Lessons from 139 YC AI startups (S23)

yorklu

New member
YC's Demo Day was last week, and with it comes another deluge of AI companies. A record-breaking 139 startups were in some way related to AI or ML - up from 112 in the last batch.

https://preview.redd.it/9bkwl2pzcxn...bp&s=1de4425a581ca7e7dcbbcd7fb6da841570c63fb2

Here are 5 of my biggest takeaways:

AI is (still) eating the world.​


It's remarkable how diverse the industries are - over two dozen verticals were represented, from materials science to social media to security. However, the top four categories were:
  • AI Ops: Tooling and platforms to help companies deploy working AI models. We'll discuss more below, but AI Ops has become a huge category, primarily focused on LLMs and taming them for production use cases.
  • Developer Tools: Apps, plugins, and SDKs making it easier to write code. There were plenty of examples of integrating third-party data, auto-generating code/tests, and working with agents/chatbots to build and debug code.
  • Healthcare + Biotech: It seems like healthcare has a lot of room for automation, with companies working on note-taking, billing, training, and prescribing. And on the biotech side, there are some seriously cool companies building autonomous surgery robots and at-home cancer detection.
  • Finance + Payments: Startups targeting banks, fintechs, and compliance departments. This was a wide range of companies, from automated collections to AI due diligence to "Copilot for bankers."
Those four areas covered over half of the startups. The first two make sense: YC has always filtered for technical founders, and many are using AI to do what they know - improve the software developer workflow. But it's interesting to see healthcare and finance not far behind. Previously, I wrote:

Large enterprises, healthcare, and government are not going to send sensitive data to OpenAI. This leaves a gap for startups to build on-premise, compliant [LLMs] for these verticals.

And we're now seeing exactly that - LLMs focused on healthcare and finance and AI Ops companies targeting on-prem use cases. It also helps that one of the major selling points of generative AI right now is cost-cutting - an enticing use case for healthcare and finance.

Copilots are king.​


In the last batch, a lot of startups positioned themselves as "ChatGPT for X," with a consumer focus. It seems the current trend, though, is "Copilot for X" - B2B AI assistants to help you do everything from KYC checks to corporate event planning to chip design to negotiate contracts.

Nearly two dozen companies were working on some sort of artificial companion for businesses - and a couple for consumers. It's more evidence for the argument that AI will not outright replace workers - instead, existing workers will collaborate with AI to be more productive. And as AI becomes more mainstream, this trend of making specialized tools for specific industries or tasks will only grow.

That being said - a Bing-style AI that lives in a sidebar and is only accessible via chat probably isn't the most useful form factor for AI. But until OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google change their approach (or until another company steps up), we'll probably see many more Copilots.

AI Ops is becoming a key sector.​


"AI Ops" has been a term for only a few years. "LLM Ops" has existed for barely a year. And yet, so many companies are focused on training, fine-tuning, deploying, hosting, and post-processing LLMs it's quickly becoming a critical piece of the AI space. It's a vast industry that's sprung up seemingly overnight, and it was pretty interesting to see some of the problems being solved at the bleeding edge. For example:
  • Adding context to language models with as few as ten samples.
  • Pausing and moving training runs in real-time.
  • Managing training data ownership and permissions.
  • Faster vector databases.
  • Fine-tuning models with synthetic data.
But as much hype enthusiasm and opportunity as there might be, the size of the AI Ops space also shows how much work is needed to really productionalize LLMs and other models. There are still many open questions about reliability, privacy, observability, usability, and safety when it comes to using LLMs in the wild.

Who owns the model? Does it matter?​


Nine months ago, anyone building an LLM company was doing one of three things:
  1. Training their own model from scratch.
  2. Fine-tuning a version of GPT-3.
  3. Building a wrapper around ChatGPT.
Thanks to Meta, the open-source community, and the legions of competitors trying to catch up to OpenAI, there are now dozens of ways to integrate LLMs. However, I found it interesting how few B2B companies mentioned whether or not they trained their own model. If I had to guess, I'd say many are using ChatGPT or a fine-tuned version of Llama 2.

But it raises an interesting question - if the AI provides value, does it matter if it's "just" ChatGPT behind the scenes? And once ChatGPT becomes fine-tuneable, when (if ever) will startups decide to ditch OpenAI and use their own model instead?

"AI" isn't a silver bullet.​


At the end of the day, perhaps the biggest lesson is that "AI" isn't a magical cure-all - you still need to build a defensible company. At the beginning of the post-ChatGPT hype wave, it seemed like you just had to say "we're adding AI" to raise your next round or boost your stock price.

But competition is extremely fierce. Even within this batch, there were multiple companies with nearly identical pitches, including:
  • Solving customer support tickets.
  • Negotiating sales contracts.
  • Writing drafts of legal documents.
  • Building no-code LLM workflows.
  • On-prem LLM deployment.
  • Automating trust and safety moderation.
As it turns out, AI can be a competitive advantage, but it can't make up for a bad business. The most interesting (and likely valuable) companies are the ones that take boring industries and find non-obvious use cases for AI. In those cases, the key is having a team that can effectively distribute a product to users, with or without AI.

https://preview.redd.it/7inoshr0dxn...bp&s=1620d711856914c32dc6fcfd1b82ccc66550e44d

Where we’re headed​


I'll be honest - 139 companies is a lot. In reviewing them all, there were points where it just felt completely overwhelming. But after taking a step back, seeing them all together paints an incredibly vivid picture of the current AI landscape: one that is diverse, rapidly evolving, and increasingly integrated into professional and personal tasks.

These startups aren't just building AI for the sake of technology or academic research, but are trying to address real-world problems. Technology is always a double-edged sword - and some of the startups felt a little too dystopian for my taste - but I'm still hopeful about AI's ability to improve productivity and the human experience.
 
@yorklu We’re talking about “AI companies” today because it’s such a big technological shift but in 2 years the term will not make sense anymore. Every tech company will deeply incorporate some form of AI. Just like at some point we stopped calling “internet companies” this way because internet became so ubiquitous to tech.
 
@berylpricee
We’re talking about “AI companies” today because it’s such a big technological shift but in 2 years the term will not make sense anymore. Every tech company will deeply incorporate some form of AI

I'd hold off on making such wide-sweeping conjecture.

I'm pretty sure in 2 years, EVERY tech company will NOT have DEEPLY incorporated some form of AI to the point that AI would be so ubiquitous as to render the term "AI company" redundant.

To say otherwise, indicates a palpable misunderstanding of how tech/building software works.

This is a bit of hype driven development in my opinion. A few years back, the craze was blockchain/crypto technology. We've seen how that went.
 
@kmack7 Dude even if we were to go 10 years into the future, every business on the planet will still not have AI incorporated in its processes. You grossly overestimate the pace of technology adoption.
 
@yorklu Super helpful, thanks. I’m building an “AI-native” company but honestly, there’s no other alternative. Every startup and company will have to incorporate AI to succeed in this next era.
 
@613jono Yeah, I tend to agree. I've been trying to realistically figure out how impactful AI might be, and it seems at least as big as smartphones - every company had to figure out their mobile strategy, eventually.
 
@parentof2boys You’re right, I should refrain as well. But I believe AGI will become as ubiquitous as the Internet for the vast majority of companies’ digital presence, sales, and communication. I may be completely wrong and betting on the wrong horse, especially since we don’t know how much AI will eat up. But at least as an entrepreneur, there isn’t much else of an option if we want to thrive or survive.
 
@yorklu I believe openai released enterprise version where companies can have control over their data. If OpenAI, Google, MS and other big companies focus on enterprise llm with bring your own data and fine tuning options for healthcare and fintech what does it leave for YC startup?

Usually in non-llm startups from YC all they needed previously was an awesome team, unique product and great SaaS GTM. But now they need access to healthcare/fintech data and large compute/investment. What’s your thoughts on that?
 
@marco124 So I think it's still an open question whether enterprise/healthcare/government entities are going to send sensitive data to OpenAI/Google/MS, which leaves an opportunity.

But even beyond that, there's still a large amount of "productization" that needs to happen with LLMs and building with them - we haven't standardized how to handle things like training data permissions, long term LLM memory, or quality control yet.

You touched on a good point though - launching a software company used to be very expensive, and over the last two decades, it became very cheap. With AI companies, it's. becoming (relatively) expensive again - compute is going to be the biggest bottleneck in the short term, and truly innovative companies are going to have to spend a lot to get their products off the ground.
 
@yorklu Also, most LLMs are still laughably bad at basic data processing. We have had herculean struggles in building a copilot like feature for one of the new products we are launching.
 
@marco124 its because it will take forever for enterprise teams to implement this. Most of them already have multi-year roadmaps and priorities. Its why SAAS even picked up - not every company can build everything in house.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top