4 ms·
> his point is that the employees who the founder brings along are not bringing core value So is the idea that founders who have brilliant and incredible thoug
by nharada 4y ago
> his point is that the employees who the founder brings along are not bringing core value
So is the idea that founders who have brilliant and incredible thoughts will be rewarded just for the ideas since execution is trivial? I guess the VCs love the idea that intelligence is the most important trait and is rewarded directly with wealth. Which I feel is ironic since it's very hard to make the claim most of them got to where they are primarily because they are smart.
- qup 4y agoI mean I don't want to speak for PG, so I'll just speak for myself. The thing I'm talking about (value of employees) isn't really about founders at all. I know that society likes to hate rich people or whatever, and you seem focused on those rich founders. The point is really about how the Very Important Workers can be readily replaced by automations, which means they weren't Very Important. The company value was not derived from them. That's the end of the statement. Who deserves the value generated by the founder's idea/work/risk? That's a matter of opinion. The law already prescribes the current situation in a technical sense, so you're clearly talking about a moral sense. Morals vary by person. Your debate won't be settled anytime this century IMO.
- nharada 4y agoYeah, I guess the thing I'd really like to know is, if the employees aren't bringing core value, then who is? I'd be curious to hear pg's take here, since it's either (1) the founder, for having such good ideas, (2) the AI, for doing the work, or (3) the creators of the AI. Since we don't reward our washing machine for doing our chores, I'm assuming it's not 2. I guess maybe the 4th answer is society?