Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's plenty of stories like this: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/15/y-combinator-startups-are-fa...

The target for a great startup was 7% growth week-on-week, and now it's 10%. It means back then if you were making $1k/week in Jan 1, 2024, you'd expect to make $33k/week a year later. But thanks to AI, the standard is closer to $142k/week.

Back then, it was normal to raise $75k or so to build a prototype, now you can build a prototype in a couple of weekends. Back then, you would polish your pitch to get VC funding. Now you build, get the customers, then show what the customers are buying and why, and ask for funding to get 1000x the number of customers.

A lot of the risk factors have been removed. Building a legacy app no longer take multiple sync calls and weeks, they can be resolved in hours and maybe one sync call. Yes, I have a story of AI migrating a whole DB table when I asked it to move a button to another page. But it gets the tables right about 7 out of 10 times if you give it the right instructions. I dislike ORMs; they're practically a code smell. And AI works around that layer.



The linked story is “YC says YC companies growing faster because of AI”

The story doesn’t state much about source but is it literally just an editorialised press release?


Here's an exact source: https://www.vanta.com/resources/why-the-next-unicorns-are-bu...

I'm leaving that utm_source in the link for irony, lol. Couldn't find it from the first page of Google, but AI found it in seconds.


And AI found the wrong source in seconds, because this is dated in May and the original article you linked is from March.


Don't worry, I'm sure he'll say the same thing again in September, which will invalidate both of these sources.


Garry Tan almost certainly has incentives to promote this tech.

That doesn't make him wrong though.


It ticks the boxes for bad science. I was hoping someone would call out Garry's statement as an anecdote as well rather than debating whether he said it.

But I doubt there will be proper data either way. Whatever model is used in research will be deprecated by the time something is peer reviewed. If a model hallucinates, can't do X, is boring, has so and so security holes, the report is out of date by the time it's released.

But the next best we have is that people who make these claims are throwing money at it. I would be highly suspicious if people made these claims and then didn't double down on their investments. Sundar says AI is bigger than fire which is highly sus, but the way he's been reorganizing one of the world's most stable companies to focus totally on AI suggests that he believes it.


"The firm has funded more than 5,3000 companies, which it says are worth more than $800 billion in total."

Is that 53,000, i.e., a misplaced comma, or is it 5,300, i.e., an extra zero


The numbers does not make sense. "Over a dozen of them are public, and more than 100 are valued at $1 billion or more. More than 15,000 companies apply to get into the accelerator, with about a 1% acceptance rate."




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

Search: