Core vs. context is a critical concept to think through when figuring out what people will rebuild themselves with AI. Companies bring in “core” functions that differentiate them. This is what their core product or service is, how they sell to customers, things that drive their culture, and so on. Conversely, they outsource the “context” that is table stakes to get right, but only offers downside in getting wrong. An easy rule of thumb to think through is would a customer ever notice if the company did that function directly themselves or not. Enterprise software is almost always “context”. These are areas like their CRM or HR systems, infrastructure, data management, and so on. These are necessary to operate a business at scale, but rarely are you advantaged in trying to roll your own. Only a few exceptions exist, and it’s almost always because you need a solution to serve your “core” that no vendor offers (like if you needed custom software for a vertically integrated supply chain). No matter how a company starts, they eventually almost always separate work and value between core vs. context over time. It’s the only way they can stay competitive and eventually allocate resources to the optimal areas. So even if a company *could* rewrite their enterprise software with AI, they basically just wouldn’t. The version updates, security, regulatory features, bugs, SLAs, the professional services necessary, etc. just all would make it ROI negative. As bucco points out, the real risk is better versions of these tools that are AI-first. That’s what to watch out for from a disruption standpoint.