This YouTube Short (by Jason M. Lemkin) features a short dialogue where the speakers compare a prior team of about 10 full-time people to a new setup involving roughly 1.2 humans plus 20 AI agents, asserting that business output is similar despite reduced human headcount — illustrating AI's role in displacing some jobs while augmenting others.
Used to have about 10 people full time. Now you have 1.2 humans. And you said 20 agents.
20 agents, yeah.
Okay. And what you're describing is the business is doing very similarly to what it was when you had 10 humans. Now you have 20 agents. The business doing the same.
But what it is replacing are the mid pack and below. The ones that don't really understand what linear does. The ones that don't really know what a pull request is or exactly how replit works. The AI can do better not than the best, right? So I would love to have more humans, but I'm not going to hire someone that after their third month in the job doesn't know what saster does. I just can't do that one more time. And you don't need to. I don't think you need to. So we're not doing this is the thing. AI is replacing the jobs people don't want to do today and it is displacing the media, the mid pack and the mediocre. They are. Their jobs are at risk. They are at risk. The best humans, it is true that they will get superpowers from AI, but I'm not sure the rest will. But at the end of the day, 1.2 humans is plus 20 a agents is doing about what 10 human GTM did.
