About
-
Experience
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Education
-
The University of Texas at Austin
-
Activities and Societies: Turing Scholar, Dean's Scholar, Intelligent Systems Club Founder
Publications
-
Sample-efficient Adversarial Imitation Learning from Observation
eprint arXiv:1906.07374
Courses
-
Data Management
CS347
-
Honors Artificial Intelligence
-
-
Honors Computer Architecture
CS429H
-
Honors Data Mining
CS378H
-
Honors Data Structures
CS314H
-
Honors Discrete Math
CS311H
-
Honors Operating Systems
-
-
Neural Systems
-
-
Prediction Mechanisms in Computer Architecture
CS395T
Languages
-
English
Native or bilingual proficiency
-
French
Limited working proficiency
Other similar profiles
Explore more posts
-
Gabriel Jarrosson
YC has quietly built a parallel tech ecosystem. Not just a network - an entire operating system for startups. Think about it: A YC founder can build their entire stack using only YC companies. Infrastructure, analytics, payment processing, marketing tools - it's all there. At friend-and-family prices. When you launch a product to the YC network, you get something priceless: A group of technical founders who actually understand what you're building. They become your first users, your debuggers, your evangelists. This is why PostHog is now used by 65% of new YC companies. This is why Brex dominated fintech... and why each YC batch makes the next one stronger. A true compounding advantage.
47 Comments -
Nilay Modi
The smartest YC founders I know are NOT raising VC money. Here are FIVE unique things they're doing instead: 1) Firing their least technical co-founder. 2) Importing/exporting used Herman Miller chairs. 3) Selling their YC office hours on Craigslist. 4) Auctioning screenshots of their Stripe dashboard as art. 5) Using Central to eliminate nonsense HR/finance work and focusing on profitability - centralhq.com What else am I missing?
39 Comments -
Jonny Boyarsky
Ok, time for a rant. 90% of "AI Startups" aren't even AI. I've seen founders that use LLMs or have a chatbot somewhere on their site and call it an "AI startup". I've seen people who vibe code or use Cursor/Lovable and then say they have an "AI startup". I've seen people continue to build ChatGPT/Claude/Llama wrappers and call it an "AI startup". If you haven't build a custom model or used meaningful proprietary data then you aren't an AI startup, you're AI Enabled. AND THAT'S FINE. You don't have to be an AI company to solve a problem. So many companies and VCs are going to have poor performance because they have little differentiation and have claimed to build/invest in "AI Companies" and we will soon learn they are not really "AI".
66 Comments -
Maggie Basta
So, it turns out there is actually no meaningful correlation between how quickly a generational startup gets to $100M in ARR and the magnitude of its eventual success. Decided to pull this data because every time you turn a corner in SF, there is another VC debating whether the "triple-triple-double-double-double" paradigm is dead because a handful of ripping AI startups are sucking the air out the room for everyone else. That would suggest that nuking to $100M overnight is the only way to win But if the past is any indicator, that’s probably… not true. There have always been companies that blow traditional growth benchmarks out of the water and ones that grow more steadily over time. (We’ve all seen the “Fastest to $100M” charts). But when you actually compare that speed to the size of eventual outcomes, there is really no correlation. In fact, if you look at the value of these companies at their respective peaks, there is actually a slightly inverse relationship between speed and success. So, a couple takeaways: (1) $100M is a milestone (albeit an important one), but it’s not the final destination. We are talking about truly generational companies. At that level of scale, the real north star looks more like ten billion than hundreds of millions, and in case you forgot, $100M is just 1% $10B. (2) Speed is not the only playbook. Time to $100M isn’t destiny, and some of the biggest outcomes took longer to get there while others around them grew faster. To be abundantly clear, getting to $100M that quickly is an extremely impressive feat and indicative of companies building incredible products. That should not be discounted, and we will 100% continue to look for these kinds of investments. Too far in the other extreme is also true (limping to 100M with decelerating growth is probably not… great). But none of that detracts from the fact that it is a long road to success in this industry. There are many ways up the mountain, and it takes time to build something enduring!
120 Comments
Explore top content on LinkedIn
Find curated posts and insights for relevant topics all in one place.
View top content