Jessica Livingston's personal stake in OpenAI is maybe at most 0.1% or less and Paul Graham's, afaik, is 0.
So the bias doesn't seem as large as OP thinks
*https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/2041366050693173393
And "toughness, adaptability, and determination" >>> "ambition", frankly
So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask.
It appears to many to mean "A Great IPO" or "A Gigantic IPO" at this point rather than "Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something else.
If your stake is > 30 billion seems more of a reasonable and realistic criteria to me.
"Less" doesn't mean "not at all", of course—that would be too big a loophole. But it does mean strictly less, and we stick to that, despite its various downsides, because the upside is bigger.
In the present case, it means we haven't applied any moderation downweights to this post, even though it's obviously the sort of thing we would downweight under other circumstances, since it's neither particularly substantive nor intellectually interesting (though it could perhaps be some other kind of interesting, at least to some readers).
It’s a sobering reminder and worthy of being on the front page on that basis alone, but I don’t see much of a discussion to be had. “Unusually quiet for a front page post” is probably where this post is meant to be.
As far as I know this is the first time anyone has publicly claimed to know, quoting insider sources, what YC's actual stake in OpenAI is.
I'd go as far to say that it's impossible at this point to form an AI company without YCombinator not investing in it.