4 ms·

I disagree with Paul Graham - but no one commented on these arguments(http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=19535) http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=195

• jkush 19y ago
  That's because you're playing with semantics. Ideas are worthless because an idea can't solve a problem. It's the implementation of an idea that solves the problem.
  • juwo 19y ago
    Well, think back to the idea Einstein had when he was a 14 year old kid. "if I can ride a motorcycle as fast as a beam of light..." was it worthless?
    • SwellJoe 19y ago
      Yes, it was, until he executed on it as an adult and formalized it and made it into something useful. Had the idea stayed an idea, or just been handed off to someone else who hadn't the mental capacity to do something with it, it would have remained worthless. In short, Paul was right. Ideas are worthless. Ideas plus execution can have value. Why fight it? Got some great ideas but no capacity to execute? Just accept it and start executing.
      • juwo 19y ago
        from my blog post: "An idea is a seed; many ideas have to be discovered and implemented along the way for it to grow up. The initial fertilisation is essential, but differentiation into organs, the "other ideas along the way" must come along." this was the seed. even after differentiation into organs - as the Theory of Relativity, it was still an idea on paper. You cannot reasonably argue that it was worthless. Other people executed it.
        • jkush 19y ago
          Look Juwo, you're still playing with words. It's not so much that an idea is WORTHLESS (where it doesn't have any value) as it's that an idea doesn't really count for anything UNTIL it's been brought out into the real world. For all intents and purposes, Einstein's ideas were worthless until he put them down on paper. Let me phrase this another way: what if Einstein had never written The Theory of Relativity? Would his ideas still be worth anything just sitting there in his brain? Also, PG never wrote that ideas were "worthless". He wrote that people "overvalue ideas". This is what I mean when I say you're playing with words. Changing "overvalue ideas" to worthless frames it very differently and isn't very precise.
          • juwo 19y ago
            I am not bothered to look for his article but I am sure he used the term "ideas are worthless". Otherwise that phrase would never have independently stuck around here so long.
            • jkush 19y ago
              See here: http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html He did write "The fact that there's no market for startup ideas suggests there's no demand. Which means, in the narrow sense of the word, that startup ideas are worthless." What I mean when I say playing with words is that he qualified that statement with "in the narrow sense of the word." He was also referring to startup ideas in particular. This discussion is getting to be a little ridiculous because you're splitting hairs and and missing the point entirely.
              • juwo 19y ago
                I dont read his essays any more. No, you are missing the point. So, now it is qualified by startup ideas? Then where did all the "ideas are worthless" phrases come from? (like this thread). If you agree that in general, ideas have worth - some more than others - then we are on the same side. :)
      • MobileDigit 19y ago
        If something is worthless because people will not give you money for it ("make something people want"), then there is nothing inherent in ideas that makes them worthless. It is simply the fact that most people would not pay you for ideas that make them generally not a profitable endeavor.
        • davidw 19y ago
          Precisely - the difference is between "worthless", which we instinctively know isn't true, and "won't pay money for": http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/04/26/ideas-are-worthless http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/04/26/ideas-are-worthless In short: for practical purposes, PG is right, but wrong in his theory.
          • MobileDigit 19y ago
            "How would a market for ideas work, in any case? How could you prevent someone from listening to a bunch of ideas and just walking away with the ones they like?" -- your blog post Secrecy and contracts?
            • davidw 19y ago
              Which makes the transaction costs higher than the idea is probably worth. Execution is very important, and in an ideas market, there would probably also be a lot of crappy ones. So, you have to sign a bunch of NDA like contracts, risk being sued if you ever develop anything like the things you may have seen, and probably also have to wade through a lot of junk. While it might be sort of doable, it's probably not worth it until we have a magic pill that lets you forget the last 5 minutes of your life completely and totally.
              • MobileDigit 19y ago
                "Which makes the transaction costs higher than the idea is probably worth." These costs could surely be lowered if there was demand for ideas in the first place. I think this is more evidence that ideas by themselves are generally worthless.
• akkartik 19y ago
  Here is a simple way to provide evidence of the hypothesis that ideas have value: make money off them without performing execution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage