Why is Birthdate a required field on the User Profile required for YC founder-matching?
(Gender is optional.)
Also, once you get past that User Profile, to the founder-matching Profile, the very top of the first form says "Your profile will get much more attention if you add a picture." Why implicitly endorse that, which has undesirable historic baggage of prejudice and unfairness?
In hindsight, I realize that the prominence of schools on the profiles (and the text field using the example of Stanford) didn't jump out at me, maybe because it's common on a US resume (unlike gender, birthdate, or photo).
Maybe other people will have additional "what?" reactions to other things in the forms.
Edit: On the matching profile form, it won't let you submit the form and proceed until you add a photo. ("Please fix the errors below before continuing.") I was able to get past that by uploading a blank image, but I'm not going to proceed further if it seems like current YC thinking isn't a match for me.
A recent PG essay[0] was revealing about why colleges are so prominent on those profiles and more generally about YC's thinking:
> At this point I'm going to tell you something you might not want to hear. It really matters to do well in your classes, even the ones that are just memorization or blathering about literature, because you need to do well in your classes to get into a good university. And if you want to start a startup you should try to get into the best university you can, because that's where the best cofounders are. It's also where the best employees are.
My schools included MIT and Brown. And I generally really liked the students at both. And I would hire many of them.
But I've also hung out in other circles that attract smart people, where I'd selectively hire first, before prioritizing random people from the fancy-pants schools.
And I've worked too many places where some of the smartest and most accomplished people came from BFE schools.
Also, note that undergrad programs have gotten insane with the gaming and the hoop-jumping. Even worse than when it was helicopter parents merely sending kids to prep schools, SAT prep, and the checkoff extracurriculars (e.g., "volunteering"). And that insanity can select for what you don't want to hire, to do actual work.
If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming their promotions]" then you absolutely should hire Stanford students, who had to exercise very similar thinking to get into Stanford at this point.
Or, if you want to run a startup investment scam, where you need to apply some similar thinking of the appearance of accomplishments, and knocking down ducks lined up for you.
But if you want to solve problems, or build something that's not just headed for a financial exit, then Stanford-track kind of thinking seems probably counterproductive.
Imagine getting a new hire at an early startup, and they innately think that their job is to knock off sprint tasks, and have other appearances of performance.
And when you try to explain thinking about the organization's goals, and that their job is to help the team collectively achieve that... they think you're just spewing empty platitudes, like they were taught to spew for college application personal statements and job interviews.
You would've been so much better off hiring the scrappy person from the community college who hasn't had Stanford-track BS baked into them since grade school.
You sound like the kind of person I'd actually want to start a business with. Maybe cofounder matching should be a HN feature instead of a tinder clone.
Wow super insightful comment. Particularly this excerpt:
> If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming their promotions]" then you absolutely should hire Stanford students, who had to exercise very similar thinking to get into Stanford at this point.
I realize that this applies to Google post-2015, but do you think it also applies to early Google? Where you actually had to get things done?
First few employees at Google? Stanford yes because that's where they got the business/investment connections. Clearly, because L&S both came from that background as did family, and the whole Susan W's garage thing, etc. etc.
After that? Actually building the thing? Not really?
Jeff Dean:
University of Minnesota, B.S. Computer Science and Engineering (1990)
University of Washington, Ph.D. Computer Science (1996)
Tho I guess Sanjay was more "ivy league" (correct me where I'm off thing, I'm Canadian and don't understand the American obsession with "brand name" on schools):
Cornell University (SB, 1987)
MIT (SM, 1990; PhD, 1995)
I guess Urs was Stanford, though.
But I would insist that 1996 is a lot different from 2024.
And, honestly, pardon me, but YCombinator isn't funding the next Google. They're trying to fund the next Uber or whatever. I don't get the impression they have the guts to invest in kind of long-play deep tech infrastructure like a Google. It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies.
> It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies.
This has been somewhat frustrating for me to see. I'm curious what you think actual moonshot companies look like? Are we talking novel medical tech? Advancements in aerospace? I'm specifically ignoring AI, though a few companies in that sphere will be moonshots.
Not the one you asked the question to but I'd say some examples would be:
Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do)
Space colonization
Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing)
Detecting and countering AI generated spam (if this is not solved, AI could easily make "Dead Internet Theory" a reality)
Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society.
Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US (i.e. disrupt Greyhound and/or build high speed rail more competently than California's mismanaged disaster)
Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction.
Many of these would probably be best funded by a government staffed by the best and the brightest like we had between the 1930s and 1960s (think Manhattan Project, Marshall Plan and Apollo Program) not the crooks and incompetent buffoons that seemingly staff the government nowadays. But some of these could be companies or non-profits.
I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar) but don't have runway so I'd either need it funded or a co-founder who's wealthy enough to also fund my living expenses until it is funded.
> Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do)
There's a lot of potential for integrating automation into existing heavy industry. Everything from inspection, materials handling, manufacturing, quality assurance. The way forward is 1) knowing an industry well enough to know the pain points, and 2) addressing a pain point in a compelling manner.
> Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing)
I want to hear more about this. What can we do in the Sahara or the Mojave (or the American Southwest as a whole)?
> Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society.
Curious that you mention dating. What would a profitable solution look like in this space?
> Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US
High speed rail is hard, especially in a place where people would use it. For example, a line from Chicago to Green Bay, to Madison, and then on to MSP would cost billions in property acquisitions or leases. There will be NIMBYs and speculators. Environmentalists will want a pound of flesh. This would be -- probably -- the single hardest thing to do well on your entire list.
> Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction.
How can this be done and still turn investors a profit?
> I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar)
> There's a lot of potential for integrating automation into existing heavy industry. Everything from inspection, materials handling, manufacturing, quality assurance. The way forward is 1) knowing an industry well enough to know the pain points, and 2) addressing a pain point in a compelling manner.
One of the top things that comes to mind for me in robotics would be cooking robots. Restaurants have a big "nobody wants to work anymore" problem that I suspect will come back with a vengeance once interest rates go back down. This could eventually be commercialized into a home robot that could save the time wasted preparing meals. Ideally the cooking robot would also be able to handle handwashing dishes.
A machine that could automate laundry would also be really useful. Even one that could just handle the task of running the washer and dryer plus folding once loads were already sorted and knowing when to split an oversized load into 2 loads. Folding and putting away a clean load of laundry alone can easily eat up 15-30 minutes of my time in part because my solution to enable doing laundry less frequently has been to buy more clothes. My guess is a laundry robot could probably be trivially modified to do the Amazon warehouse jobs where they stick people's orders into boxes and it wouldn't surprise me if Amazon is already working on this given the unsustainable rate at which it is running through human workers.
> I want to hear more about this. What can we do in the Sahara or the Mojave (or the American Southwest as a whole)?
I think machines at a large enough scale could alter the atmosphere. For the desert, you'd probably need to modify wind patterns to ensure they get sufficient rain. I'm not sure of the details and obviously you'd need to factor in the species that already live in the desert along with the effects elsewhere.
The more obvious terraforming technology would be a machine that reduces CO2 in the atmosphere much like a dehumidifier reduces water in your indoor air. If a machine can create water out of thin air then I'd imagine there has to be a scientific way to do the same to get rid of carbon dioxide.
> Curious that you mention dating. What would a profitable solution look like in this space?
What I'd see as a solution in this space would be intentionally unprofitable and designed to destroy the profits of Match Group. Basically, the goal would be to get the users into a serious relationship that would lead to a marriage by filtering out users who want casual relationships or to date multiple people at once. Ideally with zero monetization.
The profit from it would be that some group with a vested interest in more marriages happening would make more money selling marital related products and/or baby products. Possible candidates to fund it would be religions, jewelry stores, wedding dress makers or even the US Republican Party (which almost always polls better with married people). It would have to be a non-profit because any for-profit dating app company would inevitably recreate Tinder.
> High speed rail is hard, especially in a place where people would use it. For example, a line from Chicago to Green Bay, to Madison, and then on to MSP would cost billions in property acquisitions or leases. There will be NIMBYs and speculators. Environmentalists will want a pound of flesh. This would be -- probably -- the single hardest thing to do well on your entire list.
I think it's probably something that would need to be backed by a federal government with enough political capital to ignore environmentalists and NIMBYs and eminent domain land away from speculators. You'd probably need a Lincoln or FDR caliber president to make it happen.
Fully autonomous trains would probably be very helpful in terms of making this work and, so long as the track is elevated or underground, probably wouldn't suffer from the safety problems that make fully autonomous cars non-workable. They'd also be quite helpful for restoring slow speed passenger rail to discontinued stations and more frequent rail service to the stations that still have trains. High speed rail would be more palatable once more people were already riding trains.
Disrupting Greyhound and other notoriously terrible inter-city bus services would be much easier in terms of mass transit. A bus company that actually cared about providing a good service that didn't subject its customers to the dregs of society and constantly break down would attract customers who have other options. Especially if it was cheaper than flying or offered more room for luggage. Such buses would be ideal use cases for EVs as long as the routes were within the battery's range.
> How can this be done and still turn investors a profit?
Any kind of organization aimed at helping fix homelessness, mental health and/or drug addiction would probably need to be either a government funded non-profit or a non-profit funded by groups that would profit from having the problem fixed. Either employers that need cheap labor or developers that want to increase property values would be the most likely private investors. If American cities were as safe as Tokyo, almost everybody would want to live in them. But many people don't want to have a homeless encampment or an open air drug market outside their home.
If it isn't government backed, it would be much harder because you can't force people into your program. Which means it would have to be something they actually want. If it is government backed, it's easier because you can use the government to coerce them into the program. It's also easier if you're coercing them to do unethical things so you'd have to be really careful to make sure you're actually helping.
> What would you do?
Robotics projects would be the top choice for me because the time wasted on household tasks is the main pain point for me. I'd ideally like that to be 0 or as close to 0 as possible without another human having to do it for me. That's not a task that I think any human should have to waste time doing. Long term, the goal would be intelligent or possibly even sentient robots but I strongly doubt that can be done today.
The terraforming space would be a second choice for me as a prerequisite for colonizing space. If you want to increase the human population, you then have to find a place for humans to live that isn't Earth. Since I'm not a scientist, such a company would require experts to make the technical decisions. I imagine any excess CO2 sucked out of Earth's atmosphere could be useful for export to Mars (or sold to Elon for that purpose?) to cause global warming there if we don't have any other use for it on Earth. Or maybe there's some way to turn it back into an energy source?
I suspect I'd need to think on this more and do more research into the problem spaces if I were going to do any of this for a company. Above all, I'd want to found a company that actually solves humanity's problems not a company that profits off of creating new problems.
Let me see if I can find it, but you might be interested in multilayered permaculture. My mother knows of a guy who has made an in depth study of permaculture and the outcomes are very impressive. If I can find it, I'll drop it here.
It's worth pointing out that Google wasn't really moonshot stuff.
It was a search engine, and there were other search engines. already.
Then it became an advertising network before IPO, to make the $$. There were other ad networks already.
The key thing is that they were able to invest heavily in infrastructure to do... big stuff... for many years before IPO. Like, boatloads of fiber, data centres, expensive employees, R&D.
That money also let them make a superior UX that didn't dump crap in your face, which then acquired customers.
I kind of wonder if the time might be ripe for new social networks to replace Facebook, Twitter, etc. that would be to existing "social media" what Google was to Yahoo or AltaVista or Lycos. Not garbage. Not in the way. Seemingly (for a time) ethical. User focused. Working with some new metaphors. Moderated. Civil.
Facebook used to be a place to connect with friends and family. A thing that took the place of MySpace, Friendster, etc. and rapidly blew up because it was a way to get a hold of people and stay connected.
Now it's ... something else. (I won't waste time here explaining why it is hot garbage now).
I just don't know how that makes money without taking the same crappy path that FB did. But, Google also didn't know how it was going to make money.
So I think the statement is more like statistically in good universities you're more likely to meet other great engineers and cofounders. It of course doesn't mean all students from good universities are better from scrappy people community college. When it comes to reality, I'm a startup founder and how would I screen people? If someone went to Stanford it's a strong good signal. If another guy went to community college but has exceptional technical skills of course I'd hire him than an average Stanford graduates. School or past experience is just one signal but it's a strong signal.
You're comparing a hand picked group from one school to the median at another. The most successful student at your average community college will likely be more successful than the median MIT grad, but that doesn't prove your point.
Notably, you didn't attend MIT or Brown for undergrad, just terminal master's degrees. The selection process for undergraduates at those schools is about 100x more rigorous than that for MS programs.
Why notably? I don't think we're communicating well, if that's what you latched onto. Are you suggesting I didn't also interact with undergrads when I said I liked the students there, or is this borderline ad hominem?
Perhaps the meta-relevance is that some people fixate on the prestige and exclusivity of these things, and fight aggressively to acquire that for themselves, and to preserve that status. And some other people help perpetuate superiority myths, including in hiring.
> when you try to explain thinking about the organization's goals, and that their job is to help the team collectively achieve that... they think you're just spewing empty platitudes, like they were taught to spew for college application personal statements and job interviews.
Given my experience with LLMs I am skeptical that enough prompt engineering and tuning can adequately summarize patient records. I don't expect an LLM to adequately interpret data in a way that is useful to me. While much is missed on skimming records, an AI summary sounds like a false sense of security.
I recently received a 2 page written report of an MRI. I couldn’t understand a single word of it. While waiting a few weeks for my appointment at the next specialist I used ChatGPT to explain it and I found it to be very helpful in understanding what was going on. I felt it did a better job in explaining in lay terms than the specialist doctors did (radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, rheumatologists).
There are at least two distinct workloads for ChatGPT: 1) No context, general knowledge workloads, 2) Contextual workloads using either RAG or direct input of context.
In general, GPT will not hallucinate or give bad responses on the latter since it's working from a specific corpus of information (whether from RAG or from some context directly provided by the user). This is, of course, not foolproof since some of it is dependent on a good prompt and some of it is dependent on the question (GPT is well known to be poor at math, for example). But for summarization, it is exceedingly good.
The former is where it can tend to hallucinate and generate bad responses.
For my part I know the same because I did it and then gave both the content and the generated report to my father: an orthopaedic trauma surgeon / my cousin a radiologist and surgeon / my other cousin a cardiovascular surgeon. All for different things.
Varying degrees of enthusiasm (my father was the most thrilled) but all remarked it was accurate. Of course I did these things for a laugh because I can just access the appropriate professional on-demand.
Something to keep in mind with every AI startup is that they’re trying to skate to where the puck will be in a year or two. You could still be right, but it’s worth considering what happens to any particular use case if the model gets 2 or 3x smarter.
The difficulty partially lies in that there are numerous different "flavors" of medicine in any given specialty. Coupled with the vast amount of medical knowledge that is known in part or simply hypothesized given current evidence, you are going to run up against doctors disagreeing on how the summary selects what information can be typically left out.
Even for myself, there is individual variation case to case what I would want to see. Sometimes it depends on things that aren't measurable. If my brain is exhausted after a long week, or if I couldn't sleep on Wednesday, I may conduct rounds a bit differently than if I am fresh. An LLM that isn't responsive in the same way can be problematic.
>Given my experience with LLMs I am skeptical that enough prompt engineering and tuning can adequately summarize patient records.
What sort of experience do you have though? I'd say anyone familiar with the use of AI specifically as it related to medical records would probably disagree with you.
I’ve likewise investigated this space, or an adjacent problem. TLDR: you can get good results with very high probability.
However, medicine and law are not areas where “probably” even at a 95% level is going to cut it. You need 100%.
(Sure a person makes mistakes as well, but we understand that and have systems in place to catch and correct. Whereas people are just tossing out LLM chatbots that are basically black box).
It’s very similar to self driving cars, getting to 95% isn’t too hard now, but that last 5% to not accidentally kill a few people here and there is WAY WAY WAY harder.
I looked through about 800 profiles and did end up finding a co-founder after a couple of months.
800 profiles, 10 matches, 5 zoom calls, 1 accept.
I created a compelling and clear profile and my approach was to be as open an honest as possible about what I'm looking for. As the technical founder I offered 50/50 split as advised by YC.
I stand by my choice and I know that I trust my co-founder 100% and I'm looking forward to the earth shattering product we will launch together in August.
This actually does shift my view on founder-matching a little, in the positive direction.
I wonder if it's best to march into it like someone in a new city starting to date. I would guess that it's mostly a numbers game: apply to a lot of people you'd be compatible with, wait for their responses to winnow it down, then get serious about the handful that are left.
So far about 30 startups were founded over the matching service out of how many who got into a batch over the years? We’re talking probably about less than one percent. The service puts also a prominent emphasis on formal credentials like which university you graduated from. Your idea doesn’t matter at all, it’s just personality and some credentials.
Why is Birthdate a required field on the User Profile required for YC founder-matching?
(Gender is optional.)
Also, once you get past that User Profile, to the founder-matching Profile, the very top of the first form says "Your profile will get much more attention if you add a picture." Why implicitly endorse that, which has undesirable historic baggage of prejudice and unfairness?
In hindsight, I realize that the prominence of schools on the profiles (and the text field using the example of Stanford) didn't jump out at me, maybe because it's common on a US resume (unlike gender, birthdate, or photo).
Maybe other people will have additional "what?" reactions to other things in the forms.
Edit: On the matching profile form, it won't let you submit the form and proceed until you add a photo. ("Please fix the errors below before continuing.") I was able to get past that by uploading a blank image, but I'm not going to proceed further if it seems like current YC thinking isn't a match for me.
A recent PG essay[0] was revealing about why colleges are so prominent on those profiles and more generally about YC's thinking:
> At this point I'm going to tell you something you might not want to hear. It really matters to do well in your classes, even the ones that are just memorization or blathering about literature, because you need to do well in your classes to get into a good university. And if you want to start a startup you should try to get into the best university you can, because that's where the best cofounders are. It's also where the best employees are.
[0]: https://www.paulgraham.com/google.html
I have to partly disagree with him there.
My schools included MIT and Brown. And I generally really liked the students at both. And I would hire many of them.
But I've also hung out in other circles that attract smart people, where I'd selectively hire first, before prioritizing random people from the fancy-pants schools.
And I've worked too many places where some of the smartest and most accomplished people came from BFE schools.
Also, note that undergrad programs have gotten insane with the gaming and the hoop-jumping. Even worse than when it was helicopter parents merely sending kids to prep schools, SAT prep, and the checkoff extracurriculars (e.g., "volunteering"). And that insanity can select for what you don't want to hire, to do actual work.
If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming their promotions]" then you absolutely should hire Stanford students, who had to exercise very similar thinking to get into Stanford at this point.
Or, if you want to run a startup investment scam, where you need to apply some similar thinking of the appearance of accomplishments, and knocking down ducks lined up for you.
But if you want to solve problems, or build something that's not just headed for a financial exit, then Stanford-track kind of thinking seems probably counterproductive.
Imagine getting a new hire at an early startup, and they innately think that their job is to knock off sprint tasks, and have other appearances of performance.
And when you try to explain thinking about the organization's goals, and that their job is to help the team collectively achieve that... they think you're just spewing empty platitudes, like they were taught to spew for college application personal statements and job interviews.
You would've been so much better off hiring the scrappy person from the community college who hasn't had Stanford-track BS baked into them since grade school.
You sound like the kind of person I'd actually want to start a business with. Maybe cofounder matching should be a HN feature instead of a tinder clone.
[flagged]
Wow super insightful comment. Particularly this excerpt:
> If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming their promotions]" then you absolutely should hire Stanford students, who had to exercise very similar thinking to get into Stanford at this point.
I realize that this applies to Google post-2015, but do you think it also applies to early Google? Where you actually had to get things done?
First few employees at Google? Stanford yes because that's where they got the business/investment connections. Clearly, because L&S both came from that background as did family, and the whole Susan W's garage thing, etc. etc.
After that? Actually building the thing? Not really?
Jeff Dean:
University of Minnesota, B.S. Computer Science and Engineering (1990) University of Washington, Ph.D. Computer Science (1996)
Tho I guess Sanjay was more "ivy league" (correct me where I'm off thing, I'm Canadian and don't understand the American obsession with "brand name" on schools):
Cornell University (SB, 1987) MIT (SM, 1990; PhD, 1995)
I guess Urs was Stanford, though.
But I would insist that 1996 is a lot different from 2024.
And, honestly, pardon me, but YCombinator isn't funding the next Google. They're trying to fund the next Uber or whatever. I don't get the impression they have the guts to invest in kind of long-play deep tech infrastructure like a Google. It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies.
> It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies.
This has been somewhat frustrating for me to see. I'm curious what you think actual moonshot companies look like? Are we talking novel medical tech? Advancements in aerospace? I'm specifically ignoring AI, though a few companies in that sphere will be moonshots.
What does the future look like to you?
Not the one you asked the question to but I'd say some examples would be:
Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do)
Space colonization
Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing)
Detecting and countering AI generated spam (if this is not solved, AI could easily make "Dead Internet Theory" a reality)
Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society.
Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US (i.e. disrupt Greyhound and/or build high speed rail more competently than California's mismanaged disaster)
Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction.
Many of these would probably be best funded by a government staffed by the best and the brightest like we had between the 1930s and 1960s (think Manhattan Project, Marshall Plan and Apollo Program) not the crooks and incompetent buffoons that seemingly staff the government nowadays. But some of these could be companies or non-profits.
I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar) but don't have runway so I'd either need it funded or a co-founder who's wealthy enough to also fund my living expenses until it is funded.
> Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do)
There's a lot of potential for integrating automation into existing heavy industry. Everything from inspection, materials handling, manufacturing, quality assurance. The way forward is 1) knowing an industry well enough to know the pain points, and 2) addressing a pain point in a compelling manner.
> Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing)
I want to hear more about this. What can we do in the Sahara or the Mojave (or the American Southwest as a whole)?
> Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society.
Curious that you mention dating. What would a profitable solution look like in this space?
> Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US
High speed rail is hard, especially in a place where people would use it. For example, a line from Chicago to Green Bay, to Madison, and then on to MSP would cost billions in property acquisitions or leases. There will be NIMBYs and speculators. Environmentalists will want a pound of flesh. This would be -- probably -- the single hardest thing to do well on your entire list.
> Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction.
How can this be done and still turn investors a profit?
> I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar)
What would you do?
> There's a lot of potential for integrating automation into existing heavy industry. Everything from inspection, materials handling, manufacturing, quality assurance. The way forward is 1) knowing an industry well enough to know the pain points, and 2) addressing a pain point in a compelling manner.
One of the top things that comes to mind for me in robotics would be cooking robots. Restaurants have a big "nobody wants to work anymore" problem that I suspect will come back with a vengeance once interest rates go back down. This could eventually be commercialized into a home robot that could save the time wasted preparing meals. Ideally the cooking robot would also be able to handle handwashing dishes.
A machine that could automate laundry would also be really useful. Even one that could just handle the task of running the washer and dryer plus folding once loads were already sorted and knowing when to split an oversized load into 2 loads. Folding and putting away a clean load of laundry alone can easily eat up 15-30 minutes of my time in part because my solution to enable doing laundry less frequently has been to buy more clothes. My guess is a laundry robot could probably be trivially modified to do the Amazon warehouse jobs where they stick people's orders into boxes and it wouldn't surprise me if Amazon is already working on this given the unsustainable rate at which it is running through human workers.
> I want to hear more about this. What can we do in the Sahara or the Mojave (or the American Southwest as a whole)?
I think machines at a large enough scale could alter the atmosphere. For the desert, you'd probably need to modify wind patterns to ensure they get sufficient rain. I'm not sure of the details and obviously you'd need to factor in the species that already live in the desert along with the effects elsewhere.
The more obvious terraforming technology would be a machine that reduces CO2 in the atmosphere much like a dehumidifier reduces water in your indoor air. If a machine can create water out of thin air then I'd imagine there has to be a scientific way to do the same to get rid of carbon dioxide.
> Curious that you mention dating. What would a profitable solution look like in this space?
What I'd see as a solution in this space would be intentionally unprofitable and designed to destroy the profits of Match Group. Basically, the goal would be to get the users into a serious relationship that would lead to a marriage by filtering out users who want casual relationships or to date multiple people at once. Ideally with zero monetization.
The profit from it would be that some group with a vested interest in more marriages happening would make more money selling marital related products and/or baby products. Possible candidates to fund it would be religions, jewelry stores, wedding dress makers or even the US Republican Party (which almost always polls better with married people). It would have to be a non-profit because any for-profit dating app company would inevitably recreate Tinder.
> High speed rail is hard, especially in a place where people would use it. For example, a line from Chicago to Green Bay, to Madison, and then on to MSP would cost billions in property acquisitions or leases. There will be NIMBYs and speculators. Environmentalists will want a pound of flesh. This would be -- probably -- the single hardest thing to do well on your entire list.
I think it's probably something that would need to be backed by a federal government with enough political capital to ignore environmentalists and NIMBYs and eminent domain land away from speculators. You'd probably need a Lincoln or FDR caliber president to make it happen.
Fully autonomous trains would probably be very helpful in terms of making this work and, so long as the track is elevated or underground, probably wouldn't suffer from the safety problems that make fully autonomous cars non-workable. They'd also be quite helpful for restoring slow speed passenger rail to discontinued stations and more frequent rail service to the stations that still have trains. High speed rail would be more palatable once more people were already riding trains.
Disrupting Greyhound and other notoriously terrible inter-city bus services would be much easier in terms of mass transit. A bus company that actually cared about providing a good service that didn't subject its customers to the dregs of society and constantly break down would attract customers who have other options. Especially if it was cheaper than flying or offered more room for luggage. Such buses would be ideal use cases for EVs as long as the routes were within the battery's range.
> How can this be done and still turn investors a profit?
Any kind of organization aimed at helping fix homelessness, mental health and/or drug addiction would probably need to be either a government funded non-profit or a non-profit funded by groups that would profit from having the problem fixed. Either employers that need cheap labor or developers that want to increase property values would be the most likely private investors. If American cities were as safe as Tokyo, almost everybody would want to live in them. But many people don't want to have a homeless encampment or an open air drug market outside their home.
If it isn't government backed, it would be much harder because you can't force people into your program. Which means it would have to be something they actually want. If it is government backed, it's easier because you can use the government to coerce them into the program. It's also easier if you're coercing them to do unethical things so you'd have to be really careful to make sure you're actually helping.
> What would you do?
Robotics projects would be the top choice for me because the time wasted on household tasks is the main pain point for me. I'd ideally like that to be 0 or as close to 0 as possible without another human having to do it for me. That's not a task that I think any human should have to waste time doing. Long term, the goal would be intelligent or possibly even sentient robots but I strongly doubt that can be done today.
The terraforming space would be a second choice for me as a prerequisite for colonizing space. If you want to increase the human population, you then have to find a place for humans to live that isn't Earth. Since I'm not a scientist, such a company would require experts to make the technical decisions. I imagine any excess CO2 sucked out of Earth's atmosphere could be useful for export to Mars (or sold to Elon for that purpose?) to cause global warming there if we don't have any other use for it on Earth. Or maybe there's some way to turn it back into an energy source?
I suspect I'd need to think on this more and do more research into the problem spaces if I were going to do any of this for a company. Above all, I'd want to found a company that actually solves humanity's problems not a company that profits off of creating new problems.
> Terraforming
Let me see if I can find it, but you might be interested in multilayered permaculture. My mother knows of a guy who has made an in depth study of permaculture and the outcomes are very impressive. If I can find it, I'll drop it here.
It's worth pointing out that Google wasn't really moonshot stuff.
It was a search engine, and there were other search engines. already.
Then it became an advertising network before IPO, to make the $$. There were other ad networks already.
The key thing is that they were able to invest heavily in infrastructure to do... big stuff... for many years before IPO. Like, boatloads of fiber, data centres, expensive employees, R&D.
That money also let them make a superior UX that didn't dump crap in your face, which then acquired customers.
I kind of wonder if the time might be ripe for new social networks to replace Facebook, Twitter, etc. that would be to existing "social media" what Google was to Yahoo or AltaVista or Lycos. Not garbage. Not in the way. Seemingly (for a time) ethical. User focused. Working with some new metaphors. Moderated. Civil.
Facebook used to be a place to connect with friends and family. A thing that took the place of MySpace, Friendster, etc. and rapidly blew up because it was a way to get a hold of people and stay connected.
Now it's ... something else. (I won't waste time here explaining why it is hot garbage now).
I just don't know how that makes money without taking the same crappy path that FB did. But, Google also didn't know how it was going to make money.
So I think the statement is more like statistically in good universities you're more likely to meet other great engineers and cofounders. It of course doesn't mean all students from good universities are better from scrappy people community college. When it comes to reality, I'm a startup founder and how would I screen people? If someone went to Stanford it's a strong good signal. If another guy went to community college but has exceptional technical skills of course I'd hire him than an average Stanford graduates. School or past experience is just one signal but it's a strong signal.
> When it comes to reality, [...] If someone went to Stanford it's a strong good signal.
I just said why I don't think it's currently a good signal, in reality.
Unless the reality is last-decade VC-growth startups, where the priority was appearances, from top to bottom.
You're comparing a hand picked group from one school to the median at another. The most successful student at your average community college will likely be more successful than the median MIT grad, but that doesn't prove your point.
Notably, you didn't attend MIT or Brown for undergrad, just terminal master's degrees. The selection process for undergraduates at those schools is about 100x more rigorous than that for MS programs.
Why notably? I don't think we're communicating well, if that's what you latched onto. Are you suggesting I didn't also interact with undergrads when I said I liked the students there, or is this borderline ad hominem?
Perhaps the meta-relevance is that some people fixate on the prestige and exclusivity of these things, and fight aggressively to acquire that for themselves, and to preserve that status. And some other people help perpetuate superiority myths, including in hiring.
This is an accurate take and I am glad to see it being voiced.
Very insightful and accurate take IMHO.
> when you try to explain thinking about the organization's goals, and that their job is to help the team collectively achieve that... they think you're just spewing empty platitudes, like they were taught to spew for college application personal statements and job interviews.
Me in my first job.
Given my experience with LLMs I am skeptical that enough prompt engineering and tuning can adequately summarize patient records. I don't expect an LLM to adequately interpret data in a way that is useful to me. While much is missed on skimming records, an AI summary sounds like a false sense of security.
I recently received a 2 page written report of an MRI. I couldn’t understand a single word of it. While waiting a few weeks for my appointment at the next specialist I used ChatGPT to explain it and I found it to be very helpful in understanding what was going on. I felt it did a better job in explaining in lay terms than the specialist doctors did (radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, rheumatologists).
How do you know ChatGPT explained it to you correctly? How do you know it didn't give you a wrong explanation that sounds plausible to a lay person?
There are at least two distinct workloads for ChatGPT: 1) No context, general knowledge workloads, 2) Contextual workloads using either RAG or direct input of context.
In general, GPT will not hallucinate or give bad responses on the latter since it's working from a specific corpus of information (whether from RAG or from some context directly provided by the user). This is, of course, not foolproof since some of it is dependent on a good prompt and some of it is dependent on the question (GPT is well known to be poor at math, for example). But for summarization, it is exceedingly good.
The former is where it can tend to hallucinate and generate bad responses.
For my part I know the same because I did it and then gave both the content and the generated report to my father: an orthopaedic trauma surgeon / my cousin a radiologist and surgeon / my other cousin a cardiovascular surgeon. All for different things.
Varying degrees of enthusiasm (my father was the most thrilled) but all remarked it was accurate. Of course I did these things for a laugh because I can just access the appropriate professional on-demand.
Something to keep in mind with every AI startup is that they’re trying to skate to where the puck will be in a year or two. You could still be right, but it’s worth considering what happens to any particular use case if the model gets 2 or 3x smarter.
The difficulty partially lies in that there are numerous different "flavors" of medicine in any given specialty. Coupled with the vast amount of medical knowledge that is known in part or simply hypothesized given current evidence, you are going to run up against doctors disagreeing on how the summary selects what information can be typically left out.
Even for myself, there is individual variation case to case what I would want to see. Sometimes it depends on things that aren't measurable. If my brain is exhausted after a long week, or if I couldn't sleep on Wednesday, I may conduct rounds a bit differently than if I am fresh. An LLM that isn't responsive in the same way can be problematic.
Yup I actually worked on this problem and we abandoned it because the downside of missing important patient information was too risky
>Given my experience with LLMs I am skeptical that enough prompt engineering and tuning can adequately summarize patient records.
What sort of experience do you have though? I'd say anyone familiar with the use of AI specifically as it related to medical records would probably disagree with you.
I'm both a doctor and a SWE.
I’ve likewise investigated this space, or an adjacent problem. TLDR: you can get good results with very high probability.
However, medicine and law are not areas where “probably” even at a 95% level is going to cut it. You need 100%.
(Sure a person makes mistakes as well, but we understand that and have systems in place to catch and correct. Whereas people are just tossing out LLM chatbots that are basically black box).
It’s very similar to self driving cars, getting to 95% isn’t too hard now, but that last 5% to not accidentally kill a few people here and there is WAY WAY WAY harder.
Hey this worked for me this month actually.
I looked through about 800 profiles and did end up finding a co-founder after a couple of months.
800 profiles, 10 matches, 5 zoom calls, 1 accept.
I created a compelling and clear profile and my approach was to be as open an honest as possible about what I'm looking for. As the technical founder I offered 50/50 split as advised by YC.
I stand by my choice and I know that I trust my co-founder 100% and I'm looking forward to the earth shattering product we will launch together in August.
Whatcha building?
This actually does shift my view on founder-matching a little, in the positive direction.
I wonder if it's best to march into it like someone in a new city starting to date. I would guess that it's mostly a numbers game: apply to a lot of people you'd be compatible with, wait for their responses to winnow it down, then get serious about the handful that are left.
So far about 30 startups were founded over the matching service out of how many who got into a batch over the years? We’re talking probably about less than one percent. The service puts also a prominent emphasis on formal credentials like which university you graduated from. Your idea doesn’t matter at all, it’s just personality and some credentials.
> Your idea doesn’t matter at all, it’s just personality and some credentials.
One of YC's overriding beliefs is that yes, your idea doesn't matter at all.
to be fair, they consider traction over all other credentials
I find the cofounder matching to be.... fine, but as noted elsewhere in these comments don't like the focus on age, photo, etc.
That's great they found their match. When I tried it last it was like flipping through the crazies.
> When I tried it last it was like flipping through the crazies.
In what way?