I used to think you needed two things to start a company: a cofounder who could code while you sold, and enough savings to survive the dry months. I had neither.
What I had instead was a problem that annoyed me daily, a laptop, and a subscription to a couple of AI tools I was paying for anyway. Six weeks later I had a live product with paying users. No funding round. No technical partner. Just me and a stack of AI agents doing the work a second human would normally do.
This is not a "you don't need engineers" essay. You do, eventually. This is the honest account of what it actually felt like to treat AI as the cofounder I couldn't afford, and where that idea held up beautifully versus where it quietly fell apart.
You can ship a real product with AI as a stand-in cofounder if you stop expecting it to make decisions and start using it to compress the time between your decisions. AI was excellent at writing code, drafting copy, generating options, and unblocking me at 2am. It was terrible at knowing what to build, telling me hard truths, or caring whether the thing succeeded. The judgment stayed mine. The labor got distributed.
For two years I had a Notion doc titled "Cofounder Search." It had a checklist. Technical, complementary skills, shared values, ideally someone who'd shipped before.
I met maybe nine people. Two were great and already employed. The rest wanted my idea but not my risk. Meanwhile the actual product sat at zero lines of code.
The unlock was embarrassingly simple. I stopped asking who will build this and started asking what is the smallest version I can build this week. The "who" turned out to be a set of AI tools and a lot of stubbornness.
The cofounder I was looking for wasn't a person. It was the courage to start without one.
I split the company into roles a two-person team would normally divide, then assigned each to either me or the machine.
Here is roughly how the labor broke down:
| Job | Who did it | How it went |
|---|---|---|
| Deciding what to build | Me | Non-negotiable. AI cannot want anything. |
| Writing the first code | AI, heavily | 80% draft, 20% me fixing |
| Naming, copy, landing page | AI drafts, me edits | Fast and good |
| Talking to early users | Me | The most important hour of every day |
| Debugging at midnight | AI | Saved my sanity repeatedly |
| Telling me I was wrong | Nobody | The real gap |
The pattern that emerged: AI was a phenomenal force multiplier on execution and a complete zero on conviction. It would happily build whatever I asked, including the wrong thing, with total confidence. The Stanford HAI AI Index tracks exactly this kind of rapid adoption across industries, and it lines up with what I felt day to day: the execution layer collapsed in cost while the judgment layer didn't move at all.
That last row in the table is the one nobody warns you about. A human cofounder argues with you. The AI just agrees and ships your mistake faster.
The build itself leaned hard on what people now call vibe coding. I'd describe a feature in plain English, let the AI generate the implementation, run it, and iterate by describing what felt wrong.
For an MVP, this was the right altitude. I wasn't writing a payment processor from scratch or anything where a subtle bug means lawsuits. I was wiring known pieces together fast.
A few rules kept it from collapsing, the same kind of discipline I leaned on later when I tried coding with only AI for two weeks and watched where the speed quietly turned into debt:
Could a senior engineer have done it cleaner? Absolutely. But a senior engineer wasn't returning my messages, and the AI shipped a working v1 in days.
Three things nearly sank me, and all three were my fault for over-trusting the machine.
First, architecture debt. AI optimizes for "make this work now," not "make this survive 10,000 users." By week four I had a tangle of quick fixes that I had to seriously refactor. A human cofounder would have flagged it at week one.
Second, false confidence. The AI never said "I don't know." It hallucinated an API method that didn't exist and I lost half a day chasing it. I learned to treat its output as a confident intern's first draft, not gospel — the same lesson a freelancer friend learned the hard way in the AI mistake that cost a client.
Third, loneliness. This one surprised me. Building alone with an AI is efficient and isolating. There's no one to celebrate with, no one to absorb the dread on a bad day. Automation handled the tasks. It did nothing for the morale.
If you're about to do this, here's the setup I wish I'd had on day one.
That last point matters more than any tool. The AI gave me speed. The humans gave me direction.
Let me put real numbers on this, because the cost story is half the reason it worked.
A technical cofounder typically wants 30 to 50 percent of the company. That's the standard price of a partner who builds. For that equity you get their skill, their hours, and crucially their shared risk.
My AI stack cost me roughly the price of two dinners out per month. For that I got the skill and the hours — code, copy, research, automation — but none of the shared risk, and none of the judgment. I kept 100 percent of the equity and 100 percent of the loneliness.
| What you get | Human cofounder | AI cofounder |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | 30-50% equity | ~$50/month |
| Execution hours | Real, limited | Effectively unlimited |
| Judgment & conviction | Yes | No |
| Shared emotional risk | Yes | No |
| Tells you hard truths | Yes | Never |
Seen that way, the choice isn't "AI instead of a human." It's "AI to get to the point where a human cofounder makes sense to bring on — from strength, with traction, on better terms." That reframing changed how I thought about the whole journey.
People assume the key skill for building with AI is prompting, or coding, or product taste. For me it was something quieter: the ability to delegate clearly and then verify ruthlessly.
Delegating to an AI is exactly like delegating to a sharp but literal junior. If your instruction is vague, you get vague work. If you don't check the output, you ship its mistakes. The founders who'll thrive with AI tools aren't the most technical — they're the best managers of work, even when the worker is a model.
I'd spent years resenting management. Turns out managing an AI workforce is the same muscle, and it's the one that carried the whole project.
If you want a clearer picture of where these tools genuinely earn their keep and where they quietly fail, it's worth reading the honest truth about AI productivity tools before you build your own stack.
Q: Do I still need a human cofounder eventually? Probably, yes. AI got me to launch and early revenue solo. But for scaling, fundraising, and the emotional load, a real partner is worth more than any model. I'm looking again now, from a position of strength.
Q: Won't the code be a mess? It can be, if you don't read it. The mess comes from skipping review, not from using AI. Treat generated code like any junior's pull request.
Q: Which AI tools did you lean on most? The specific brands matter less than the categories: a strong code-generation assistant, a general AI assistant for copy and research, and automation to glue tasks together. Pick ones you'll actually open every day.
Q: Is this realistic for a non-technical founder? More than ever, but with a caveat. You still need to understand what you're shipping well enough to catch when the AI is wrong. The bar dropped; it didn't disappear.
AI didn't replace my cofounder. It replaced my excuse for not starting.
The product is live, people pay for it, and I built the first version mostly alone with a stack of AI tools doing the heavy lifting. The judgment was always mine. That never changed, and it never should.
So here's my question for you: what have you been waiting for a perfect partner to help you build, that you could start this weekend with the tools already open in your browser?
One person, output that looks like five. It isn't about working more hours — it's about a kind of leverage teams rarely have.
I went from 200 to 11,000 subscribers without hiring anyone. AI didn't write my newsletter — it did everything around it.
One idea a week to a published issue in under an hour. The boring system behind a newsletter I never dread sending.
Comments
Sign in to join the conversation
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!