Why You Shouldn't Copy Your Tech Idols: The "Do As I Say, Not As I Did" Problem

YC partners reveal why following advice from Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel could be disastrous—because their current recommendations aren't what they actually did to become successful.

Learn the real backstories behind famous founder advice and why most people need to do "step one" before attempting world-changing moonshots.

Key Takeaways

• Prominent tech figures often give advice that sounds reasonable but isn't what they actually did to become successful—it's "do as I say, not as I did" in past tense
• Sam Altman's recent advice about raising $100M and building labs contradicts his actual path: starting Loopt through YC with standard startup approach using small team and normal funding
• Elon Musk told Dalton directly he started Zip2 and PayPal purely to make money fast for his space dreams—standard startup ideas, not hard tech or world-saving missions
• Peter Thiel advises against college despite going to Stanford undergrad AND law school, then working at prestigious law firm and bank before entering tech
• Most founders can't replicate current successful strategies because they lack the networks, credibility, and resources these figures built through conventional paths first
• The advice often represents what successful people wish they could tell their younger selves, not practical guidance for people starting from zero
• YC avoids this trap by sharing complete backstories including mistakes, personalizing advice based on individual circumstances, and asking "what would I tell my own kids?"
• Understanding full histories reveals the "step one" approach (normal startups for money/network) that enables "step two" moonshots later in careers
• Even exceptionally successful people were "mere mortals" who had to build foundations through conventional means before attempting extraordinary projects

Timeline Overview

• 00:00–00:14 — Introduction: Setting up the discussion about advice paradox from successful tech figures
• 00:14–01:28 — The advice paradox: How prominent people give advice that wasn't their actual path to success
• 01:28–02:09 — Three examples: Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel as case studies of this phenomenon
• 02:09–03:01 — Sam Altman's contradiction: Current "go big" advice versus his actual Loopt startup path through YC
• 03:01–03:30 — Elon Musk's contradiction: Hard tech advice versus his money-focused conventional startup approach
• 03:30–03:47 — Peter Thiel's contradiction: Anti-college stance despite extensive traditional education credentials
• 03:47–06:34 — Sam's real story: How Loopt's standard approach built the network that enabled OpenAI success
• 06:34–09:22 — Elon's real story: Direct quotes about starting companies purely for money to fund space dreams
• 09:22–12:12 — Peter's real story: How traditional education path provided foundation for later success
• 12:12–15:16 — How YC avoids this: Sharing full backstories, thinking about personal advice, staying honest about experiences
• 15:16–16:57 — Personalization importance: Why office hours advice differs from general content based on individual circumstances

The Advice Paradox: When Success Creates Blind Spots

• Successful tech figures routinely give advice that sounds reasonable but doesn't reflect their actual path to success, creating a "do as I say, not as I did" dynamic that misleads aspiring founders who only know these people as established successes.
• Young founders lack context about their heroes' early struggles because they encountered these figures after they'd already achieved prominence, making it natural to accept current advice at face value without investigating historical reality.
• Michael and Dalton have unique perspective because they witnessed many of these success stories unfold in real-time, giving them firsthand knowledge of what actually happened versus the polished narratives that emerged later.
• The pattern appears consistently across multiple high-profile figures, suggesting systematic reasons why successful people give advice that contradicts their own experiences rather than isolated cases of poor memory or intentional deception.
• This dynamic becomes particularly dangerous when aspiring founders abandon viable conventional approaches in favor of attempting to replicate advanced strategies that require resources, networks, and credibility they don't yet possess (see our [previous post] on building foundational capabilities before attempting moonshots).

Sam Altman: From Standard YC Path to OpenAI Labs

• Sam's recent advice emphasizes going big immediately—raising $100 million, hiring large teams, building labs that take years to produce results. This approach has worked well for OpenAI but represents a dramatic departure from how he actually built his career.
• Loopt, Sam's first startup, followed the standard YC path: Stanford dropout goes through accelerator, raises relatively small amount of money, builds mobile social product with small team, leverages YC network for connections and subsequent opportunities.
• The network effects from YC and relationships built during Loopt's development provided the foundation for everything that came after, including the credibility and connections necessary to eventually launch something as ambitious as OpenAI.
• Most founders influenced by Sam's current advice about raising $100 million are people who realistically can't raise $100 million, making this guidance potentially harmful by encouraging them to abandon achievable paths in favor of impossible ones.
• Even Sam couldn't have started with the OpenAI approach—he needed the success, network, and reputation from conventional startup building to earn the right to attempt world-changing AI research with massive funding requirements.

Elon Musk: Money First, Mars Second

• Elon's current advice emphasizes working on hard tech, being ambitious about world-changing problems, and focusing on missions like space exploration and sustainable transport. However, his actual path was explicitly profit-focused rather than mission-driven initially.
• Dalton heard directly from Elon that he started Zip2 and PayPal purely because he "wanted to make a lot of money" to fund his space dreams. His famous quote: "My plan is to die on Mars, hopefully not on impact" followed by explanation that he needed wealth first.
• The early startup ideas were conventional rather than revolutionary—directory services and online payments during the dot-com boom, chosen specifically because they represented fast paths to significant wealth rather than hard tech challenges.
• Elon's two-step plan (make money through conventional startups, then use that wealth for moonshots) was arguably more impressive than directly attempting space companies, but most people focus only on step two while ignoring step one's necessity.
• Tesla's survival required Elon to personally invest his own money multiple times to prevent bankruptcy—demonstrating that even his later moonshots depended entirely on wealth accumulated through conventional startup success first.

Peter Thiel: The College Critique from a Stanford Law Graduate

• Peter's well-known critique of college education and advocacy for alternative paths to success stands in stark contrast to his own extensive traditional educational credentials and early career choices.
• His background includes Stanford undergraduate degree, Stanford law school, work at prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and investment banking experience—exactly the conventional path he now advises others to avoid.
• The traditional education and professional experience likely provided essential foundations for his later success in venture capital and technology, making it difficult to separate his achievements from the conventional credentials he now criticizes.
• The pain and limitations he experienced in traditional institutions may have motivated his later innovation and contrarian thinking, suggesting that enduring conventional paths can provide valuable perspective and skills even when the experience feels constraining.
• Without A/B testing alternate versions of Peter's career, it's impossible to know whether he would have achieved similar success by skipping college entirely, making his anti-education advice potentially harmful for people who need traditional credentials to access opportunities.

Why Successful People Give Misleading Advice

• The advice typically comes from positive intent—successful people genuinely want to help others and share insights from their experience, but they become blind to their own backstories after years of focusing on current capabilities rather than historical foundations.
• Much of the advice represents what successful people wish they could tell their younger selves based on current knowledge and resources, rather than practical guidance for people starting from scratch without established networks and credibility.
• Successful figures focus on what they would do now given their current position and understanding, naturally overlooking the foundational steps that enabled them to reach positions where advanced strategies become viable options.
• The human tendency to forget early struggles and focus on recent successes creates unconscious bias toward recommending strategies that require resources and capabilities that took years or decades to develop through conventional means.
• Memory and narrative construction naturally emphasize turning points and breakthrough moments while minimizing the years of conventional work that created conditions for those breakthroughs to occur and succeed.

The Step One Problem: Why Most People Can't Skip Ahead

• The fundamental issue involves people attempting to copy "step two" strategies (world-changing moonshots with massive funding) while lacking "step one" foundations (conventional success, networks, credibility, and wealth).
• Even extraordinarily capable people like Elon Musk were "mere mortals" who had to build conventional foundations before attempting extraordinary projects—the two-step approach wasn't optional even for exceptionally talented individuals.
• 99.9999% of founders literally cannot replicate OpenAI's founding approach because they lack Sam's network, track record, and industry relationships built through years of conventional startup and YC leadership experience.
• The step-skipping attempt often leads to startup failure because founders abandon achievable conventional approaches in favor of impossible moonshot strategies, wasting time and resources on approaches that require foundations they haven't built.
• Understanding this progression helps founders appreciate that conventional success isn't settling for mediocrity—it's building the platform necessary for later attempting extraordinary projects with reasonable success probability

How YC Avoids the Advice Trap

• YC partners share their complete backstories with batch companies, including all mistakes, failures, and conventional paths they took before achieving any success. This transparency helps founders understand context behind advice rather than just hearing polished recommendations.
• They apply the "what would I tell my kids" test when giving advice, personalizing recommendations based on genuine care rather than offering general platitudes or experimental opinions that sound interesting but aren't practical.
• Office hours provide personalized advice based on each founder's specific background, advantages, and circumstances rather than generic content that can't account for individual situations and capabilities.
• They acknowledge that while 80% of their advice remains consistent across founders, 20% varies significantly based on personal advantages, networks, and resources that affect which strategies make sense for different people.
• The partners remain conscious of their own potential blind spots and actively work to avoid giving advice they wouldn't follow themselves or recommending strategies that worked for them only due to specific circumstances others can't replicate.

The Personalization Problem with Public Advice

• Generic content like videos, blog posts, and conference talks can't be personalized for individual circumstances, making broad advice potentially harmful for people whose situations don't match the assumed audience.
• Successful figures giving public advice often unconsciously assume audiences have similar networks, resources, and capabilities to their own, making recommendations that work for well-connected, well-funded people but not for those starting from scratch.
• YC's office hours reveal how often they contradict standard advice based on individual circumstances—multi-time founders with proven track records receive very different guidance than first-time entrepreneurs with no network.
• The same strategy that makes sense for someone with millions to invest personally (like raising large amounts and building labs) becomes disastrous advice for someone who needs to prove basic viability before accessing any significant resources.
• Understanding this limitation helps consumers of advice evaluate recommendations based on their actual circumstances rather than assuming all guidance applies equally regardless of personal advantages and constraints.

Learning from Heroes the Right Way

• Instead of accepting current advice at face value, study complete histories of successful people to understand the conventional foundations that enabled their later unconventional achievements.
• Focus on replicating the "step one" approaches that built networks, credibility, and resources rather than attempting to copy "step two" moonshot strategies that require foundations you haven't built yet.
• Recognize that even exceptionally talented and ambitious people typically followed conventional paths during early career phases, making conventional approaches respectable rather than settling for mediocrity.
• Appreciate that the painful, constraining experiences successful people now advise against (like traditional education or conventional jobs) may have provided essential skills, networks, and perspectives that contributed to their later success.
• Use hero stories as inspiration for long-term vision while focusing practical decision-making on achievable next steps that build foundations for eventually attempting more ambitious projects.

The Truth-Telling Advantage

• Honest advice based on actual experience proves easier to maintain consistently than experimental recommendations that sound interesting but don't reflect personal reality or practical implementation knowledge.
• Sharing complete stories including mistakes and conventional paths helps audiences understand context and applicability rather than just hearing polished success narratives that obscure essential foundational work.
• The "what would I tell my kids" framework forces advice-givers to consider practical consequences and realistic applicability rather than offering untested theories or impressive-sounding strategies.
• Transparency about advantages, networks, and resources helps audiences evaluate advice relevance for their own circumstances rather than assuming all successful strategies transfer across different starting positions.
• Acknowledging limitations and context makes advice more valuable because it helps people understand when recommendations apply to their situations versus when alternative approaches make more sense.

Common Questions

Q: Should I ignore advice from successful tech figures entirely?
A: No, but learn their complete histories first. Their advice often contains valuable insights, but understand the foundations they built before attempting their current strategies.

Q: How can I tell if advice applies to my situation?
A: Consider whether you have similar networks, resources, and track record to the advice-giver when they were at your stage, not when they achieved their current success.

Q: Is it wrong to have ambitious goals like going to space or changing the world?
A: Not at all, but most people need to build conventional foundations first. Even Elon Musk made money through standard startups before attempting SpaceX.

Q: How do I know when I'm ready for "step two" moonshot approaches?
A: When you have the network, credibility, and resources to access the funding and talent required. This usually takes at least one conventional success first.

Q: What if I want to skip conventional paths and go straight to hard tech?
A: Very few people can do this successfully. Even those who appear to skip steps usually have hidden advantages like family wealth, exceptional credentials, or unique network access.

Conclusion

The advice paradox reveals a fundamental disconnect between how successful people actually achieved their success and what they recommend others do. Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel all followed conventional paths during their early careers—standard startups, traditional education, conventional jobs—before earning the resources and credibility necessary to attempt world-changing projects.

This pattern isn't coincidental or unique to these three figures. Most exceptional achievements require foundational work that gets forgotten or minimized in retrospective narratives that emphasize breakthrough moments over years of conventional building. The danger lies in aspiring founders attempting to skip directly to advanced strategies without building the foundations that make those strategies viable.

For current and aspiring entrepreneurs, the lesson involves embracing conventional paths as stepping stones rather than obstacles to extraordinary achievements. Going to good schools, doing YC, starting normal companies, and building networks through standard means isn't settling for mediocrity—it's building the platform necessary for later attempting impossible projects with reasonable success probability.

The practical implications reshape how founders approach career development and advice consumption:

• Study complete histories, not just current advice: Learn what successful people actually did during early career phases rather than just listening to their current recommendations
• Appreciate foundational work: Conventional success isn't failing to be ambitious—it's building capabilities for later moonshots
• Sequence strategies appropriately: Most people need "step one" (conventional success) before attempting "step two" (world-changing projects)
• Evaluate advice based on your situation: Consider whether you have similar advantages and resources to advice-givers when they were at your stage
• Embrace the two-step approach: Plan conventional success as foundation for later attempting extraordinary projects rather than viewing them as competing alternatives
• Understand resource requirements: Advanced strategies often require networks, credibility, and wealth that take years to build through conventional means
• Value personalized guidance: Generic advice can't account for individual circumstances—seek mentorship that considers your specific advantages and constraints

The ultimate insight involves recognizing that even "mere mortals" can achieve extraordinary things through patient sequential building rather than attempting to skip foundational phases. Elon Musk's two-step plan—make money through conventional startups, then use that wealth for space exploration—actually represents a more impressive achievement than directly attempting SpaceX without financial foundation.

For young founders inspired by ambitious visions, the message isn't to abandon those dreams but to build toward them strategically. Start with achievable conventional projects that build networks, credibility, and resources. Use those foundations to attempt progressively more ambitious projects. Eventually, you may earn the right to attempt world-changing moonshots—but like your heroes, you'll likely need to do step one before step two becomes possible.