On LI, I saw a viral n8n workflows hit 20K impressions and 100+ comments from CEOs.
Founders loved it.
CTOs asked for the template.
VCs dropped fire emojis like it was Christmas.
But here’s the part nobody bothered to ask:
“Does this actually solve a real problem?”
It didn’t.
It was built to impress — not to fix.
And I see this everywhere in the AI world:
47-node n8n chains with agents stacked on agents
Dashboards that look like SpaceX mission control
Automations so complex that the creator needs a 30-minute tutorial to explain their own “system”
They get the applause.
They get the shares.
They get the dopamine hit.
But the systems that actually add $20K, $50K, $100K+ per month?
They look stupid simple.
3 nodes.
One trigger.
No animations.
Nothing screenshot-worthy.
Because the magic was never in the workflow.
It was in understanding the damn problem.
Remember when people said AI would “end designers”?
It didn’t.
AI amplified the good ones.
It exposed who actually understood design vs who just knew how to use Figma.
Same thing here.
A flashy 40-step workflow isn’t a win.
A boring system that removes a real bottleneck is.
Here’s the actual split:
If you want cheap applause:
- Build a 40-node Rube Goldberg workflow
- Add agents, sub-agents, webhooks, recursive logic, neon UI
- Post it with “Comment AI and I’ll DM the template”
- Enjoy the engagement
If you want real outcomes:
- Sit with the real workflow pain for 2 weeks
- Strip away everything that’s unnecessary
- Build the simplest possible system
- Ship → test → iterate
Let the revenue, not strangers, be your validation
Most people in the AI space optimize for applause.
Operators optimize for outcomes.
So ask yourself — which one are you actually building for?
Did you ever burn money/time on a “fancy AI system” that looked cool but solved nothing?