[DeathArrow]

>The article seems to be be based on the current limitations of LLMs. I don't think YC and other VCs are betting on what LLMs can do today, I think they are betting on what they might be able to do in the future.

Do we know what LLMs will be able to do in the future? And even if we know, the startups have to work with what they have now, until that future comes. The article states that there's not much to work with.

[brookst]

Show me a successful startup that was predicated on the tech they’re working with not advancing?

[rsynnott]

Most successful startups were able to make the thing that they wanted to make, as a startup, with existing tech. It might have a limited market that was expected to become less limited (a web app in 1996, say), but it was possible to make the thing.

This idea of “we’re a startup; we can’t actually make anything useful now, but once the tech we use becomes magic any day now we might be able to make something!” is basically a new phenomenon.

[jeltz]

Most? I can list tens of them easily. For example what advancements were required for Slack to be successful? Or Spotify (they got more successful due to smartphones and cheaper bandwidth but the business was solid before that)? Or Shopify?

[brookst]

Slack bet on ubiquitous, continuous internet access. Spotify bet on bandwidth costs falling to effectively zero. Shopify bet on D2C rising because improved search engines, increased internet shopping (itself a result of several tech trends plus demographic changes).

For a counterexample I think I’d look to non-tech companies. OrangeTheory maybe?

[teamonkey]

The notion of a startup gaining funding to develop a fantasy into reality is relatively new.

It used to be that startups would be created to do something different with existing tech or to commercialise a newly-discovered - but real - innovation.

[talldayo]

Every single software service that has ever provided an Android or iOS application, for starters.