Own or Be Owned

You've felt it, haven't you?

That moment when you asked Claude to do something that used to take you a week. And it did it in 20 minutes. And it was... good.

The first time, it felt like a superpower.

The tenth time, it felt like a warning.

Maybe you haven't said it out loud yet. Maybe you're not sure if you're being paranoid or perceptive. But somewhere in your gut, there's a question you can't shake:

If I can do my job in 2 hours now... how long before someone notices?

You're not paranoid. You're paying attention.

In January 2026, a CTO was interviewed about Claude Code. His quote went viral:

I spent my whole life developing this skill, and it's literally one-shotted by Claude Code.

He wasn't a junior developer. He wasn't behind on the latest tools. He was a CTO—someone who'd spent decades building expertise that, in one afternoon, became something an AI could replicate.

That same month, another CTO built a year's worth of work in a week using AI tools. Then cancelled his plans to hire the engineering team he'd budgeted for.

These aren't scare stories from a dystopian newsletter. They're happening right now, to people who did everything right.

And here's what no one's saying clearly:

The world didn't just get harder. It broke into two separate tracks—and most people don't realize they're on the one that's closing.

Let's talk about what's actually happening. Not vibes. Data.

Entry-level tech jobs are collapsing.

• Entry-level positions in AI-exposed roles are down 40-70% from pre-2022 levels, depending on the market
• Big Tech cut new graduate hiring by 25% in 2024 versus 2023
• At major tech firms, entry-level hires now make up only 7% of new hires—down from 15% before the pandemic
• Junior developer roles now represent roughly 8% of all software job listings, an historic low

This isn't a hiring slowdown. This is the bottom rungs of the ladder being removed.

The layoffs are accelerating.

• AI was explicitly cited as a factor in nearly 55,000 U.S. layoffs in 2025
• Tech companies laid off approximately 124,000 employees across 269 companies in 2025 alone
• By mid-January 2026, there had already been 18 tech layoffs impacting nearly 3,000 jobs

And here's the part that should make you angry:

A Resume.org survey found that 59% of companies admit they frame layoffs as "AI-driven" because it sounds better to stakeholders than admitting the real reason is financial pressure.

They're using AI as cover. One Reddit user put it perfectly:

Your boss will use AI to justify firing you.

The story: A recruiting team eagerly adopted AI tools, celebrated how much easier their jobs became, and then leadership cut 50% of the department. Then all but 3 people in the next wave.

They did everything right. They embraced the tools. They got more efficient. And that efficiency became the justification for their elimination.

Open any career advice article right now. Google "AI career change" or "how to stay relevant with AI." You'll find the same advice everywhere:

• "Learn AI tools and embrace them as co-pilots"
• "Develop soft skills like creativity and emotional intelligence"
• "Adopt a growth mindset and commit to lifelong learning"
• "Build your personal brand on LinkedIn"
• "The future belongs to those who adapt"

It sounds reasonable. It even sounds empowering.

Here's what that advice never addresses: If entry-level openings are down 40-70%, not everyone can "future-proof" their way into the remaining 30-60% of seats.

This isn't a skills problem. It's a math problem.

The advice assumes there will be enough chairs when the music stops. The data says there won't be.

And worse—the advice implies that if you're struggling, it's because you didn't hustle hard enough. You didn't learn prompt engineering fast enough. You didn't build enough "human skills." You didn't have the right mindset.

That's gaslighting dressed up as career coaching.

The truth is simpler and harder: You can do everything right and still get caught in this wave.

Not because you failed. Because the structure changed underneath you.

Here's what actually happened:

For 50 years, there was one playbook. It worked. Millions of people followed it:

• Develop valuable skills
• Trade those skills for a salary
• Save and invest the difference
• Build wealth over 20-30 years

Your parents followed it. Your school taught it. Every piece of conventional career advice assumes it.

That playbook had one hidden assumption: Your skills would stay valuable long enough to complete the journey.

Now there are two paths. Not "good career" vs. "bad career." Two fundamentally different relationships with work, risk, and ownership.

If you're on this side:

• You trade time for money
• Someone else decides if your role exists tomorrow
• Your skills are inputs to a system you don't control
• AI making your work more efficient benefits your employer, not you
• You're playing defense against replacement

The cruel irony: The better your job, the more you have to lose.

A $200K salary means $200K of exposure. Golden handcuffs become golden shackles when the thing they're attached to starts sinking.

And the "learn AI" advice? Think about what it actually means:

You use AI to do your job in 2 hours instead of 8. You feel productive. You're "embracing the tools."

But what happens when your employer realizes you—and everyone like you—can now do 4x the work? They don't need 4x of you anymore.

The senior devs experiencing "quiet cracking" right now—the burnout, the anxiety, the sense that something's wrong even though the paycheck still clears—they're feeling this in their bones before they can articulate it.

Too expensive to hire more of. Too risky to keep around when AI can do 80% of what they do.

If you're on this side:

• You own what you build
• You decide what your role is
• AI making work more efficient benefits you (lower costs, higher leverage)
• You can redefine yourself when the game changes
• You're playing offense, not defense

But here's the critical distinction: Being a founder doesn't automatically put you on this side.

Benjamin Mann, co-founder of Anthropic, said it directly in July 2025:

AI is coming after 100% of employee jobs—and 80% of founders who built self-created jobs.

Read that again. 100% vs. 80%.

Even founders—people who technically "own" their work—are 80% exposed if they built businesses in layers that AI is eating.

The 20% that survives? That's people who moved into something different. Something AI can't touch.

Everyone talks about "AI-proof skills." Creativity. Emotional intelligence. Communication.

That's wrong. Those aren't skills. Those are vibes.

Here's what actually survives. Not skills—layers.

Layer 1: Identity

AI can generate content that sounds like you. AI cannot be you.

Your specific story. Your specific scars. Your specific worldview shaped by things that actually happened to you. The way you think, filtered through everything you've lived.

This is why anonymous = vulnerable. Generic = dead. You = defensible.

When someone hires "George Pu," they're not hiring a bundle of skills that can be replicated. They're hiring a specific person with a specific track record and a specific way of seeing problems. That's not replicable.

When someone hires "a consultant" or "a developer" or "a writer"—that's a commodity. AI is coming for commodities.

Layer 2: Relationships

AI can simulate conversation. AI cannot:

• Know that Sarah solved this exact problem 6 months ago and can make an intro
• Send a text that actually gets responded to because of years of trust
• Show up when things go wrong because of genuine obligation
• Be the person someone calls at 2am when they're scared

Your network isn't your follower count. It's the people who'd take your call.

Ten people who'd take a bullet for you beat 10,000 who'd like your post.

Layer 3: Stakes

AI gives advice. You take risk.

When you put money on the line, reputation on the line, equity instead of fees—you're operating where AI cannot follow.

AI has no skin in the game. AI doesn't lose sleep. AI doesn't stake its future on being right.

The gap between "here's what you should do" and "I'm betting my own money/time/reputation on this" is the gap between what AI can do and what humans still own.

Layer 4: Selection

AI can analyze everything. AI cannot decide what matters.

Your judgment about:

• Who is worth your time
• What opportunities to ignore
• When to say no
• What to kill

This is human. This compounds with experience. And it's getting more valuable as AI creates infinite options and the bottleneck becomes choosing between them.

Layer 5: Accountability

When something fails, AI doesn't care. AI doesn't show up at 2am to fix it. AI doesn't have a reputation at stake. AI doesn't learn from your specific context and come back better.

You do.

Accountability is a feature, not a bug. You can charge for it. In fact, it might be the main thing you can charge for.

The Formula

If what you're doing doesn't include at least 3 of these, you're in a layer AI will eat.

Count them for your current job. Count them for your "backup plan." Count them for the side project you've been thinking about.

How many layers are you actually in?

I'm George Pu. I'm 27. I've built $10M+ in businesses without VC funding, without a co-founder, working about 20 hours a week.

I'm not telling you this to brag. I'm telling you because in December 2025, I had to kill my own business.

Not because it was failing. Because I saw what was coming.

What I killed:

• My SaaS product (AI can build SaaS now)
• My immigration consulting services (policy changed, but also: AI can give advice)
• Courses and playbooks I'd built (AI teaches better than I do, for free)
• Educational content (information is now worthless)
• Traditional consulting (advice-for-fees is dead)

What I kept:

• My identity (George Pu, not "AI consultant")
• My relationships (50+ founders I've worked with closely)
• My stakes (equity positions, not just fees)
• My selection (I reject 60-70% of people who want to work with me)
• My accountability (my reputation is on every engagement)

The business looks completely different now. Revenue is lower in the short term. But I'm in layers AI can't eat.

That's the trade. And I'd make it again tomorrow.

Here's what I've noticed talking to hundreds of people in the last year:

Almost everyone is asking the wrong question.

The answers to the right questions are uncomfortable. They often mean:

• Accepting that your current path has a ceiling (or an end)
• Making changes before you're forced to
• Building something that feels riskier in the short term
• Letting go of an identity you've spent years constructing

That's hard. I'm not going to pretend it isn't.

But here's the alternative: You keep optimizing a position that's structurally declining. You "learn AI tools" and "build your personal brand" and do everything the mainstream advice says. And in 3 years, you're one of the people posting on Reddit:

I did everything right. I embraced AI. I upskilled. I networked. And I still got caught.

So here's what I want you to actually think about:

Not which side do you want to be on. Which side are you actually on, right now, today?

If you:

• Trade time for salary
• Don't own what you build
• Can't redefine your role tomorrow without permission
• Would be devastated (financially or emotionally) by a layoff

You're on the "Be Owned" side. That's not a judgment. That's just the current state.

The gap between the two sides isn't talent. It's not luck. It's not even capital (though that helps).

It's a decision. And then a series of smaller decisions after that.

The people who come out of this transition okay won't be the smartest or the hardest-working. They'll be the ones who saw clearly, decided early, and moved before they were forced to.

I built a short assessment to help you figure out where you actually stand.

It takes about 3 minutes. It asks 20 questions across 5 layers about your current situation—your work, your savings, your skills, your constraints.

At the end, you'll know:

• Which side of the split you're currently on
• What specific factors are creating your exposure
• What moves make sense for someone in your position

This isn't a generic quiz. It's the same diagnostic I use when I'm evaluating whether to work with someone.

The career playbook that worked for 50 years just split in two.

One side—the "Be Owned" side—is getting more crowded and more precarious every month. The people on it are competing for fewer seats, running faster to stay in place, and hoping they won't be the ones cut when the next efficiency wave hits.

The other side—the "Own" side—is harder to get to. It requires making decisions that feel risky. It means building things without a guaranteed outcome. It means letting go of identities that feel safe.

But the people on that side? They're not worried about the same things. They're not doom-scrolling LinkedIn wondering if today's the day. They're not hoping their boss doesn't notice how much AI can do.

They're building. They're owning. They're compounding in layers that AI can't eat.

The gap between the two sides is going to keep widening.