How to not get rejected from YC's Early AI interview batch

https://hermitian.substack.com/p/how-to-not-get-rejected-from-ycs

by johntiger1 • 3 years ago

42 24 3 years ago

hermitian.substack.com

btilly2• 3 years ago

Which is more likely?

A) A company that got rejected from YC's Early AI interview batch has figured out not to get rejected?

B) A company that got rejected formed a theory about why which absolves them of blame, and means that they do not have to ask how their application was weak?

I'm voting for B unless the rejected company has managed to put up a strong enough independent success signal that it is clear that they should have been accepted, and they don't just have sour grapes over not being accepted.

This goes doubly so given how much YC itself stresses personal qualities of the founders over the idea they started with. Trends in the ideas in companies formed therefore have more to do with what companies are pushed towards, by market forces or YC, than with the mix of starting ideas.

sharemywin• 3 years ago

Could also be both

simple-thoughts• 3 years ago

This post reminds me of a founder I worked for. We had a pitch meeting where one of the prospective investors laid out exactly why the founder’s idea was fundamentally flawed based on the investor’s personal experience as a past founder working on a variant of the same idea. The investor also explained what paths forward our founder could take with clear and actionable ideas before the rejection.

After the rejection the founder told us “the investor is biased because he failed so if we succeed it will hurt his ego” and proceeded to ignore all his advice. Well 6 months later when we tried to get users on the platform everything the investor had said turned out true and the startup limped along for another couple years on angel funds, thankfully without me.

throwaway20222• 3 years ago

I think there is a difference between ignoring someone’s advice because it would “hurt his ego,” and believing that a fail in the past doesn’t mean a fail in the future. (- false fail if you will)

btilly2• 3 years ago

I thought about saying that bit of it more explicitly. But chose not to.

That said, there is a fine line. You want someone who defends their opinion on how things should be done.. And also someone who takes feedback. Therefore it seems valuable in the interview process to try to give feedback, and observe how the person responds. With HOW they process feedback being more important than whether or not they changed their minds.

Processing feedback by telling the internets about it would seem to be...a negative signal.

neurotech1• 3 years ago

I was a co-founder of a startup in 2014, and we applied to an incubator that had experience with hardware startups, and domain expertise.

Here's where it got interesting, my co-founder was friends with the founder of another much more established startup in a vaguely similar space. The leader of the incubator was under the impression we were focusing on a different idea (we considered as a secondary, later opportunity) and concerned about a conflict between the two startups. If we had listened to his suggestion, we probably could have come up with a successful product opportunity.

At the end of the day, It was my own stupid fault for not listening closer to what was said, and analyzing the option to pivot into a more successful path.

slyall• 3 years ago

He says:

"For instance, if you are pitching a research lab without a specific plan to profitability (e.g. Mistral AI), then YC is not for you. "

So does YC fund similar companies [with "better" founders]?

inimino2• 3 years ago

The observation that YC companies tend to share a common shape is a pretty easy one to make. Who gets accepted or not is clearly a matter of fit and equally clearly has strong random chance effects.

Analyzing why the fit wasn't there is interesting. Your framing as "should have been accepted" (???) seems like you're thinking about this in a very different way from how it works.

johntiger1• 3 years ago

Yep, glad you got the point. YC isn't some test where "passing" is the goal. As trite as it sounds, you are evaluating them as an accelerator as much as they are evaluating you as a startup - if the fit isn't there, either the startup changes itself or you move on. No big deal either way.

irjustin• 3 years ago

Yea a more realistic title would be - "We got rejected from YC, what I thought we did wrong"

eis• 3 years ago

I don't think the article claims A). The claim is that YC prefers companies that match a certain pattern and if yours does not then chances are not great. It mentions that other accelerators could be a fit though. It does not claim to have figured out how to not get rejected.

What would be valuable though is if they posted the feedback and rejection reason that they got from YC.

fakedang• 3 years ago

The article makes some salient observations and very good points, but yeah, I'm inclined to think this is another case of the sour grapes.

quickthrower23• 3 years ago

or alternatively, a dev tools startup

I have notice a lot of dev tools startups on YC. Since a dev tool startup is sort of a "busman's holiday" [1] for geeks, it sounds like a really attractive proposition. Get funded to do something that is pure programming, for other programmers.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/busman%27s_holiday

paulgb• 3 years ago

As someone who roughly fits that mold: I do love it, but I’d never describe it as a holiday :)

lmm• 3 years ago

The phrase means that something isn't a holiday. Despite linking to an explanation of it, the grandparent does not seem to be using it correctly.

PretzelJudge2• 3 years ago

I'd bet that YC would love to fund fewer dev tools, but there's a bias towards who applies to YC in the first place. It's not that YC isn't well known outside of tech circles, but they are especially well known in tech circles, and that affects who applies.

quickthrower23• 3 years ago

They can choose what they fund right? There might be some element of "Kelly criterion" to it though, so if all you have is tech tool ideas, it is still worth investing an a proportion of them.

PretzelJudge2• 3 years ago

While it may seem like YC invests in a diversity of companies across <healthcare, banking, travel>, it is an “Airbnb for X” type of diversity... if you are not building a product that is fundamentally like an Airbnb (or alternatively, a dev tools startup), then YC will not be interested in you.

I'm looking at the S23 batch and among them, I see a product for automating processes in healthcare, an AI voice assistant, a company tracking methane emissions with satellites, a company fixing GPS errors, building decarbonization, an AI for medical coding and others. None of these feel like AirBnB to me and certainly are not dev tools.

As a result, most YC companies look the same. While I won’t name specific companies in any of the batches, YC companies will generally... have low capital and infrastructure costs, with low marginal variable costs

Yeah, that's the kind of company that wants $500k to get started. If you are building something capital intensive, then 500k probably doesn't move the needle for you. Either you are going to start small and build slowly (which makes for a bad VC investment) or you are going to need a lot more than 500k.

For instance, if you are pitching a research lab without a specific plan to profitability (e.g. Mistral AI), then YC is not for you.

Yeah, Mistral AI raised $113M. If you can raise that as a seed round, then you don't really need YC. YC just isn't in the business of financing things that need 9 figures to get started.

spoonjim• 3 years ago

This is advice you should get from people who have been accepted, not people who have been rejected.

barbazoo• 3 years ago

Someone has an axe to grind

How to not get rejected from YC's Early AI interview batch

Related Stories