Products & Toolsai agentsproductivityworkplace aicyera

AI Strategist Fires Half of Her Agents

||By LDS Team
6.3
Relevance Score
AI Strategist Fires Half of Her Agents
Photo: i.insider.com · rights & takedowns

AI strategist Sol Rashidi, CSO at Cyera and a Harvard Kennedy School senior fellow, tells Business Insider she fired two of her four AI agents after spending more time supervising them than doing useful work. The pattern has broad backing: Glean's Work AI Index 2026 (6,000 workers) finds 36% of AI sessions fail outright and white-collar workers average 6.4 hours per week on botsitting tasks - feeding context, debugging, and cleaning up AI outputs. For practitioners building agent-based workflows, the case surfaces three structural gaps that current tooling has not solved: context continuity, exception handling, and observability at scale.

Practitioners evaluating autonomous-agent tooling should treat claims of full automation with caution. Early deployments frequently shift work from task execution to context management, monitoring, and error handling, reducing net time savings and increasing ops friction. Industry-wide survey data from Glean's Work AI Index 2026 (6,000 workers across the US, UK, and Australia) puts numbers on what is often treated as anecdote: workers spend an average of 6.4 hours per week on botsitting tasks, and more than one-third (36%) of AI sessions fail outright, requiring a restart or substantial rework.

What happened - Business Insider reports that AI strategist Sol Rashidi, chief strategy officer at Cyera and a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School, told the outlet, "I just fired half my agents because they were unreliable." Rashidi had four agents running and deactivated two, and told Business Insider she was "spending more time babysitting them" than doing useful work.

Research context - Glean's Work AI Index 2026 finds that for every hour workers get useful output from AI, they spend roughly another hour making it usable. Only one in five companies has a mature governance model for autonomous AI agents, and workforce readiness remains the top barrier to scaling AI, the report finds. These structural gaps go beyond individual agent quality: most organisations lack the observability tooling and operational processes needed to manage agents at scale.

Technical context - The Rashidi anecdote illustrates three recurring operational gaps practitioners encounter when scaling agents: context continuity (keeping prompt state and retrieval reliable across sessions), exception handling (agents failing silently or producing incorrect outputs), and observability (debugging autonomous chains at scale). These are implementation- and integration-level problems that platforms must address before agents deliver consistent out-of-the-box ROI.

For practitioners: Track time spent on agent maintenance separately from task completion rates. Instrument chat and agent workflows for traceability. Pilot agents on narrowly scoped tasks where failure modes are low-cost, and apply a governance framework before expanding to multi-agent or production-critical workflows.

Key Points

  • 1Autonomous agents can shift work burden to monitoring and context-management, reducing net productivity gains; Glean's 2026 survey (6,000 workers) finds 36% of AI sessions fail and 6.4 hrs/week spent on botsitting.
  • 2Real-world deployments expose gaps in context continuity, exception handling, and observability that increase maintenance time and erode ROI for knowledge workers.
  • 3Measuring botsitting hours separately and applying a governance framework before scaling agents are the primary levers practitioners have to quantify and control hidden operational costs.

Scoring Rationale

Anecdotal but well-grounded: Glean's Work AI Index 2026 (6,000 workers) puts numbers on the botsitting burden at 6.4 hrs/week, a 36% AI session failure rate, and only 1-in-5 companies with mature agent governance. Practically important for teams deploying autonomous agents, though it introduces no new technology or product.

Practice interview problems based on real data

1,625 SQL & Python problems across 15 industry datasets — the exact type of data you work with.

Try 250 free problems