Ken Sickles

I came back to code because AI made it possible for me to build at a level I couldn't before. I'm not coding despite being CEO of YC. I'm coding because this is the most important technological shift since the internet and I'd be an idiot to experience it from the bleachers. I'm 45, running the most important startup institution in the world, and I can ship production software at 2am. That's not a distraction from the job. That is the job understood correctly.

Judging by my tl there is a growing gap in understanding of AI capability. The first issue I think is around recency and tier of use. I think a lot of people tried the free tier of ChatGPT somewhere last year and allowed it to inform their views on AI a little too much. This is a group of reactions laughing at various quirks of the models, hallucinations, etc. Yes I also saw the viral videos of OpenAI's Advanced Voice mode fumbling simple queries like "should I drive or walk to the carwash". The thing is that these free and old/deprecated models don't reflect the capability in the latest round of state of the art agentic models of this year, especially OpenAI Codex and Claude Code. But that brings me to the second issue. Even if people paid $200/month to use the state of the art models, a lot of the capabilities are relatively "peaky" in highly technical areas. Typical queries around search, writing, advice, etc. are *not* the domain that has made the most noticeable and dramatic strides in capability. Partly, this is due to the technical details of reinforcement learning and its use of verifiable rewards. But partly, it's also because these use cases are not sufficiently prioritized by the companies in their hillclimbing because they don't lead to as much $$$ value. The goldmines are elsewhere, and the focus comes along. So that brings me to the second group of people, who *both* 1) pay for and use the state of the art frontier agentic models (OpenAI Codex / Claude Code) and 2) do so professionally in technical domains like programming, math and research. This group of people is subject to the highest amount of "AI Psychosis" because the recent improvements in these domains as of this year have been nothing short of staggering. When you hand a computer terminal to one of these models, you can now watch them melt programming problems that you'd normally expect to take days/weeks of work. It's this second group of people that assigns a much greater gravity to the capabilities, their slope, and various cyber-related repercussions. TLDR the people in these two groups are speaking past each other. It really is simultaneously the case that OpenAI's free and I think slightly orphaned (?) "Advanced Voice Mode" will fumble the dumbest questions in your Instagram's reels and *at the same time*, OpenAI's highest-tier and paid Codex model will go off for 1 hour to coherently restructure an entire code base, or find and exploit vulnerabilities in computer systems. This part really works and has made dramatic strides because 2 properties: 1) these domains offer explicit reward functions that are verifiable meaning they are easily amenable to reinforcement learning training (e.g. unit tests passed yes or no, in contrast to writing, which is much harder to explicitly judge), but also 2) they are a lot more valuable in b2b settings, meaning that the biggest fraction of the team is focused on improving them. So here we are.

THE CLEAREST PATH TO A $10M+ SOFTWARE EXIT in 2 YEARS (with AI and agents) building an agency right now is one of the most interesting business moves the productized agency had its moment in 2022. it collapsed because scaling humans is a nightmare. inconsistent output, people quitting, margins getting crushed. most of the founders (and creators) who tried it got burned and moved on but the thesis was right. the labor problem is just solved now with AI, claude code, openclaw etc. here's the actual playbook i'd run today: pick one painful deliverable for one specific buyer. like SEO content for e-commerce brands doing $1M+ but not "marketing." or like ad creatives for DTC brands spending $50k/month on meta. one thing. one customer. that's it then you build the AI workflow behind it. you're selling an outcome on a monthly retainer. $3-5k/month. 80%+ margins because your cost is compute and a few hours of QA "BuT tHaT'S nOt a BiG bUsInnesS" okay but you're still swinging for the fences because the agency IS the research and development for your agent SaaS every client is paying you to figure out what to automate. you're learning what breaks, what scales, what customers actually want. by month 4 you know exactly what to productize. you build the software on top of the workflow you've already proven works and already have customers paying for agency funds the agent SaaS. SaaS scales without the agency overhead. the clients become your first software customers now let's talk about what this actually looks like financially year 1: 10 clients at $4k/month. $480k revenue. 2 people. maybe $80k in costs including compute, tools, one part time VA. you're taking home $400k between two people while building the software in the background year 2: you launch the software. your 10 agency clients are the first to convert. they already trust you. they've seen the output. you charge $800/month for the software version. now you have recurring software revenue AND the agency still running year 3: agency is winding down or running on autopilot. software has 200 customers at $800/month. that's $1.9M ARR. 2-3 person team. 85% margins. you are now a very attractive acquisition target the exit math is interesting. SaaS at $1.9M ARR with strong retention trades at 5-8x revenue. that's a $10-15M exit for something two people built in 3 years starting with zero VC CAVEAT: Startups are hard. A lot needs to go right. But from a framework perspective, I think this probably the lowest risk, highest reward option for lots of of folks and most of the businesses cost $0 to start basically this is the most capital efficient path to a software exit that exists right now happy building