4 ms·

> Its some weird myth that someone capable of being a technical leader cannot also flesh out the distribution This idea often gets repeated here but it’s based

by lurk2 1y ago

> Its some weird myth that someone capable of being a technical leader cannot also flesh out the distribution This idea often gets repeated here but it’s based on ZIRP from 2010s driving up developer salaries to a point where every kid with some portion of a CS degree thought he was the next Zuckerberg. “Technical” contributors became convinced they were the only contributors. Lots of stories about “idea guys” and useless upper management who Just Don’t Get It (meanwhile most guys posting things like this have never even seen a balance sheet). It’s a popular idea here because it establishes devs as the smartest guys in the room, but it doesn’t have a lot of bearing on reality. Plenty of devs have neither the aptitude nor inclination to learn the business side of things, as evidenced by some of the lifers who post here about upper management. This attitude will change as market cools off, no code and LLM output improves, and overseas contractors become more accessible. > Especially with the existence of AI, it really makes no sense and is some weird hierarchical system built by business people LLM code output can be tested as it is generated, whereas its advice on accounting and contract law can only be tested by domain experts, who you can just pay for this advice without involving the LLM.

mikert89 1y ago
ycombinator, the best very early stage investors of all time hold this opinion: "If you are a technical founder, you do not need a non-technical cofounder." https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1948160642399314188 https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1948160642399314188 Its really not up for debate, at this point it is a borderline scam to work for a CEO that isnt significantly better/bringing in capital. You are basically giving them free labor
- mjr00 1y ago
  You don't need a non-technical cofounder, but you do need a founder willing and capable of handling non-technical things. If nobody in your startup team wants to handle sales, marketing, finances, and business operations, you're going to end up with working software that nobody's paying for.
- bix6 1y ago
  Jared has an (unfinished?) degree in CS and Econ so that’s a bit rich for him to say. Why’d he bother with Econ if it’s so UsELeSs?
- CPLX 1y ago
  What’s YC’s track record in the new LLMs-can-code era? Or are we talking about Dropbox and Airbnb?
  - mikert89 1y ago
    most of the recent series A ai companies are YC companies, they are absolutely crushing it
    - CPLX 1y ago
      What are their names?
- lurk2 1y ago
  >at this point it is a borderline scam to work for a CEO that isnt significantly better/bringing in capital I never contested that. My point is that there are plenty of devs who think they should found a startup based on the mistaken idea that they can learn the business side of things overnight.
  - mikert89 1y ago
    If you find mentors, or just pay people 200 an hour to meet once a week, a lot could be learned. I agree the gap is large, but it can be overcome
kortilla 1y ago
>LLM code output can be tested as it is generated, whereas its advice on accounting and contract law can only be tested by domain experts, who you can just pay for this advice without involving the LLM. Assuming that passing some tests means it’s good code is as dumb as asking the LLM accounting and contract law advice. It can be superficially correct and completely broken.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > It can be superficially correct and completely broken. This also applies to developer output. If you don’t have someone qualified in the loop to foresee problems and perform testing, you could end up with something that falls over later on, but by the time that is consequential you can pay someone to do that kind of testing. By contrast, a dev who decides to be his own lawyer only gets to test the validity of his contracts if he hires a lawyer or gets sued.
  - kortilla 1y ago
    That same thing happens with accountants and lawyers. I’ve dealt with terrible of both that were just good enough to not get disbarred or lose their license. I don’t think you have a salient point here.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - lurk2 1y ago
      > I’ve dealt with terrible of both that were just good enough to not get disbarred or lose their license. The existence of bad surgeons doesn’t make performing surgery on yourself the better alternative. A sufficiently-motivated analyst can hack together an app and test it as he goes. Yes, there might be scaling issues and edge cases, but he’s putting together a proof of concept; once he has validated the market, the developers who build the app “correctly” are effectively interchangeable. There are questions of professional ethics if the software is touching anything to do with medicine, personal information, or other sensitive issues like that, but that does not represent a majority of development. If you mean “good” in the sense of being artful or efficient, then no one cares.
mooreds 1y ago
> This idea often gets repeated here but it’s based on ZIRP from 2010s ... I don't think it is just the ZIRP/2010s. Here's a post I wrote about developer arrogance in 2004, well before the ZIRP era: https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/134 https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/134

by lurk2 1y ago

mikert89 1y ago

ycombinator, the best very early stage investors of all time hold this opinion: "If you are a technical founder, you do not need a non-technical cofounder." https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1948160642399314188 https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1948160642399314188 Its really not up for debate, at this point it is a borderline scam to work for a CEO that isnt significantly better/bringing in capital. You are basically giving them free labor

mjr00 1y ago
You don't need a non-technical cofounder, but you do need a founder willing and capable of handling non-technical things. If nobody in your startup team wants to handle sales, marketing, finances, and business operations, you're going to end up with working software that nobody's paying for.
bix6 1y ago
Jared has an (unfinished?) degree in CS and Econ so that’s a bit rich for him to say. Why’d he bother with Econ if it’s so UsELeSs?
CPLX 1y ago
What’s YC’s track record in the new LLMs-can-code era? Or are we talking about Dropbox and Airbnb?
- mikert89 1y ago
  most of the recent series A ai companies are YC companies, they are absolutely crushing it
  - CPLX 1y ago
    What are their names?
lurk2 1y ago
>at this point it is a borderline scam to work for a CEO that isnt significantly better/bringing in capital I never contested that. My point is that there are plenty of devs who think they should found a startup based on the mistaken idea that they can learn the business side of things overnight.
- mikert89 1y ago
  If you find mentors, or just pay people 200 an hour to meet once a week, a lot could be learned. I agree the gap is large, but it can be overcome

kortilla 1y ago

>LLM code output can be tested as it is generated, whereas its advice on accounting and contract law can only be tested by domain experts, who you can just pay for this advice without involving the LLM. Assuming that passing some tests means it’s good code is as dumb as asking the LLM accounting and contract law advice. It can be superficially correct and completely broken.

lurk2 1y ago
> It can be superficially correct and completely broken. This also applies to developer output. If you don’t have someone qualified in the loop to foresee problems and perform testing, you could end up with something that falls over later on, but by the time that is consequential you can pay someone to do that kind of testing. By contrast, a dev who decides to be his own lawyer only gets to test the validity of his contracts if he hires a lawyer or gets sued.
- kortilla 1y ago
  That same thing happens with accountants and lawyers. I’ve dealt with terrible of both that were just good enough to not get disbarred or lose their license. I don’t think you have a salient point here.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > I’ve dealt with terrible of both that were just good enough to not get disbarred or lose their license. The existence of bad surgeons doesn’t make performing surgery on yourself the better alternative. A sufficiently-motivated analyst can hack together an app and test it as he goes. Yes, there might be scaling issues and edge cases, but he’s putting together a proof of concept; once he has validated the market, the developers who build the app “correctly” are effectively interchangeable. There are questions of professional ethics if the software is touching anything to do with medicine, personal information, or other sensitive issues like that, but that does not represent a majority of development. If you mean “good” in the sense of being artful or efficient, then no one cares.

mooreds 1y ago

> This idea often gets repeated here but it’s based on ZIRP from 2010s ... I don't think it is just the ZIRP/2010s. Here's a post I wrote about developer arrogance in 2004, well before the ZIRP era: https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/134 https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/134