/
Published on 04.02.2026
TLDR: Kent Beck argues that the venture capital obsession with AI as a labor replacement tool is dangerously reductive. Real AI value comes from six different levers including revenue acceleration, optionality creation, and enabling entirely new business models that weren't feasible before.
Summary:
Kent Beck takes aim at a popular narrative in the venture capital world, specifically the thesis promoted by Harry Stebbings on the 20VC podcast that AI profitability primarily runs through labor replacement. You know the pitch: "Stop paying a million in salaries by paying a hundred thousand for this AI service." It's clean arithmetic. It's fundable. And according to Beck, it's woefully incomplete.
The core argument here is elegant in its simplicity. If we think about company value as net present value, there are four fundamental levers: smaller costs at the same time, same costs but later, more revenue at the same time, and same revenue but sooner. The labor replacement thesis only addresses that first lever. But wait, Beck goes further. He argues that company value also encodes optionality, which is how many ways exist to improve that NPV in the future. A company with more options is worth more than one with identical cash flows but fewer options. This is where it gets genuinely interesting.
Beck walks through concrete examples across all these dimensions. Take expanded service capacity: your support team of ten people can now handle what used to require twenty-five. But here's the twist that the labor replacement folks miss. You don't fire fifteen people. You serve three times as many customers. Your addressable market just tripled without tripling your headcount. The humans handle the hard cases while AI manages the routine ones. That's not cost reduction. That's market expansion.
Then there's the optionality angle, which I think deserves more attention than it typically gets. Real-time translation and localization used to require a dedicated team for each market. Now you can experiment with entering new geographies without committing the full resources. Even if you never exercise that option, its existence has value. Professional services firms that couldn't scale because every engagement required senior talent can now productize some of that expertise. These aren't cost reductions. They're entirely new ways to make money.
What Beck is really challenging here is the seductive legibility of the cost reduction narrative. You can point at a budget line, point at an AI service, and do arithmetic. Investors love that. But I'd push back a bit on Beck's framing too. He's perhaps being too generous to the more complex value propositions. The reality is that measuring "optionality value" and "faster experimentation" is genuinely hard. Organizations struggle to capture these benefits because they're diffuse and long-term. The labor replacement narrative wins not just because it's simple, but because it creates accountability. When you're spending on AI, someone has to be able to say whether it worked. The softer benefits Beck describes are real, but they're also easier to hide behind when the investment doesn't pan out.
What's also missing from this analysis is the transition cost. Moving from a ten-person support team handling X volume to the same team handling 3X volume requires significant organizational change. People need to develop new skills, workflows need redesign, and there's real friction in that transformation. Beck presents these alternatives as if organizations can simply choose which lever to pull, but the implementation complexity varies dramatically across them.
Key takeaways: