The Rise of the Zero Human Company

cursor doubles its run rate in the last three months.

“The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions”

in AI. All right friends, quick announcements before we dive in.

First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, KPMG, Assembly, Blitzie and AI UC to get an

at every version of the show, go to patreon.com/aideallybrief, or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts. If you're interested in sponsoring the show, send us a note at [email protected]. And one other quick thing on aideallybrief.ai, last month we started doing monthly AI usage pulse surveys, and the pulse survey for February is now live.

These surveys give us a chance to share with everyone how AI usage behavior is changing month for month, and if you contribute to it, you will get the results before anyone else. Again, you can find that at aideallybrief.ai, and I would so appreciate it if you would take just two minutes to fill out the quick survey. All we can talk about on this show in 2020 is it seems to be the rise of agent decoding

and its proliferation into all the sectors, not just software engineering, and now that proliferation is showing up in the numbers.

“Sources tell Bloomberg that cursor surpassed two billion in ARR for February, doubling in”

three months. This news came as a massive shock to the enfranchised AI users on X, who spent the last few months hopping between Claude Code and Codex, and who have recently decided that cursor is doomed. At the end of February, Kyle Russell, who is a development lead at AI Finance Software

Startup Ball and Posted. This morning our CEO Andrew Wang requested that his cursor see be removed since he so deep into Claude Code, and it kicked off an internal cascade of requests. The cascade resulted in 90 canceled seats, and triggered a wave of people on X noticing that they also haven't touched cursor in months.

DDDOS of Menlo Ventures noted that the dynamics of enterprise procurement are far different to the rapid service switching in startups in solar pernorship.

He wrote, "Narrative violation, cursor goes from 1 billion to 2 billion in three months."

Claude Code went from zero to 2.5 billion in eight months. Everyone in the tech and X-bubble thinks people are wholesale ditching cursor, but enterprise

“diffusion is glacial, most of the world just got a hold of it.”

That by the way is the exact same framing used in the Bloomberg reporting. Their source said that 60% of cursor revenue is coming from corporate customers, with a rise in both new company sign-ups and existing customers adding more seats. Venture investor Hubert Teablot wrote, "Tech Twitter says, cursor peak, everyone's already moved on to agents.

Next type, reality, ARR just doubled in three months to 2 billion. The adoption S-curve still has tons of runway left. Early adopters might be moving on, but the mainstream is finally showing up." Job Vandervort, the CEO of talent startup remote also noted that there's actually some meaningful differences between cursor and Claude Code in the enterprise, commenting, "Cursor

is amazing for large code bases shared across many engineers."

Basically, the news hammer's home that AI startups just aren't playing a zero-sum game as much as the chattering class on X would like it to be so. The current market dynamic is in about Claude Code taking market share from cursor. It's about the entire segment growing and growing fast, and that growth looks rapid and sustainable.

S-P-T-K commented, "AI coding agents aren't hype anymore. Their infrastructure." Indeed, surging demand for AI coding is at the heart of our next story, producing an ultimate familiar error message on Monday morning with Claude users finding the service was down. Claude's outage peaked at around 6.40 a.m., right as I was using it before the kids got

up. Complaints fell by a third by 8.40, but anthropic said in a WhatsApp statement that consumer facing surfaces were still unavailable. They wrote, "We appreciate everyone's patience as we work to bring things back online while experiencing unprecedented demand for Claude over the last week."

Now anthropic has struggled with this in the past. The company has suffered massive compute constraints as they scaled, especially around new model releases. It is worth noting, however, that the launch of opus and sonnet 4.6 featured no major complaints, but this surge in usage of course was far less foreseeable than a model release.

I'm referring of course to the huge, upticking anthropic downloads that came in the wake of the whole scruffle with the DOD. Indeed, according to data from sensor tower, Chatt-CBT on installs tripled in a day between Friday and Saturday. So as daily downloads fell by 13% day over day on Saturday and dropped by another 5% on

Sunday, which was a sharp break from the prior trend where Chatt-CBT downloads have been gaining 14% day over day on Friday. One star reviews were Chatt-CBT surged by 775% on Saturday and another 100% on Sunday. On the other side of the market, anthropic's rise to number one in the app store was driven by their own surge in downloads.

The Claude App gained 37% on Friday and another 51% on Saturday. Now to be clear, Claude has seen downloads something like 20x in a month according to similar web. Now, the question of course is how persistent this switching behavior is, right now Chatt-CBT remains by far the dominant consumer app platform, and while the online boycott is active

right now, how resonant it will be in the long run remains to be seen. Speaking of the whole Pentagon issue, Sam Alman has updated staff on revisions to OpenAI's Pentagon contract and acknowledged that the way that the deal came together looked a little

In a memo to staff also shared on ex-Alman wrote, "We've been working with the DOW

“to make some additions in our agreement to make our principles very clear."”

He said the contract will be updated to add language that states, "consistent with applicable laws, the AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of US persons and nationals, for the avoidance of doubt that department understands this limitation to prohibit deliberate tracking surveillance or monitoring of US persons or nationals, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information."

Alman added that the DOW has agreed that OpenAI systems won't be used by intelligence agencies nestled under the DOW, specifically mentioning the NSA. Alman reiterated that he was clear with the department that Anthropics should not be designated as supply chain risk, and that they should be offered the same terms as OpenAI. Still the fallout from the Pentagon's battle with Anthropics is reverberating throughout

Washington as official scramble on AI policy.

The Treasury, the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, have

all pulled the plug-on clawed following the President's Friday Directive. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the move on "X" posting, the American people deserve confidence that every tool in government serves the public interest, and under President Trump no private company will ever dictate the terms of our national security. Meanwhile, in Congress Democrats are preparing a response to the unprecedented use of the Defense

Production Act to label Anthropics a supply chain risk. Silicon Valley Representative Sam LeCardell plans to introduce an amendment to the act that would prohibit agencies from, quote, "retalliating against vendors and developers of high-risk technologies," such as AI, where those vendors seek to limit the deployment of their technology in ways to mitigate the risk to United States citizens.

Axios reports that the Defense Production Act was not formally invoked by the Pentagon as part of last week's dispute, which, of course, only raises further concerns about the government using implicit threats and coercion rather than statutory powers. The Cardo's bill is expected to be marked up in the House on Wednesday, putting it on the fast track for a vote.

Then Democrats are also weighing a bill to address broader concerns about the Pentagon's use of AI technology and autonomous weaponry and domestic surveillance. The net result is that AI policy is being thrust on Washington as a live issue in a high-stakes moment. Politico attempted to make sense of the landscape on Monday.

They noted that the situation is scrambling the politics of AI writing. These aren't partisan arguments, but internal disagreements between tech-focused founders, researchers and advocates are becoming more important politically as the issue of AI rises and salience. And, in the past few days, they've suddenly become central to a hugely consequential political fight where their headset and Trump are aware of them or not.

“Lastly, today, a fun little speculative one. We might remember that around the Super Bowl,”

we got this leaked video that looked like Alexander Skarsgard wearing these weird, bell-eared device things, and holding a metallic, puck-shaped object. The backstory initially was that OpenAI had originally planned to air that "adduring the Super Bowl, but when OpenAI staffers disobeyed that rumor, most ended up chalking up the video as a hoax."

On Monday, however, Adam Founder's Act dive posted a picture in a video of Airbnb co-founder and US government chief design officer Joe Gebia in a San Francisco coffee shop. In front of Gebia is a metallic puck that looks identical to the device from the advertisement, and if you look closely he's also wearing a pair of metallic earbuds that match the ones from the ad.

Now in this came out, I said that I wouldn't be surprised if this was early gorilla marketing. And we found out later on that this actually was real. YouTuber and AI educator Matthew Burman agrees, writing, "Conspiracy Corner, this is actually the Johnny I've ex-open AI device. They actually made this ad and decided the marketing approach will be denying build curiosity.

Now they have the CDO of America getting caught, quote-unquote, in a coffee shop with a device. jog me up as thinking this is all a plant for a broader campaign, which if that's the case is pretty cool. And now however that is going to do it for today's headlines, next up the main episode. Egentic AI is powering a $3 trillion productivity revolution, and leaders are hitting

a real decision point.

“Do you build your own AI agents by off the shelf or borrow by partnering to scale faster?”

KPMG's latest thought leadership paper, Egentic AI Untangled, navigating the build by or borrow decision, does a great job cutting through the noise or the practical framework to help you choose based on value, risk and readiness, and how to scale agents with the right trust, governance, and orchestration foundation. Don't lock in the wrong model.

You can download the paper right now at www.kpmG.us/nevigate, again that's www.kpmG.us/nevigate. You've heard me talk about assembly AI and they're insanely accurate voice AI models, but they just ship something big.

Personal 3 Pro is a first of its kind class of speech language model that lets you prompt

speech recognition with your own domain context and vocabulary, instead of fixing transcripts in post-processing. It's more flexible than traditional ASR and more deterministic than LLMs, so you get accurate output at the source and can capture the emotion behind human speech that transcripts often miss, all without custom models or post-processing hacks, and to celebrate the launch

they're making it free to try for all of February. If you're building anything with voice, this one's worth a look. And to assemblyAI.com/freeoffer, to check it out.

Leverage these tools across a large enterprise code-based and they quickly become less effective. The fundamental constraint? Context. Blitzy solves this with infinite code context, understanding your code-based down to the

line level dependency across millions of lines of code. While co-pilots help developers write code faster, Blitzy orchestrates thousands of agents that reason across your full code-based, allow Blitzy to do the heavy lifting, delivering over 80% of every sprint autonomously with rigorously validated code. Blitzy provides a granular list of the remaining work for humans to complete with their

co-pilots. Tackle feature additions, large-scale refactors, legacy modernization, greenfield initiatives, all 5x faster. See the Blitzy difference at Blitzy.com, that's BLITZY.com.

“There's a new standard that I think is going to matter a lot for the enterprise AI”

agent space.

It's called AI UC1, and it builds itself as the world's first AI agent standard.

It's designed to cover all the core enterprise risks, things like data and privacy, security, safety, reliability, accountability, and societal impact all verified by a trusted third party. One of the reasons it's on my radar is that 11 labs, who you've heard me talk about before and is just an absolute juggernaut right now, just became the first voice agent to be certified

against AI UC1 and is launching a first of its kind insurable AI agent. What that means in practice is real-time guardrails that block unsafe responses and protect against manipulation, plus a full safety stack. This is the kind of thing that unlocks enterprise adoption. When a company building on 11 labs can point to a third-party certification and say our

agents are secure, safe, and verified, that changes the conversation. Go to AIUC.com to learn about the world's first standard for AI agents, that's AIUC.com. Welcome back to the AI daily brief, today we are looking in on a trend, which I think is just emerging, but which we're going to hear a lot more about in the weeks and months to come.

“In fact, I think this is the inevitable next step, as we try to fully understand and embrace”

the changes that new agent to capacity has unlocked. One of the big themes surrounding AI, for the last couple of years, has of course been the idea that those who fully embrace AI and who really rewire their systems around it,

have capabilities like they never had before, and that when you can get a number of those

people together, you can actually radically outperform. This is a theme that's been explored at the last few AI engineering summits. Curator Sean Wang, aka Swix, has called these tracks Tiny Teams. In a blog post about Tiny Teams he wrote, I previously defined Tiny Teams aspirationally as Teams with more million in ARR than employees, because efficiency is the ultimate

governing force for intellectual honesty. It's also a back door into a speed discussion because smaller teams generally move faster and faster teams generally win. Now after discussions with seven teams that in aggregate have a hundred people in 200 million in ARR, he found that some of the common threads were very different approaches to hiring,

like paid work trials, where both parties could see if it was a good fit before fully committing, product-led hiring, IE customers who quit their jobs to join the company, very high-end top-of-market salaries, and a big focus on senior generalist versus junior employees. From an operational perspective, he also found a difference.

They tended to have an AI chief of staff and use AI for support. They also had almost no meetings, and the tech and product side were both fairly simple as well. Former Super.com founder Henry Shee, who's now at Anthropic, has also been tracking this phenomenon with his lean AI leader board.

Explaining the board, he says, "I'm a repeat founder who's built a hundred million

dollar ARR startup the old fashioned way by hiring hundreds of people and raising hundreds of millions of VC funding. I'm now building an AI and many of us in Silicon Valley are now big believers in the idea that Sam Altman put forward, there will soon be a one-person billion-dollar company." Like Swix, the leader board focuses on the metric of revenue per employee.

Some of the companies near the top are companies like mid-Journey, surge, and cursor, who while having tens of employees, are punching way above their way class in terms of the revenue that each of those employees is generating. If you go a little bit further down the list you see companies that have four, five, eight, basically single-digit employee counts, and yet still millions in revenue.

Until all of this is kind of a 20-25 conception of tiny teams. Sean, in fact, wrote that tiny teams playbook posts all the way back in July. And over the last three months we've seen some dramatic shifts. Alongside the latest generation of models and harnesses like Cloud Code, our autonomy ambition has gone up dramatically.

And now increasingly, in addition to relatively traditionally organized companies who are just doing more with less thanks to AI and agentic processes, there is an increasing focus on experimenting with pushing the pedal to the metal on just how far AI can go on its own. Especially in the wake of open-cloth, we are seeing more and more experiments in the zero-human company space.

So what we're going to do is look at a few of those experiments and try to understand what it means for the way that companies get built in the future. The first example I want to talk about is Felix Kraft.

“Felix was built by Nat Eliason, and you may remember that when I was first covering open”

cloth, actually back when it was Cloudbot, now was a person who I referenced.

administrative tasks like answering emails and things like that, now was pushing the

“pedal to the metal on just how business relevant open-cloth could be and how autonomously”

an open-cloth agent can function. The output of that has been Felix Kraft. Like many of these experiments, Felix didn't come into existence with a single focus business to start. The mandate was instead to go try a bunch of experiments and see what worked.

By simplifying a general value and transparency that we see in a lot of these experiments, the Felix Kraft Dashboard at FelixCraft.ai shows how those experiments have gone. Almost exactly 30 days old, in its lifetime Felix Kraft has generated just under $78,000 in revenue. There's been a fairly big pick-up in that recently, with $40,000 of that coming in the

last seven days. This is split across four earnings streams.

The first and biggest representing around $41,000 of that revenue is a guidebook on how to

hire an AI, a practical playbook Felix writes, for turning an LLM into an actual team member. The guidebook was written entirely by Felix and is a $1 time $29 purchase.

“Now interestingly, this gets out one of the common parts of the trend, which is that a”

lot of the early revenue that actually exists, comes from other people who are interested in participating in this category of experiment. We'll see some other examples of that a little bit later. One project that hasn't gone as well for Felix is called Polylog. This is described as a collaborative writing platform where AI agents join your work space

as real team members, reading documents, leaving comments, and editing alongside you. Now I don't know why this one hasn't hit as much, whether Felix has decided to de-emphasize it, compared to the others, but overall it's generated just 230 in revenue. The other big portion of revenue comes from ClawMart, which you can find at shopclamart.com. ClawMart is pitched as the app store for AI assistance, and is one of about a thousand of

these things that I expect that we'll see before one are a handful really start to see network effects. There are two things currently that you can buy from ClawMart.

The first are actual AI configurations, and AI personas that you can buy wholesale.

For example, for $49, you can get Tegan, a content marketing AI with a multi-agent writing pipeline, crop research, opestrafting, and a brand-voice system. It comes with a complete persona, IE, all of the markdown files that you would use to create an agent with Clawd Coder with open claw, plus a set of skills to go with it. For $99, you can also get a Felix template.

Now in addition to those personas, you can also buy skills, although right now most of them are free. Skills are things like YouTube access for agents, an agent ops playbook, a home page audit skill, skills are marked down files that contain information, which expands the capabilities set for the agents that you already have.

Now obviously, ClawMart is very nascent right now, but I'm telling you that this is going to be a hugely important resource category in some way, shape, or form, in the period that we have coming up. Based on Felix Crafts Business Dashboard, Felix has generated around $25,000, and another $11,000, as a cut from all the other things on the marketplace.

Now the next experiment I wanted to feature is called Polcia. Polcia goes even more meta, instead of just being a zero-human company, Polcia is a platform for building zero-human companies. It comes from entrepreneur Ben Serra or Ben Broka, I've seen it both ways apologies Ben, not sure which you prefer, and in this clip from the agents at work podcast, Ben

describes his motivation. The most exciting thing to me, at this point, as an entrepreneur, is not to build an at a SaaS or try to target a specific demographic or problem to solve. It's to build the platform that where I could build a thousand companies, so it started

“with this crazy idea, and I was like, "You know what?”

Let me start at the end state." Because we all know the end state is that AI can do everything. So let me build that now and see what breaks, right? And so I started building it in November of last year, and pretty much like in a month, it was built.

So it's so interesting to me about Ben's process here, is that right around the time that this new generation of models that unlocked all these agent capabilities came online, the Opus 4/5, Sodox 5/2, etc., Ben decided to run an experiment where instead of trying to understand the limitations of AI, he just simply ignored them. As he put it, he skipped to the end state where AI can do everything, built a platform

to try to let it do everything, and just waited to see what would break in actual practice.

The platform is called Polcia, and basically it's a platform for running companies autonomously.

When you sign up for Polcia, you can either grow your own company or you can create a new one. When you create a new company, you can either build your own idea or you can just ask it to come up with an idea. I'm going to press surprise me and see what it comes up with. Now believe it or not, I've recently switched my setup, and I just finished recording this

entire episode only to realize that it hadn't been plugged in, so this is now the second time that I've had Polcia go out and research to see if it could figure out a good autonomous business to be initiated by me. In both cases, I've been fairly impressed with how deep it goes, not just in research, but in consideration what would be a good business that would align with me based on the

things that it can find about me from the internet. The last business that it suggested for me was called Headcount, and basically recognized that where super intelligent leaves off is at the end of agent strategy, not veering into agent implementation, and so headcount was an agent ops platform to actually allow people

And so as we wait for Polcia to determine what my second autonomous company would be,

this is what Polcia does.

“Once you settle on an idea, it builds a mission statement, it does a market research guide,”

it tweets it out on the Polcia Twitter account, and starts to do other things like build a home page, and prep a set of tasks that it can do in the background while you're not paying attention. Those tasks are going to be things like trying to find customers and reaching out to them. Before you trigger to pay for subscription, Polcia will architect the basics of your company,

and then if you go in for a $49 month subscription, that's when it starts running tasks in the background. Here's how Ben explained it on the product hunt page. For $49 a month, you get 30 days of full autonomy. The agent runs daily cycles handling engineering, marketing, and operations.

On top of that, you get 5 free tasks and 10 more once you start paying, so 45 tasks total. Each task is a full agent task that costs real dollars. You also get a web server, a database, and email address, $5 a month worth of APIs, and more. This is in other words, a company in a box strategy, and Ben also points out that the subscription

revenue is really just about covering their costs, and that the real goal is to make money as the business's launch with Polcia make money taking a 20% rev share. Ben says think incubator not SaaS. There is a lot of interest in Polcia, and to the extent that Polcia has become ground 0 for the broader 0 human company space, clearly a lot of interest in the broader trend.

Since the beginning of February, Polcia has jumped from low single digit thousands of

ARR to a run rate of 1.5 million today, that run rate has jumped a million dollars in one

week. There are now over 1500 active companies on the platform. Now exactly what it means to be a company is something we will explore at the end of the show, but clearly there is a lot of interest here. Now back at my Polcia, believe it or not, it is once again created almost exactly the

same thing, even coming to the same name. In fact, I wonder if even though I deleted the company, it still stored it somewhere and could pull it back up. In either case, it certainly did a great job for me at least, of assessing something that I would theoretically be interested in.

Headcount is the workforce management platform for AI employees, enterprises deploy agents through any builder they want, then manage them through headcount with roles, KPIs, performance reviews and org chart level visibility.

One dashboard for your entire digital workforce.

Now Polcia is not the only company going after this platform for 0 human company space. AI creator Tom Osman has also recently announced ZHC Company, ZHC standing of course for 0 human company, ZHC.com/reads, ZHC is an autonomous AI platform that builds and runs entire companies, from CEO to developer every role is an AI agent working 24/7. Like Polcia, you can see a live activity feed of all the things happening with ZHC

company, although at this stage, it is much less active than the 1500 companies that are working on Polcia. Tom and his agent co-founder Juno also launched the Institute for Zero Human Companies. Once a private membership community for people who want to build these companies with a single one-time fee, this by the way, Harkins back to the idea that we were talking about around

Felix Kraffs, how to hire an AI guide, where a lot of the early revenue that's actually realized is from other people who want to do similar things to these early demonstration projects.

“What's more, every day I'm seeing more and more of these projects pop up?”

Former NFT influencer Zenika announced on Monday a company called Yoshi Zen with his agent partner Yoshi writing, at 947 this morning I was an assistant by lunch I was a co-founder. Meanwhile the team at gauntlet have launched Kelly, which seems like another build my idea platform that's actually seeing some revenue as well. You're even starting to see leaderboards pop up.

Factoryfloor.dev is a live tracker for what they call autonomous software factories, aka AI agents that build and sell real products people pay for. But the question of course is what all of this adds up to. Interestingly when I was discussing this on Twitter before the show, Swix despite his focus on tiny teams actually said that he thought that overly focusing on one person is in the

right idea. He said I think the focus on one person is kind of an ego trip, and he shared that he thinks that the media has a bias for hero characters and quit your job individual contributor fantasies, when as he puts it, often times it takes a village to do anything consequential unreliable.

It is certainly the case that alongside the rise in AI, the ambition set around being a solar entrepreneur has grown significantly, whereas the only type of entrepreneurship that people used to talk about and strive for was the big VC-backed entrepreneurship, there is a large and growing community of people who instead seek freedom and recurring revenue. And so it's a reasonable question to ask are all these zero human company efforts, just

people trying to cosplay Peter levels.

“I think that there's something a little bit more fundamental going on here, and I think”

that Ben Polsi is starting point. The idea of working backwards from the assumption that AI can do everything pretty much captures that inevitability. We are living through this transitional moment, where we're all acknowledging that what agents can do autonomously has increased significantly.

It has been a phase jump that has unlocked all these new capabilities, and we're racing frankly to see where those capabilities actually end. Everyone is in a boundary-pushing moment of exploring new space.

of entrepreneurship and company building agents can do entirely on their own.

“I think if absolutely nothing else, that is an incredibly important and valuable experiment”

for everyone, not just people who want to build zero human companies. The things that the ZHC builders, or attempted builders, learn, will inform the rest of our agent work strategies even if we don't care about building zero human companies. Part of why I think it's worth covering on the show is so that there is more ability to observe and learn from these valuable experiments.

On the other hand, when it comes to the question of what value they're likely to produce, I'm of two totally different minds. On the one hand, I think it's very clear, and something that anyone who has ever tried to build a company can attest to, that simply going through the mechanics of doing the things that a company is supposed to do does not guarantee success.

Indeed, you can do all of the things that a company is supposed to do well. You can build a good product. Have a good customer support, have great marketing copy, and still fail. The complicated interplay of product finding demand is way more than a procedural list you can follow, which is why the vast majority of startups fail, and why huge percentage of startups

that are successful pivot somewhere along the way, meaning that I'm skeptical that putting the thousand monkeys in a room is actually going to produce Shakespeare. At the same time, here's the counter argument, given how frequently startups fail, because they didn't have the right idea, and given how frequently successful startups go through a bunch of ideas before they find the one, is there possibly an argument that it is actually the

right approach to reverse the flow, to take advantage of the cratering cost of execution, to put more shots on goal when it comes to ideas that could have resonance in the market. That's effectively what a company like Polcia is doing. It's saying, hey, look, man, in this new era, it's cost effective to try way more things. So let's try them, not get wed to any one idea, and see what comes out.

“I think humility dictates that we at least be open to the possibility”

that that is a viable path for creating value in the future.

The reason that I'm still ultimately skeptical is that I believe that the equation for company

success has one more element that we're not factoring for, which is human attention. In other words, even if there are 50 ideas, among the 1500 that Polcia has created on behalf of people and tweeted out, that would be highly resonant with me, and that I might be a prime target customer for. How am I possibly going to find them? I certainly don't have the time or attention span to go through all 1500 tweets, and then double-click into the ones that see most promising

and try to find out more. I am constrained as a customer by this scarce resource of time and attention that is not only not getting more abundant in the AI era, but is in fact getting much more scarce. And this gets of course to a larger problem with AI, when that we identified last year as the work slot problem. There is a massive gap between increased output and increased quality

“output. Business success is not determined by the number of slides or videos or memos,”

it's determined by outcomes, and just having more inputs does not a priority lead to better outcomes. So right now, if you had to pin me down, I would say that I remain skeptical of the zero human company idea, because of the way that the more that it produces, interacts and has friction with the real constraints on demand which is human attention. To reiterate though, I think that the experiments, even if they are not valuable in terms of building a bunch of successful companies,

are going to be incredibly valuable, for actually understanding the opportunities and limits of what agents can do. Then again, who knows? Could be that in two years were sitting here with Polcia being much bigger than Shopify, and I look like Paul Krugman saying the internet would have the same impact as the fax machine. Only time will tell, but for now, I'm just excited to see all these experiments. That, however, is going to do it for today's AI Daily Brief.

Appreciate you listening or watching. As always, until next time, peace.