Everyone in tech has an opinion about Soham Parekh
There is now a new badge of honor for startup founders: your proximity to one previously unknown Indian software engineer named Soham Parekh.
The Anna Delvey of Silicon Valley was outed on Wednesday when former Mixpanel CEO Suhail Doshi posted on X to warn fellow founders about Parekh.
'PSA: there's a guy named Soham Parekh (in India) who works at 3-4 startups at the same time. He's been preying on YC companies and more. Beware,' Doshi wrote. 'I fired this guy in his first week and told him to stop lying/scamming people. He hasn't stopped a year later.'
Now, the post has over 20 million views, with founders and investors from across the tech industry weighing in. And before Andy Jassy asks — could this have all been avoided if more companies returned to the office? No, some people are just bad managers.
According to Doshi, at least three founders have reached out to say that they had fired or were currently employing Parekh.
In the age of subreddit communities like r/overemployed, where members talk about how to get away with working multiple remote jobs at once, this revelation isn't all that surprising. What's more interesting is how widely the responses to his actions vary (to be fair, no one ever said that the tech industry was known for its moral fiber).
To some in the tech community, Parekh has the makings of a folk hero, deceiving well-funded startups and sticking it to the man. To others, he's an immoral liar who screwed over startups and took jobs away from people who actually would have given their all. Many are impressed by how he managed to get through so many notoriously competitive interview processes, while others think he should parlay his 15 minutes of fame into founding his own startup.
'If Soham immediately comes clean and says he was working to train an AI agent for knowledge work, he raises at $100M pre by the weekend,' Box CEO Aaron Levie wrote on X.
Chris Bakke — the founder of Laskie, a job-matching platform acquired by X — thinks that Soham should embrace his reputation.
'Soham Parekh needs to start an interview prep company. He's clearly one of the greatest interviewers of all time,' Bakke wrote. 'He should publicly acknowledge that he did something bad and course correct to the thing he's top 1% at.'
Meanwhile, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan took the opportunity to pat himself on the back.
'Without the YC community this guy would still be operating and would have maybe never been caught,' Tan wrote. 'The startup guild of YC is a necessary invention to help founders be more successful than they would be alone.'
Why did he do it? Parekh says that this wasn't part of some grand plan — he claims he had no plan at all, and he was trying to make a lot of money very quickly to get himself out of a bad financial situation.
'I really did not think this through,' Parekh said in a live interview with TBPN. 'It was an action that was done more out of desperation.'
Parekh did not address Doshi's allegation that the bulk of his resume was fake.
'What's also funny is, you know, some of the memes,' he said. 'I'm very new to Twitter. I joined Twitter yesterday, so this was a lesson for me in social media in general.' (Twitter has long been known as X, of course.)
You don't have to hand it to him, but he's a pretty good poster for someone who's been on the platform for a day. One of his few posts was a response to LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who asked what people think Parekh's LinkedIn header would be.
'I don't have a LinkedIn,' Parekh replied.
For what it's worth, his X header is on the money, even if he won't bother with LinkedIn. It's the meme of Flynn Rider from the Disney movie 'Tangled' — a smug-looking guy about to state a controversial opinion, surrounded by knives on all sides.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who is Soham Parekh, the serial moonlighter Silicon Valley startups can't stop hiring?
In the last week, social media users have shared dozens of stories about encounters with Soham Parekh, a software engineer who seems to have been simultaneously working at multiple Silicon Valley startups — unbeknownst to the companies — for the last several years. But who is Parekh, how did he pull off his career as a serial moonlighter, and why can't Silicon Valley get enough of him? The saga all started when Suhail Doshi — CEO of image generation startup Playground AI — shared a post Tuesday on X that began: 'PSA: there's a guy named Soham Parekh (in India) who works at 3-4 startups at the same time. He's been preying on YC companies and more. Beware.' Doshi claims that, roughly a year ago, he fired Parekh from Playground AI after he found out he was working at other companies. '[I] told him to stop lying/scamming people. He hasn't stopped a year later,' Doshi wrote. That post from Doshi received roughly 20 million views and prompted several other founders to share their run-ins with Parekh as well. Flo Crivello, the CEO of Lindy, a startup that helps people automate their workflows with AI, said he hired Parekh in recent weeks, but fired him in light of Doshi's tweet. Matt Parkhurst, the CEO of Antimetal, a startup that does automated cloud management, confirmed that Parekh was the company's first engineering hire in 2022. Parkhurst tells TechCrunch that Antimetal let Parekh go in early 2023 after they realized he was moonlighting at other companies. Parekh also seems to have worked at Sync Labs, a startup that makes an AI lip-synching tool, where he even starred in a promotional video. He was ultimately let go. At some point, Parekh applied to several Y Combinator-backed startups. Haz Hubble, the co-founder of Pally AI, a Y Combinator-backed startup building an 'AI relationship management platform,' says he offered Parekh a founding engineer role. Adish Jain, the co-founder of YC-backed Mosaic — an AI video editing startup — said he interviewed Parekh for a role, too. TechCrunch has reached out to these companies for comment, but they did not immediately respond. It turns out that Parekh did quite well in many of these interviews and received offers, largely because he's a gifted software engineer. For instance, Rohan Pandey, a founding research engineer of the YC-backed startup Reworkd, told TechCrunch that he interviewed Parekh for a role and he was a strong candidate. Pandey, who is no longer with the startup, says Parekh was one of the top three performers on an algorithms-focused interview they gave candidates. Pandey said the Reworkd team suspected something was off with Parekh. At the time, Parekh told Reworkd he was in the U.S. — a requirement for the job — but the company didn't believe him. They ran an IP logger on a Zoom link from Parekh and located him in India. Pandey recalled other things Parekh said often didn't add up, and some of his GitHub contributions and previous roles didn't quite make sense either. That seems to be a common experience when dealing with Parekh. Adam Silverman, co-founder of the AI agent observability startup, Agency, told TechCrunch his company also interviewed Parekh. Silverman said Parekh sent him a cold DM about a job opening at Agency, and they set up a meeting. Parekh had to reschedule that meeting five times, according to Silverman and emails from Parekh viewed by TechCrunch. Silverman says he was also impressed by Parekh's technical ability, but in the interview, he insisted on working remotely. Much like with Reworkd, that was a red flag for Agency. Roy Lee, the CEO of the 'cheat on everything' AI startup, Cluely, tells TechCrunch he interviewed Parekh twice for a role. Lee said Parekh interviews quite well and 'seemed to have strong react knowledge,' referencing a popular JavaScript library for building user interfaces. Lee says Cluely did not end up hiring Parekh. However, several other companies clearly did. Parekh made an appearance on the Technology Business Programming Network (TBPN) on Thursday to tell co-hosts John Coogan and Jordi Hays his side of the story and explain why he's worked at so many companies. He admitted that he's been working at multiple jobs simultaneously since 2022. Parekh claims he was not using AI tools or hiring junior software engineers to assist him with his workload. All that work has made Parekh a much better programmer, he believes, but notes that it's taken a toll. Parekh said he's notorious among his friends for not sleeping. He repeated several times throughout the interview that he works 140 hours a week, which comes out to 20 hours a day, seven days a week. That seems to be borderline impossible — or at the very least, extremely unhealthy and unsustainable. Parekh also said he took multiple jobs because he was in 'financial jeopardy,' implying he needed all the income he could get from his various employers. He claims he deferred going to a graduate school program he had been accepted to, and instead decided to work at several startups simultaneously. Notably, Doshi shared a copy of Parekh's resumé that claims he received a masters degree from Georgia Institute of Technology. When TBPN's co-hosts asked why Parekh didn't just ask one company to raise his salary and help with his financial struggles, Parekh said he liked to keep a boundary between his professional and private life. (But he had also opted for low salaries and high equity at all his jobs, which doesn't quite add up with his financial crisis story. However, Parekh declined to share more about it.) Parekh told the hosts he genuinely loved his work, and it was not solely about the money. He says he was very invested in the missions of all the companies where he worked. He also admitted that he's not proud of what he's done, and he doesn't endorse it. Some are calling Parekh a scam artist and a liar, but in classic Silicon Valley fashion, Parekh appears to be trying to turn his viral moment into a business. Parekh announced his newest employer, which he claims to be exclusively working at: Darwin Studios, a startup working on AI video remixing. However, Parekh quickly deleted the post after announcing it, as did the founder and CEO of the startup, Sanjit Juneja. TechCrunch has reached out to Parekh requesting an interview regarding this article, however, he has not yet accepted. Instead, a spokesperson representing him sent TechCrunch a statement from Darwin's CEO. 'Soham is an incredibly talented engineer and we believe in his abilities to help bring our products to market,' said Juneja. We've seen countless startups turn their viral, often controversial, moments into businesses in the last year. One of the most famous is Cluely, which is known for creating provocative marketing campaigns. It's rage bait, but it's attention-grabbing, and it was enough to land Cluely a $15 million seed round from Andreessen Horowitz. Perhaps Parekh will land a similar fortune in the future. Update: This story has been updated to reflect TBPN's current name and include additional comments from Antimetal.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Epic Battle Between AI Missionaries Versus AI Mercenaries To Achieve AGI And AI Super-Intelligence Is Underway Via Sam Altman And Mark Zuckerberg
AI talent wars are underway, and the battle is over the AI missionaries versus the AI mercenaries. In today's column, I examine the epic battle being fiercely waged between the so-called AI missionaries and the AI mercenaries, focusing on the outsized efforts to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI). You may be aware of the commotion via a myriad of big-time banner headlines featuring OpenAI's Sam Altman and Meta's Mark Zuckerberg. They and other AI makers are trying to lock down the topmost AI talent so that the chances of reaching pinnacle AI are heightened. Let's talk about it. This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). Heading Toward AGI And ASI First, some fundamentals are required to set the stage for this weighty discussion. There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligence (AGI) or maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI). AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many, if not all, feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of conventional AI versus AGI and ASI, see my analysis at the link here. We have not yet attained AGI. In fact, it is unknown whether we will reach AGI, or that maybe AGI will be achievable in decades or perhaps centuries from now. The AGI attainment dates that are floating around are wildly varying and wildly unsubstantiated by any credible evidence or ironclad logic. ASI is even more beyond the pale when it comes to where we are currently with conventional AI. Stars Are Bright For AI Mega Gurus How will we reach AGI and ASI? The answer seems to be that you need top-notch AI developers who can take contemporary AI and somehow advance it into becoming AGI and ASI. Nobody knows exactly how to build AGI and ASI. It's a wild guess right now. Lots of ideas are floating around. Some of those approaches might be the magic touch, others might be duds. For my in-depth exploration of the paths to AGI and ASI, see the link here. All in all, a heated talent war is underway. This might be likened to trying to make a blockbuster movie. Studios and producers often believe that if they can snag the topmost actors and actresses, they will assuredly end up with a huge box office success. Of course, there have been many movies that utterly bombed, despite having a roster of the most bankable stars of that era. Top talent alone is not necessarily a guarantee of success. At the same time, a cogent argument can be made that you are likely reducing risk and upping the odds of success by at least securing the best of the best. As the old saying goes, hope springs eternal. Likewise, there is a strident belief right now that getting mega-stars in AI will get you to AGI and ASI. Time will tell. Two Major Types of AI Mega Gurus If you listen carefully to the spat between Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg on their hiring sprees, you'll notice an undertone of great significance. It goes like this. One loudly contends that they loftily hire only so-called AI missionaries, while the other one is appallingly hiring merely AI mercenaries. This tit-for-tat has become a regular name-tossing affair. What is this all about? The present-day viewpoint is that there are some AI developers who, in their heart of hearts, are devoted to achieving AGI and ASI. They are true believers. It is their personal mission to get to AGI and ASI. No hurdle is too high. Nothing will stop them in their frenzied quest. They are AI missionaries. Meanwhile, there are AI top guns that focus on the money. Which AI maker will pony up the most dough? It's all about making big bucks while the time is ripe to do so. Down the road, perhaps AGI and ASI aren't possible, and the aura of being a top-ranked AI builder won't be worth a plug nickel. Now is the moment to grab the brass ring. These are the AI mercenaries and will gladly pursue AGI and ASI for the right price. If you were the head of an AI maker and had tons of cash to spend on AI talent, I ask you to consider which path you would take. Would you want to secure the AI missionaries and get their zeal-like missionary juices flowing to attain AGI and ASI? Or would you instead aim for the AI hired-gun mercenaries and have them fueled by dollar signs to work nonstop and arrive at AGI and ASI? Make your choice. The Outcome Is Momentous Did you choose? Your arduous and agonizing decision will likely determine the fate of your own legacy and the fate of your AI-making firm. If you choose the AI missionaries and they succeed, bam, you did the right thing. Good for you. The same goes for choosing the AI mercenaries. But, if you choose the 'wrong' camp, say you pick the AI missionaries and they flop, but the AI mercenaries turn the tide, you'll be walking around with mud on your face. You made a massively incorrect choice. Furthermore, tick-tock, the clock is ticking. Some assert that we are nearly at AGI and ASI. Thus, you must make your choice immediately. Put that AI top talent to work. Any delay will give the other side a better chance of getting to AGI and ASI before you do. Being second place in this race is tantamount to being a humiliated loser. Another vital factor is the marketplace perception of what you are doing. Here's how that happens. Suppose that top AI talent is lured to your competitor. Aha, that suggests your firm isn't up to the challenging task of arriving at AGI and ASI. You have already lost the battle by not securing the AI sharpies. Those AI insiders must know which place has the right stuff. They are a surefire signal of which AI maker has what it takes to get the job done. In that sense, regardless of whether any of these top AI builders can really produce AGI or ASI, the mere act of having them at your firm is serving as a barometer right now. You can get a lot of street cred. Whether this has anything to do with eventually arriving at AGI and ASI is somewhat immaterial. Just tout that you've got the AI mega-stars in your corner, and that alone will boost your stock price and have the marketplace singing great songs of praise. Movie studios do this all the time. Sports teams do the same. The AI makers are astute enough to now play the same game. No need to reinvent the wheel; proceed with well-known gambits that have worked well for millennia. Opting To Mix And Match Wait for a second, some exhort, can't you simply hire both the AI missionaries and the AI mercenaries? That would seem to be the smoothest way to proceed. Rather than making an outright stark bet on one camp, go ahead and bring together both camps. Some of your AI talent will have the mission in their heart and soul. The rest will be there as they gleefully count their coins and watch their crypto accounts grow. It's the best of both worlds. Not so, comes the retort. The problem is that those AI missionaries and AI mercenaries are like mixing oil and water. It does not compute. They will detest each other. You are going to have costly employees who will do anything they can to avoid each other. They might even try to undercut each other, deviously messing up each other's AI code or sneakily denying access to needed AI computing resources. Things can get very cutthroat. You will end up with two separate efforts that are each aiming to arrive at AGI and ASI. This might seem fine, namely that at least you've locked up the talent and your competitor doesn't have them in their midst. If you assume that one camp will succeed, it's perfectly fine that they aren't working in unison. Let them independently do their thing. A knotty problem with that approach is that sometimes having two warring factions inside a single company can be subtractive rather than additive. Allow me to explain. The AI missionaries will be going head-to-head against the AI mercenaries, and vice versa, and they will cause havoc and splintering inside the firm. Each will be doggedly trying to get resources and insisting that the limited resources must come to them. The amount of infighting will be off the charts. Due to the infighting, neither side makes much progress on AGI and ASI. They are nearly fully consumed with the AI hostility scrum that is afoot. Attention is diverted from the crucial and time-sensitive AI efforts at hand. Top AI talent devolves into a scenario reminiscent of the Lord of the Flies. The False Dichotomy Contention A twist on this AI talent war is that perhaps some of these AI mega-stars cannot sensibly be siloed into one camp versus the other. Maybe this is a false dichotomy. The revealed logic is as follows. A devout AI developer might believe in their heart that AI is their mission in life, and at the same time be cognizant that there are bags of money to be made. They are simultaneously an AI missionary and an AI mercenary. Boom, drop the mic. Think of it this way. Imagine that you have potentially spent a sizable chunk of your existence studying AI and building AI. During that time, maybe you were making minimal wages as a backroom AI researcher and hadn't yet been discovered or found the limelight. Now, by luck and a splash of skill, you managed to be in the right place at the right time. Some might compare this to the famed tales of starving actors that endlessly auditioned and got nobody-cares roles, and then they were spotted in a malt shop and became a top-dollar acting phenomenon. It is your moment in the sunshine as an AI developer. Your chance to cash in. And, amazingly, perhaps shockingly, you are able to pursue your life ambitions at the same time. This is a bonanza you could have only dreamed about. You have an innate passion for AI, a burning desire to attain AGI and ASI, along with a financially enriching opportunity that affords you a big house, fancy cars, and tremendous fame. No complaints on that front. Potential Ironies Await The spirited effort to bring together top AI talent and forge them into a cohesive team that will work seamlessly toward attaining AGI and ASI is said to be just one model or approach to the task at hand. For example, there is a case to be made that perhaps a solo AI developer working in their basement or garage will be the first to get to AGI and ASI, see my analysis of this conception at the link here. Ergo, these maneuvers to get AI stars to form into potentially synergistic teams are for naught. Since we don't know how to attain AGI and ASI, all manner of paths and angles are totally on the table. Another viewpoint is that AI will get us to AGI and ASI. Yes, all we need to do is tell AI to produce AGI and ASI. No need for humans to labor away at the hill climbing. A few well-devised prompts will generate AGI and ASI. Easy-peasy. For my coverage on the controversy surrounding AI begetting AGI and ASI, see the link here. There is also the assertion that the most motivational way to attain AGI and ASI is by having AI talent that purposely goes toe-to-toe with each other. If you merely allow top AI stars to be in their own kumbaya echo chamber, they will unknowingly fall for their self-serving assumptions about how to proceed and not openly challenge each other. The best way to get them going is to keep them on edge. Devilishly pit them against each other. Push their buttons. Get their emotions in gear. That's presumably how you make great discoveries. Maybe. Right Direction Or Directionless Cynics and skeptics clamor that the discordant talent wars over AI developers are mainly about saving face. Little of this has to do with AGI and ASI per se. It's a smoke-and-mirrors ploy. In the end, all that might happen is that the chosen AI missionaries get rich, and the chosen AI mercenaries get rich, and the AI makers at the time placated the marketplace and shareholders, but AGI and ASI either don't arrive, or it is invented via an alternative path that few gave much credence to. No one will particularly remember the history of things. It will be like water endlessly flowing down a lazy river. A final thought for now about these thorny life choices. As Lily Tomlin famously said, 'The road to success is always under construction.' So, too, it seems, is the path to AGI and ASI.
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
META, PINS, and SNAP Battle for Digital Turf in Epic Social Media Showdown
Having followed social media stocks for nearly a decade, I can say the current landscape is one of the most dynamic I've seen. In today's AI-driven environment, each company is navigating its own path. Meta Platforms (META), Pinterest (PINS), and Snap (SNAP) are competing in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, where success hinges on innovation, user engagement, and capturing a significant share of advertising spend. Here's a closer look at how each stock is positioned. Don't Miss TipRanks' Half-Year Sale Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week. Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) | The AI-Fueled Victor Meta is gaining impressive momentum across its platforms. Its most recent earnings report delivered a standout quarter, with revenue rising 16% year-over-year to $42.3 billion and net income jumping 35% to $16.64 billion. Daily active users across Meta's family of apps hit a record 3.43 billion, up 6%, fueled by AI-driven ad targeting and content recommendations that are keeping users deeply engaged on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Ad pricing remains strong as advertisers continue to see solid returns, helping sustain a steady flow of advertising dollars. More recently, Meta made a $14.8 billion investment for a 49% stake in Scale AI, valuing the startup at $29 billion, and hiring its CEO, Alexandr Wang, to lead a new AI lab. Moreover, recent reports that Meta is aggressively recruiting OpenAI employees with highly competitive compensation packages underscore just how serious Mark Zuckerberg and his team are about fast-tracking the company's AI ambitions. On top of that, the stock trades at a relatively modest 28x this year's consensus EPS —a figure I believe Wall Street is underestimating, especially in light of Meta's significant Q1 earnings beat. Based on current momentum, the true forward P/E may be closer to 22–23x earnings—a compelling valuation given the company's strong and consistent earnings growth. That's why Meta remains, by far, my largest holding. Is META a Buy, Hold, or Sell? Currently, most analysts are pretty bullish on META stock. The stock carries a Strong Buy consensus rating, based on 42 Buy, four Hold, and zero Sell ratings assigned over the past three months. META's average stock price target of $723.72 implies less than 1% upside over the next twelve months. Pinterest (NYSE:PINS) | A Scrappy Contender with Intangible Risk Pinterest takes a differentiated approach in the social media landscape, showing strength in specific areas while continuing to face challenges in others. In Q1, the platform reached a record 570 million monthly active users, reflecting a 10% year-over-year increase. Revenue increased 12% to $740 million, driven by AI-powered visual search and shoppable pins that enhance ad engagement. With $1.25 billion in cash on hand, Pinterest has the financial flexibility to continue innovating, particularly by improving its e-commerce capabilities to attract more advertisers. I remain broadly optimistic about its potential for ad spend growth and its disciplined cost management, which should support steady gains in both revenue and profitability over time. However, there are some caveats. Pinterest still trails peers in revenue per user, as larger platforms benefit from more substantial network effects and higher conversion rates. Additionally, economic uncertainty could lead advertisers to trim budgets, and smaller platforms like Pinterest are often the first to feel the impact. While Pinterest enjoys a loyal and engaged user base, monetizing its 570 million users without compromising its unique, creative identity remains a delicate balancing act. Is PINS Stock a Good Buy? Snap's (NYSE:SNAP) | Fighting a Losing Battle Snap is facing significant headwinds, and the numbers paint a challenging picture. In the most recent quarter, Snapchat reached 422 million daily active users; however, revenue grew only 5% to $1.19 billion, falling short of the pace set by competitors like Meta and Pinterest. Compounding the issue is Snap's elevated level of stock-based compensation, which accounts for roughly 19% of revenue and leads to ongoing shareholder dilution. Despite management's focus on positive free cash flow, that figure is essentially a byproduct of these high SBC levels, not improved operational efficiency. On a diluted basis, the company continues to erode shareholder value year after year. Supporters may point to Snap's efforts in augmented reality and interactive features as potential growth levers, but these initiatives have yet to have a material impact on the company's performance. Unlike Meta's leadership in AI or Pinterest's strategic shift in e-commerce, Snap's innovations haven't translated into meaningful revenue gains. In an increasingly competitive landscape, Snap is struggling to differentiate itself, and as a result, I remain unenthusiastic about its growth outlook. Is SNAP a Good Stock to Buy? Snap is currently covered by 31 Wall Street analysts, most of whom hold a neutral outlook. The stock carries a Hold consensus rating with six analysts assigning a Buy, 24 a Hold, and one Sell rating over the past three months. SNAP's average price target of $9.88 suggests about 6.5% upside potential over the next twelve months. Meta Leads, Pinterest Gambles, Snap Stumbles The social media landscape is a high-stakes battleground, and in my view, Meta stands out as the clear leader. With strong revenue growth, a dominant position in AI, and strategic investments like its stake in Scale AI, Meta remains a top pick for growth-oriented investors. Pinterest plays the role of the ambitious underdog. With 570 million users and a growing focus on e-commerce, it has potential—but it's a high-risk, high-reward proposition that requires flawless execution to succeed. Snap, on the other hand, appears to be losing momentum. Sluggish growth, intense competition, and ongoing shareholder dilution suggest management isn't prioritizing long-term value for investors. For now, Meta is the stock to own, Pinterest may appeal to those with a higher risk tolerance, and Snap looks best suited for short-term speculative trading rather than long-term conviction.
