Live data from Hacker News

New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

blog.samaltman.com

81–90 of 219 posts

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#81
post #70
post #64

> "We are getting close to spending 20% of our GDP on healthcare; this is unsustainable." Really? Why should 20% be unsustainable?

Because there are other countries who are delivering high-quality healthcare for less, and our (USA) healthcare expenditure is outpacing GDP growth.

The second part, according to some economists, is absolutely fine.

There is no economic law that says the distribution of your expenses over various expenditures must stay equal. If you think about it, there can't be such a law; if it held, since nobody spent anything on electronics/flight tickets/Big Macs/etc. a century ago, you shouldn't spent a cent on them, either.

The richer we are, the less we need to spend on essentials such as food and shelter. That leaves a greater fraction of GDP for things such as healthcare. Most people will say they value health more than possessions, so what's strange about allocating more money to it?

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm going to have to review my physics textbook, but I could swear that steam engine consumes energy. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct. If you were to consult your physics textbook, somewhere near the beginning under the heading "Conservation of Energy", you'd see that the steam engine neither creates nor destroys energy, merely transforms it into a different form.

I didn't say that the steam engine created or destroyed energy, but that it consumes it (e.g. it burns coal and uses the energy to perform work). Conservation of energy is a given.

> I didn't say that the steam engine created or destroyed energy, but that it consumes it (e.g. it burns coal and uses the energy to perform work). Conservation of energy is a given.

Technically you said that the steam engine consumes energy. Which is silly since it merely consumes coal (which contains energy).

But point taken, your meaning was implied and obvious but not explicit. Sorry for wasting your time with a needlessly pedantic correction that added nothing to the conversation.

In light of this new information, are you still confused about the downvotes for your initial comment?

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#83

"It used to be the case that governments funded a lot of development of breakthrough technologies. The bad news is that they have mostly stopped; the good news is that the leverage of technology is such that now small startups can do what used to take the resources of nations." Honest question: if small startups can now do what used to take the resources of nations, isn't there something even cooler that the resource…

they are working on it - fusion.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#84
post #68

SpaceX and Tesla were really possible because of the large amounts of money that Elon put into the companies, it is estimated that Elon invested $100MM into SpaceX. his extremely impressive resume was not enough to receive the level of funding to get the company off the ground (get it?) how can a first time entrepreneur actually receive substantial investment without putting in such a large personal investment?

But Tesla is a good example of starting reasonably. The Roadster was mostly a Lotus Elise and the batteries were off-the-shelf notebook batteries, for example.

That's oversimplifying the problem. Even if you use some common parts, it's still designing a new car. Even if you use proven battery tech, it's using it at a different scale.

It's only in hindsight that it was reasonable to start a car company in Silicon Valley at all.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#85
There's a new sheriff in town. Previously YC treated some of these things, especially "AI" (whatever that means) as third rails. They've funded an extremely broad range of companies, but if you go back and check their past investments most of the areas listed in this RFS are underrepresented. Infrastructure, food and water, biotech, robotics...YC could be reaching much higher in terms of ambition than it has in the past. This will also mean more failures, but sama is smart and tough enough to hold on through it.

But realistically, how could YC get involved with early stage startups in most of these categories? Examples like SpaceX and Tesla don't have minimum viable products. You can't build part of an engine in three months and then show it off on demo day. Creating solutions for these problems at the most rudimentary level will require months if not years of effort and significant financial backing. It's hard for two guys in a garage to build a prototype 10X battery or come up with innovative biotechnology. In order to get in on these ideas early enough for it to make sense, YC might have to start throwing caution to the wind and accept founders who have only drawings and computer models. It's just so difficult for a small group of people to have a noticeable effect on problems on this scale.

The best way to get involved with the next world changing idea might be to choose capable and intelligent people and say "I'm willing to bet on anything that you do, even if you're not sure what it is or if it changes completely tomorrow". I think YC already has a process for accepting single founders without concrete ideas and they could expand on that. Or start making changes to attract founders whose companies are farther along in their development. No matter what they do, setting big goals usually doesn't hurt. I hope that the YCombinator organization is willing to make some of the changes necessary to move closer to them.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally know what he meant, but he's wrong--the steam engine likely increased the price of energy, at least in the short term, but creating increased demand for it.

"The price of energy" is kind of a confusing term when you're comparing fuel that may be burned to produce steam with fodder that may be fed to draft animals. Per unit of work produced , coal beats hay hands-down. It may be that the price of coal increased once it was used for more than heating and smelting, but that's the price of coal, not "the price of [mechanical] energy".

[deleted]

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#87
post #39
post #36

I have wanted to experiment with some ideas that would solve "real world" problems, but software has always been vastly more accessible. Maybe YC could also consider funding companies with consumer products aimed at making other fields more accessible at home. Sort of analogues to the cheap personal computer. Like the Personal Lab, Personal Biobrick Lab, Personal Fab Lab. Another idea is just any consumer focused sta…

> advanced hydroponics kits We're working on it: http://automicrofarm.com/ (well, aquaponics, not hydroponics).

At some point can I come see your work? I live in Cary, too, , and am very interested in aquaponics.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#88
post #50

SpaceX and Tesla were really possible because of the large amounts of money that Elon put into the companies, it is estimated that Elon invested $100MM into SpaceX. his extremely impressive resume was not enough to receive the level of funding to get the company off the ground (get it?) how can a first time entrepreneur actually receive substantial investment without putting in such a large personal investment?

Was Elon's resume impressive back in 2002 when he was starting SpaceX? That was before even Tesla, so as far as I can tell back in 2002 his resume had a BS in Economics, a BS in Physics, X.com, and Paypal. Normally that would be plenty impressive, but I don't think that is a particularly impressive resume for somebody looking to start a rocket company. The connection between Paypal and space exploration isn't exactly…

He had enrolled in, and dropped out of, a PhD program for Physics at Stanford by 2002.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#89
post #19
post #7

I feel like this is a big shift in focus for YC and for the industry if others follow suit. This will do a lot of good in changing the image of the typical startup, from who starts them to what their ambitions are, signaling to those in other industries that the valley isn't just about young code-slingers and iOS apps. I hope this encourages people in STEM with years of specialized domain experience to look at starti…

Someone needs to show that you can actually make money with something like this. The problem with these sorts of ventures is that besides being capital-intensive and risky, it can be quite hard to capture the economic benefits of the development in a way that justifies the investment. There's also the issue of whether Silicon Valley has the requisite infrastructure to facilitate these sorts of projects. If you want t…

The only thing that really matters for YC is if the company can be acquired. With Google just buying a bunch of robotics companies and the belief in "geek exceptionalism" as high as ever I've seen worse bets.

Re: New RFS – Breakthrough Technologies

#90
post #87
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> advanced hydroponics kits We're working on it: http://automicrofarm.com/ (well, aquaponics, not hydroponics).

At some point can I come see your work? I live in Cary, too, , and am very interested in aquaponics.

Awesome! Another Cary-ite! Email me at andrew at automicrofarm, we'll get together.
Post reply on HN