When AI changes what a role requires, should companies retrain existing staff or replace them?

Daniel Khachab · Oct 28, 2024

Replacing customer care and account management staff with AI is a necessary business decision even when those people are high performers

You operate within the rules of business and the cash efficiency gain is critical, particularly for an unprofitable venture-backed company; the conversations are far harder than performance-based exits but must be had

Scope: acknowledges the conversations are horrible and hurt more than performance-based terminations

20:35 20VC: Why SaaS is Dead | Why AI First Companies Will Win | We are in the Middle of a Cold War for AI Talent | Why Europe is F******* and We Need to Stop Whining with Daniel Khachab, Co-Founder @ Choco

Adam Foroughi · Apr 27, 2026

Employees who don't rapidly adopt AI tools to create more output should be fired, and telling them so directly is the right way to run a company

You're either playing to win or playing not to lose; transparency means telling people their role depends on becoming AI-native, and if they can't, there's a role for them somewhere else

64:59 20VC: Applovin: $160BN Market Cap, $5.48BN Revenue, $10M EBITDA Per Head | Why the Best Do Not Need Mentorship | Why Founders Should Not Angel Invest | Why Kindness in Business Will Slow You Down with Adam Foroughi

Matt Swulinski · Aug 15, 2026

Most marketers who are not systems thinkers should be fired rather than retrained, and companies should stop brute-forcing existing people into roles whose job descriptions have fundamentally changed

The role itself has changed from what it was a year ago, so the hiring profile has to change with it

Scope: self-labelled as a hot take; aimed at marketers who aren't systems thinkers

61:43 20Growth: How to Build a $100M Growth Engine: Lessons from Wispr Flow and Superhuman | Why You Should Do Paid Ads Today and How To Do Them | How to Build the Best Referral Programs and How to Crush UGC with Matt Swulinski

Harry Stebbings · Oct 28, 2024

Leaders have a duty to remaining team members that justifies AI-driven layoffs, since nobody keeps a job if the company fails to move with technology

Failure to adopt technology destroys all jobs at the company, so cutting some is business progression

22:38 Leaders have a duty to remaining employees that justifies ai driven layoffs

Nikesh Arora · Jun 22, 2026

Gradual replacement — hiring only through hackathons and letting ~2% monthly attrition turn over the base — can transform a quarter of a workforce in twelve months and most of it in three years, and is a viable alternative to mass layoffs

Natural attrition plus AI-savvy hiring compounds fast enough without decimating the organization

18:06 Turn the base over gradually through attrition and ai native hiring

Matt Swulinski · Aug 15, 2026

You can identify who to cut without a formal test: leave the team alone and the people who have independently turned themselves into systems and 10x'd their output will be obvious, as will those who haven't

AI is widening the gap — A players are becoming S tier while B players are becoming D players

62:41 The adapters self identify no test needed