anon 0x30a said in #1994 11mo ago:
Having arrived last week in the last homely house before our long journey into the wilds of the east and south, I've had many meetings. I've been meeting especially with business-minded and philosophical friends to talk about sofiechan strategy. A week in San Francisco is enough, despite the madness of the street level situation, to convince you that it is the center of the universe. The sights and smells and people you all know well, so I'll focus on my thinking.
I've had one big puzzle on my mind:
> Go fast, raise VC money, hire rockstar mercenaries, go through YC, play the hype game, and get outmaneuvered and enslaved by the financial establishment?
> Or be slow and careful, put off money as long as possible, only raise from philosopher-comrades, only hire aligned people, and retain teleological independence?
My instinct is the latter, but I am uncertain. I have little direct knowledge of the silicon valley game. The people in there are confident and successful. Maybe they know something about how to build effective companies? I am aware that my instinct may be a blind spot or psychological fear response to the unknown.
I met with one friend, squeezing me in between meetings with the family office and silicon valley bigshots, who was maximally for the first option. "Anon here you should be pitching the Saudis they need what you want to build" "You know this famous guy? He's trying to do something similar you should work with him I'll introduce" "I just raised $100M for a thesis that covers your idea *hint hint*" "I know you're worried about playing this competitive power game but you should do at least an experiment to see if it works for you. I think you would do well."
I couldn't refute it rationally, but I was unconvinced. No experiment I could think of would test the thesis without being an unacceptable risk to my plans.
Another successful but more philosophical friend that I had met with earlier had the opposite advice. "Don't hire anyone who isn't philosophically aligned. Don't raise money from them either. But do start a company and take it seriously as such." I was more convinced by him and his offers to help. It was useful advice. But it didn't fully settle my mind.
Finally I met with the friend whose opinion I was most interested in. He is successful and deep into building billion dollar companies, but also a serious philosopher. No it wasn't Peter. I expected him to give me good advice that would push me towards the better parts of the first option, but that's not quite what happened. After we went back and forth for a long while over dinner on personal stuff, he dropped this on me:
> fuck all those people, anon. The best companies are weird outsiders that don't play the game.
> here's the recipe for a trillion dollar company:
> the best companies are just so outsized in success that it's worth taking as much time as you can afford to get the foundation exactly right.
> do something weird that no one will try to compete with.
> refine the strategy until it fits on a fortune cookie:
> what's the one thing that will deliver the huge value?
> "land the rockets" "build AGI" that kind of thing.
> make sure the driver of success is the problem you're passionate about, not something boring like marketing or distribution.
> hiring is hard and you need to take it slow and only hire a few.
> most people are worthless and the best are increasingly valuable.
> what's the version of the company with 10x fewer people, but only the right ones?
> you want great technicians, not philosophers or hustlers.
> you need exactly one philosopher. Two philosophers is a distraction.
> you have the vision and charisma to persuade the best technicians,
> no one else has anything like what you can offer.
> don't rush it. Don't compromise. Take your sabbatical and keep refining the foundation.
I guess that's our plan then. Bear with me while we take it slow.
I've had one big puzzle on my mind:
> Go fast, raise VC money, hire rockstar mercenaries, go through YC, play the hype game, and get outmaneuvered and enslaved by the financial establishment?
> Or be slow and careful, put off money as long as possible, only raise from philosopher-comrades, only hire aligned people, and retain teleological independence?
My instinct is the latter, but I am uncertain. I have little direct knowledge of the silicon valley game. The people in there are confident and successful. Maybe they know something about how to build effective companies? I am aware that my instinct may be a blind spot or psychological fear response to the unknown.
I met with one friend, squeezing me in between meetings with the family office and silicon valley bigshots, who was maximally for the first option. "Anon here you should be pitching the Saudis they need what you want to build" "You know this famous guy? He's trying to do something similar you should work with him I'll introduce" "I just raised $100M for a thesis that covers your idea *hint hint*" "I know you're worried about playing this competitive power game but you should do at least an experiment to see if it works for you. I think you would do well."
I couldn't refute it rationally, but I was unconvinced. No experiment I could think of would test the thesis without being an unacceptable risk to my plans.
Another successful but more philosophical friend that I had met with earlier had the opposite advice. "Don't hire anyone who isn't philosophically aligned. Don't raise money from them either. But do start a company and take it seriously as such." I was more convinced by him and his offers to help. It was useful advice. But it didn't fully settle my mind.
Finally I met with the friend whose opinion I was most interested in. He is successful and deep into building billion dollar companies, but also a serious philosopher. No it wasn't Peter. I expected him to give me good advice that would push me towards the better parts of the first option, but that's not quite what happened. After we went back and forth for a long while over dinner on personal stuff, he dropped this on me:
> fuck all those people, anon. The best companies are weird outsiders that don't play the game.
> here's the recipe for a trillion dollar company:
> the best companies are just so outsized in success that it's worth taking as much time as you can afford to get the foundation exactly right.
> do something weird that no one will try to compete with.
> refine the strategy until it fits on a fortune cookie:
> what's the one thing that will deliver the huge value?
> "land the rockets" "build AGI" that kind of thing.
> make sure the driver of success is the problem you're passionate about, not something boring like marketing or distribution.
> hiring is hard and you need to take it slow and only hire a few.
> most people are worthless and the best are increasingly valuable.
> what's the version of the company with 10x fewer people, but only the right ones?
> you want great technicians, not philosophers or hustlers.
> you need exactly one philosopher. Two philosophers is a distraction.
> you have the vision and charisma to persuade the best technicians,
> no one else has anything like what you can offer.
> don't rush it. Don't compromise. Take your sabbatical and keep refining the foundation.
I guess that's our plan then. Bear with me while we take it slow.
Having arrived last