Laziest Ways to Make Money with AI (For Beginners)
Credibility score: 43/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Laziest Ways to Make Money with AI (For Beginners)" and rated it 43/100 for credibility (a BS score of 57/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-08-30. Its weakest claim — "AI avatars fix every influencer problem — no filming, no aging, no bad days" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false dilemma. 42 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 42 claims analyzed: 3 scored under 40, 39 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
"Millionaire businessman" answers lazy-money question — plain sales pitch — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 0:00
Opens with his millionaire status then promises the answer — authority flex as the product.
Why this score: He leads with credentials instead of evidence, then immediately pivots to "finally answer" the question — classic positioning move where his identity sells the promise before any method is shown.
Original quote: “What's the laziest way for beginners to make money online using AI? ... So as a millionaire businessman, I'm going to use my knowledge to finally answer this question.”
Creators gladly pay for clips because it nets them more than they spend — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:54
Assumes the math always works out — no numbers, no creator testimonials, just the promise.
Why this score: The speaker skips the actual payout data and the split between viral clips and total flops. Without that, the 'they earn more than they pay' claim is an assertion, not evidence.
Original quote: “these creators will happily pay you to post them. It works because the extra exposure that creators gain from these clips earns them far more money than they pay out.”
$1 per 1k views on Messi clips — simple math — Missing Context (45/100)
At 1:33
Gives the payout rate but never mentions how many clips actually hit 100k views.
Why this score: The $100 figure is technically correct arithmetic, yet the real variable — average reach per clip — stays invisible. Without that, it's just a best-case scenario dressed as a plan.
Original quote: “here's a campaign that will pay you to click Lionel Messy playing football and post it on TikTok... they'll pay you $1 for every thousand views. So if your clip gets 100,000 views, you get paid $100”
Frames clipping as the 'lazy' money method — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:23
Labels the workflow 'lazy' when it still requires daily posting, account management, and trend chasing.
Why this score: Calling it lazy sells the fantasy; the actual labor (finding campaigns, clipping, uploading, tracking payouts) gets glossed over by the word.
Original quote: “But the real question is, how lazy is clipping?”
Claims AI does 90% of the work — zero evidence provided — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:33
Throws out 90% like it's measured — just pulled it from the air 💀
Why this score: The 90% figure sounds precise, but nothing in the transcript or web context shows where that number came from. It's presented as fact, not a guess or estimate.
Original quote: “The AI does the editing, the platforms track the views, and the campaigns tell you exactly what they want. AI handles pretty much all the process. So I'm going to put AI does at 90%.”
$15/month startup cost — ignores hidden costs and time — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:52
Tosses out $15 like that's the real bill — forgot the unpaid hours and trial failures 😈
Why this score: The $15 figure only covers one tool. It leaves out the actual hours spent learning campaigns, testing what converts, failed subscriptions, and the time cost of 'paying attention.'
Original quote: “Your 10% of the work is spent choosing campaigns, posting, and paying attention to what works. Startup capital is only around $15 a month for a decent AI editing platform.”
Niche expertise = higher rates, no proof offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:40
Says specialization guarantees premium pricing — names zero clients or rates to back it.
Why this score: The speaker presents a direct causal link between niche focus and higher fees, yet offers no data, examples, or market evidence. It's a logical leap dressed as business advice. The real variable—client willingness to pay—is omitted entirely.
Original quote: “If you specialize in one sector, your clients will see you as a specialist and you'll be able to charge more, especially if you actually understand a niche.”
Calling basic setup 'magic' — sales language — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 4:53
Labels clicking 'new project' and uploading files as mystical — the pitch is doing the heavy lifting.
Why this score: The word 'magic' reframes a two-click workflow as something extraordinary. It's not a technical claim; it's emotional framing meant to make routine steps feel transformative and worth paying attention to.
Original quote: “Now, this is where the magic really starts to happen.”
75% AI does the work — arbitrary percentage, no source — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 6:07
Pulls '75%' out of thin air — no methodology, no study, just a confident number.
Why this score: The speaker assigns a precise percentage to AI's contribution without defining what 'does the work' means or how the figure was calculated. It's a rhetorical anchor that sounds empirical but functions as branding. The 75% becomes a memorable takeaway that can't be verified or challenged.
Original quote: “So how lazy is this? For learning curve, I'm going to say one to two weeks. If you can read and can tell good writing from boring writing, then you can learn this quickly. The AI handles the research and writing process. So what you're really learning is judgment, and you can pick that up by…”
AI handles 75%, humans supply taste — clean split, no proof. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:33
Pulls 75/25 out of thin air — sounds precise, zero data behind it.
Why this score: The speaker assigns a clean percentage to something subjective without any supporting research or measurement. I've watched this trick since mortals invented pie charts.
Original quote: “For AI does, I'd say 75%. AI does the research and the writing, but that missing 25% is about taste.”
$20–40/month startup cost — missing the real price tag. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:46
Quotes subscription fees only — ignores time, failed clients, and learning curve.
Why this score: Mortal, the real startup cost is every hour you spend figuring out which prompts don't make you look like an idiot. That number never appears in the ledger.
Original quote: “Startup capital is around 20 to $40 a month in AI subscriptions.”
Competition is high because AI lowered the bar — true, but incomplete. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 7:05
Admits the market flooded, then pivots to 'master the 25%' without saying how many actually succeed.
Why this score: The speaker correctly notes saturation, then sells the escape hatch without evidence anyone climbs out. Classic bait-and-switch dressed as advice.
Original quote: “And finally, for competition, I'd say this is high. This is because of how easy AI has made it for ordinary people to become ghost writers even without any previous writing skills.”
Free training pitch to sell his paid course later — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 9:16
Free session today, paid upsell tomorrow — oldest funnel in existence.
Why this score: He positions it as education but the real goal is harvesting emails for his paid offer. The 'free' is bait.
Original quote: “If you want to learn exactly how to find qualified businesses and get these businesses to pay you for any service, including this one, I'm actually running a free live online training very soon.”
One-time fee turns into recurring revenue without saying how — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:38
Sounds like passive income — but who does the optimization work once the client signs?
Why this score: He never explains whether the AI keeps optimizing or if the seller has to stay involved. The recurring revenue depends on that detail.
Original quote: “step three, charge clients per page to start, then offer to keep optimizing it for a monthly fee.”
Two to four weeks learning curve labeled 'lazy' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 9:44
Two to four weeks of work is not lazy — it's just normal skill acquisition.
Why this score: Calling a month of learning 'lazy' redefines the word. It's marketing, not a description of effort.
Original quote: “But how lazy is it? Let's have a look. For learning curve, I'm going to say two to four weeks.”
80% AI does the work — the number is pulled from thin air — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:04
80% sounds precise, but it's just his opinion dressed as data.
Why this score: No measurement, no study, just a round number that flatters the tool. The audience is meant to treat it as fact.
Original quote: “For AI does, I'm giving this one 80%. You've seen it for yourself. AI handles all the design work.”
AI keeps optimizing while you sleep — automation fantasy — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:12
Testing exists, but someone still has to interpret results and decide what to change.
Why this score: The AI can run A/B tests, but the 'optimize while you sleep' claim skips the human who reads the data and pulls the lever.
Original quote: “Some tools even have a feature that will test different versions of the page after launch to see which one converts best. So the AI builds the page, writes the copy, and then optimize it while you sleep.”
Claims most site builders suck — no numbers, just vibe. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:48
Says 'almost nobody' does it right — zero data, pure swagger. 💀
Why this score: The speaker positions himself as the rare competent exception without showing any market research, competitor audits, or success metrics. Classic move: declare the field empty so his service looks like the only lifeboat.
Original quote: “Lots of people offer to build websites, but almost nobody builds a page that looks great and actually sells.”
Pitches fully hands-off Shopify store — zero effort, all profit. — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 11:02
Promises a store that 'ships every order without you touching a thing' — sounds like a vending machine, not reality. 🚩
Why this score: The claim erases fulfillment, customer service, refunds, ad management, and platform fees. Web context shows these tools exist as affiliate funnels; the 'ultimate shortcut' framing sells the fantasy while the actual work quietly reappears later.
Original quote: “Method four, AI-built Shopify store. This is the ultimate shortcut into e-commerce. A Shopify store where AI picks the products, builds the shop, writes the listings, and ships every order without you touching a thing.”
AI tool magically handles inventory, pricing, shipping — zero effort claimed — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 12:30
Calls it 'essential' and 'winning products' — selling the fantasy that AI picks winners for you.
Why this score: The pitch assumes AI can identify profitable products and automate logistics without risk or expertise. Real dropshipping still requires market research and customer service. The 'AI does everything' framing hides that someone still has to choose what the AI promotes and handle refunds when products flop.
Original quote: “This is an essential e-commerce tool that uses AI to fill the store with winning products. Keeps the prices and images updated and ships your items straight to your customers.”
95% AI, 5% human — claims near-zero effort and skill required — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:47
Says 'practically zero' learning curve and 'AI does 95%' — the 5% still includes niche selection and marketing, the hard parts.
Why this score: The 95/5 split sounds generous until you realize the 5% is customer acquisition and choosing what to sell. Those are the actual bottlenecks in e-commerce. The framing makes the setup look trivial while quietly offloading the real work onto the viewer.
Original quote: “And the great thing is, this is pretty passive. You don't have to keep track of any inventory. You never package a single order and you can run the whole thing from your laptop anywhere in the world now for the scores. The learning curve, practically zero. If you can fill in an online form, you can…”
Total startup cost: 99 cents — downplays ongoing fees and real expenses — Missing Context (45/100)
At 13:24
Quotes the trial price while ignoring monthly subscriptions, ad spend, and refund rates that actually determine if you break even.
Why this score: The 99-cent hook is technically true for the first month, but Shopify charges $29+/month after the trial and AutoDS has recurring fees. Paid ads are almost always required to drive traffic. The 'just 99 cents' line makes the business appear nearly free while hiding the real cost of customer acquisition.
Original quote: “For startup capital, well, Build Your Store is completely free. Shopify has a three-day free trial. An AutoDS will only cost 99 cents to get started. So the total here is just 99 cents.”
Labels AI agents 'hottest side hustle' — zero data. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 14:31
Hottest how? Hottest where? Never says — just drops the label.
Why this score: Empty superlative with no numbers, rankings, or sources. The move is to make something sound urgent and proven without showing receipts.
Original quote: “This is one of the hottest side hustles right now.”
50% missed calls stat — source never named. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 14:51
Big number, zero citation. Classic anonymous authority move.
Why this score: The stat does the emotional work. Without knowing where it came from or how recent, you can't tell if it's real, outdated, or made up for the pitch.
Original quote: “small businesses typically miss over 50% of incoming calls every day.”
Claims most owners are 'incredibly behind' — no evidence. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 15:03
Broad brush, zero proof. Sounds true because it's vague.
Why this score: The sentence relies on the audience nodding along instead of asking 'how do you know that?' Classic move: state a sweeping generalization like it's common knowledge.
Original quote: “most small business owners are incredibly behind with AI.”
AI demo sells itself to business owners — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 17:11
Calls it 'basically sells itself' — no proof, just the pitch doing the work.
Why this score: He presents the live demo as an irresistible closer. The move is classic sales: show the product, assume the sale. Works until the owner asks about edge cases the demo never covered.
Original quote: “Step three is to walk into local businesses or contact them online and let the owner hear the AI answer live. Once I hear what it's capable of, just like you have, it basically sells itself.”
Upsell more AI agents after initial sale — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 17:23
Turns one AI phone agent into a recurring upsell engine — classic land-and-expand, zero data on close rates.
Why this score: The sequence is textbook: land the first tool, then keep adding more. No mention of churn, failed upsells, or businesses that just want the one thing and nothing else.
Original quote: “Step four, charge a monthly fee to keep it running. Upsell other AI agents like chatbots, and then repeat the process with more businesses.”
AI handles 85% of the work, humans 15% — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 17:51
85% figure appears from nowhere — sounds precise, carries no receipts.
Why this score: He splits the labor into neat percentages without showing how he measured it. The real split probably varies by business type, call volume, and how often the AI still needs a human to clean up its mess.
Original quote: “For AI does, I'd say 85%. The agent answers every call, books the appointments, and captures every lead every day without ever having a sick day. And the remaining 15% is the setup and the relationship with the business owner.”
Early-mover advantage in AI agents — low competition because no one knows yet — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 18:32
Calls the field uncrowded because people 'don't know' — yet 7+ identical videos already exist. 💀
Why this score: The speaker bets on ignorance as a moat while search results show the exact same pitch repeated across multiple channels. No data on actual market saturation, just the classic 'get in before the crowd' play.
Original quote: “For the first time, this isn't going to feel crowded. This is because most people either don't know about AI agents yet or aren't prepared to spend one to two months learning the skills required. This leaves a massive opportunity for those who dedicate themselves to doing this before everyone else…”
AI avatars are already fooling audiences — proof by scrolling comments — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 19:03
Proof is 'look at these comments, nobody noticed' — zero verification that the comments are real or representative. 😈
Why this score: The speaker treats comment sections as market research. No count, no context, just the implication that silence equals success. Classic move: show the trick working on strangers who can't reply.
Original quote: “I bet you've watched AI avatars online already without even realizing they weren't real people. Take this, for example, is an avatar that someone is using to sell their physical products, like the ones you can sell on Shopify. But this person is not real. It's completely made with AI. And if I…”
AI avatars fix every influencer problem — no filming, no aging, no bad days — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 19:40
Frames the choice as 'deal with human mess or use perfect AI' — ignores the new problems avatars create. 🚩
Why this score: The pitch erases the actual work: maintaining the illusion, handling takedowns, audience trust collapse when discovered. Two options presented when the real choice is between manageable human friction and hidden, high-stakes technical debt.
Original quote: “And the reason this is so exciting is that it removes every annoying part of being an influencer. Your avatar never has to film itself, never has a bad hair day, and never ages. That'd be nice.”
Viral content with AI avatar = automatic money generator — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 20:46
Turns 'a few more steps' into a money pipeline — the leap is the sell. 😈
Why this score: The speaker pivots straight from avatar creation to 'generates money' without showing a single revenue result or audience metric. The pitch assumes virality is a step, not a gamble.
Original quote: “Now there are a few more steps involved if I want to bring this character to life and start creating viral content that generates money.”
Two-to-three-month timeline with no data behind it — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 21:11
Pulls a neat 2-3 month number out of thin air while admitting the hard parts take 'a lot longer.' 😈
Why this score: He gives a specific learning-curve estimate, then immediately undercuts it by listing the real bottlenecks without any evidence those take only two extra months. The number is theater.
Original quote: “For learning curve, I'm going to say two to three months... building the initial avatar only takes a few minutes... creating a consistent looking face, turning your avatar images into engaging videos, giving them a personality, making them speak, and building an audience online will take a lot…”
70% AI involvement — pulled from nowhere — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 21:31
Hands out a 70% figure like it's measured, then admits strategy is still all human. 😈
Why this score: The percentage sounds precise but has zero source or methodology. It functions as branding, not data — the '70%' is just marketing copy dressed as analysis.
Original quote: “For AI does, I'm giving this one 70%. The AI generates the person, the photos, and the videos, but perfecting the content strategy is an important step that will require more knowledge, organization, and effort.”
$19/month startup cost — hides the real spend — Missing Context (45/100)
At 21:47
Quotes the base tool price, then quietly adds 'varies' without naming what the variance actually costs. 😈
Why this score: The $19 figure is technically true for the avatar tool alone, but the next breath admits scaling requires more spend. The real capital outlay is buried in the caveat, not the headline number.
Original quote: “What about startup capital? At the time I'm making this video, it's around $19 a month. But it varies depending on how many videos you want to create.”
Low competition because 'most people aren't aware' — Missing Context (20/100)
At 22:09
Uses one comment section as proof the whole market is empty — that's not low competition, that's cherry-picked ignorance. 😈
Why this score: He treats unfamiliarity in one video's comments as evidence of a wide-open field. Real competition includes everyone already shipping faceless channels, agencies using avatars, and platforms cracking down on synthetic media — none of which appear in his sample.
Original quote: “Finally, for competition, I'd say this is low. This is a very new industry. And as you saw in the comments of that example video, most people aren't even aware that these AI avatars even exist. This means low competition and huge opportunities for those that master all of the steps.”
Two clean paths to income — missing the third: both paths still need customers. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 22:48
Presents the two routes like they’re plug-and-play — never mentions finding clients or users.
Why this score: The speaker frames the choice as simple binary: build for others or sell subscriptions. In reality, the first still requires sales conversations and the second still needs marketing to get anyone paying monthly. The omitted context is that neither path is zero-effort; both require the very customer acquisition the speaker waved away earlier.
Original quote: “There are two ways to get paid here. You can build apps for businesses and charge per project, or you can launch your own app and charge a small monthly subscription.”
Just copy existing apps to learn — glosses over why clients would pay for a replica. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 23:02
Tells you to clone calculators and quote forms — never explains who buys a knock-off when the originals exist.
Why this score: The advice assumes the learning exercise itself produces something sellable. In practice, businesses already have calculators and booking forms; they pay for novel solutions, integrations, or time saved. The missing piece is the gap between tutorial output and paid product.
Original quote: “To get started, pick an AI app builder like Lovable or Emergent and learn it by recreating something simple that already exists like a calculator, a booking form, or a quote generator.”
Admits the demo is worthless — then still sells the dream two minutes later. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 23:54
Shows broken prototype, says no one would pay, yet the overall pitch is still 'lazy income.'
Why this score: The speaker undercuts his own example in real time, then continues the broader claim that this path is beginner-friendly and low-effort. The quiet retraction happens inside the same segment as the big promise, classic volume play: loud headline, whispered caveat.
Original quote: “Now obviously there's clearly lots of room for improvement. It's definitely not ready to put out into the public and no one's going to pay for this.”
AI handles 80% of app creation, you do the rest — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 24:33
80% sounds precise but rests on zero measurement — just a guess wearing a number. 💀
Why this score: The speaker assigns an exact percentage to an inherently subjective division of labor without any data or methodology behind it. '80%' functions as rhetorical certainty rather than observed reality.
Original quote: “For AI does, I'd say 80%. The AI writes every line of code, designs a screen, and fixes the bugs you point out. Your 20% is deciding what to build, testing it like a customer would, and selling it.”
Only $25-50 monthly startup cost — Missing Context (45/100)
At 24:48
Tool cost is real — ignores time, marketing, failed builds, and refunds that actually eat beginners alive. 💸
Why this score: The figure covers only the subscription fee while excluding every other expense that turns a 'lazy side hustle' into a money pit. The gap between tool price and total burn rate is where most people lose.
Original quote: “Startup capital is around 25 to $50 a month for the AI tool, depending on which one you use.”
Low competition because others won't learn — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 25:01
Two choices: learn or stay poor — erases every other low-effort AI path already flooding the market. 🍒
Why this score: The speaker frames the decision as binary while ignoring that thousands of other 'lazy AI' tutorials are pushing identical no-code tools. The real competition isn't ignorance; it's saturation.
Original quote: “And finally, for competition, it's very low because most people assume it's too complicated and won't bother spending the time it takes to learn the ropes.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →