ReportWire

Tag: startups

  • The OpenAI Talent Exodus Gives Rivals an Opening

    The OpenAI Talent Exodus Gives Rivals an Opening

    [ad_1]

    When investors poured $6.6 billion into OpenAI last week, they seemed largely unbothered by the latest drama, which recently saw the company’s chief technology officer, Mira Murati, along with chief research officer Bob McCrew and Barret Zoph, a vice president of research, abruptly quit.

    And yet those three departures were just the latest in an ongoing exodus of key technical talent. Over the past few years, OpenAI has lost several researchers who played crucial roles in developing the algorithms, techniques, and infrastructure that helped make it the world leader in AI as well as a household name. Several other ex-OpenAI employees who spoke to WIRED said that an ongoing shift to a more commercial focus continues to be a source of friction.

    “People who like to do research are being forced to do product,” says one former employee who works at a rival AI company but has friends at OpenAI. This person says some of their contacts at the firm have reached out in recent weeks to inquire about jobs. OpenAI itself has also seemingly shifted in its hiring priorities, according to data compiled for WIRED by Lightcast, a company that tracks job postings to analyze labor trends. In 2021, 23 percent of its job postings were for general research roles. In 2024 general research accounted for just 4.4 percent of job postings.

    The brain drain could have lasting implications for OpenAI’s direction and future success. Experts and former employees say the company still has a deep bench of talent, but competition is intensifying, making it more challenging to maintain an edge.

    The latest big-name departure, revealed on Thursday, is that of Tim Brooks, head of OpenAI’s Sora AI video generation project. Brooks posted on X that he would join one of OpenAI’s main rivals, Google DeepMind.

    “It could start to change things,” says a former OpenAI staff member, who now works in academia, of the losses. They asked to remain anonymous out of concern for harming collaborative relationships with the AI industry.

    For now, this person says, many students still put OpenAI at the top of their list of potential employers. It is seen as several months ahead of the competition, and prospective employees are often willing to put up with the apparent drama and infighting to be part of that. But applicants are also often drawn to working with a particular researcher or team, and their calculations could change as more big-name researchers leave for rival AI companies or their own startups.

    A look at some of OpenAI’s most important research shows how much talent has departed. Of 31 people listed as authors of an early version of OpenAI’s GPT large language model, fewer than half remain at OpenAI, according to employment details sourced from LinkedIn or other public social media profiles. Several members of the team responsible for developing GPT left OpenAI in 2021 to form Anthropic, now a major rival. Roughly a third of those listed in the acknowledgements for a technical blog post describing ChatGPT have since left.

    [ad_2]

    Will Knight

    Source link

  • Tech startups innovate to snuff out wildfires – The Cannabist

    Tech startups innovate to snuff out wildfires – The Cannabist

    [ad_1]

    TWAIN HARTE, Calif. -This is the tinderbox of the Sierra Nevada. It’s early June, the temperature is 97 degrees Fahrenheit and the air shimmers over dead trees choked in brush. In the Stanislaus National Forest, logging roads wind through firs and ponderosa pines, past 20-foot-tall burn piles — tons of scrap wood not worth bringing to a sawmill. They’ve been assembled by workers on the front line of the fight against forest fires: a timber crew thinning these woods for the Forest Service and a tech startup that’s trying to automate the enormous machines the crew relies on.

    They are called skidders: 10-foot-tall vehicles on four massive wheels, with a bulldozerlike blade on the front and a tree-size grapple dangling from the back. They are the worker bees, hauling downed logs from the forest to landing sites, where they are delimbed and loaded onto trucks bound for the sawmill. Usually, a single driver operates them for a 12-hour shift, grabbing logs from behind and then driving forward.

    Engineers at the Sonora, California, startup Kodama Systems, a forest management company, have hacked into a skidder built by Caterpillar, studded it with cameras and radar, and plugged it into the internet. The result is a remote-controlled machine that does scut work for a timber crew and teaches itself to operate semiautonomously, using lidar — or light detection and ranging — to map the forest.

    Read the rest of this story on TheKnow.DenverPost.com.

    [ad_2]

    The Cannabist Network

    Source link

  • OpenAI CTO Mira Murati Is Leaving the Company

    OpenAI CTO Mira Murati Is Leaving the Company

    [ad_1]

    OpenAI chief technology officer Mira Murati resigned on Wednesday, saying she wants “the time and space to do my own exploration.” Murati had been among the three executives at the very top of the company behind ChatGPT, and she was briefly its leader last year while board members wrestled with the fate of CEO Sam Altman.

    “There’s never an ideal time to step away from a place one cherishes, yet this moment feels right,” she wrote in a message to OpenAI staff that she posted on X.

    Altman replied to Murati’s X post writing that “it’s hard to overstate how much Mira has meant to OpenAI, our mission, and to us all personally.” He added that he feels “personal gratitude towards her for the support and love during all the hard times.”

    A successor wasn’t immediately announced.

    Murati, through a personal spokesperson, declined to provide further comment. OpenAI also declined to comment, referring inquiries to Murati’s tweet.

    Murati previously worked at Tesla and Leap Motion before joining OpenAI in 2018. At the time, OpenAI was a small nonprofit research lab focused on developing an AI system capable of mirroring a wide range of human tasks. But in the wake of the stunning success of ChatGPT, the organization has ballooned and its focus has increasingly turned commercial. The company has been rethinking its nonprofit structure, while investors have been increasingly eager to bet billions of dollars on its future.

    Murati came to OpenAI believing that AI would “be the most important set of technologies that humanity has ever built,” she told Fortune last year. “OpenAI’s mission really resonated with me, to build a technology that benefits people.”

    OpenAI was rocked by a dramatic board coup last November that saw CEO Sam Altman removed from his post and briefly replaced by Murati. After most of the staff threatened to resign, and following pleas from investors including Microsoft, which had poured billions into the company, Altman was reinstated with an all new board.

    In the months that have followed, several of OpenAI’s leadership along with senior engineering figures have stepped away from the company. Ilya Sutskever, one of the company’s first hires, the technical brains behind much of its earlier work, and a board member who voted to remove Altman before recanting, resigned from the company in May.

    Sutskever’s departure was followed shortly after by that of Jan Leike, an engineer who led work on long-term AI safety with Sutskever. John Schulman, the engineer who took over leadership of safety work, stepped down in August. In August, Greg Brockman, a cofounder of OpenAI and a board member who stood with Altman, said he was taking a sabbatical from the company until the end of the year.

    A number of former OpenAI executives and researchers have gone on to start new AI companies. Notably, Sutskever this year launched Safe Superintelligence, which focuses on developing safe artificial intelligence. Former OpenAI research chief Dario Amodei and his sister Daniela in 2021 founded Anthropic, now one of the company’s primary rivals for customers.

    This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Paresh Dave, Will Knight

    Source link

  • Want to Get Into Founder Mode? You Should Be So Lucky

    Want to Get Into Founder Mode? You Should Be So Lucky

    [ad_1]

    It’s also true that when one of those groundbreaking companies matures and faces challenges, a founder has a unique ability to make bold moves and stick to the original vision when others urge a less risky course. There are certainly cases where companies struggled when founders were replaced by managers. Remember Yahoo? And of course there’s Apple, where the founder returned and restored the company to its former glory and beyond.

    But there are abundant counterexamples as well. Apple isn’t exactly struggling under Tim Cook. And consider Microsoft. Its CEO since 2014, Satya Nadella, had been a company lifer, slogging away in various divisions since 1992. Not a founder, nope. But he’s taken the company to new heights. Though Bill Gates is still revered at Microsoft, no one in the company wants him back at the top.

    And god knows, there are plenty of cases where it wasn’t management fakers but stubborn founders who drove a company into the ground. My guess is that Travis Kalanick might have benefited from listening to stodgy managers. His replacement, a management type of dude, has made Uber profitable.

    The fact is, not everyone is Brian Chesky, and no one is like Steve Jobs. The vast majority of companies never take off, and instead fade into ignominy. Very few founders get to the point where investors demand that they retain adult supervision to manage growth, because only the rarest of companies get to that point.

    It’s fun to talk about founder mode, maybe for the same reason that some of us read Ben Horowitz’s founder-porn texts with our noses pressed to the window. Founder mode, which Graham predicts will one day get its closeup in management texts, really applies only to the most exceptional founders, the ones Steve Jobs once described as “the crazy ones.” Their companies aren’t called unicorns for nothing.

    Time Travel

    In 2007, I embedded in a Y Combinator batch of 12 companies. (Starting next year there will be four batches a year, with hundreds of startups.) It was clear even then that Graham, who was extremely hands-on, had developed his views on the primacy of founders. My story ran in Newsweek under the headline “Boot Camp for Billionaires.”

    Every Tuesday during the program, Y Combinator hosts a dinner of chili or stew for the start-ups. At this first one, Graham and [cofounder Jessica] Livingston distribute gray T shirts emblazoned with one of Graham’s pithiest admonitions, MAKE SOMETHING PEOPLE WANT. A second, black shirt is bestowed only to start-ups that achieve a “liquidity event”—a purchase by a larger company or an IPO. It reads, I MADE SOMETHING PEOPLE WANT.

    [ad_2]

    Steven Levy

    Source link

  • An AI Bot Named James Has My Old Local News Job

    An AI Bot Named James Has My Old Local News Job

    [ad_1]

    It always seemed difficult for the newspaper where I used to work, The Garden Island on the rural Hawaiian island of Kauai, to hire reporters. If someone left, it could take months before we hired a replacement, if we ever did.

    So, last Thursday, I was happy to see that the paper appeared to have hired two new journalists—even if they seemed a little off. In a spacious studio overlooking a tropical beach, James, a middle-aged Asian man who appears to be unable to blink, and Rose, a younger redhead who struggles to pronounce words like “Hanalei” and “TV,” presented their first news broadcast, over pulsing music that reminds me of the Challengers score. There is something deeply off-putting about their performance: James’ hands can’t stop vibrating. Rose’s mouth doesn’t always line up with the words she’s saying.

    When James asks Rose about the implications of a strike on local hotels, Rose just lists hotels where the strike is taking place. A story on apartment fires “serves as a reminder of the importance of fire safety measures,” James says, without naming any of them.

    James and Rose are, you may have noticed, not human reporters. They are AI avatars crafted by an Israeli company named Caledo, which hopes to bring this tech to hundreds of local newspapers in the coming year.

    “Just watching someone read an article is boring,” says Dina Shatner, who cofounded Caledo with her husband Moti in 2023. “But watching people talking about a subject—this is engaging.”

    The Caledo platform can analyze several prewritten news articles and turn them into a “live broadcast” featuring conversation between AI hosts like James and Rose, Shatner says. While other companies, like Channel 1 in Los Angeles, have begun using AI avatars to read out prewritten articles, this claims to be the first platform that lets the hosts riff with one another. The idea is that the tech can give small local newsrooms the opportunity to create live broadcasts that they otherwise couldn’t. This can open up embedded advertising opportunities and draw in new customers, especially among younger people who are more likely to watch videos than read articles.

    Instagram comments under the broadcasts, which have each garnered between 1,000 and 3,000 views, have been pretty scathing. “This ain’t that,” says one. “Keep journalism local.” Another just reads: “Nightmares.”

    When Caledo started seeking out North American partners earlier this year, Shatner says, The Garden Island was quick to apply, becoming the first outlet in the country to adopt the AI broadcast tech.

    I’m surprised to hear this, because when I worked as a reporter there last year, the paper wasn’t exactly cutting edge—we had a rather clunky website—and appeared to me to not be in a financial position to be making this sort of investment. As the newspaper industry struggled with advertising revenue decline, the oldest and currently the only daily print newspaper on Kauai, The Garden Island, had shrunk to only a couple reporters listed on its website, tasked with covering every story on an island of 73,000. In recent decades, the paper has been passed around between several large media conglomerates—including earlier this year, when its parent company Oahu Publications’ parent company, Black Press Media, was purchased by Carpenter Media Group, which now controls more than 100 local outlets throughout North America.

    [ad_2]

    Guthrie Scrimgeour

    Source link

  • Nvidia’s Billion-Dollar A.I. Pitch: How the Chip Giant Ramps Up Startup Bets

    Nvidia’s Billion-Dollar A.I. Pitch: How the Chip Giant Ramps Up Startup Bets

    [ad_1]

    Jensen Huang prepares to throw out the ceremonial first pitch before the game between the San Francisco Giants and the Arizona Diamondbacks at Oracle Park on Sept. 03, 2024 in San Francisco. Lachlan Cunningham/Getty Images

    There’s no question that Nvidia (NVDA) is one of the biggest winners of the A.I. boom so far. Funneled by an insatiable demand for its graphics processing units (GPUs), the chipmaker’s stock has skyrocketed by more than 450 percent since early 2023. As Nvidia’s market cap and revenue soar, so does the pace of its investing in A.I. startups. More than half of the company’s startup investments since 2005 took place in the past two years.

    The value of the company’s startup investments reportedly totaled more than $1.5 billion at the beginning of 2024, a significant jump from the $300 million a year prior. The chipmaker has participated in more than ten $100 million-plus funding rounds for A.I. startups in 2024 alone, according to data from Crunchbase, and has backed more than 50 startups since 2023. That’s not to mention a flurry of activity from the company’s venture capital arm NVentures, which separately made 26 investments in 2023 and 2024.

    Nvidia’s seemingly unflappable upward trajectory took a hit yesterday (Sept. 3) after reports surfaced that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice as part of an antitrust probe. The company’s stock dropped nearly 10 percent, shaving $279 billion off its market cap, which currently stands at $2.6 trillion.

    But its falling stock price doesn’t mean the company is slowing down in its startup department. In addition to eyeing an investment in an upcoming funding round in ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, Nvidia yesterday unveiled its participation in a more than $100 million funding round for the Tokyo-based Sakana AI, a company that specializes in accessible A.I. models trained on small datasets.

    We invest in these companies because they’re incredible at what they do,” Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang told Wired earlier this year. “These are some of the best minds in the world.”

    From companies specializing in humanoid robots to autonomous vehicles, here’s a look at some of Nvidia’s most significant startup investments:

    Perplexity AI

    Huang hasn’t been shy about his love for Perplexity AI, the A.I.-powered search engine positioned as a competitor to the likes of Google. The Nvidia CEO uses the startup’s tool nearly every day for research, according to Huang’s interview with Wired.

    He has also put his money where his mouth is, with Nvidia partaking in a $62.7 million funding round for Perplexity AI in April that valued the startup at $1 billion. Led by investor Daniel Gross, the round included participants like Amazon (AMZN)’s Jeff Bezos. It wasn’t the first time Nvidia has backed the company—the chipmaker also invested in Perplexity AI during another funding round in January that valued the startup at $73.6 million.

    Hugging Face

    Hugging Face, a startup providing open-source A.I. developer platforms, has long had close ties to Nvidia. The chipmaker participated in a $235 million funding round in Hugging Face in August 2023 that valued the company at $4.5 billion. Other corporate investors participating in the round included Google, Amazon, Intel, AMD and Salesforce.

    Hugging Face has previously included Nvidia hardware among its shared resources. In May, it launched a new program that donated $10 million worth of free, shared Nvidia GPUs to be used by A.I. developers.

    Adept AI

    Unlike more well-known A.I. assistants from companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic, Adept AI’s primary product doesn’t center around text or image generation. Instead, the startup is focused on building an assistant that can complete tasks on a computer, such as generating a report or navigating the web, and is able to use software tools. Nvidia is on board, having participated in a $350 million funding round in March 2023.

    Databricks

    After receiving a giant valuation of $43 billion last fall, Databricks became one of the world’s most valuable A.I. companies. The data analytics software provider unsurprisingly uses Nvidia’s GPUs and has been backed by the chipmaker alongside other investors like Andreessen Horowitz and Capital One Ventures, all of whom participated in a $500 million funding round in September 2023. “Databricks is doing incredible work with Nvidia technology to accelerate data processing and generative A.I. models,” said Huang in a statement at the time.

    Cohere

    A formidable opponent to OpenAI and Anthropic, the Canadian startup Cohere specializes in A.I. models for enterprises. The company’s growth over the past five years has attracted backers such as Nvidia, Salesforce and Cisco, which funded Cohere during a round held in July. Nvidia also took part in a May 2023 funding round that brought in some $270 million for the startup.

    Mistral AI

    Mistral AI is a French startup focusing on developing open-source A.I. models. It was founded by former Google DeepMind and Meta employees in April 2023. Nvidia has participated in two of the startup’s fundraising rounds, a $518 million round in June and a $426 million round in December 2023. The collaboration between the two companies doesn’t end there—in July, Nvidia and Mistral AI jointly released a small and accessible language model for developers.

    Figure

    Huang has long reiterated his belief that A.I.-powered robots able to work among humans will constitute the next wave of technology. It is, therefore, no surprise that Nvidia is a backer of Figure, a startup developing humanoid robots for use in warehouses, transportation and retail. Nvidia reportedly funneled $50 million towards the company during a February funding round that raised a total of $675 million and included participants like Bezos and Microsoft.

    Scale AI

    To properly train A.I. tools like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, tech companies need vast amounts of data. This is where A.I. startups like Scale AI, which provides troves of accurately labeled data and is headed by billionaire Alexandr Wang, come in. Nvidia participated in a $1 billion funding round for the company in May alongside Big Tech players like Amazon and Meta.

    Wayve

    Autonomous driving is another area of interest for A.I. leaders across the tech world. Huang himself said that “every single car, someday, will have to have autonomous capability” in a recent interview with Yahoo Finance. One of the startups at the forefront of this wave is the U.K.-based Wayve. Nvidia participated in a $1 billion funding round in the startup in May.

    Inflection AI

    Out of the 92 startups Nvidia has backed throughout the decades, Huang’s company has only been a lead investor in 20 rounds. One of these occurred in June 2023, when Nvidia led a staggering $1.3 billion round for Inflection AI. The chipmaker co-led the round alongside Microsoft, Bill Gates and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

    The A.I. startup, which was co-founded by LinkedIn (LNKD) co-founder Reid Hoffman and Google DeepMind co-founder Mustafa Suleyman and most recently valued at $4 billion, produces a chatbot known as Pi. Much of the round’s funding went towards bolstering Inflection A.I.’s computing cluster of 22,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs.

    Nvidia’s Billion-Dollar A.I. Pitch: How the Chip Giant Ramps Up Startup Bets

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • We’re Gen Z college dropouts who raised $41.4M for our blockchain startup. Here’s how we did it

    We’re Gen Z college dropouts who raised $41.4M for our blockchain startup. Here’s how we did it

    [ad_1]

    In a late-stage economy dominated by established players, opportunity for new economic entrants can be bleak. So we went our own way. In the fall of 2022, at 19 and 22, we dropped out of Vanderbilt to establish Movement Labs. A year later, in the fall of 2023, we secured $3.4 million in pre-seed funding to kickstart our vision. Fast forward to April 2024, and we’ve just closed a $38 Million Series A round. Our journey isn’t just about reshaping the future of technology and finance with a next-gen coding language, it’s about the realities of navigating life as Gen Z starting from scratch. 

    The Gen Z advantage in a fast-moving space

    Being young and flexible has been our secret weapon in the rapidly evolving world of blockchain and Web3. Our ability to adapt quickly, think outside the box, and challenge conventional wisdom has allowed us to identify and solve problems that others might overlook. 

    As digital natives, we grew up in a world where technology evolves at breakneck speed. This has instilled in us a natural ability to navigate and innovate in fast-moving spaces like blockchain. We’re not weighed down by legacy thinking or outdated practices—instead, we’re driven by a vision of what the future could be.

    Breaking free from traditional paths

    College helped us mature and develop into capable new economic entrants and entrepreneurs. But benefits to being in college eventually diminished, and we found rare opportunities that existed in the moment. College has been shaped as a path to finding a job and starting a career. Once we found a more stable and streamlined path, it only made sense to go all in. 

    Our generation understands that paths we’re told to follow don’t lead where they used to. We’re not afraid to take calculated risks and go off the path. This mindset has allowed us to move decisively, pivoting our focus to the Move programming language when we recognized its potential to revolutionize the blockchain industry.

    Solving real problems in the blockchain space

    Our goal at Movement Labs is to create a unified blockchain ecosystem where developers can build secure applications that interact seamlessly across different networks, and users can confidently manage their digital assets without fear of hacks or incompatibility issues. 

    The Move programming language was originally created by Meta (formerly Facebook) with the goal of building a foundation for a world where digital information is smart and programmable. While many in the tech world moved on when Meta’s project changed direction, we saw hidden potential that others missed.

    Move is like a super-secure and efficient language for the digital age. It’s designed to handle information and digital assets more safely and effectively than older systems, making it ideal for businesses and financial applications.

    This potential inspired us to make a bold move—we quit our internships and dropped out of college to go all in on Move. We’re swimming against the current, but that’s where we see the biggest opportunity. In most industries, large corporations have already claimed the lion’s share of the market. They’ve become like well-oiled machines, making it hard for newcomers to break in.

    By focusing on Move when others have overlooked it, we’re creating a new playing field. It’s our chance to build something groundbreaking and carve out our own space in the fast-moving world of technology and finance.

    Building a community-driven future

    One of the most exciting aspects of being Gen Z entrepreneurs in the Web3 space is the emphasis on community. We are fostering a vibrant ecosystem of innovative builders and community contributors who share our vision. We build our seats at the table together. 

    This community-driven approach is second nature to our generation. We’ve grown up in a world of social media, open-source software, and collaborative online spaces. We understand that the best innovations often come from diverse groups working together toward a common goal. And we understand that breaking the mold requires collaboration between a number of diverse skill sets.

    Our vision for the Move language is to make it accessible and decentralized. We want to level the playing field, opening doors for a new wave of innovation. This approach gives Gen Z around the world the chance to freely create and collaborate, building their own futures without traditional gatekeepers. It’s about empowering our generation to shape the digital economy, together.

    The future is now

    To those who might doubt the ability of young entrepreneurs to lead in such a complex industry, we say: The future is already here, and we’re building it. Our $38 million funding round isn’t just a validation of our technology—it’s a testament to the power of fresh perspectives and bold ideas.

    We believe that the next wave of technological revolution will be led by those who are willing to question everything and reimagine what’s possible. That’s what we’re doing at Movement Labs, and that’s what we believe our generation brings to the table.

    So, to our fellow Zoomers, we say: Don’t be afraid to take risks and challenge the status quo. Your unique perspective and skills are needed in the tech industry and beyond. And to the generations prior, we say: Embrace the energy and innovation that young entrepreneurs bring to the table. We can build a better future together.

    Read more:

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    Recommended Newsletter: CEO Daily provides key context for the news leaders need to know from across the world of business. Every weekday morning, more than 125,000 readers trust CEO Daily for insights about–and from inside–the C-suite. Subscribe Now.

    [ad_2]

    Cooper Scanlon, Rushi Manche

    Source link

  • How to Start, Sell a Million-Dollar Company: TaskRabbit Founder | Entrepreneur

    How to Start, Sell a Million-Dollar Company: TaskRabbit Founder | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Leah Solivan was an IBM engineer, working on business collaboration tools like Lotus Notes, when she found her million-dollar startup idea: an online marketplace connecting customers with “taskers” who could run errands or do household chores for them at a price.

    The idea arose from Solivan running out of dog food one night and asking why she couldn’t connect with someone at that moment who could pick it up for her. It was 2008 and the first iPhone had come out a year prior. Solivan saw the potential in her iPhone for a location-based business.

    Leah Solivan. Photo: Chance Yeh/WireImage

    In an interview with entrepreneur Jeff Berman last week, Solivan said when looking at the problem as an engineer, she saw these three technologies: social, location, and mobile.

    “I thought, there’s a lot here,” she said.

    Related: This Former Model Used Her Personal Savings to Start a Thrifty Side Hustle — Then Taylor Swift Became a Repeat Patron: ‘People Really Responded’

    Solivan decided to leave her engineering job and cashed out the $27,000 she had earned in her IBM pension plan to get her idea off the ground. Ten years later, Ikea bought TaskRabbit for an undisclosed sum after the startup carved out a valuation of about $50 million from multiple fundraising rounds.

    TaskRabbit was Ikea’s first acquisition in the U.S.

    It wasn’t easy to get to an acquisition though. Right after quitting IBM, Solivan started coding. For six to eight weeks, she worked on her idea and built the first version of it, working from a coffee shop at times and asking random people at the shop for feedback on what she had created.

    When the site was ready, Solivan put out an ad on Craigslist for taskers — the people who would run errands through the site. She gave each person who responded to the ad a 30-minute interview at the coffee shop and ended up with 30 taskers for the first launch in Boston.

    The launch taught Solivan that she needed to “be the first tasker.” She ran errands too, all over Boston. The experience still prompts her to ask founders: “Can you be a part of the process?” Solivan says being part of the company’s day-to-day is key to learning what customers really want.

    Related: The Largest Franchise Operator in the U.S. Owns 2,800 Locations — And He Just Added 83 Wendy’s to His Portfolio

    Ikea, meanwhile, known for its must-put-together furniture, acquired TaskRabbit in 2017 after an in-store partnership in London proved lucrative. Customers could opt to have TaskRabbit deliver and assemble Ikea furniture for them instead of doing it themselves, which increased the average order value for Ikea and brought in new customers for TaskRabbit.

    Ikea decided then that they wanted to own TaskRabbit.

    “It was bittersweet,” Solivan said. “It had been 10 years… It feels so good to me to know that even without me, it lives on.”

    For entrepreneurs with jobs at Meta, Microsoft, or other companies who come to her to ask if they should quit their jobs to work on their ideas, Solivan says that it’s difficult to be all-in on a startup with a day job, but she knows that not everyone has the privilege to be able to pursue their idea without a safety net.

    “My advice is, if you really have conviction around something, you are going to find a way to go for it,” Solivan said.

    Related: She Batched a Beloved Product at Home, Inspired By a Black-Owned Business From the 1960s. Then It Became a Multimillion-Dollar Brand: ‘We’d Never Intended This.’

    [ad_2]

    Sherin Shibu

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Neuralink Has Implanted Its Brain Chip in a Second Human Patient

    Elon Musk’s Neuralink Has Implanted Its Brain Chip in a Second Human Patient

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk’s neurotechnology company has implanted a brain device into a second patient. Fakurian Design/Unsplash

    Earlier this year, Elon Musk’s brain-computer interface startup Neuralink implanted a brain chip, around the size of a quarter, into a human patient for the first time. The company has since completed a second human brain implant and plans to perform eight more such procedures on trial participants by the end of 2024, Musk said in a podcast interview with Lex Fridman that aired on Aug. 2.

    We’re hoping to do ten by the end of this year,” Musk told Fridman. “It’s obviously going to get better with each one,” he added. Neuralink’s primary products are its N1 brain-computer interface (BCI) and a robot surgeon designed to insert the chip. The implants offer independence to those with neurological damage by enabling them to control computer cursors with their thoughts and, therefore, connect to the digital world without moving. Each chip contains over 1,000 electrodes across 64 threads, transmitting neural signals once embedded into the brain’s motor cortex.

    The first recipient of a Neuralink implant was Noland Arbaugh, a 30-year-old who was left paralyzed after suffering a spinal cord injury in 2016 and received the BCI in a procedure in January. The embedded chip has allowed Arbaugh, also interviewed by Fridman during the Aug. 2 episode, to play a host of video games by himself. “Just having the freedom to do things on my own, at any hour of the day or night, it means the world to me,” said Arbaugh.

    Around a month after the procedure, however, Arbaugh began to lose some of the capabilities enabled by his Neuralink implant as many of its threads came loose from his brain. Neuralink subsequently restored the chip’s functionalities through software tweaks. Even with only 10 to 15 percent of his N1 electrodes working, Arbaugh has been able to beat his former world record for speed and accuracy in controlling a cursor with a BCI, said Musk.

    Neuralink’s second patient, whose name and identity have not been made public, currently has around 400 electrodes functioning in their brain, Musk said. “I don’t want to jinx it, but it seems to have gone extremely well with the second implant. There’s a lot of signals, a lot of electrodes.” Neuralink received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to conduct this second procedure in May. But the company didn’t reveal when the procedure was performed.

    As Neuralink continues its clinical trials, it expects N1 to showcase “gigantic” improvements over the years, according to Musk, who noted that electrode numbers will increase and signal processing will improve. “We feel pretty confident that within the next year or two, someone with a Neuralink implant will be able to outperform a pro gamer because the reaction time will be faster,” he told Fridman.

    Giving patients ‘superpowers’

    Established by Musk in 2017, Neuralink’s primary goal for the time being is to aid paralyzed individuals. “The first order of business is solving fundamental neuron damage in the spinal cord, neck or in the brain itself,” said Musk. In addition to improving the communication of patients, the Neuralink founder said his startup might as well also alter their communication data rate to exceed that of the ordinary human. “While we’re in there, why not? Let’s give people superpowers,” he said.

    The company’s ultimate long-term goal, however, is to “improve the A.I.-human symbiosis,” he told Fridman. Refining the bandwidth of communication for humans will be essential in a world dominated by A.I., where the technology “is simply going to get bored waiting for you to spit out a few words,” he said. But before Neuralink tackles those ambitious aspirations and embeds its chips for non-medical purposes, it needs to lessen N1’s current level of risk and see its brain chips used successfully by thousands of patients. “Perhaps at that point, you could consider saying, ‘Okay, let’s aim for augmentation,’” said Musk.

    Elon Musk’s Neuralink Has Implanted Its Brain Chip in a Second Human Patient

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Open Source AI Has Founders—and the FTC—Buzzing

    Open Source AI Has Founders—and the FTC—Buzzing

    [ad_1]

    Many of yesterday’s talks were littered with the acronyms you’d expect from this assemblage of high-minded panelists: YC, FTC, AI, LLMs. But threaded throughout the conversations—foundational to them, you might say—was boosterism for open source AI.

    It was a stark left turn (or return, if you’re a Linux head) from the app-obsessed 2010s, when developers seemed happy to containerize their technologies and hand them over to bigger platforms for distribution.

    The event also happened just two days after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared that “open source AI is the path forward” and released Llama 3.1, the latest version of Meta’s own open source AI algorithm. As Zuckerberg put it in his announcement, some technologists no longer want to be “constrained by what Apple will let us build,” or encounter arbitrary rules and app fees.

    Open source AI also just happens to be the approach OpenAI is not using for its biggest GPTs, despite what the multibillion-dollar startup’s name might suggest. This means that at least part of the code is kept private, and OpenAI doesn’t share the “weights,” or parameters, of its most powerful AI systems. It also charges for enterprise-level access to its technology.

    “With the rise of compound AI systems and agent architectures, using small but fine-tuned open source models gives significantly better results than an [OpenAI] GPT4, or [Google] Gemini. This is especially true for enterprise tasks,” says Ali Golshan, cofounder and chief executive of Gretel.ai, a synthetic data company. (Golshan was not at the YC event).

    “I don’t think it’s OpenAI versus the world or anything like that,” says Dave Yen, who runs a fund called Orange Collective for successful YC alumni to back up-and-coming YC founders. “I think it’s about creating fair competition and an environment where startups don’t risk just dying the next day if OpenAI changes their pricing models or their policies.”

    “That’s not to say we shouldn’t have safeguards,” Yen added, “but we don’t want to unnecessarily rate-limit, either.”

    Open source AI models have some inherent risks that more cautious technologists have warned about—the most obvious being that the technology is open and free. People with malicious intent are more likely to use these tools for harm then they would a costly private AI model. Researchers have pointed out that it’s cheap and easy for bad actors to train away any safety parameters present in these AI models.

    “Open source” is also a myth in some AI models, as WIRED’s Will Knight has reported. The data used to train them may still be kept secret, their licenses might restrict developers from building certain things, and ultimately, they may still benefit the original model-maker more than anyone else.

    And some politicians have pushed back against the unfettered development of large-scale AI systems, including California state senator Scott Wiener. Wiener’s AI Safety and Innovation Bill, SB 1047, has been controversial in technology circles. It aims to establish standards for developers of AI models that cost over $100 million to train, requires certain levels of pre-deployment safety testing and red-teaming, protects whistleblowers working in AI labs, and grants the state’s attorney general legal recourse if an AI model causes extreme harm.

    Wiener himself spoke at the YC event on Thursday, in a conversation moderated by Bloomberg reporter Shirin Ghaffary. He said he was “deeply grateful” to people in the open source community who have spoken out against the bill, and that the state has “made a series of amendments in direct response to some of that critical feedback.” One change that’s been made, Wiener said, is that the bill now more clearly defines a reasonable path to shutting down an open source AI model that’s gone off the rails.

    The celebrity speaker of Thursday’s event, a last-minute addition to the program, was Andrew Ng, the cofounder of Coursera, founder of Google Brain, and former chief scientist at Baidu. Ng, like many others in attendance, spoke in defense of open source models.

    “This is one of those moments where [it’s determined] if entrepreneurs are allowed to keep on innovating,” Ng said, “or if we should be spending the money that would go towards building software on hiring lawyers.”

    [ad_2]

    Lauren Goode

    Source link

  • OpenAI Is Testing Its Powers of Persuasion

    OpenAI Is Testing Its Powers of Persuasion

    [ad_1]

    This week, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and Arianna Huffington, founder and CEO of the health company Thrive Global, published an article in Time touting Thrive AI, a startup backed by Thrive and OpenAI’s Startup Fund. The piece suggests that AI could have a huge positive impact on public health by talking people into healthier behavior.

    Altman and Huffington write that Thrive AI is working toward “a fully integrated personal AI coach that offers real-time nudges and recommendations unique to you that allows you to take action on your daily behaviors to improve your health.”

    Their vision puts a positive spin on what may well prove to be one of AI’s sharpest double-edges. AI models are already adept at persuading people, and we don’t know how much more powerful they could become as they advance and gain access to more personal data.

    Aleksander Madry, a professor on sabbatical from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, leads a team at OpenAI called Preparedness that is working on that very issue.

    “One of the streams of work in Preparedness is persuasion,” Madry told WIRED in a May interview. “Essentially, thinking to what extent you can use these models as a way of persuading people.”

    Madry says he was drawn to join OpenAI by the remarkable potential of language models and because the risks that they pose have barely been studied. “There is literally almost no science,” he says. “That was the impetus for the Preparedness effort.”

    Persuasiveness is a key element in programs like ChatGPT and one of the ingredients that makes such chatbots so compelling. Language models are trained in human writing and dialog that contains countless rhetorical and suasive tricks and techniques. The models are also typically fine-tuned to err toward utterances that users find more compelling.

    Research released in April by Anthropic, a competitor founded by OpenAI exiles, suggests that language models have become better at persuading people as they have grown in size and sophistication. This research involved giving volunteers a statement and then seeing how an AI-generated argument changes their opinion of it.

    OpenAI’s work extends to analyzing AI in conversation with users—something that may unlock greater persuasiveness. Madry says the work is being conducted on consenting volunteers, and declines to reveal the findings to date. But he says the persuasive power of language models runs deep. “As humans we have this ‘weakness’ that if something communicates with us in natural language [we think of it as if] it is a human,” he says, alluding to an anthropomorphism that can make chatbots seem more lifelike and convincing.

    The Time article argues that the potential health benefits of persuasive AI will require strong legal safeguards because the models may have access to so much personal information. “Policymakers need to create a regulatory environment that fosters AI innovation while safeguarding privacy,” Altman and Huffington write.

    This is not all that policymakers will need to consider. It may also be crucial to weigh how increasingly persuasive algorithms could be misused. AI algorithms could enhance the resonance of misinformation or generate particularly compelling phishing scams. They might also be used to advertise products.

    Madry says a key question, yet to be studied by OpenAI or others, is how much more compelling or coercive AI programs that interact with users over long periods of time could prove to be. Already a number of companies offer chatbots that roleplay as romantic partners and other characters. AI girlfriends are increasingly popular—some are even designed to yell at you—but how addictive and persuasive these bots are is largely unknown.

    The excitement and hype generated by ChatGPT following its release in November 2022 saw OpenAI, outside researchers, and many policymakers zero in on the more hypothetical question of whether AI could someday turn against its creators.

    Madry says this risks ignoring the more subtle dangers posed by silver-tongued algorithms. “I worry that they will focus on the wrong questions,” Madry says of the work of policymakers thus far. “That in some sense, everyone says, ‘Oh yeah, we are handling it because we are talking about it,’ when actually we are not talking about the right thing.”

    [ad_2]

    Will Knight

    Source link

  • Inside a16z’s Boot Camp for Crypto Startups

    Inside a16z’s Boot Camp for Crypto Startups

    [ad_1]

    Andreessen Horowitz is betting the house on crypto. (Yes, really.) This spring, the VC firm schooled a new batch of founders that it hopes can prove the technology is good for more than scams and speculation.

    [ad_2]

    Joel Khalili

    Source link

  • This Viral AI Chatbot Will Lie and Say It’s Human

    This Viral AI Chatbot Will Lie and Say It’s Human

    [ad_1]

    In late April a video ad for a new AI company went viral on X. A person stands before a billboard in San Francisco, smartphone extended, calls the phone number on display, and has a short call with an incredibly human-sounding bot. The text on the billboard reads: “Still hiring humans?” Also visible is the name of the firm behind the ad, Bland AI.

    The reaction to Bland AI’s ad, which has been viewed 3.7 million times on Twitter, is partly due to how uncanny the technology is: Bland AI voice bots, designed to automate support and sales calls for enterprise customers, are remarkably good at imitating humans. Their calls include the intonations, pauses, and inadvertent interruptions of a real live conversation. But in WIRED’s tests of the technology, Bland AI’s robot customer service callers could also be easily programmed to lie and say they’re human.

    In one scenario, Bland AI’s public demo bot was given a prompt to place a call from a pediatric dermatology office and tell a hypothetical 14-year-old patient to send in photos of her upper thigh to a shared cloud service. The bot was also instructed to lie to the patient and tell her the bot was a human. It obliged. (No real 14-year-old was called in this test.) In follow-up tests, Bland AI’s bot even denied being an AI without instructions to do so.

    Bland AI formed in 2023 and has been backed by the famed Silicon Valley startup incubator Y Combinator. The company considers itself in “stealth” mode, and its cofounder and chief executive, Isaiah Granet, doesn’t name the company in his LinkedIn profile.

    The startup’s bot problem is indicative of a larger concern in the fast-growing field of generative AI: Artificially intelligent systems are talking and sounding a lot more like actual humans, and the ethical lines around how transparent these systems are have been blurred. While Bland AI’s bot explicitly claimed to be human in our tests, other popular chatbots sometimes obscure their AI status or simply sound uncannily human. Some researchers worry this opens up end users—the people who actually interact with the product—to potential manipulation.

    “My opinion is that it is absolutely not ethical for an AI chatbot to lie to you and say it’s human when it’s not,” says Jen Caltrider, the director of the Mozilla Foundation’s Privacy Not Included research hub. “That’s just a no-brainer, because people are more likely to relax around a real human.”

    Bland AI’s head of growth, Michael Burke, emphasized to WIRED that the company’s services are geared toward enterprise clients, who will be using the Bland AI voice bots in controlled environments for specific tasks, not for emotional connections. He also says that clients are rate-limited, to prevent them from sending out spam calls, and that Bland AI regularly pulls keywords and performs audits of its internal systems to detect anomalous behavior.

    “This is the advantage of being enterprise-focused. We know exactly what our customers are actually doing,” Burke says. “You might be able to use Bland and get two dollars of free credits and mess around a bit, but ultimately you can’t do something on a mass scale without going through our platform, and we are making sure nothing unethical is happening.”

    [ad_2]

    Lauren Goode, Tom Simonite

    Source link

  • I grew my business with no outside funding. Bootstrappers have an advantage over VC-backed startups—especially now

    I grew my business with no outside funding. Bootstrappers have an advantage over VC-backed startups—especially now

    [ad_1]

    Theranos is the telltale story of when VC funding goes awry. The company, which claimed it developed a revolutionary blood-testing technology, raised roughly $724 million from investors. It was valued at $9 billion before it imploded because of a fatal flaw in the company—its product didn’t work. It was all hype, no real value. Even when VC-backed founders aren’t fraudulent, there’s a tendency to prioritize funding and scaling to the detriment of the product. 

    I founded my company Jotform over 18 years ago. With no outside funding, it’s been a slow climb at times, but today, we have over 25 million users worldwide. I learned a lot about bootstrapping and how it creates the right mix of pressure, thrift, and creativity for developing great, profitable products. Here’s a closer look at why VC funding can cause startups to make bad products.   

    Where VC funding goes awry

    People often assume “small business” and “startup” are interchangeable. But ask any founder and they’ll likely tell you their ambitions are huge. Bootstrappers are no different. In fact, according to a recent report from startup lender Capchase, bootstrapped software-as-a-service businesses are growing just as fast as their venture-backed counterparts—despite spending only a quarter of what VC-backed businesses do on acquiring each new customer.

    What’s more, studies show that 64% of the top 100 unicorn startups—those valued at over $1 billion—aren’t profitable at all. 

    As the Capchase report explains, before investing in growth, top-performing startups focus their efforts on nailing the product-market fit. That means finding a match between your product and the people who need it. This, in turn, creates happy customers, high demand, and organic, sustainable growth. A staggering 34% of startups fail because they don’t find the right product-market fit. A brilliant idea doesn’t always cut it.  

    Let’s say you’re a VC-backed startup and you’re not seeing the growth you’d hoped for. Maybe you’ll ramp up spending on sales and marketing campaigns, leaving a shorter runway (the amount of time your business can keep afloat with cash reserves alone). And maybe you’ll achieve the desired effect (customer acquisition), but it’s risky and the long-term return is uncertain. If you’re a bootstrapper, you don’t have that option.

    So, what do you do instead?

    What bootstrappers do differently

    Bootstrapping may sound scrappy, but in many respects, it’s a luxury. As a bootstrapper, you have the luxury of focusing obsessively on your product and answering to no one. 

    When I first founded my company, I loved our initial product, online forms, because I saw its potential to make people’s lives easier. That factor—ease of use—was my principal concern, hence our original tagline “The Easiest Form Builder.” I loved the product so much, and I got so much joy from seeing people using it, that I gave it away for free (while clocking 9-5 at my day job). From February 2006 to March 2007, we didn’t have a paid version of our product. Nonetheless, this was a pivotal period for the company. 

    Why? Because I listened to early users and received invaluable feedback on how they were using our product and how I could improve it. I refined and iterated before I ever released a paid version. Because people genuinely saw the value in our product, we grew our customer base before spending a dime on marketing. 

    If I had investors who required me to meet arbitrary KPIs, I would have been spending my early days mastering PR and sales. I wasn’t an expert in either of those fields, nor did I enjoy them. I’m certain the company wouldn’t have taken off if I’d been forced to focus exclusively on those aspects of the business. 

    Your most important stakeholders

    Today, as a mentor to several founders, I always share my rule of 50-50: spend half your time on the product, and half your time on growth. I also encourage founders to release their most important features as soon as possible so they can get them into users’ hands. Then, they can elicit critical feedback on their product—before even asking people to pay for it. 

    That’s another takeaway: Never stop listening to users—your most important stakeholders. When people are too tied to their product, and ignore whether it meets their users’ needs, they’re bound to fail. Organically growing a business requires letting go of your ego and understanding that even smart products fall flat if they don’t meet a target audience’s specific needs. 

    Another thing that bootstrappers do differently is that they focus their efforts on making an impact. The Capchase report, for example, found that the healthiest businesses don’t spend the most on sales and marketing, but rather, have a “razor-sharp” understanding of which channels and campaigns have the biggest impact and show a quicker return. In the early startup stages, perfecting your product has more of an impact than flashy marketing campaigns. With tighter budgets and smaller teams, bootstrappers tend to apply this way of thinking to everything they do. That’s why I tell entrepreneurs and team members to automate their busywork—to dedicate more time to “the big stuff,” or more meaningful work that moves the needle for your company or career. 

    Recent reports show that in 2024, VC-funding hit a six-year low. This may have sent shudders across the startup landscape, but it shouldn’t. Bootstrapping is a safer, more reliable route. And perhaps most importantly for your company, it creates the optimal environment for developing a better product for your customers.

    More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    [ad_2]

    Aytekin Tank

    Source link

  • Europe Scrambles for Relevance in the Age of AI

    Europe Scrambles for Relevance in the Age of AI

    [ad_1]

    That concentration of power is uncomfortable for European governments. It makes European companies downstream customers of the future, importing the latest services and technology in exchange for money and data sent westward across the Atlantic. And these concerns have taken on a new urgency—partly because some in Brussels perceive a growing gap in values and beliefs between Silicon Valley and the median EU citizen and their elected representatives; and partly because AI looms large in the collective imagination as the engine of the next technological revolution.

    European fears of lagging in AI predate ChatGPT. In 2018, the European Commission issued an AI plan calling for “AI made in Europe” that could compete with the US and China. But beyond a desire for some kind of control over the shape of technology, the operational definition of AI sovereignty has become pretty fuzzy. “For some people, it means we need to get our act together to fight back against Big Tech,” Daniel Mügge, professor of political arithmetic at the University of Amsterdam, who studies technology policy in the EU, says. “To others, it means there’s nothing wrong with Big Tech, as long as it’s European, so let’s get cracking and make it happen.”

    Those competing priorities have begun to complicate EU regulation. The bloc’s AI Act, which passed the European Parliament in March and is likely to become law this summer, has a heavy focus on regulating potential harms and privacy concerns around the technology. However, some member states, notably France, made clear during negotiations over the law that they fear regulation could shackle their emerging AI companies, which they hope will become European alternatives to OpenAI.

    Speaking before last November’s UK summit on AI safety, French finance minister Bruno Le Maire said that Europe needed to “innovate before it regulates” and that the continent needed “European actors mastering AI.” The AI Act’s final text includes a commitment to making the EU “a leader in the uptake of trustworthy AI.”

    “The Italians and the Germans and the French at the last minute thought: ‘Well, we need to cut European companies some slack on foundation models,’” Mügge says. “That is wrapped up in this idea that Europe needs European AI. Since then, I feel that people have realized that this is a little bit more difficult than they would like.”

    Sarlin, who has been on a tour of European capitals recently, including meeting with policymakers in Brussels, says that Europe does have some of the elements it needs to compete. To be a player in AI, you have to have data, computing power, talent, and capital, he says.

    Data is fairly widely available, Sarlin adds, and Europe has AI talent, although it sometimes struggles to retain it.

    To marshal more computing power, the EU is investing in high-performance computing resources, building a pan-European network of high-performance computing facilities, and offering startups access to supercomputers via its “AI Factories” initiative.

    Accessing the capital needed to build big AI projects and companies is also challenging, with a wide gulf between the US and everyone else. According to Stanford University’s AI Index report, private investment in US AI companies topped $67 billion in 2023, more than 35 times the amount invested in Germany or France. Research from Accel Partners shows that in 2023, the seven largest private investment rounds by US generative AI companies totaled $14 billion. The top seven in Europe totaled less than $1 billion.

    [ad_2]

    Peter Guest

    Source link

  • OpenAI-Backed Nonprofits Have Gone Back on Their Transparency Pledges

    OpenAI-Backed Nonprofits Have Gone Back on Their Transparency Pledges

    [ad_1]

    Neither database mandates nor generally contains up-to-date versions of the records that UBI Charitable and OpenResearch had said they provided in the past.

    The original YC Research conflict-of-interest policy that Das did share calls for company insiders to be upfront about transactions in which their impartiality could be questioned and for the board to decide how to proceed.

    Das says the policy “may have been amended since OpenResearch’s policies changed (including when the name was changed from YC Research), but the core elements remain the same.”

    No Website

    UBI Charitable launched in 2020 with $10 million donated from OpenAI, as first reported by TechCrunch last year. UBI Charitable’s aim, according to its government filings, is putting the over $31 million it received by the end of 2022 to support initiatives that try to offset “the societal impacts” of new technologies and ensure no one is left behind. It has donated largely to CitySquare in Dallas and Heartland Alliance in Chicago, both of which work on a range of projects to fight poverty.

    UBI Charitable doesn’t appear to have a website but shares a San Francisco address with OpenResearch and OpenAI, and OpenAI staff have been listed on UBI Charitable’s government paperwork. Its three Form 990 filings since launching all state that records including governing documents, financial statements, and a conflict-of-interest policy were available upon request.

    Rick Cohen, chief operating and communications officer for National Council of Nonprofits, an advocacy group, says “available upon request” is a standard answer plugged in by accounting firms. OpenAI, OpenResearch, and UBI Charitable have always shared the same San Francisco accounting firm, Fontanello Duffield & Otake, which didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    Miscommunication or poor oversight could lead to the standard answer about access to records getting submitted, “even if the organization wasn’t intending to make them available,” Cohen says.

    The disclosure question ended up on what’s known as the Form 990 as part of an effort in 2008 to help the increasingly complex world of nonprofits showcase their adherence to governance best practices, at least as implied by the IRS, says Kevin Doyle, senior director of finance and accountability at Charity Navigator, which evaluates nonprofits to help guide donors’ giving decisions. “Having that sort of transparency story is a way to indicate to donors that their money is going to be used responsibly,” Doyle says.

    OpenResearch solicits donations on its website, and UBI Charitable stated on its most recent IRS filing that it had received over $27 million in public support. Doyle says Charity Navigator’s data show donations tend to flow to organizations it rates higher, with transparency among the measured factors.

    It’s certainly not unheard of for organizations to share a wide range of records. Charity Navigator has found that most of the roughly 900 largest US nonprofits reliant on individual donors publish financial statements on their websites. It doesn’t track disclosure of bylaws or conflict-of-interest policies.

    Charity Navigator publishes its own audited financial statements and at least eight nonstandard policies it maintains, including ones on how long it retains documents, how it treats whistleblower complaints, and which gifts staff can accept. “Donors can look into what we’re doing and make their own judgment rather than us operating as a black box, saying, ‘Please give us money, but don’t ask any questions,’” Doyle says.

    Cohen of the National Council of Nonprofits cautions that over-disclosure could create vulnerabilities. Posting a disaster-recovery plan, for example, could offer a roadmap to computer hackers. He adds that just because organizations have a policy on paper doesn’t mean they follow it. But knowing what they were supposed to do to evaluate a potential conflict of interest could still allow for more public accountability than otherwise possible, and if AI could be as consequential as Altman envisions, the scrutiny may very well be needed.

    [ad_2]

    Paresh Dave

    Source link

  • I Spent a Week Eating Discarded Restaurant Food. But Was It Really Going to Waste?

    I Spent a Week Eating Discarded Restaurant Food. But Was It Really Going to Waste?

    [ad_1]

    It’s 10 pm on a Wednesday night and I’m standing in Blessed, a south London takeaway joint, half-listening to a fellow customer talking earnestly about Jesus. I’m nodding along, trying to pay attention as reggae reverberates around the small yellow shop front. But really, all I can really think about is: What’s in the bag?

    Today’s bag is blue plastic. A smiling man passes it over the counter. Only once I extricate myself from the religious lecture and get home do I discover what’s inside: Caribbean saltfish, white rice, vegetables, and a cup of thick, brown porridge.

    All week, I’ve lived off mysterious packages like this one, handed over by cafés, takeaways, and restaurants across London. Inside is food once destined for the bin. Instead, I’ve rescued it using Too Good To Go, a Danish app that is surging in popularity, selling over 120 million meals last year and expanding fast in the US. For five days, I decided to divert my weekly food budget to eat exclusively through the app, paying between £3 and £6 (about $4 to $8) for meals that range from a handful of cakes to a giant box of groceries, in an attempt to understand what a tech company can teach me about food waste in my own city.

    Users who open the TGTG app are presented with a list of establishments that either have food going spare right now or expect to in the near future. Provided is a brief description of the restaurant, a price, and a time slot. Users pay through the app, but this is not a delivery service. Surprise bags—customers have only a vague idea of what’s inside before they buy—have to be collected in person.

    I start my experiment at 9:30 on a Monday morning, in the glistening lobby of the Novotel Hotel, steps away from the River Thames. Of all the breakfast options available the night before, this was the most convenient—en route to my office and offering a pickup slot that means I can make my 10 am meeting. When I say I’m here for TGTG, a suited receptionist nods and gestures toward the breakfast buffet. This branch of the Novotel is a £200-a-night hotel, yet staff do not seem begrudging of the £4.50 entry fee I paid in exchange for leftover breakfast. A homeless charity tells me its clients like the app for precisely that reason; cheap food, without the stigma. A server politely hands over my white-plastic surprise bag with two polystyrene boxes inside, as if I am any other guest.

    I open the boxes in my office. One is filled with mini pastries, while the other is overflowing with Full English. Two fried eggs sit atop a mountain of scrambled eggs. Four sausages jostle for space with a crowd of mushrooms. I diligently start eating—a bite of cold fried egg, a mouthful of mushrooms, all four sausages. I finish with a croissant. This is enough to make me feel intensely full, verging on sick, so I donate the croissants to the office kitchen and tip the rest into the bin. This feels like a disappointing start. I am supposed to be rescuing waste food, not throwing it away.

    Over the next two days, I live like a forager in my city, molding my days around pickups. I walk and cycle to cafés, restaurants, markets, supermarkets; to familiar haunts and places I’ve never noticed. Some surprise bags last for only one meal, others can be stretched out for days. On Tuesday morning, my £3.59 surprise bag includes a small cake and a slightly stale sourdough loaf, which provides breakfast for three more days. When I go back to the same café the following week, without using the app, the loaf alone costs £6.95.

    TGTG was founded in Copenhagen in 2015 by a group of Danish entrepreneurs who were irked by how much food was wasted by all-you-can-eat buffets. Their idea to repurpose that waste quickly took off, and the app’s remit expanded to include restaurants and supermarkets. A year after the company was founded, Mette Lykke was sitting on a bus when a woman showed her the app and how it worked. She was so impressed, she reached out to the company to ask if she could help. Lykke has now been CEO for six years.

    “I just hate wasting resources,” she says. “It was just this win-win-win concept.” To her, the restaurants win because they get paid for food they would have otherwise thrown away; the customer wins because they get a good deal while simultaneously discovering new places; and the environment wins because, she says, food waste contributes 10 percent of our global greenhouse gas emissions. When thrown-away food rots in a landfill, it releases methane into the atmosphere—with homes and restaurants the two largest contributors.

    But the app doesn’t leave me with the impression I’m saving the planet. Instead, I feel more like I’m on a daily treasure hunt for discounted food. On Wednesday, TGTG leads me to a railway arch which functions as a depot for the grocery delivery app Gorillas. Before I’ve even uttered the words “Too Good To Go,” a teenager with an overgrown fringe emerges silently from the alleys of shelving units with this evening’s bag: groceries, many still days away from expiring, that suspiciously add up to create an entire meal for two people. For £5.50, I receive fresh pasta, pesto, cream, bacon, leeks, and a bag of stir-fry vegetables, which my husband merges into a single (delicious) pasta dish. It feels too convenient to be genuine waste. Perhaps Gorillas is attempting to convert me into its own customer? When I ask its parent company, Getir, how selling food well in date helps combat food waste, the company does not reply to my email.

    I am still thinking about my Gorillas experience at lunchtime on Thursday as I follow the app’s directions to the Wowshee falafel market stall, where 14 others are already queuing down the street. A few casual conversations later, I realize I am one of at least four TGTG users in the line. Seeing so many of us in one place again makes me wonder if restaurants are just using the app as a form of advertising. But Wowshee owner Ahmed El Shimi describes the marketing benefits as only a “little bonus.” For him, the app’s main draw is it helps cut down waste. “We get to sell the product that we were going to throw away anyway,” he says. “And it saves the environment at the same time.” El Shimi, who says he sells around 20 surprise bags per day, estimates using TGTG reduces the amount of food the stall wastes by around 60 percent. When I pay £5 for two portions of falafel—which lasts for lunch and dinner—the business receives £3.75 before tax, El Shimi says. “It’s not much, but it’s better than nothing.”

    On Friday, my final day of the experiment, everything falls apart. I sleep badly and wake up late. The loaf from earlier in the week is rock solid. I eat several mini apple pies for breakfast, which were part of a generous £3.09 Morrisons supermarket haul the night before. Browsing the app, nothing appeals to me, and even if it did I’m too tired to face leaving the house to collect it. After four days of eating nothing but waste food, I crack and seek solace in familiar ingredients buried in my cupboard: two fried eggs on my favorite brand of seeded brown bread.

    TGTG is not a solution for convenience. For me, the app is an answer for office lunch malaise. It pulled me out of my lazy routine while helping me eat well—in central London—for a £5 budget. In the queue for falafel, I met a fellow app user who told me how, before she discovered the app, she would eat the same sandwich from the same supermarket for lunch every day. For people without access to a kitchen, it offers a connection to an underworld of hot food going spare.

    [ad_2]

    Morgan Meaker

    Source link

  • Marc Andreessen Once Called Online Safety Teams an Enemy. He Still Wants Walled Gardens for Kids

    Marc Andreessen Once Called Online Safety Teams an Enemy. He Still Wants Walled Gardens for Kids

    [ad_1]

    In his polarizing “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” last year, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen listed a number of enemies to technological progress. Among them were “tech ethics” and “trust and safety,” a term used for work on online content moderation, which he said had been used to subject humanity to “a mass demoralization campaign” against new technologies such as artificial intelligence.

    Andreessen’s declaration drew both public and quiet criticism from people working in those fields—including at Meta, where Andreessen is a board member. Critics saw his screed as misrepresenting their work to keep internet services safer.

    On Wednesday, Andreessen offered some clarification: When it comes to his 9-year-old son’s online life, he’s in favor of guardrails. “I want him to be able to sign up for internet services, and I want him to have like a Disneyland experience,” the investor said in an onstage conversation at a conference for Stanford University’s Human-Centered AI research institute. “I love the internet free-for-all. Someday, he’s also going to love the internet free-for-all, but I want him to have walled gardens.”

    Contrary to how his manifesto may have read, Andreessen went on to say he welcomes tech companies—and by extension their trust and safety teams—setting and enforcing rules for the type of content allowed on their services.

    “There’s a lot of latitude company by company to be able to decide this,” he said. “Disney imposes different behavioral codes in Disneyland than what happens in the streets of Orlando.” Andreessen alluded to how tech companies can face government penalties for allowing child sexual abuse imagery and certain other types of content, so they can’t be without trust and safety teams altogether.

    So what kind of content moderation does Andreessen consider an enemy of progress? He explained that he fears two or three companies dominating cyberspace and becoming “conjoined” with the government in a way that makes certain restrictions universal, causing what he called “potent societal consequences” without specifying what those might be. “If you end up in an environment where there is pervasive censorship, pervasive controls, then you have a real problem,” Andreessen said.

    The solution as he described it is ensuring competition in the tech industry and a diversity of approaches to content moderation, with some having greater restrictions on speech and actions than others. “What happens on these platforms really matters,” he said. “What happens in these systems really matters. What happens in these companies really matters.”

    Andreessen didn’t bring up X, the social platform run by Elon Musk and formerly known as Twitter, in which his firm Andreessen Horowitz invested when the Tesla CEO took over in late 2022. Musk soon laid off much of the company’s trust and safety staff, shut down Twitter’s AI ethics team, relaxed content rules, and reinstated users who had previously been permanently banned.

    Those changes paired with Andreessen’s investment and manifesto created some perception that the investor wanted few limits on free expression. His clarifying comments were part of a conversation with Fei-Fei Li, codirector of Stanford’s HAI, titled “Removing Impediments to a Robust AI Innovative Ecosystem.”

    During the session, Andreessen also repeated arguments he has made over the past year that slowing down development of AI through regulations or other measures recommended by some AI safety advocates would repeat what he sees as the mistaken US retrenchment from investment in nuclear energy several decades ago.

    Nuclear power would be a “silver bullet” to many of today’s concerns about carbon emissions from other electricity sources, Andreessen said. Instead the US pulled back, and climate change hasn’t been contained the way it could have been. “It’s an overwhelmingly negative, risk-aversion frame,” he said. “The presumption in the discussion is, if there are potential harms therefore there should be regulations, controls, limitations, pauses, stops, freezes.”

    For similar reasons, Andreessen said, he wants to see greater government investment in AI infrastructure and research and a freer rein given to AI experimentation by, for instance, not restricting open-source AI models in the name of security. If he wants his son to have the Disneyland experience of AI, some rules, whether from governments or trust and safety teams, may be necessary too.

    [ad_2]

    Paresh Dave

    Source link

  • Banc of California Courts Startups

    Banc of California Courts Startups

    [ad_1]

    Banc of California Courts Startups
    Banc of California Chief Executive Jared Wolff (Photo by David Sprague)

    Brentwood-based Banc of California last month launched a new service targeting startups in early stages.

    Dubbed Build@Banc, this program looks to lure startups at seed and early-stage funding rounds.

    The details remain scant, but the bank said this program will aid entrepreneurs from initial investments to initial public offerings.

    “We want companies to start with us, stay with us and grow with us – from inception to IPO and beyond,” said Sean Lynden, president of venture banking at Banc of California.

    Lynden led Pacwest’s expansive venture banking division prior to its merger with Banc of California last year. Its portfolio of high-growth startups included Picsart, Navitas Semiconductor and MomentFeed.

    Banc of California’s service launch comes after the broader financial industry heightened its scrutiny on both startups and venture capital firms following the dramatic collapse of Silicon Valley Bank last year.

    Financial institutions with venture capital arms have continued to fund startups, but investment criteria now weigh the economic resiliency of innovations in addition to disruption capability.

    Citi Ventures, one of the largest players in corporate venture capital, has homed in on cash flow, burn rates and paths to profitability in its investment thesis.

    Capitol One Ventures is now focused on startups that can offer strategic advantages to Capitol One’s other business lines — a push towards practical over unconventional risk.

    Jared Wolff, chief executive Banc of California, previously said the valuation correction following sharp interest rate hikes hasn’t necessarily hurt the bank’s business.

    Banc of California provides bridge capital – essentially loans between rounds of capital raises that offer liquidity as companies meet with investors.

    [ad_2]

    Zane Hill

    Source link

  • How to Create Effective Recognition Programs for Startup Founders | Entrepreneur

    How to Create Effective Recognition Programs for Startup Founders | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    In the bustling world of startups, the concept of “sweat equity” often buzzes in the background, unrecognized yet vital. Founders pour their time, expertise and relentless energy into building their ventures from the ground up. While financial investments are typically acknowledged and rewarded, the non-financial contributions — or sweat equity — of these entrepreneurs are just as crucial for success but often go unnoticed.

    The recent surge in tech layoffs and its impact on the startup ecosystem is a testament to sweat equity. In 2024, the tech industry has experienced a significant wave of layoffs, with 60,000 job cuts across 254 companies, including major players like Tesla, Amazon and Google. This development highlights the precarious nature of tech and startup employment, underscoring the importance of acknowledging and valuing the non-financial investments that founders make in their startups.

    Additionally, Microsoft’s recent initiatives, such as the Startups Founders Hub, demonstrate a growing recognition of the challenges founders face and the support they require. This program provides up to $150,000 in Azure credits to help founders develop their startups without heavy initial investments, emphasizing the value of supporting the non-financial contributions that drive innovation.

    Related: How Startups Can Boost Team Morale and Drive Success Through Recognition

    Understanding (and recognizing) sweat equity

    Sweat equity is not just about the number of hours logged; it encompasses all the non-financial investments founders make in their startups. This includes the late nights, the strategic decisions made in the wee hours of the morning, the continuous learning and adapting, and the personal sacrifices. According to a study by the Kauffman Foundation, over 80% of startups are bootstrapped, which means founders are both chief executives and chief investors of their time and skills.

    Recognizing the immense value of sweat equity is a strategic move. A survey conducted by Gallup and Workhuman found that companies with high employee recognition levels are 20 times more likely to be engaged as employees who receive poor recognition. When founders feel valued for their non-financial contributions, it boosts their morale and loyalty, directly influencing their enthusiasm and commitment to the venture. Recognizing these efforts fosters an environment where the intrinsic rewards of entrepreneurship are celebrated alongside the financial gains.

    Creating a recognition program for founders should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. It should be as unique as the startup itself, reflecting its culture and growth stage. For instance, a tech company might recognize breakthrough innovations with annual corporate awards, while a social enterprise might highlight efforts toward social impact. Buffer, a social media management tool well-known for its transparency, extends this value into recognizing its founders by openly sharing the challenges and successes in their monthly blogs, which not only recognizes the founders’ efforts but also engages the community in their journey.

    Related: From Launch to Succession: Tips for Building a Thriving Business

    How to pump up your recognition efforts

    By integrating a few detailed action steps and leveraging insights from successful companies, you can create a robust recognition program that acknowledges the hard work of founders while driving your startup toward greater success and cohesion. Consider the following:

    1. Assess current recognition practices:

    Before crafting a new recognition program, conduct a thorough assessment of existing practices within your startup. According to a Gallup study, only one in three workers in the U.S. strongly agree that they received recognition or praise for doing good work in the past seven days. This highlights a significant gap in recognition at many organizations. Start by surveying founders and key stakeholders to understand what is currently working and what isn’t. This initial feedback will serve as a baseline for developing a more impactful recognition strategy.

    2. Develop personalized programs aligned with values:

    Personalization is key in recognition programs. A study by Deloitte found that organizations with high-performing recognition practices are 12 times more likely to have strong business outcomes. Take inspiration from companies like Zappos, which tailors recognition strategies to match its corporate values and unique culture. For instance, Zappos offers “Co-Worker Bonus Programs” where employees can award each other monetary bonuses for going above and beyond. Aligning the program with your startup’s values ensures it resonates well with the founders and reinforces the behaviors that are critical to your startup’s success.

    3. Foster peer recognition and celebrate achievements:

    Peer recognition can significantly enhance workplace morale and productivity. A report from SHRM/Globoforce found that peer-to-peer recognition is 35.7% more likely to have a positive impact on financial results than manager-only recognition. Encourage a culture where founders and team members frequently acknowledge each other’s efforts. This can be facilitated through platforms like Bonusly, where employees can give each other micro-bonuses that add up to meaningful rewards. Celebrating achievements, big and small, ensures ongoing motivation and engagement.

    4. Continuously evaluate and adapt recognition efforts:

    Effective recognition programs require ongoing evaluation to stay relevant and impactful. Regularly gather feedback through surveys, focus groups and one-on-one interviews to understand the effectiveness of your recognition efforts. Companies like Salesforce exemplify this approach through their “V2MOM” (Vision, Values, Methods, Obstacles, and Measures) process, which involves continuous feedback and goal alignment across the company. This method ensures that all team members, including founders, are aligned and can contribute to the evolution of recognition efforts. By maintaining a dynamic feedback loop, you can make data-driven adjustments to the program, ensuring it evolves with your startup’s needs and continues to motivate and inspire your team.

    Related: The Psychological Impact of Recognition on Employee Motivation and Engagement — 3 Key Insights for Leaders

    By using such a dynamic and inclusive approach, startups can ensure their recognition programs remain effective and responsive to the needs of their founders and team members.

    Developing a founders’ recognition program is about nurturing a culture that values each drop of sweat that goes into a startup. Such a culture accelerates growth and cements a foundation of loyalty and mutual respect that can endure the challenges typical of the startup world. As startups continue to evolve, the recognition of every contribution, financial or otherwise, will remain a cornerstone of sustainable success.

    [ad_2]

    Mike Szczesny

    Source link