While seemingly logical, hard budget caps on AI usage are ineffective because they can shut down an agent mid-task, breaking workflows and corrupting data. The superior approach is "governed consumption" through infrastructure, which allows for rate limits and monitoring without compromising the agent's core function.

Related Insights

A pragmatic way to fund expensive AI tools is to reallocate the budget from headcount that leaves through natural attrition. When a GTM role departs, use their budgeted salary to fund AI agents that can scale the work of the remaining team, avoiding new budget requests and the need to fire performers.

Historically, a developer's primary cost was salary. Now, the constant use of powerful AI coding assistants creates a new, variable infrastructure expense for LLM tokens. This changes the economic model of software development, with costs per engineer potentially rising by dollars per hour.

AI agent platforms are typically priced by usage, not seats, making initial costs low. Instead of a top-down mandate for one tool, leaders should encourage teams to expense and experiment with several options. The best solution for the team will emerge organically through use.

Standard SaaS pricing fails for agentic products because high usage becomes a cost center. Avoid the trap of profiting from non-use. Instead, implement a hybrid model with a fixed base and usage-based overages, or, ideally, tie pricing directly to measurable outcomes generated by the AI.

Traditional product metrics like DAU are meaningless for autonomous AI agents that operate without user interaction. Product teams must redefine success by focusing on tangible business outcomes. Instead of tracking agent usage, measure "support tickets automatically closed" or "workflows completed."

Organizations must urgently develop policies for AI agents, which take action on a user's behalf. This is not a future problem. Agents are already being integrated into common business tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Salesforce, creating new risks that existing generative AI policies do not cover.

To enable agentic e-commerce while mitigating risk, major card networks are exploring how to issue credit cards directly to AI agents. These cards would have built-in limitations, such as spending caps (e.g., $200), allowing agents to execute purchases autonomously within safe financial guardrails.

Pega's CTO advises using the powerful reasoning of LLMs to design processes and marketing offers. However, at runtime, switch to faster, cheaper, and more consistent predictive models. This avoids the unpredictability, cost, and risk of calling expensive LLMs for every live customer interaction.

For enterprises, scaling AI content without built-in governance is reckless. Rather than manual policing, guardrails like brand rules, compliance checks, and audit trails must be integrated from the start. The principle is "AI drafts, people approve," ensuring speed without sacrificing safety.

The simple "tool calling in a loop" model for agents is deceptive. Without managing context, token-heavy tool calls quickly accumulate, leading to high costs ($1-2 per run), hitting context limits, and performance degradation known as "context rot."