yamada

Like you know, everybody's forum is so interesting that nobody reads anything else because there are too many interesting forum titles and you don't know where to begin.

Because the C?I?A? and N?S?A used to use pre-OSX mac computers extensively at the time that M-Soft got sued by the DOJ because there were a lot less OS8 / 9 hackers than their were window hackers. Then by some funny coincidence, OSX gets based on UNIX so now any government hacker anywhere can hack into your Mac with the greatest of ease. Why would you want to rock that boat if you were the government? You wouldn't. You'd say, "As long as you keep making it easier for us to spy on people, you can bundle anything you'd like."

Well, you'd be surprised at all the features they're constantly sneaking into iTunes for example that is sort of making it like a new operating system. Which works best with their own products (iPod). See the pattern? We get people to get our stuff, then we make sure our stuff works best with our stuff and slightly less so with the competition's stuff ...

Wait - first you say that there's no basis for AI because of the historical leadup to today ... then you state in this post that people (stock speculators) who act based on systems based on past variables don't think clearly because they fail to take into accounts new development (regime change) which loosen the deterministic grip the past has on the future. So which is it - there is no AI soon because nothing in recent history indicates that there will be, or ... just because recent history fails to indicate that there might be a basis for it, doesn't mean that it's not just around the corner? A bit contradictory??

Actually it may be a big deal. Fairly recently scientists have determined that some very stupid behaviors that some animals engage in, to their own detriment, is the direct result of toxins produced by parasitical bacteria. So think of all the stupid things humans do to their own detriment as a species. Whose to say whether we do these things consciously ... or as the result of being manipulated to our detriment by bacteria ... or whether or not millions of computers are subtly affecting our thinking with electro-magnetic frequency manipulation ...

Tell me, do you guys ever get lonely up their on your pedestals?

There are quite a few semi-retired executives and management consultants who become "turnaround" experts. Usually they associate themselves with private equity firms or semi-formal investment syndicates. But they tend to focus on more established companies. A more startup-oriented version of this would be "Entrepreneurs-in-residence" at VC firms. They claim to be developing ideas, but in reality they have some association with VCs who want to keep them around for whatever reason so they just hang around until they come across an idea and then the VCs invest on the basis that the E-i-R is the "lead managing entrepreneur." But like most women, they tend to be suspicious of anybody that wants to have anything to do with them and tend to go for people/companies who don't even know they exist. It's a sick world that we live in.

Depends on how you look at it. Most web 2.0 innovations are just reiterations of low-yield activities designed to encourage phatic communication at the cost of personal and corporate productivity. Who knows what effect that will have on, say, our national economy?

Ouch! That's gotta hurt!

Wait ... this chimpanzee-like robot that you speak of ... would he then hypothetically go on to do things so stupid and scary that the entire population of the planet would get so stressed out just thinking about it, to the point where our immune systems are compromised ... and then ... OMG ... I don't like where this is going.

So then how do you distinguish that? Like does YCombinator method make people succeed? Or is it good at identifying likely future successes and convincing them to associate with YCombinator? Or both? How do you gage the effect either way? In other words, does YC make the successes, or is it better at systematically finding them and associating with them?

So sorry. Next forum: "YCombinator is super-awesome and infallible!" Commentary anticipated to range from "LOL" to "LoLoLoLoL".

About not believing in the inevitable coming of bona fide AI, as you sate in your post above. For all you know it's happening already on the internet in some weird way that remains as incomprehensible to us as your mind does to the brain cells that it consists of.

Or maybe it would be millions of computers working in concert over some sort of thing like, um ... some thing where computers all over the world can speak to each other and use parallel processing to combine computing resources into one big giant mega-mind. And maybe just like when you see those weird videos on Spike with guys who get shot in the head and lost millions of brain cells but can still function, maybe we can isolate many many computers but the difference it will make will be negligible at best on the super-mind. And then maybe it will fight back by triggering tax audits and false warrants for the arrest of any hackers smart enough to threaten its existence.

Someone should report you to the ASPCA for neglecting your lonely dog. Shame on you!

Well, that's hard to say - many cults actually make associations with successful people and then claim that their success is based on the influence/teachings of the cult. I'm sure some people think scientology is a cult (it is in the process of being declared criminal in some EU member states) and Sky Dayton seems to be doing ok. And of course, the trickiest part is that the group always claims that its output is beneficial and if you don't understand how it is, well then that's why you need the group to explain it to you.

Success being defined as ... what exactly? By whom?

>> Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged?

Simple, dogmatic answers to rhetorical questions? Check!

I think there was some book about this a while ago that was making all the raves in geek circles ... the lucifer principle or the lucifer mind or something like that.

Don't be so sure ... intelligence is based on self-awareness, which is in turn a function of complex systems once they reach a certain tipping point. Do your individual brain cells understand that they form the basis for your mind? Of course not. But they do. For all we know all our constant e-blabbering on the internet is somehow contributing to the formation of some "Mega-Mind" in some way that is just as incomprehensible to us as your mind is to the brain cells that make it. How then can you be sure that computers have not already reached some sort of systematic self awareness? Perhaps they have and are trying to get rid of us by flooding the internet with porn and flash games in order to pre-occupy us and distract us from doing what it takes to keep the economy going. Think about it. Next time you read about how online porn is a multi-billion dollar industry, ask yourself, "Who actually pays for this stuff when it's all availabe for free?" Nobody. So how does it keep popping up when there's no money being paid? Computer conspiracy - that's how. All these social networks - were they really started by humans? Or by computers in order to keep us busy and distracted? How do you know they were started by humans? Because you read an article on a computer that says there's this guy, Mark Zuckerwhatever, and he started Facebook, etc. What if he's just a computer composite of a non-existing human? What if facebook was actually started by artificial intelligence? What if my response is also not generated by a human but by some online AI entity to mess with your mind? See - you never know - best play it safe and leave the possibility open.

Why would they apply to YC when they would theoretically communicate with each other and just reallocate trillions in funds to accounts they setup? Like why bother with the whole application/startup/VC-funding/IPO when they can just take over the bank databases and declare themselves instant trillionaires?

How do you know for sure though? None of these groups ever started out by communicating their ultimate intent at first. Aum started as a humble local yoga club.

If you feel you have a decisively superior advantage whether strategically (your idea of how to do it is better) or tactically (your technology works better) then keep at it, but realize that it's tricky with VCs. True story: Back when I pitched a startup during the good 'ol dot-bubble days, we worked a long time to put together a world class management team, prospective customers, figure out how to make money, etc. VC response: "But I just read an article in Red Herring where these two guys just announced they were going to do something similar and that their company is the global leader in the XYZ sector. Too late. Try something else." "But", I tried to reason in vain, "How can it possibly be too late when for a year I labored to figure out how to make money, put together a great team, found prospective customer and all they did was blabber in some magazine about how they just had the idea now and they plan on being the global leader in the industry?" "But they said they're already number one so why imitate them?" "But how are they number one? They're just two guys in an office somewhere doing interviews about as-yet non-existent developments!" So on the one hand you're correct, it is a proof of concept, on the other hand, many VCs, like people in all other walks of life, look for excuses to lose ... so they think if they read about an idea on a forum this morning, by the end of the day it must be well on its way to an IPO so there's no point in even bothering. Never-mind that many late-comers eventually have risen to the top and top dogs are only a few missteps away from losing critical masses of users.

Skynet here we come! Woo-hoo!

A phoenix-like quality where ongoing arguments are pushed up according to popularity ... or at least featured on the side in a box somewhere, like, "most active discussions".

A phoenix-like quality where ongoing arguments are pushed up according to popularity ... or at least featured on the side in a box somewhere, like, "most active discussions".

Well, if you can change the way people behave, you're beyond success. You have the ability to literally change the world. That's god-like. That transcends success.

Good point! But playing devil's advocate, "IBM!" Touche!

Mental problems. I jest not. All (financially) successful people I know have serious mental problems. It's that special little fire in the belly that keeps you warm all those hard, lonely nights until you make it. Plus the extra voices in your head keep you company late at night. Oh and sexual frustration. Sublimation is a powerful tool if used properly. How many sexually satisfied folks with hot girlfriends who tend to their needs regularly do you know who are part of startups? None? Think about it. Your startup is your mistress. And professionalism. The ability to wait until after you've hit the jackpot to write that article about what a jackass your partner is, but to use the tension as fuel until you do so. Delusions of grandeur helps.