - There is a lot of competition for pretty nuch the same product and there is a lot of vender lock-in as the customers don't want to redesign their system ever.
So at the end, if you are designing a complex ASIC, you will spend a lot of money and time per tapeout cycle. If you have a big issue, your customer will go to the next guy. You lost them for forever (or for this product cycle of 4-5 years, if you are lucky but that's death sentence for a start-up). Now you are tens of millions in negative without your main customer. Again, if you are lucky you can either find another customer or repurpose your design. This is increasingly difficult as complex chips often aim a narrow market. This makes everyone very risk averse, including your customers.
For less complex chips in old process technology nodes things can be sped up, and is already being sped up, by a lot of IP reuse or buying ready silicon proven IPs. The problem there is, the time to market isn't the determining factor anymore as anyone can make a functional chip relatively quickly, but what matters is who can do it cheapest. There's a reason why most audio codecs and 1Gbit ethernet PHYs in PCs are Realtek. This type of products aren't attractive for start-ups.
It's often a happy middle ground of these with a niche application which resonates well with the experience and the talent of the engineering team makes a good beginnings of a HW start-up. Even with the best team, you need minimum 2 years to show something though.
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hah. Sort of. But the big difference is the railroad doesn't let anyone else use it. A regular road can support cars, trucks, truck convoys and maybe even bikes or pedestrians. A railroad can support trains.
Do they, pragmatically speaking? High-volume cargo traffic quickly wears down the asphalt and causes regular jams, a bike lane unseparated from cars is a safety hazard enough large enough to push many potential riders off the road, and most morning commutes would be better served by well-developed public transit. One EMD SD70ACe locomotive moves over 10,000 tonnes of cargo using 1,300 L of diesel per 1,000 km. The eq…
getting new tracks built takes waaay too long (because of NIMBY and simply because the road is usually already there)
there's no long-term thinking from politics, and no market forces converging to somehow over the years lead to some compounding (so the inefficiencies don't really translate to some big problem -- well, climate change and slower GDP growth)
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might be a ridiculous question (I'm a software guy,) but is it at all possible to go the other way and increase the velocity of shipping and iterating on hardware to make it fit into the standard VC timelines?
I guess the problem is that you can't just ship updates over the Internet unlike software/apps, hence recalls for physical products.
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I second this. I've worked for several early stage HW start-ups (ASIC development). VC backed ones ended up in a weird state of not being able to move from proof of concept to production because at that point the VCs were out of patience and wanted returns for their money. Having spent 10s if millions and now, 2-3 years later, requiring even more didn't align with what they were used to. This ended badly for these co…
> VCs were out of patience and wanted returns for their money. Having spent 10s if millions and now, 2-3 years later, requiring even more didn't align with what they were used to. Those numbers seem quaint now compared to OpenAI's "can we borrow $1B, actually $10B, hang on we need $50B, sorry we meant $500B, also we might need $7T" investment death spiral. Maybe when this is over VCs will be glad for how cheap and lo…
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
The railroad can’t have individual cars break off from the line to go to arbitrary warehouses, stores, and residences. The railroad is an amazingly low cost way to move tonnage, if you’re going from a place where the railroad stops to another place where the railroad stops. There aren’t really companies that _could_ be using rail and aren’t. But it just isn’t cost effective in many cases once you add in last-mile cos…
> The railroad can’t have individual cars break off from the line to go to arbitrary warehouses, stores, and residences So the hypothetical trucks can't handle freeways but can self-drive on much more complex urban and suburban roads?
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#1090 consumer products is wild. I know SaaS has taken over from a bang for buck perspective, but this seens like a too-narrow approach by YC.
One way to interpret this might be that in consumer products, it's easier for incumbents to add AI to improve an already well-marketed product than to build and market one from scratch.
OpenAI is lighting boatloads of money on fire to provide the ChatGPT free version. Same with Google for their search results AI, and perplexity which has also raised a lot. Unless you can raise a billion and find a unique wedge, it’s hard to even be in the game.
You can try to use small cheap models, but people will notice that free ChatGPT is 10x better.
Re: What's working for YC companies since the AI boom
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
"after Apple beefed it?" ... what? Apple's inability to improve their OS is somehow an indictment of B2C AI offerings in a general sense? You seem unfamiliar with the space, there are plenty of players outside of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google bringing AI to the consumer space: https://a16z.com/100-gen-ai-apps-4/ Consumer AI is arguably doing better than enterprise where 99% of the spend is poorly scaling undertakings…
I wasn't really counting horny chatbots and nudify apps, fair. But I also don't have a book in the space to talk.
Ah wait, you were talking out of your ass and want to deflect.