OpenAI Grove

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

YC Parallels and Altman’s Role

  • Many read Grove as “YC inside OpenAI”: same accelerator/incubator playbook, but AI-only and with stronger ties to OpenAI’s stack.
  • Some speculate this reflects Altman missing YC and recreating its model; others argue it might be as simple as a senior employee wanting to run a program that’s cheap to trial.

Strategic Motives: Talent, Ideas, and Platform

  • Strong consensus that this is primarily a talent discovery/retention scheme, not a capital deployment program: OpenAI pays minimal cash (mostly travel), but gets visibility into ambitious builders.
  • Several see it as a way to:
    • Keep potential founders in OpenAI’s orbit.
    • Identify acqui-hire candidates and novel product angles.
    • Hedge against the risk that breakthrough AI work happens elsewhere.
  • Others frame it as a platform move: grow an ecosystem of specialized apps on OpenAI APIs (increasing token usage and market trust) rather than building every vertical product internally.

Skepticism on Vision and “Pre-Idea Individuals”

  • A number of comments interpret Grove as evidence OpenAI lacks clear product vision and is “seeing what sticks,” surprisingly even courting “pre-idea” founders.
  • The phrase “pre-idea individuals” is heavily mocked as LinkedIn-speak and as emblematic of status-driven “entrepreneurship” without substance.
  • Some recall a similar YC experiment with “no idea” founders that reportedly went nowhere.

Critique of OpenAI and HN’s Attitude

  • Many express deep mistrust of OpenAI: perceived betrayal of its “open” mission, governance changes, regulatory lobbying, and closed products.
  • Others push back, noting OpenAI’s impact and arguing that reflexive hatred is unproductive.
  • A meta-thread debates why HN skews so negative: explanations include long memories of big-tech behavior, fear for jobs, and a norm of skepticism toward powerful “slow AI” institutions.

Program Details and Friction

  • Observations: global participation seems allowed; only first/last weeks in person; first cohort is tiny (15 people), so odds are low.
  • Multiple reports that the application form and FAQ UI are buggy or non-functional, which some find ironic for an AI powerhouse.