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

Ways YC has changed in the last year

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 225 posts

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#171

Post by nektro »

quadcore wrote: post #108
seabass-labrax wrote: post #10

It's a risky investment strategy to put so much emphasis on AI startups. Not only do you have the already volatile nature of early-stage software companies (which YC is of course used to), but this is a bet on whether machine learning, chiefly LLMs, are going to continue to outperform other technologies and become sustainable to run. There's no question in my mind that 'Open'AI is subsidizing the vast majority of LLM…

Friendly reminder: the strategy here is to invest in the founders, not the ideas. So great founders right now create AI startups. So either AI solves problems or they arent great founders.

while there is certainly merit to the idea that they invest in founders over ideas, its scope is more to founders within an idea rather than wholly.

your statement fails to consider the possibility that the pool of applicants to YC are not great and the demographic of such founders are bad founders who are easily swayed by hype into fragile and failing topics such as "AI" and crypto.

in the situation where the applicant pool of ideas is in fact incredibly diverse, then it supports the thesis even moreso because it would show YC went with "AI" founders over other founders, regardless of their quality as potential business owners.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#172

Post by somsak2 »

avocabros wrote: post #162
hackernewds wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is there are other statistical techniques, none of which seems to be utilized against #vibes let's go #RTO

You can make an argument in the other direction too - prove that WFH is better than RTO, or else we should return to the default that modern society has worked in for the massive majority of our history. There is not reliable data on either side - some of the most important things are also incredibly hard to measure. Will company X do better choosing C++ or Rust? Static or dynamic typing? These questions aren't easil…

> I'm certain CEOs of FAANG are looking at stats to make these decisions

I'm not so certain. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-andy-jassy-no-data-re...

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#173

Post by benreesman »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #10

It's a risky investment strategy to put so much emphasis on AI startups. Not only do you have the already volatile nature of early-stage software companies (which YC is of course used to), but this is a bet on whether machine learning, chiefly LLMs, are going to continue to outperform other technologies and become sustainable to run. There's no question in my mind that 'Open'AI is subsidizing the vast majority of LLM…

Hype cycles have downsides no one is arguing about, but they don’t seem avoidable so I try to focus on the fact a bunch of people are going to get subsidized long enough to pivot to something durable and positive.

Even after you strip off the 80% “and then LangChain connects to a different API” stuff, this technology is still massive and it’s here to stay.

Tuning up a bunch of bright founders on some really highly leveraged ways of looking at problems? At some VC’s expense?

It could be worse.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#175

Post by jdougan »

ajkjk wrote: post #140
dilyevsky wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because zirp was over

What is zirp?

Zero Interest Rate Policy. Describes the US Federal Reserve interest rates for much of the last 20 years or so. Since interest rate to borrow is near zero, investing in very marginal businesses can be profitable.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#176

Post by fijiaarone »

quadcore wrote: post #108
seabass-labrax wrote: post #10

It's a risky investment strategy to put so much emphasis on AI startups. Not only do you have the already volatile nature of early-stage software companies (which YC is of course used to), but this is a bet on whether machine learning, chiefly LLMs, are going to continue to outperform other technologies and become sustainable to run. There's no question in my mind that 'Open'AI is subsidizing the vast majority of LLM…

Friendly reminder: the strategy here is to invest in the founders, not the ideas. So great founders right now create AI startups. So either AI solves problems or they arent great founders.

Great VCs are a gullible hype driven herd. Great founders are not.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#177

Post by throw3823423 »

xkr wrote: post #59
steveBK123 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was determined the same way FAANG, Banks, and others have determined in-person is best: "haha, the economy is slowing, get back to the office you F*(&# losers". Absolutely breathtaking level of cynicism from executive class that as soon as interest rates went up, hiring market cooled, and the power balance between workers & bosses swung back their way, suddenly in-office was "most productive". 100% vibes and "beca…

I can’t speak for YC or FAANG management but as a regular software engineer I totally get where they’re coming from. I worked at a FAANG company through and after covid, the difference in teams productivity was noticeable. Not in the remote working favour. I understand some people are more productive at home but I’m yet to see a _team_ that is more productive being remote. I lack the experience working in remote-firs…

Oh, I've seen a team get completely obliterated by moving back to in person, even though everyone really did live in the same city and with reasonable commutes.

This was a startup, that had one big problem: a CEO that believed he was better than any and all of his workers at what the workers did. He also believed that collaboration was important, as through discussion, everyone would agree that he was right all along. You can imagine how unhealthy someone like that can be.

In a remote world, dealing with problem people is easier. The amount of acting one has to perform lowers. The lower visibility also allows people to self organize: Ignore coworker A as much as necessary, yet pair all day with coworker B, who is useful. Is someone very loud, or getting into other people's business? Being far from each other can help!

It didn't take 8 weeks in-office for all the coping that people were doing to become clear to everyone in the company. A CEO that was manageable via short interactions became an unavoidable thorn into the company's side, as remoteness covered their weaknesses. An open office didn't help matters. Everyone that wasn't a founder knew this was all untenable and quit.

So a team can definitely be far more productive being remote, as remoteness mandates far less gelling. Local conflict often has explosive results. People you dislike become far more tolerable. And really, every company ends up getting people like that, and sometimes chooses them over those that are team builders: I've seen my fair share of horrible managers that cost a company money in supposedly high performance, well known companies, and I have yet to see one getting a Pip out of it.

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#178

Post by [deleted] »

unusualmonkey wrote: post #167
quadcore wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friendly reminder: the strategy here is to invest in the founders, not the ideas. So great founders right now create AI startups. So either AI solves problems or they arent great founders.

That seems to beg the question. Maybe YC isn't investing in the right founders, and that's why it has so many AI startups.

[deleted]

Re: Ways YC has changed in the last year

#179

Post by rsynnott »

jeffbee wrote: post #60

> It's a beautiful space with an incredible history - it's where the US built battleships for WWI and WWII. Pretty sure this plays fast and loose with the history of American naval warfare. The only battleship built in San Francisco, that I can think of, is the 19th-century relic USS Ohio.

I don’t think, strictly speaking, that the US built any battleships _for_ WW2. It built a few _during_ WW2, but they’d have been ordered before the US joined the war. The last battleship ever built anywhere in the world was commissioned in 1946; WW2 was very much the moment that people realised “wait, these aren’t actually very useful anymore”.
Post reply on HN