It's been obvious for years that AI will bifurcate society even more between the haves and have nots, contrary to "democratizing AI" niceties espoused by big AI CEOs.
It was less obvious that access will be further gated by an Old Boy Network. I guess the frontier model whitelists of yestermonth were a portent.
YCombinator has its biases, but I don't know of many other investment firms that have a university style, "application" process. It's almost always, warm-intros you need.
This Early access network is just an intro system once you get through the Application process (like Universities having a job fair).
TBF YC has always said the value is in the network.
What's interesting (alarming?) is them formalizing exclusion of access to technology via the network. It's explicitly ossifying an access control system over what used to be handshakes.
I don’t understand, Ycombinator company list is public information list, go buy from any one of them anytime?
AFAICT, this is mostly a way for YC companies to get warm intros into potential customers. Almost exactly like a job fair at a university but for software contracts instead of jobs.
> Ycombinator company list is public information list, go buy from any one of them anytime
Unless this prototype model works out financially for the companies, and every AI company starts telling you to go through an (inevitably AI vetted) application process to get access.
Decades ago, getting a Google account to use GMail wasn't seen as a problem because you could run your own mail server. Try getting your own mail server to deliver mail today.
It’s funny how we always celebrate (or at the very least don’t comment negatively) when someone/a startup sets out to build an ecosystem and then love punishing them after they succeed. How very American of us
Just curious, how exactly do you propose they do this instead?
Rent out a convention center, open invitation, and then still complain when all xxK slots are taken up?
Or do it virtually and inundate these startups with thousands of requests and get mad when half don’t get responded to?
Outlaw private capital altogether and force people to IPO to raise money? And then what, complain when only a fraction of those companies work out and the average guy with an E*trade account not in on the joke gets screwed over and over?
At least YC takes applicants and the process is somewhat transparent
Of course there’s a (prob big) element of who you know going on, but it seems to me like the least shitty approach if your goal is to make this at least somewhat accessible
This aspect of yc is good - I know plenty of come from nowhere, unprivileged backgrounds who got into yc and were able to start a company
Now, they fact a lot of them get super douchey once they are in is a different story
Do not mistake any VC's eagerness to find fresh meat for the grinder for a philanthropic or otherwise virtuous motive. VC exists for one purpose only. Extract value from others.
Having been through YC, there's certainly some of this, but the overwhelming majority of founders were pretty down to earth. People generally just want to solve hard problems.
Mark Cuban posting about a sense of arrogance and entitlement is certainly something. There's a reason behind the character of HBO Silicon Valley's Russ Hanneman...
This is interesting, but I think most enterprise AI buyers probably aren't looking to buy from the current batch; they're just too volatile at that stage. This does seem like an opportunity for cross-pollination where early start-ups get to test their product signals and enterprises get to see what's on the cutting edge.
This seems more beneficial to the founders because the the enterprises could instead just choose to do some research on the start-ups. It's not like the start-ups are keeping their knowledge quiet because for them to survive they need to convince everybody what their doing is meaningful.
Did you know you can become a member of the WEF for free and get their nonsense emails in advance of anyone else talking about what stupid stuff the WEF is doing?
Help me understand. The purpose is to help founders get sales contracts? What's the value for the buyers? Acquire people before they become competitors?
YC isn't taxing you, or elected to serve your interest, or beholden to public recordkeeping law or sworn to a national constitution with explicit rules against self-enrichment.
YC can do whatever they want, you can not play their game if you choose. It's not really comparable.
This is a very good point, I did not mean literally in that sense; only in that they are offering "the privileged" exclusive access to information that will further entrench their positions.
I apologize for not being clearer in my comment. I actually agree with your response and fully understand that there is a fundamental difference but also believe that the outcomes of both the aforementioned are aligned.
It's a different kind of tax. The VC model is to get you addicted to a service and then jack up prices as soon as they've squeezed out other competition. You can't opt out of that game when AirBnBs take over your town.
That's fair and accurate, there's a lot broken with the system. But I wouldn't place the blame at the feet of YC, it would be just as bad without them.
It was less obvious that access will be further gated by an Old Boy Network. I guess the frontier model whitelists of yestermonth were a portent.
This Early access network is just an intro system once you get through the Application process (like Universities having a job fair).
What's interesting (alarming?) is them formalizing exclusion of access to technology via the network. It's explicitly ossifying an access control system over what used to be handshakes.
AFAICT, this is mostly a way for YC companies to get warm intros into potential customers. Almost exactly like a job fair at a university but for software contracts instead of jobs.
Unless this prototype model works out financially for the companies, and every AI company starts telling you to go through an (inevitably AI vetted) application process to get access.
Decades ago, getting a Google account to use GMail wasn't seen as a problem because you could run your own mail server. Try getting your own mail server to deliver mail today.
Just curious, how exactly do you propose they do this instead?
Rent out a convention center, open invitation, and then still complain when all xxK slots are taken up?
Or do it virtually and inundate these startups with thousands of requests and get mad when half don’t get responded to?
Outlaw private capital altogether and force people to IPO to raise money? And then what, complain when only a fraction of those companies work out and the average guy with an E*trade account not in on the joke gets screwed over and over?
At least YC takes applicants and the process is somewhat transparent
Of course there’s a (prob big) element of who you know going on, but it seems to me like the least shitty approach if your goal is to make this at least somewhat accessible
This aspect of yc is good - I know plenty of come from nowhere, unprivileged backgrounds who got into yc and were able to start a company
Now, they fact a lot of them get super douchey once they are in is a different story
Source:
https://x.com/mcuban/status/692595120969875456
That being said, all the ex YC people I interacted with in person have been awesome. But there is definitely a YC entitled group
[spiderman pointing at spiderman.gif]
The beard, the shirts, the sexual assault allegations. The three nannies suing him - one for no good reason!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com
This seems more beneficial to the founders because the the enterprises could instead just choose to do some research on the start-ups. It's not like the start-ups are keeping their knowledge quiet because for them to survive they need to convince everybody what their doing is meaningful.
> Four times a year, we put a hand-picked group of YC's enterprise-AI founders in a room with buyers who can actually run a pilot.
Seems like a win-win.
re: https://time.com/article/2026/08/13/trump-sued-truth-social-...
YC can do whatever they want, you can not play their game if you choose. It's not really comparable.
I apologize for not being clearer in my comment. I actually agree with your response and fully understand that there is a fundamental difference but also believe that the outcomes of both the aforementioned are aligned.
It's a different kind of tax. The VC model is to get you addicted to a service and then jack up prices as soon as they've squeezed out other competition. You can't opt out of that game when AirBnBs take over your town.
I disagree, I think YC is fully to blame here as are the other grifters of the current administration.