171–180 of 407 posts
> This country is built on the idea of rugged individualism, ingenuity, and grit. > It’s also built on the idea of equal opportunity Anybody else get “out of touch” vibes from this post?
I didn’t even get to that point, I got that when Tan referred to himself as a representative of “little tech”
Have very little confidence this is going to do anything. But I really hope I’m wrong and we get it right, this time.
Now they want to lobby for less regulation of their own industry in favor of the little guy? Personally, I'm a more principled libertarian-leaning type than "government for me, free market for thee."
This new essay by Jack Clark, who was at OpenAI when they made the decision not to release GPT-2 for safety reasons five years ago, feels relevant: https://importai.substack.com/p/import-ai-375-gpt-2-five-yea... > [...] history shows that once we assign power to governments, they're loathe to subsequently give that power back to the people. Policy is a ratchet and things tend to accrete over time. That means whatever…
I'm curious what history Jack Clark is referring to here. If I think of the last thirty years of policy in most of Europe and the US I'm thinking of a strong trend of deregulation and giving more powers to markets, removing international trade barriers and so on. That seems to be a dynamic opposite to the one the quoted article is suggesting.
Regulations are kind of like security practices. When done well they are often taken for granted, but poor ones get a lot of negative attention. I'm glad that I don't have to wonder if the cereal I buy at a store is filled with rat poison. I'm fine if the government never relinquishes the power to oversee that.
Unfortunately the current leaders in the latest AI craze have not inspired much confidence that they will act responsibly in the future. Maybe if different people were running these companies it would make sense for the government to keep out of it, but in this world we're going to need some reasonable regulation.
"This year, we’ll fund more than 500 companies out of 50,000 applications, and almost all of them are related to AI in some way." So, what this means: that in 2024, if you want to get VC capital, your startup must be related to AI.
"This year, we’ll fund more than 500 companies out of 50,000 applications, and almost all of them are related to AI in some way." So, what this means: that in 2024, if you want to get VC capital, your startup must be related to AI.
I love the constant flex of their tiny acceptance rate. "We only accept 1% of applicants. Btw everyone should apply!" The collective man hours wasted on appe every year for what is essentially a lottery is insane.
This new essay by Jack Clark, who was at OpenAI when they made the decision not to release GPT-2 for safety reasons five years ago, feels relevant: https://importai.substack.com/p/import-ai-375-gpt-2-five-yea... > [...] history shows that once we assign power to governments, they're loathe to subsequently give that power back to the people. Policy is a ratchet and things tend to accrete over time. That means whatever…
I'm curious what history Jack Clark is referring to here. If I think of the last thirty years of policy in most of Europe and the US I'm thinking of a strong trend of deregulation and giving more powers to markets, removing international trade barriers and so on. That seems to be a dynamic opposite to the one the quoted article is suggesting.
YC is not interested in fixing any of these problem despite their words and actions. Real solutions are bitter pills to this industry, poison pills to investors and venture capitalists.
The two universal solutions that work for every other industry:
* Liability
* Licensing
When I say liability and I mean both personal liability, as in suing the developer(s) for harms of the software, as well as business liability. When I say licensing I do not mean product licensing. I mean human professional licensing. There is an astonishing lack of professionalism and ethics in software. None of this is fixed with band-aids or wishful thinking. Go directly to the problem: the money funnel and the often absurd absence of competence.
Yes, this is scary. Get over it. You cannot both be an entitled child free from the harms of the world and simultaneously be absent from the harms that result. The upside, though, is that increased risk and liability, in financial and compensatory terms, means fewer people doing the work each owning a fair share of the rewards that otherwise just go to investors and not even as dividends.
> And finally, we need more steps like the FTC’s recent move to ban all employee noncompetes (no carve outs, no limitations, no exceptions). YOU need to be out there beating the drum for a major exception to this. With out laws to ban raiding (and we dont have those on the federal level) this is a bad policy. It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. > Seco…
lots of small companies are reliant on the cheap prices big tech companies offer. by taxing big companies all that does is shift the burden of costs to the small business, making it harder for them to grow.
People and small companies kicking that addiction will be painful, yes, but important to everyone having a healthier life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the constant flex of their tiny acceptance rate. "We only accept 1% of applicants. Btw everyone should apply!" The collective man hours wasted on appe every year for what is essentially a lottery is insane.
Gary is out of touch.