Y combinator ceo: “the founder of tomorrow will be different…might be an English major”

[Anonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/live/W3YpC4Dvzso?si=1GAQrkwHksJv3F92

Garry tan runs y combinator

He was at sxsw giving a talk and @ 33’40 to 34’30 chats about the model of the future founder in an age where agents can plug in technical gaps

IMO I agree and a rigorous liberal arts education from a top school with a dash of curiosity about the world is what will make your kid a success in the world of ai

[Anonymous]

Yet tech exec kids are also still majoring in CS.

[Anonymous]

Totally agree. DD at T10 and says the English classes are full before many others. They are also smaller.

[Anonymous]

Why are liberal arts majors so sure that they will be successful in the AI era while STEM majors would fail miserably?

Given that STEM majors have to take approximately one-year worth of liberal arts classes to meet gen ed requirements, what are those three-year worth of classes that liberal arts majors take, that STEM majors don't, that turn liberal arts majors into these super critical thinkers who would complement AI while STEM majors, due to not having taken those classes, all turn into useless garbage? What is the secret sauce?

The bright 4.0 GPA 1570 SAT kid who chooses to major in liberal arts would become a critical thinker with strong communication skills plus ethical judgment, making them ideal in the world of AI. But if the *same* bright kid chooses to major in STEM, four years later all their critical thinking cells would die? They wouldn't be able to communicate effectively nor make ethical judgement? More absurdly, the dim/lazy 3.2 GPA 1180 kid, because of majoring in liberal arts, would all of a sudden outperform that bright 4.0 GPA 1570 STEM kid?

Are we giving liberal arts too much credit? Giving universities too much credit in how they could shape students? Giving innate intelligence too little credit (it doesn't matter what a smart kid majors in, the cream will rise to the top)?

[Anonymous]

What's needed are critical thinking, creativity, imagination, ability to synthesize, ability to formulate original questions.

A kid with those will do well.

A drone coder without won't go as far. A trained test taker won't go as far.

A lot of what kids are told to do to get high scores isn't what results in exceptional original achievements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet tech exec kids are also still majoring in CS.

This is not necessarily true. Look at private school college decision Instagram pages, the children of the wealthy major in humanities at a higher percentage than the general student body of elite colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's needed are critical thinking, creativity, imagination, ability to synthesize, ability to formulate original questions.

A kid with those will do well.

A drone coder without won't go as far. A trained test taker won't go as far.

A lot of what kids are told to do to get high scores isn't what results in exceptional original achievements.

Philosophy is making a comeback!

[Anonymous]

No offense...but the comment was a throw away comment with zero follow-up from Bill Gurley (the person interviewing him).

He didn't even say that he thought it would be an English major...but that it "might" be an English major.

My STEM kid actually was just selected for Y Combinator...says it's at least 90% STEM kids.

The other obvious disconnect is that Garry Tan is talking about how AI can level the playing field...but it requires people to become experts in using AI, how to program Agents and how to understand how these Agents work.

Guess what...English majors aren't known for their desire to master technology.

[Anonymous]

Guess what proud parent of STEM kid so fixated on STEM they didn't add that kid was creative and imaginative to come up with a promising startup idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/live/W3YpC4Dvzso?si=1GAQrkwHksJv3F92

Garry tan runs y combinator

He was at sxsw giving a talk and @ 33’40 to 34’30 chats about the model of the future founder in an age where agents can plug in technical gaps

IMO I agree and a rigorous liberal arts education from a top school with a dash of curiosity about the world is what will make your kid a success in the world of ai

Sam Altman was also in that role at YC. It’s a bit of sales huckster of a position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet tech exec kids are also still majoring in CS.

This is not necessarily true. Look at private school college decision Instagram pages, the children of the wealthy major in humanities at a higher percentage than the general student body of elite colleges.

? ok, I didn't say "wealthy". Also, humanities majors are easier than STEM majors, and children of wealthy don't have to major in something more marketable. They can live off their inheritance.

[Anonymous]

Then choose your majors accordingly, idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet tech exec kids are also still majoring in CS.

This is not necessarily true. Look at private school college decision Instagram pages, the children of the wealthy major in humanities at a higher percentage than the general student body of elite colleges.

Those kids aren't applying to Y Combinator either...so not sure why it matters for the purpose of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are liberal arts majors so sure that they will be successful in the AI era while STEM majors would fail miserably?

Given that STEM majors have to take approximately one-year worth of liberal arts classes to meet gen ed requirements, what are those three-year worth of classes that liberal arts majors take, that STEM majors don't, that turn liberal arts majors into these super critical thinkers who would complement AI while STEM majors, due to not having taken those classes, all turn into useless garbage? What is the secret sauce?

The bright 4.0 GPA 1570 SAT kid who chooses to major in liberal arts would become a critical thinker with strong communication skills plus ethical judgment, making them ideal in the world of AI. But if the *same* bright kid chooses to major in STEM, four years later all their critical thinking cells would die? They wouldn't be able to communicate effectively nor make ethical judgement? More absurdly, the dim/lazy 3.2 GPA 1180 kid, because of majoring in liberal arts, would all of a sudden outperform that bright 4.0 GPA 1570 STEM kid?

Are we giving liberal arts too much credit? Giving universities too much credit in how they could shape students? Giving innate intelligence too little credit (it doesn't matter what a smart kid majors in, the cream will rise to the top)?

Well put. Yes, the humanities people are trying hard to vindicate and justify their choices.

The people who came up with the internet, social media, and even AI are mostly STEM majors, not liberal arts majors.

[Anonymous]

^^^ let’s see what happens in this next phase. The people to monetize these things tend not to be so narrowly robotically focused.