Stop calling it a “custom agent” when it’s just a task-specific prompt.
Good prompting is real work. Be proud of it. Don’t rename it to imply you built more than you did.
Talking to agents daily for non-work stuff should be more normalized. Agents are worse than the best humans. But they are much better than the worst humans.
My name got typo’d on a form, so now "Hi Purvaar" is my new spam detector, plus bonus info because I know exactly where they sourced their data from LOL
Calling the OpenAI deal "awesome" for founders who want to "tokenmax" feels like a serious misrepresentation.
YC companies routinely get large credits (AWS, Azure, GCP) without taking ownership.
$2M in tokens is not $2M in cash. It's restricted vendor credit that likely costs OpenAI far less, while giving them customers, lock-in, and potential Series A upside without taking normal investor risk.
Today, Claude, GPT, Gemini, and open-source models are all competing aggressively. A founder's job is not to be loyal to a model provider. It is to preserve the company's ability to use the best tools available for its product and users.
YC lauding this is exactly why founders should be careful treating investor advice as neutral truth.
Everyone has agendas. Think for yourself.
OpenAI is offering $2M in tokens to every YC company in the spring and summer batches.
We extended the summer deadline to May 25 so more founders can get in on it.
ycombinator.com/apply
Purva Tendulkar retweeted
If AI will soon match any human cognitive skill, then enhancing your “AI skills” (or whatever similar meme) will not be a moat because using AI is itself a cognitive skill. So where’s your edge? The only thing you really have over AGI is your novelty: AGI can never be you.
You have 100 trillion connections in your brain. That’s a lot. No AI will ever precisely replicate those parameters. The training data isn’t there for AI to vacuum up because you are the only entity ever to live your life, and the only one who ever will.
The question is whether the sum and total of all that experience yields a novel perspective, where the value is in its uniqueness. Even today those who make a living off their perceived novelty tend to be the most successful. We anticipate a novel (yet often internally consistent) take from a public figure or leader or artist or intellectual we like or respect. Uniqueness and novelty will retain their edge in a post-AGI world because there are virtually infinite possible 100-trillion parameter minds, and even the largest model theoretically conceivable can never capture that whole distribution.
At the same time, the once-sterling premium of those skills that no longer make us unique is sinking. Expertise that once distinguished people, like how to code, is losing its edge. But the tricky part is that new skills, like “using AI effectively” are equally vulnerable. All of it just takes intelligence, and that’s the thing that’s being automated. Seeking some new “safe” skillset is a looming adventure in frustrating futility.
But what’s still left is your unique perspective. Novelty. No one and nothing can see the world through your eyes. But you have to nurture that uniqueness. Post-AGI, being like everyone else would be the real danger.
Purva Tendulkar retweeted
the most important AI startups won't be the ones that replace humans... They'll be the ones that help humans figure out what to do next
what will humans do next? I think we get a clue when it comes to the discussion around "taste" on one end of the spectrum and verifiability on the other
AI is great at verifiable problems. Did the code compile, is the math right. Where it struggles: "was that email rude?" "does this tweet hit hard?"
the gap between objectively verifiable and subjectively verifiable is where the most interesting companies will be built, because it's where humans can team up productively with AI
As a developer, I switch between two extreme personas: the Ideal User 🦸 and the Chaos Gremlin 🦹
“Wouldn’t it be cool if…” versus “What if I smash this button 37 times in a row?”
Purva Tendulkar retweeted
Everyone says they want general-purpose robots.
We actually mean it — and we’ll make it weird, creative, and fun along the way 😎
Recruiting PhD students to work on Computer Vision and Robotics @umdcs for Fall 2026 in the beautiful city of Washington DC!
Purva Tendulkar retweeted
Your honor, I rest my case 💅
“Big labs have the advantage!”
“Small teams can’t compete!”
Filling out a form shouldn’t be this hard!
7 minutes later Gemini’s still “thinking and trying.”
Vy’s already finished, stretched, and moved on with its life.
🎤🫳
Thanks to @browserbase for getting Gemini integrated.
No AI agents were harmed in preparation of this video (just my patience watching 7 minutes of struggle).
TIL the whole "like this." vs "like this". thing is actually a US vs UK difference, not just AI writing tools being weird 😅 #GrammarWars
Talking to friends as user-study “participants” is so fun -- you get to see everyone’s hidden talk show guest energy come out🎙️😂
Ever have a thought, check Reddit, and:
(A) the crowd agrees—so you feel validated and move on
(B) you're in the minority—and now you're either annoyed... or rethinking everything?
Funny how total strangers on the internet can sway how you feel (or what you think) 🧠
I'm moving cities, so I made a furniture sale spreadsheet. It started as a way to stay organized, but ended up being super handy for sharing with buyers.
A stranger on Marketplace said they dug it, which ended up being the highlight of my week 😂
LLMs treat tokens like currency. What if the social internet did too?
Fewer words, higher value. Would we become better communicators—or just quieter? 💭
Something I've noticed:
Claude >> ChatGPT for coding.
But for writing (ideation, creative drafts, emails), GPT-4x >> GPT-5 > Claude.
Anyone else feel this way? Or have I just developed a better theory of GPT's mind for writing?
Claude’s writing gives big “naive Indian undergrad writing their first Medium post” energy—basically me at 19 🫣
@OpenAI, request to bring back all legacy models (ChatGPT-4.x) 🙏












