Can someone give the counter argument to my initial cynical read of this? That read being: OpenAI has more money than it can invest productively within it's own company and is trying to cast a net to find new product ideas via an incubator?
I can't imagine Softbank or Microsoft is happy about their money being funneled into something like this and it implies they have run out of ideas internally. But I think I'm probably being too reflexively cynical
Softbank or Microsoft can’t be happy or sad. CEOs only care about the share price going up while they’re holding the wheel. If Sam wants to start the idea incubator, why would they want to shut it down?
Looks like they want to build up and support middle men to do the apps more than them, and act more like a platform or operating system position. Which makes sense giant corporations reporting 95% failed AI projects and the core success cases are specialist companies tuning the platform to a specific problem are successful. Then there are a ton of snake oil AI apps that are over promising under delivering hurting the image of AI's usefulness
This is probably purely a pivot in market strategy to profitability to increase token usage, increase consumer/public's trust more than farming ideas for internal projects.
Almost every parent comment on this is negative. Why is there such an anti-OpenAI bias on a forum run by YCombinator, basically the pseudo-parent of OpenAI?
It seems that there is a constant motive to view any decision made by any big AI company on this forum at best with extreme cynicism and at worse virulent hatred. It seems unwise for a forum focused on technology and building the future to be so opposed to the companies doing the most to advance the most rapidly evolving technological domain at the moment.
If you are pre-idea today, does OpenAI believe your startup will still be relevant in the face of the AGI progress they forecast to make in the time it takes you to ship?
41 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 55.4 ms ] threadI think I had ideas when I started. Naïve ideas, but still ideas, but I think having no idea yet is fine.
This is probably purely a pivot in market strategy to profitability to increase token usage, increase consumer/public's trust more than farming ideas for internal projects.
As of 19 hours into the post, this is the only comment that explains what's actually behind this sort of program.
Precursor thinking from Altman (mentions YC): https://stratechery.com/2025/an-interview-with-openai-ceo-sa...
This is how it begins. You make sure you're under the hood of everything. Everyone is "building on" you. You see all the action.
While this can be how it ends: https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/19/twitter-officially-bans-th...
But not always. For an example that ended differently, Amazon opened to third party sellers, on the side, earlier than people might remember, 1999: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazoncom-in-a-bazaar-move/
And how that went: https://theconversation.com/amazon-is-no-longer-a-retail-sit...
This is how you put Multivac to work, and profit.
Next up, we're funding prenatal individuals.
This feels like a program to see what sticks.
If ideas are a dime a dozen, what even is a pre-idea startup
It seems that there is a constant motive to view any decision made by any big AI company on this forum at best with extreme cynicism and at worse virulent hatred. It seems unwise for a forum focused on technology and building the future to be so opposed to the companies doing the most to advance the most rapidly evolving technological domain at the moment.
Alas, such grove is impossible.
I'm working on a prototype right now, guess I'll toss my hat in the ring.
Fortune favors the bold.
First time I am hearing this term. It is a euphemism like pre-owned cars (instead of used cars).
What does this mean? People who do not yet have any idea? Weird.