That's an interesting way to look at it, although at that point using the words "startup" and "entrepreneur" are more marketing than anything else.
I think what people object to about this "no idea" idea is the feeling that this is just more control being shifted from founders to the same small group of rich and powerful tech kingmakers.
I don't know how valid that objection is, I guess we'll have to see, but it's likely a good thing for the community to discuss (although I doubt that discussion will happen here all that much).
My objection to the idea is really contingent on what YC is trying to do:
1. Get groups without an idea or product to cultivate and implement their own ideas. I think this is their primary goal, but to be honest, I have absolutely no clue whether it will work. I would wager, however, that this idea would work, especially with a good group that can deal with the pressure well.
2. Match these kickass development groups with another YC pitched idea. This is less clear how it would work, because it turns YC into a consulting/temp agency. I'm also not sure what the groups would be working for. Would it be for pay through YC, or for equity in the new startup? This, I think, is the worry for a lot of people, because it would result(like freshhawk mentioned) control being shifted away from the founders.
I think what people object to about this "no idea" idea is the feeling that this is just more control being shifted from founders to the same small group of rich and powerful tech kingmakers.
I don't know how valid that objection is, I guess we'll have to see, but it's likely a good thing for the community to discuss (although I doubt that discussion will happen here all that much).