We’re at the dawn of golden age of ‘AI-preneurship’, or so we’re told…
Tools are faster. Barriers are lower. You don’t need a team—you need a browser. That is largely true. But there’s one question that keeps echoing beneath the optimism:
If AI is quietly killing jobs at the bottom of the economy…
who’ll still be around to buy what AI-preneurs are building?
This is precisely the kind of second-order question too many businesses and builders are avoiding. I get it, it’s tempting to discount and dismiss such questions as fear-mongering.
In Prompt Playbook: Big Questions in AI, Part 1, Kyle Balmer mapped what he calls the erosion effect:
“AI won’t eliminate jobs all at once. It’ll just quietly erase the entry-level until we realize there’s no ladder left.”
It’s a blueprint for what we’re already seeing played out before our very eyes.
While it’s tempting to frame “AI is taking my job” as a primal threat,
the questions businesses ask are purely economic:
“If a CEO can get the same output—cheaper, faster, and with fewer people—
why wouldn’t they?”
That’s not dystopia. That’s incentive.
And companies are already acting on it.
Klarna, Duolingo, and the AI-First Hangover
Remember Klarna?
They made headlines for replacing the work of 700 humans with an AI assistant.
They froze hiring. They cut 22% of their workforce. For a moment, they looked like the poster child for AI efficiency.
Then they flinched.
By May 2025, Klarna’s CEO admitted they’d “gone too far.” Service quality collapsed. Customers noticed. Now they’re rehiring support staff.
Duolingo? Similar story. After cutting contractors and going “AI-first,” user trust took a hit. Students complained. The company is now rebalancing humans back into its education model.
Stripe took a more measured approach—automating where it made sense, hiring where it didn’t.
The lesson?
AI is a lever—not a license to cut your entire base.
When you gut entry-level hiring, you don’t just lose workers.
You lose future customers.
I don’t think businesses understand this.
The Market Most ‘AI-preneurs’ Depend On? It’s Thinning.
Let’s be real about what what most ‘AI-preneurs’ are selling:
- Templates, playbooks, and toolkits
- Automations for solo teams
- Skill accelerators for creators and career shifters
It’s all useful. But it’s not mission-critical.
These are growth purchases. Leverage purchases.
And the people who used to make them?
Many are either out of work or looking over their shoulder.
The World Economic Forum says 40% of employers plan cuts in AI-automatable roles—mostly early-career and support functions.
23.5% of U.S. companies have already replaced jobs with tools like ChatGPT.
Wall Street alone could lose 200,000 jobs in 3–5 years, mostly junior roles.
That’s not just talent disappearing. That’s income. Upward mobility. Customers.
AI makes it easier to build—but harder to find people who can pay attention, let alone pay money.
Who’s Still Buying?
Balmer doesn’t say the market disappears. He says it contracts. And he’s right.
There are still buyers. They just don’t look like your usual “digital product” persona.
Here’s where demand seems to be concentrating:
- Mid-career pros who need to stay relevant as AI moves faster than org charts
- Founders and solo GMs with money but no bandwidth
- SMBs that want leverage without adding payroll
- High-agency learners who realize the old career ladder’s gone and are building new playbooks from scratch
This is where ‘AI-preneurship’ still works.
Not as a mass-market gold rush. As a precision tool.
What Tracks (And Where You Need to Listen)
Balmer’s erosion theory hits because it tracks with what we’re seeing:
- Shrinking job creation at the base
- Flattened career progression
- Fewer people with rising income and discretionary budget
It’s not a cliff. It’s atrophy of the legs up, shifting the foundation beneath your business model.
Here’s the tension:
- AI gives you more power to create
- But fewer people have the means—or the motivation—to consume
If you’re still building with 2023 assumptions about buyer intent, you’re already behind.
What Misses (And You Can Capitalize On)
Balmer’s case is strong—but it underweights what’s still emerging:
- New roles in AI ops (‘Agent Bosses’), ethics, and enablement
- Demand in sectors where AI doesn’t replace, but amplifies (healthcare, climate tech, systems integration)
- The rise of the strategic freelancer: not chasing volume, but solving business-critical pain points
He also glosses over reskilling. Yes, I have concerns investment is low in this area. But it’s the variable that could shift this entire game for nation-states that move decisively. Whoever builds trustable, fast, human-centric retraining infrastructure wins.
The Real AI Tradeoff
This isn’t just about jobs lost.
It’s about ladder rungs removed.
When companies gut entry-level roles in the name of efficiency and profits,
they’re not just cutting costs—they’re cutting futures.
No apprentices. No pipeline. No next generation of buyers, builders, or believers.
Stop asking, “How much can we automate?”
Start asking, “What still needs a human—and why?”
Leave a Reply