Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Also strange that PG didn't know that Sam had invested in OpenAI through YC until today.



Is it? They state they've funded 5000 companies since 2005[1], and if that was evenly spread per year, that's about a company a day. Maybe pg only pays attention to the ones that other people bring to his attention given that amount, and maybe he "knew" about OpenAI in that it was in some report he skimmed or was mentioned but maybe it was seen as entirely handled since it was a project for someone else there. It could entirely have been out of mind within a week or two of him "knowing" it and then it's quickly forgotten, and may seem like new information when it comes up years later.

1: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies


Weird that he wouldn't know about a company YC invested in that has an 80B valuation? Yeah... that does seem weird.


That is weird. Although OpenAI isn't even listed in their startup directory, so maybe the investment was done differently, and not through their normal channels. Or maybe they divested their share after a short period. Whether that means pg would have been more likely or less likely to know about it I have no idea.


PG didn't know that the CEO of YCombinator was investing YC funds into a separate company that he was also CEO of? I'm not sure who that reflects worse on, PG or SA.

Conflict of interest aside, it also paints SA's whole "I just love the work, I have no equity in OpenAI" in a completely different light.


I don't think this investment is like the rest, there was a clear conflict of interest in the OpenAI investment given that the CEO of YC was also the founder and one of the directors (?) of OpeanAI. And not only Sam, Jessica Livingston is also one of the founders of OpenAI.

This is not a comment on whether PG should have been informed or not, I don't know how YC operates.


> that's about a company a day.

That doesn't really seem too hard to stay on top of. Might not be able to rattle them off later, but even spending 10 minutes looking into the investment of the day should be able to expose really obvious conflicts of interest.


Eh, it's an average of one a day, but it could be rolled up in a report once a month and there's 20-40 to look through, and depending how hands on he is (he might have delegated some of this work) that may or may not be something he looks closely into. I imagine there's an order of magnitude more companies that apply that don't get funded. Where does he spend his time? Mentoring companies that have been accepted, and if so, all of them or ones that align with some prior interest, or in vetting and looking for unicorns in the applications?

I don't know how any of their stuff works, but I'm sure most people can appreciate that the stuff that gets lost between the cracks is the stuff that doesn't come in and get tracked through the normal channels, and an OpenAI investment where one of the main people in the company is heading it might be something that wasn't through normal channels. Maybe that was on purpose so pg didn't see it, or maybe that stuff is mostly handled by someone else. Or maybe pg knew about it and decided to lie about it on twitter. /shrug


It's not weird that he didn't know about it the day (or week) that it happened. It IS weird that nobody at YC was talking about OpenAI when it was exploding.


>Is it?

Yes.


I didn't see that in the OP, are you referencing some other information?



Oh right, the twitfuckers don't display threads anymore. Thanks.


If you're using a secure browser, Xitter doesn't even display single tweets any more. Just:

> Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (Strict Mode) is known to cause issues on x.com

(lovely inversion of responsibility gaslighting, too)


Can you elaborate on what 'twitfuckers' means in some nuance?

If you're signed in you'd see threads, right?

Do you think it's bad or unreasonable they try to fight against at least unsophisticated bots and mass scraping attempts?


> Can you elaborate on what 'twitfuckers' means

It means "twitter.com" plus "my frustration with twitter.com".

> If you're signed in you'd see threads, right?

I shouldn't have to sign in to see threads.

> Do you think it's bad or unreasonable

Yes. I don't buy that bots are the reason for hiding threads. It reminds me of pinterest and linkedin: show a teaser and then turn the screws on the user until they do what you want. It's greedy and crude.


> "I shouldn't have to sign in to see threads."

Why? Do you pay them towards their the CPU, bandwidth, and other operation costs?

> "Yes. I don't buy that bots are the reason for hiding threads. It reminds me of pinterest and linkedin: show a teaser and then turn the screws on the user until they do what you want. It's greedy and crude."

Why can't it be both? I guess you should try to create a competitor of Twitter-X and take on all those costs yourself, so you can see for yourself if scraping-bots (and the purposes for that occurring) are a sustainable business model or a sustainable way to moderate a massive network of people communicating in public - where maximizing for real conversation is seemingly necessary, especially now with AI being able to simply flood threads with realistic long-form conversation - which on its own could be used as an attack vector to agitate or waste people's time and attention on non-real people who aren't influenceable to help open their eyes to perhaps not believing propaganda they've been indoctrinated with.


Somehow the bot problem got much worse since Elon took the helm.


Citation needed?


Would you be content if I send you a link every time a spambot follows, replies, or likes my tweet?


Do you have that and your usage data from before he took it over to compare?

Have you written to Twitter-X support yet to complain?

Maybe someone's fucking with you specifically and signed you up to some service to harass you?

It's not obvious what's going on sometimes.


I'm an active Twitter user since 2009 so I have pretty good first hand experience. You can report the bots all you want it's not going to make a dent. And it's so common that "P * S S Y I N T H E B I O" is a running gag there now.


Use the site lol


He never had a problem with the bots, he was desperately grasping at straws to pull out of the hastily-made ironclad deal that bound him to buy twitter.


Whether true or not, thank God that Elon took Twitter as one of the core pillars that the establishment had as part of their censorship-suppression-narrative control apparatus, e.g. the Twitter Files showing the US government engaging in illegal behaviour to censor Americans et al who weren't toeing the acceptable narrative talking points.


I'm not sure what this "god" of yours had to do with it, I'm pretty sure that was the doing of the Delaware Court of Chancery. Musk proves to be a censorious bastard whenever the whim suits him, and your claims about the twitter files is just fake news; lay off it.


"Fake news" eh?

You obviously haven't watched any of the US senate hearings, nor read any of Matt Taibbi's investigative work - where Elon gave Matt and other journalists access to Twitter's data like email interactions between Twitter employees, the FBI and other government agencies.

I won't bother describing the understanding I've come to on God since you don't seem like a deep person to even investigate thoroughly enough, whatever propaganda bubbles you get your news from - makes you thinks it's "fake news" tells me you're lost.

Here's Matt's Substack, to make it super easy for you to start reading/learning yourself: https://www.racket.news/

And here's his specific work on the Twitter Files: https://twitterfiles.substack.com/

Maybe if you start developing your self-awareness, and your self-regulation skills, you'll develop the patience to read more, critically think better - and then that would be a good starting point to contemplate the universe and extrapolate from first principles as to how much of a chance that a God exists.

Maybe don't be so confident in your arrogance either; or "lay off it", as you'd say - you're not the super aware person you think you are.

90-minute Bikram hot yoga classes are a good place to start to kick your ass and get your body and mind healthier.


It’s bad and unreasonable to link to deep web content on a different site.


>And obviously it wasn't influencing me, since I found out about it 5 minutes ago.

"Obviously".




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: