116 pointsby ohong5 hours ago16 comments
  • scottydelta2 hours ago
    Based on YC's directory, there are approximately 13,000 YC founders since YC started.

    105/13000 is a very small number to focus on. This data doesn't really mean anything.

    • consumer45128 minutes ago
      What I find more interesting is how many people have left big orgs where they had major leadership roles, to become ICs at Anthropic.
      • sesteel16 minutes ago
        I think it is more than just money. Having a hand in steering the ship that they think will change the world is pretty attractive. I came out of retirement just to watch the spectacle.
      • 3 minutes ago
        undefined
      • amazingamazing22 minutes ago
        Is it interesting? They want to be rich.
      • shimman22 minutes ago
        You're surprised that people are trying to capture a bag that could possibly lead to multigenerational wealth in the tune of tens to 100s of millions?
        • alpha_squared12 minutes ago
          I'm not surprised, but what is surprising is we're now in a period in which the mask is slipping and no one seems to care enough to try to put it back on.

          For all the hubris and arrogance of the tech scene, and especially the Bay Area's, founders at least pretended to pursue a greater calling than money by leaving cushy gigs to pursue a new venture they were passionate about. Sure, that only lasted a handful of years before it became a gold rush to move to the Bay for YC and pursue the startup-to-acquisition pipeline, but they at least pretended to care.

          The naked pursuit of wealth at the cost of potentially tearing apart society is mildly alarming because the scale it's happening at is so big.

      • mschuster915 minutes ago
        Probably because of stock options. Assuming the bubble bursts after the vesting period, they stand to make a looooooot of money on paper.
    • interstice31 minutes ago
      I wonder what the income distribution is like
  • Closi2 hours ago
    This analysis doesn't actually prove the title, as it only considers founders that have gone to OpenAI or Anthropic, however even if it did it isn't particularly suprising.

    Sam Altman was the president of YC, so it's not particularly suprising that he has hired lots of talent from YC - these are people that are pre-qualified because he has seen their work before outside of a job interview (better the devil you know than the devil you don't).

    This happens everywhere - person leaves company A to company B and then poaches the best talent from company A. Obviously in this case the talent are founders rather than staff members, but still.

  • kubb2 hours ago
    Effectively, industry roles are a tiered system which determines access to the cashflow. Going the YC founder route is a much faster and more efficient way to secure a high tier than climbing the SWE ladder. The whole thing resembles a kind of mini class system, with high tiers granting access to generational wealth, and low tiers being better off than the average non-industry Joe. Once you're in the high tier, there's no way to fall anymore, you just move wherever the cash is being pumped in, collecting it.
    • fra2 hours ago
      I’ve seen many people climb the SWE ladder or build a YC company (having done both myself), and trust me the founder route is not the most efficient. You only believe this because you didn’t see the 2 failed startups and 10 year journey grinding 80h weeks almost running out of cash a few times.

      Jensen Huang himself says nobody in their right mind should start a company https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/05/11/jensen-huang-i-didnt-kno...

      • matsemannan hour ago
        > Jensen Huang himself says

        Not that I disagree, but it doesn't refute the original argument. It could even support it, class protecting their own from more people figuring out there's no clothes on the emperor.

      • gloryjulioan hour ago
        This. I saw way more people build a few millions of retirement nest egg reliably in 10-20 years, by working on a boring good swe job and manage their investment a bit better. It's a much safer route.
      • threatofrain2 hours ago
        Nobody in their right mind should start a company up to some equilibrium. As a society we should fund the appetite of experimental founders to put more pressure on quality than what natural conditions might allow.
      • tonyhart72 hours ago
        survivorship bias
      • RetroTechie31 minutes ago
        What part of "start a company" requires "grinding 80h weeks"?

        Sounds to me as inability to delegate. Or implicit in the [acquire VC, aim for high growth] mindset as if that were the only path to success.

        Companies can grow organically. With a positive cash-flow early on & reasonable work/life balance for founders & employees alike. Heck, there's even non-profits.

        • mschuster912 minutes ago
          > Companies can grow organically.

          Yes they can, but unless you strike luck, they take many years, often decades of work to grow to a level where you can retire and enjoy the money.

          With FIRE and similar concepts being pushed around everywhere, and the plight of the masses to keep their jobs and homes, I see where that desire for "make money fast" comes from. And from a game theory mindset - it's not wrong.

          > Heck, there's even non-profits.

          Non-profits often enough run on conditions bordering on (self-)exploitation.

    • ElProlactinan hour ago
      > Going the YC founder route is a much faster and more efficient way to secure a high tier than climbing the SWE ladder.

      YC has funded over 5,000 companies. If you assume 2-3 co-founders per company, that's more than 10,000 to 15,000 people. The vast majority of these founders aren't producing "generational wealth" outcomes. There's no glamorization of the companies that shut down, the ones that are scraping by, and the ones that get their founders a normal job, but those are the far more likely outcomes, especially in the more recent spray-and-pray batches.

    • timr2 hours ago
      This is a very hot take. Being a founder might confer you some career advantage [1] if you're one of the few to make it to series A and you grow a large team, but if you're like the vast majority of founders and never make it past seed (or realistically, to seed), your network is the alpha and omega of any subsequent job search. It's a bit like saying that being an NBA starter is a good way to get a job as a basketball coach.

      Point being: don't start a startup if your goal is to get a job. Just get a job.

      [1] Note that I'm not arguing about experience -- you can gain a lot of experience as a startup founder, but that experience is rarely directly marketable. Also, most startup founders are completely clueless when they start, so "a lot of experience" is a relative term.

  • reticulates2 hours ago
    YC has tens of thousands of founders, more are probably at Google and Facebook than Anthropic and OpenAI. I’m not sure a sample of 105 founders shows… anything?
  • maelito3 hours ago
    I hope some people remain to build the services that we still use more every day than LLMs.

    Edit : and money. I guess most founders follow the money here.

    • dude2507112 hours ago
      Based on typical announcements, they only get acquired to serve their customers even better. The selfless unsung heroes of our time...
  • throwaw123 hours ago
    I wonder what they do, are they joining as engineers or leadership? because Anthropic has Member of Technical Staff role only.

    Would be curious what some of the VP+ people are building inside Anthropic if they joined as engineers

  • koolba2 hours ago
    The site infers that 105 people are working at the two companies. What’s the denominator though?

    After 20 or so years of YC, with multiple catches per year, and the insanely high failure rate of start ups, there must be a lot of former or floundering founders.

    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • muzanian hour ago
    A successful unicorn founder once said a billion dollar company is just made up of a bunch of people who could each have started a $10m company by themselves.

    I guess you can extrapolate that and say a trillion dollar company is made of a bunch of people who could have started a billion dollar company.

  • hsaliakan hour ago
    This graph biases outcomes (A| O) it would be interessting to have an others.. so we can view the whole picture
  • mynegationan hour ago
    “Emmet Shear, Twitch, OpenAI - former”. I would not be surprised if the whole site was made for this punchline.
  • whitelimetea27 minutes ago
    It’s a big club and you ain’t in it
  • motbus32 hours ago
    they are totally focusing on making those their internal products so they dont need sell ai to customers anymore. that's the future
  • deadbabean hour ago
    IMO we are in the era of “Final Companies” and the appeal of being a founder these days just isn’t great compared to the entrepreneurial boom of the 2010s and 2000s. The risk to reward ratio has never been worse.
  • neuroelectronan hour ago
    They abandoned the dream of democratizing sectors of the market by ignoring regulations to democratizing knowledge by ignoring copyright.
  • dominotw29 minutes ago
    alternate title:

    Where are YC founders now who went to openai and anthropic ? OpenAI and Anthropic, mostly

  • adithyassekhar3 hours ago
    The fonts the layouts it all screams claude at me.

    I still can’t put a finger on it. I’ve seen real people use these fonts and layouts yet theirs look original.

    Whoever finds an explanation for this solves AGI (/s)

    • RetroTechie11 minutes ago
      It's a set of properties/attributes commonly referred to as "style" (generic, not the CSS one). Or call it look & feel.

      So you're saying the site screams "Claude's style!" to you. Not too different from "I know a WordPress site when I see one".

    • applfanboysbgon2 hours ago
      The sepia-tinted color scheme and the way LLMs overuse rounded corner tiles to the absolute death is part of it. Really what it comes down to, is that these LLMs have a design vocabulary of like 15 traits. None of the websites they generate have every single trait, but they are composed of some subset of 10 such traits, so it's still overwhelmingly obvious the moment you open the page, even though each one is slightly different. Humans might use 1~5 of those traits, but they'll also be mixed in with a much wider set of traits with more individuality to them.
      • tao_oat2 hours ago
        I tried to list all the traits I could think of:

        - Orange/beige-ish colors - Rounded corners - Cards with a thin border - A thicker colored border on the left of cards - Serif font for headings - Monospace fonts for small text - Headings that often have an unnecessary subheading / pre-heading - Little badges, often with a "status indicator" dot on the left - Obviously LLM-generated text / language

        I'm sure I'm missing many but the above are dead giveaways!

        • techpression2 hours ago
          That left side border is a plague…

          The copy is usually a bit of a giveaway too, ”explore your future path to greatness and experience the defining divider between those who can and those who can’t” or as most humans would write the header ”plans”.

    • sph2 hours ago
      Most AI-generated sites have coopted the Inter font, and usually they go for a dark colour scheme, the rounded tiles, a container representing a macOS-styled terminal with code, and, the thing that annoys me the most, divs that fade is as you scroll.