A quick rebuttal to https://every.to/thesis-statements/julian-weisser
Julian Weisser argues that AI will make solo founding the default, and he’s probably right about that - but common doesn’t mean optimal. We shouldn’t conflate “easier to build a product” with “easier to build a successful company”.
It’s clear that AI is making software development significantly cheaper. But guess what? Your competitors have access to the same AI tools.
When everyone and their mother can build an app in a weekend, development itself isn’t much of a competitive advantage anymore. So what’s the moat? Distribution, relationships, domain expertise, taste, and understanding what customers actually need.
Sound familiar? This is exactly what a great cofounder brings to the table.
The best cofounders aren’t just extra hands, they’re extra brains. They provide additional perspective, complement your network and skills, challenge assumptions, and aren’t afraid to tell you when you’re wrong (unlike your favorite AI chatbot).
Weisser does make a good point about cofounder conflict - this is definitely a real problem. But getting rid of a cofounder to avoid conflict is like getting rid of a customer to avoid feedback. Disagreement gone! Uh-oh, where did the honest feedback go?
The question shouldn’t be whether 1 founder + AI can do the work of 2 founders. It should be whether 1 founder + AI can take on 2 complementary founders + AI.
Any guesses on who wins that battle?
AI will definitely allow for more solo founders and make previously impossible businesses viable - and that’s amazing! But as AI chips away at execution, human expertise and judgement become even more valuable, not less.
After automation: 2 people can now do what once took 6 people. But that doesn’t mean 1 is better.