4 ms·

Sounds to me like YCombinator wants to fuel their growth by creating these tools for their companies to use. The YC business model is absolutely brilliant, but

by heurist 11y ago

Sounds to me like YCombinator wants to fuel their growth by creating these tools for their companies to use. The YC business model is absolutely brilliant, but I can't see this being some purely altruistic mission. Or if it is then I am jealous that they have the power and resources to put up against such a project. I'd spend all my time trying to build an AI if I didn't have to work! (Though I am trying to steer the company I work for in that direction anyway...)

davnicwil 11y ago
Well, yes, but in the broadest possible sense, as in the rising water level will raise all boats, including of course the YC ones, since all the work coming out of this group will apparently be open sourced and freely available for anyone to use, YC company or otherwise. From the article: > Sam, since OpenAI will initially be in the YC office, will your startups have access to the OpenAI work? > Altman: If OpenAI develops really great technology and anyone can use it for free, that will benefit any technology company. But no more so than that.
- heurist 11y ago
  That's just enough for the YC social network to incorporate OpenAI researchers, and Sam knows it. YC folks will be at the water coolers and ping pong tables with OpenAI folks, and once the OpenAI folks move into another office they'll still be in frequent communication with their YC social contacts, if not through official channels then unofficially as friends. That means they'll hear the researchers' in-progress ideas and details on how the platform works or will work long before that information spreads to the general public. I'd consider that a huge advantage, assuming OpenAI makes sufficient progress.
  - davnicwil 11y ago
    Well you're probably right, but I don't think that you can do too much, realistically, to regulate early access to very fresh ideas through networks like that - and I think that's fine so long as there's no purposeful or unnecessary delay in spreading the information more widely. You could for instance make the same kind of point about YC companies' access to investor networks, advice of partners, all those sorts of things which aren't explicitly reserved just for them but of course are more readily accessible by virtue of being in the program. It's not something that's inherently bad, it's just how it works. I'm not saying that having very close contact with this research group won't be advantageous to YC companies, of course it will, but with that as a given, the ethos of this group's findings being made open and freely available for anyone to use is well-intentioned and to be applauded, when it's a privately funded initiative that could just as easily be justified in being somewhat or completely closed and proprietary. Is it really important if some YC companies happen to have a slight advantage from this, as an inevitable side effect, in the big picture?
    - heurist 11y ago
      >Well you're probably right, but I don't think that you can do too much, realistically, to regulate early access to very fresh ideas through networks like that - and I think that's fine so long as there's no purposeful or unnecessary delay in spreading the information more widely. Keep the team distributed across the world and make all communication surrounding the projects open as well. If it's for the world it should be by the world. >You could for instance make the same kind of point about YC companies' access to investor networks, advice of partners, all those sorts of things which aren't explicitly reserved just for them but of course are more readily accessible by virtue of being in the program. It's not something that's inherently bad, it's just how it works. I wouldn't argue that, that's just how business works. I would argue that the founders are playing OpenAI up as humanitarian aid when really it disproportionately benefits them (autonomous cars, paid for by research grants? Investment in early adopters of the technology? Uh yeah). >I'm not saying that having very close contact with this research group won't be advantageous to YC companies, of course it will, but with that as a given, the ethos of this group's findings being made open and freely available for anyone to use is well-intentioned and to be applauded, when it's a privately funded initiative that could just as easily be justified in being somewhat or completely closed and proprietary. Is it really important if some YC companies happen to have a slight advantage from this, as an inevitable side effect, in the big picture? YC's business is growing businesses, and they'll take any advantage they can get. If it benefits them more at all then it's not charity or non-profit, and they shouldn't be billing it as such.

by heurist 11y ago

davnicwil 11y ago

Well, yes, but in the broadest possible sense, as in the rising water level will raise all boats, including of course the YC ones, since all the work coming out of this group will apparently be open sourced and freely available for anyone to use, YC company or otherwise. From the article: > Sam, since OpenAI will initially be in the YC office, will your startups have access to the OpenAI work? > Altman: If OpenAI develops really great technology and anyone can use it for free, that will benefit any technology company. But no more so than that.

heurist 11y ago
That's just enough for the YC social network to incorporate OpenAI researchers, and Sam knows it. YC folks will be at the water coolers and ping pong tables with OpenAI folks, and once the OpenAI folks move into another office they'll still be in frequent communication with their YC social contacts, if not through official channels then unofficially as friends. That means they'll hear the researchers' in-progress ideas and details on how the platform works or will work long before that information spreads to the general public. I'd consider that a huge advantage, assuming OpenAI makes sufficient progress.
- davnicwil 11y ago
  Well you're probably right, but I don't think that you can do too much, realistically, to regulate early access to very fresh ideas through networks like that - and I think that's fine so long as there's no purposeful or unnecessary delay in spreading the information more widely. You could for instance make the same kind of point about YC companies' access to investor networks, advice of partners, all those sorts of things which aren't explicitly reserved just for them but of course are more readily accessible by virtue of being in the program. It's not something that's inherently bad, it's just how it works. I'm not saying that having very close contact with this research group won't be advantageous to YC companies, of course it will, but with that as a given, the ethos of this group's findings being made open and freely available for anyone to use is well-intentioned and to be applauded, when it's a privately funded initiative that could just as easily be justified in being somewhat or completely closed and proprietary. Is it really important if some YC companies happen to have a slight advantage from this, as an inevitable side effect, in the big picture?
  - heurist 11y ago
    >Well you're probably right, but I don't think that you can do too much, realistically, to regulate early access to very fresh ideas through networks like that - and I think that's fine so long as there's no purposeful or unnecessary delay in spreading the information more widely. Keep the team distributed across the world and make all communication surrounding the projects open as well. If it's for the world it should be by the world. >You could for instance make the same kind of point about YC companies' access to investor networks, advice of partners, all those sorts of things which aren't explicitly reserved just for them but of course are more readily accessible by virtue of being in the program. It's not something that's inherently bad, it's just how it works. I wouldn't argue that, that's just how business works. I would argue that the founders are playing OpenAI up as humanitarian aid when really it disproportionately benefits them (autonomous cars, paid for by research grants? Investment in early adopters of the technology? Uh yeah). >I'm not saying that having very close contact with this research group won't be advantageous to YC companies, of course it will, but with that as a given, the ethos of this group's findings being made open and freely available for anyone to use is well-intentioned and to be applauded, when it's a privately funded initiative that could just as easily be justified in being somewhat or completely closed and proprietary. Is it really important if some YC companies happen to have a slight advantage from this, as an inevitable side effect, in the big picture? YC's business is growing businesses, and they'll take any advantage they can get. If it benefits them more at all then it's not charity or non-profit, and they shouldn't be billing it as such.