I’m familiar with good things coming out of those places, but not sure why they’re the appropriate lens in this case.
Popping back to this:
What do you think about building a company around e.g. the real-estate-specific app, and then housing altruistic work in a “special projects” or “research” arm of that company?
This makes more sense to me when you actually have a company large enough to theoretically have multiple arms. AFAICT there are no arms here, there are just like 1-3 people working on a thing. And I’d expect getting to the point where you could have that requires at least 5-10 years of work.
What’s the good thing that happens if Ozzie first builds a profitable company and only later works in a research arm of that company, that wouldn’t happen if he just became “the research arm of that company” right now?
What’s the good thing that happens if Ozzie first builds a profitable company and only later works in a research arm of that company, that wouldn’t happen if he just became “the research arm of that company” right now?
More social capital & prestige
More robust revenue situation
More freedom to act opportunistically to support other projects that you care about (as a small-scale angel funder; as a mentor)
(probably) More learning about how organizations work from setting up an org with diverse stakeholders
Case study: Matt Fallshaw & how Bellroy enabled TrikeApps, which supported a lot of good stuff (e.g. LessWrong 1.0). But Bellroy just sells (nice) wallets.
Part of my thinking here is that this would be a mistake: focus and attention are some of the most valuable things, and splitting your focus is generally not good.
I feel pretty flattered to be even vaguely categorized with all of those folks, but I think it’s pretty unlikely of working out that well (it almost always is). If I was pretty sure (>30%) I could make a company as large as Apple/Twitter/Tesla/YC, I’d be pretty happy to go that route.
I’ve chatted to hundreds of entrepreneurs and tried this, arguably, twice before. That said, if later it’s predicted that going the more direct business way would be better for total expected value, I could definitely be open to changing later.
Basically, though it’s a bit extra short when weighted for what we can change. Transformative narrow AI or other transformative technologies could also apply.
I’m familiar with good things coming out of those places, but not sure why they’re the appropriate lens in this case.
Popping back to this:
This makes more sense to me when you actually have a company large enough to theoretically have multiple arms. AFAICT there are no arms here, there are just like 1-3 people working on a thing. And I’d expect getting to the point where you could have that requires at least 5-10 years of work.
What’s the good thing that happens if Ozzie first builds a profitable company and only later works in a research arm of that company, that wouldn’t happen if he just became “the research arm of that company” right now?
More social capital & prestige
More robust revenue situation
More freedom to act opportunistically to support other projects that you care about (as a small-scale angel funder; as a mentor)
(probably) More learning about how organizations work from setting up an org with diverse stakeholders
Case study: Matt Fallshaw & how Bellroy enabled TrikeApps, which supported a lot of good stuff (e.g. LessWrong 1.0). But Bellroy just sells (nice) wallets.
Also to clarify: I’m imagining Ozzie + co-founders build a company, and Ozzie dedicates a fair bit of his capacity to research all along the way.
Part of my thinking here is that this would be a mistake: focus and attention are some of the most valuable things, and splitting your focus is generally not good.
This seems highly person-dependent: definitely true for some people, definitely not true for others.
Consider Steve Jobs running Pixar & Apple simultaneously
Consider Jack Dorsey running Square & Twitter simultaneously
Consider Elon Musk running Tesla, SpaceX, and a variety of smaller projects simultaneously
Consider Sam Altman advising & evaluating 100+ YC startups whilst being the de facto CEO of OpenAI
Also, effective administrators & executives tend to multitask heavily, e.g. Robert Moses.
I feel pretty flattered to be even vaguely categorized with all of those folks, but I think it’s pretty unlikely of working out that well (it almost always is). If I was pretty sure (>30%) I could make a company as large as Apple/Twitter/Tesla/YC, I’d be pretty happy to go that route.
I’ve chatted to hundreds of entrepreneurs and tried this, arguably, twice before. That said, if later it’s predicted that going the more direct business way would be better for total expected value, I could definitely be open to changing later.
Another thing to note: I’m optimizing on a time-horizon of around 10-30 years. Making a business first could easily take 6-20 years.
Does this flow from your AGI timeline estimate?
Basically, though it’s a bit extra short when weighted for what we can change. Transformative narrow AI or other transformative technologies could also apply.