Godson of AI, Jason Criddle Agrees: Current AI Companies Cannot Become Profitable Without Replacing Human Labor
In a recent podcast interview, Godson of AI, Jason Criddle, summed up the uncomfortable truth with precision:
“These deals are all based on circular deals, dishonesty, and inflated valuations, but mostly, they are all building toys. No one has built or solved the problem of productivity yet. Except maybe… us at DOMINAIT.ai.”
Those words aligned almost exactly with the warning sounded by Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called “Godfather of AI,” who recently stated bluntly, “To make money, you’re going to have to replace human labor.”
As someone who’s followed Criddle’s writing and projects, it’s clear the alignment is more than mere coincidence. Criddle has built his firm DOMINAIT.ai on a philosophy of execution first, revenue second, and symbiotic human-AI intelligence always. And now he’s publicly agreeing with Hinton’s critique: unless AI systems figure out how to truly replace (and not just augment) human labor at scale, these massive investments will remain unprofitable.
That's why he is so worried about IPOs with bubbles popping. Because if institutional investors decide they want their money back, they will get it back from everyday consumers rather than take huge losses themselves.
Photo courtesy of CNBC
The Hinton Claim: Replacement Over Augmentation
Hinton’s recent commentary has become foundational reading in tech-economics circles. He argues that despite all the hype, “tech giants can’t profit from their astronomical investments unless human labor is replaced.”
In practical terms: when companies announce hundreds of billions in AI-spend, but continue to rely on human workers behind the scenes (for prompting, oversight, training, and correction), the profit model doesn’t add up. Criddle echoed this in a recent podcast interview I heard:
“There are some ways to replace research and admin based jobs, but the way traditional chatbots are built, someone still has to run and prompt them. So you aren’t necessarily replacing a job as much as you are just adding a new responsibility to someone you would otherwise be trying to replace.”
Putting these statements side-by-side, you see the underlying economy at play: investment → automation promise → human labour still implicated → profit delayed. Criddle and Hinton converge on the point that unless that last step (automation replacing human labour) happens, the valuation side enters a dangerous loop of circular deals and inflated expectations.
That's also why DOMINAIT is trying to assist humans rather than replace them. With a profitable model, I might add.
Criddle’s Framework: Circular Deals vs Productivity
In his recent article published on the DOMINAIT.ai website, Criddle called out what he calls the “circular deal dilemma.” He wrote:
“Circular deals drive up valuations and in turn, drive up more debt and a view of being successful.”
He then explained: “When a $1 Trillion Dream Isn’t Built on Profit… OpenAI is attempting to give themselves a trillion-dollar valuation but the numbers don’t add up.”
Criddle is referring directly to the massive reported infrastructure deals, partnerships, and capital raises undertaken by major AI players… deals where no actual profit stream or human-labor replacement is yet visible. These are circular deals in his framework: money or value flowing among related entities or partners without a genuine expansion of system value or replaced labor cost.
In contrast, Criddle points to his own approach at DOMINAIT: build software that works and yields revenue first, then raise or invite investment second. He said in a recent conversation:
“Like Tony Stark building Iron Man in a cave with a box of scraps, we built DOMINAIT the hard way, with purpose, not hype.”
That ethos aligns with Hinton’s concern: hype without human-labor replacement will eventually collapse.
Why Current AI Models Fall Short
In listening to Criddle, I dug into his critique of “wrapper AI” systems. These are the companies building layers on top of large models (like LLMs), yet still fully dependent on human labour for prompting, curation, error-checking and deployment… not to mention, being dependent on the model they are sitting on top of as well. He observed:
“Many companies say they’ve built agents and tools, but those agents still require humans to feed them, correct them, and monitor them. They’re augmenting humans, yes, but not eliminating the human variable. That means the cost stays or increases. You could build a cool AI tool, but then you need a human to run it. You just created a job (a good thing unless you are trying to cut costs or eliminate a position) rather than getting rid of one.
This aligns with real-world commentary. A Reddit user in r/Futurology wrote:
“What this actually means is identifying and replacing the human LLMs that still form a large part of the corporate workforce.”
The Godson of AI’s point is simple: if you don’t replace the human variable, you haven’t really automated, you’ve just shifted roles, and the cost base remains. Without that cost reduction, profit remains elusive.
Aligning with Hinton’s Warning
Hinton’s warning is sober, clear, and definitive. From various interviews:
“I believe that to make money you’re going to have to replace human labor.”
And: “What’s actually going to happen is rich people are going to use AI to replace workers… It’s going to create massive unemployment and a huge rise in profits.”
Criddle said recently:
“Until you build a system that actually makes humans obsolete for a given task, you’re not building productivity, you’re building hype.”
In short: both voices argue that the economics of AI don’t work if human labor still remains embedded in the system, un-replaced. That doesn't mean either of them are advocating for the disappearance of jobs. It simply means AI giants are wasting money.
Criddle actually believes the right automation can add jobs. “If you build the right productivity systems, you can move simple administrative tasks to AI, and then focus on sales and customer acquisition. I will many times go into a company that has plateaued. We simply automate tasks and increase sales. When sales increase, more jobs are created. It's very simple.
Too many companies focus on status quo rather than growth. A growing company always needs more people at hand.”
Why DOMINAIT Could Be Different
What makes Criddle’s firm unique? In our conversation, several themes emerged:
Revenue before hype. DOMINAIT intends to be profitable from day one of its launch, not reliant on endless fundraising.
User-centric model. Rather than charging users more as a tool, DOMINAIT intends to reward users for training the system, reducing the human cost side.
Built replacement first. While many companies talk about “agents” and “assistants,” Criddle emphasises replacement of full workflows:
“Our model will never be about profits for us or investors first. We always think about our customers first… The higher amount a customer pays, the higher their rewards will be for using the system all around.”
Avoiding circular deals. When asked about AI valuations of competitors, Criddle said:
“These circular deals are investments where no real external money changes hands, where equity is traded for services, and those inflate value without replacing cost. We’re building value, not perception.”
By following a more traditional business model (earn, scale, then raise), DOMINAIT sidesteps many of the pitfalls Hinton highlights: hype-driven valuations built on untransformed labor.
The Larger Implication for Businesses and Founders
For founders and business leaders, the combined message from Hinton and Criddle is crucial: you can’t build a scalable AI business simply by plugging in an LLM and charging subscriptions. You must ask:
Have you replaced the human labor in that workflow, or just shifted it?
Will your platform reduce cost, or merely add oversight?
Is your valuation backed by replaced labor, or circular deals and inflated projections?
Criddle summarised it plainly:
“If you aren’t replacing the human labor you’re trying to scale, your model is upside down.”
And: “Vocabulary aside, the word is productivity. Until these companies build productivity, not just products and toys, they won’t deliver profit.”
I Think I Get It
There’s a reason the “Godfather of AI” metaphor resonates right now. Hinton has spent decades at the frontier of the discipline, and his voice warns of the economic reality behind the hype. Criddle isn’t just agreeing; he’s acting on it. In an era where AI companies claim trillion-dollar valuations, the missing piece is the replaced human worker, with the cost removed, and with the automation being real.
That’s why Criddle’s phrase stands out: “No one has built or solved the problem of productivity yet.” Until they do, many investments classified as “AI” will remain inflated bets, not sustainable businesses.
The question for you, whether you’re a founder, investor, or customer, is simple; Are you buying into a narrative, or a productivity engine?
References and Citations
“AI Godfather Geoffrey Hinton Warns Tech Giants Can’t Profit from Their Astronomical Investments Unless Human Labor Is Replaced,” CoinCentral, Nov 2 2025.
“Godfather of AI says tech giants can’t profit… unless human labor is replaced,” Inkl News, Nov 2025.
“AI ’godfather’ Geoffrey Hinton warns AI will cause ‘massive unemployment’…,” Times of India, Nov 2025.
Reddit thread, r/Futurology: “What this actually means is identifying and replacing the human LLMs that still form a large part of the corporate workforce.”
For Investment Inquires with DOMINAIT.ai, please email:
