4 ms·

Apologies for the negative tone: > First, let’s prioritize open source models and more tailored AI applications to shape the competitive landscape and create r

Apologies for the negative tone: > First, let’s prioritize open source models and more tailored AI applications to shape the competitive landscape and create real opportunities for startups. How does YC square this statement with the fact that their ex-president closed their models with the explicit intention of slowing down competitors [1]? Or is the argument "we want politicians to discourage people like us from doing what we did"? [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/15/23640180/openai-gpt-4-launch-closed-research-ilya-sutskever-interview https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/15/23640180/openai-gpt-4-lau...

jrockway 2y ago
I mean, they parted ways long ago, and pg released a statement recently as to the nature of that breakup. People and organizations can change their mind.
- probably_wrong 2y ago
  Yes. But AFAIK the official reason for the breakup was "we wanted him to pick a lane" and not "we disagreed with his defintion of the word 'open'". I cannot say whether YC changed their mind because I don't know what their mind is. Therefore I commented with the hope of an official answer.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- avarun 2y ago
  Link to said statement?
  - probably_wrong 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657
- threeseed 2y ago
  YC is an investor in OpenAI as is Paul Graham's wife. They still have strong connections to OpenAI.
benreesman 2y ago
Late is better than never in my view, and in spite of whatever happened in the past I will support the people doing the right thing today. I’m likewise a little wary given some of the history, so maybe a little “wait and see” is in order, but this sounds like a really positive thing to be doing.
sneak 2y ago
YC isn’t one person and organizations don’t have to be monolithic or consistent.
Matticus_Rex 2y ago
"How does YC square this statement about the organization's current stances with the fact that someone who doesn't work there anymore but who had previously communicated similar stances has now apparently changed his mind?" Why would they need to square anything there? There's nothing contradictory about a former exec not matching the current values of a company.
raincole 2y ago
How can YC be responsible for something their former executive does? And more importantly, doing one thing while advocating a policy prohibit the exact thing isn't necessarily wrong. If the tax rate is 20%, and I advocate a 25% tax while not paying the extra 5% until the law is passed, I would say there isn't any contradiction in my actions.

jrockway 2y ago

I mean, they parted ways long ago, and pg released a statement recently as to the nature of that breakup. People and organizations can change their mind.

probably_wrong 2y ago
Yes. But AFAIK the official reason for the breakup was "we wanted him to pick a lane" and not "we disagreed with his defintion of the word 'open'". I cannot say whether YC changed their mind because I don't know what their mind is. Therefore I commented with the hope of an official answer.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
avarun 2y ago
Link to said statement?
- probably_wrong 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40521657
threeseed 2y ago
YC is an investor in OpenAI as is Paul Graham's wife. They still have strong connections to OpenAI.

benreesman 2y ago

Late is better than never in my view, and in spite of whatever happened in the past I will support the people doing the right thing today. I’m likewise a little wary given some of the history, so maybe a little “wait and see” is in order, but this sounds like a really positive thing to be doing.

sneak 2y ago

YC isn’t one person and organizations don’t have to be monolithic or consistent.

Matticus_Rex 2y ago

"How does YC square this statement about the organization's current stances with the fact that someone who doesn't work there anymore but who had previously communicated similar stances has now apparently changed his mind?" Why would they need to square anything there? There's nothing contradictory about a former exec not matching the current values of a company.

raincole 2y ago

How can YC be responsible for something their former executive does? And more importantly, doing one thing while advocating a policy prohibit the exact thing isn't necessarily wrong. If the tax rate is 20%, and I advocate a 25% tax while not paying the extra 5% until the law is passed, I would say there isn't any contradiction in my actions.