Companies-want-workers-using-AI-What-happens-if-they-get.jpeg

Companies want workers using AI. What happens if they get their wish?

Ask not what your company can do for you — ask what your vibe-coded AI agent can do for your company.

-JFK (probably)

The best way to show your value at work these days? Let AI do the talking.

Meta, Google, and JPMorgan have thrown down the gauntlet over AI usage. Their approaches might differ — sometimes it’s a carrot, sometimes it’s a stick — but the message is the same: use AI, or else.

The push makes sense given the money companies are investing in AI. As those bills pile up, you can bet they want their employees to use the tech.

That doesn’t make the pitch any easier. People still worry that the tools they’re using could ultimately replace them.

The problems don’t end when everyone starts using AI.

Say a company reaches full AI adoption. (And let’s be honest, it’s heading that way.)

Then what?

Three new problems come to mind:

What’s the reward? Like the millennial lifestyle subsidy, AI-usage perks are probably too expensive to last forever. When they dry up, how do you keep people bought into the tech? That’s especially tricky for the workers who’ve cracked the code on using AI to be more productive. If companies aren’t willing to pay them more, but still expect that higher level of output, there’s a potential disconnect.

Quality vs quantity. Gamifying cuts both ways. Push workers to use AI, and some will start opting for output over substance. Suddenly, you’re overrun with AI slop or a bunch of AI agents you don’t fully control. Meanwhile, that constant level of automation means workers risk losing their core skills.

Keeping costs in check. This AI stuff isn’t free. The compute needed to power these tools is quickly becoming one of CFOs’ top concerns. That’s leading some companies to rein in workers’ usage to keep costs from climbing too high. It’s a tricky dynamic: use AI to be productive, just don’t go too crazy.

Maybe you think I’m putting the horse before the cart. Getting everyone to consistently use AI is a big enough problem. But with trillions of dollars at stake, it’s worth looking ahead to what the next big challenge could be.

Because getting people to use AI is one battle. Figuring out what comes next is the real war.




Source link

Goldman-Sachs-says-companies-are-getting-better-at-hiring-—.jpeg

Goldman Sachs says companies are getting better at hiring — and doing less of it

Hiring has slowed sharply across many advanced economies, but companies may simply be getting better at picking the right people, according to Goldman Sachs.

That’s due in part to a decline in short-term job separations: workers leaving or losing jobs soon after being hired. That decrease suggests firms and workers are increasingly finding better matches from the start, even as labor markets cool after the post-pandemic hiring surge.

“Most of the pullback in churn reflects a decline in job separations within one or two quarters after hiring, a pattern that suggests that workers and firms have gotten better at identifying ‘good’ matches over time,” Goldman’s economists wrote in a Tuesday note.

Historically, short-term separations have been common because some hires turn out to be poor matches between employers and workers. However, they have steadily fallen across developed economies over the past two decades, and the decline accelerated after the pandemic.

The trend is borne out by US Census Bureau data and Canadian labor force data.

Fewer bad hires

The decline appears broad across industries. It’s explained by changes in the workforce composition, suggesting a structural shift in how workers and firms form job matches.

“In our opinion, the best explanation of the decline in short-term separations is that increased information and improved screening processes have increased both firms’ and workers’ ability to identify ‘good’ matches,” wrote the Goldman economists.

Platforms such as LinkedIn, Glassdoor, and Indeed give workers insight into company culture and working conditions before they accept a role. At the same time, employers are increasingly using digital screening tools — including AI — to evaluate candidates and screen applicants.

Those tools may help reduce hiring mistakes, the economists wrote.

Better matches mean fewer early job exits — and less need for companies to hire replacements.

The shift could also make the labor market more efficient overall. With fewer failed job matches, there is less frictional unemployment — the type of joblessness that occurs when workers move between jobs.

Goldman’s analysis comes amid debate about the current labor market, which some economists describe as a “low hiring, low firing” environment.

In such an environment, a further drop in hiring could push unemployment higher more quickly because displaced and younger workers have fewer opportunities.




Source link

I-meditated-with-a-Japanese-Zen-monk-who-works-with.jpeg

I meditated with a Japanese Zen monk who works with Fortune 500 companies. I had meditation all wrong.

It was a scene you’d expect at a Wednesday afternoon wellness class in Los Angeles. About 40 people with matching athleisure sets, iced matcha lattes, Salomon sneakers, and at least one Fendi baguette filed into a meditation studio tucked in an alley just off the Venice boardwalk.

Toryo Ito, a Japanese Zen Buddhist monk, was already seated at the front of the room. A sculptural, oblong skylight cut into the ceiling, casting a beam of sunlight onto the floor. He sat cross-legged, wearing a black robe, with a set of small tools laid out before him: an incense holder, a spray bottle, and various blocks and mallets made with metal or wood.

Ito is the vice abbot of Ryosokuin Temple in Kyoto, which dates back over 600 years. His modern approach to Zen has made him something of an ambassador for mindfulness in the corporate world, leading meditation workshops for companies like Meta and Salesforce.

Marc Benioff, Jack Dorsey, Alex Karp, and other business and tech leaders have embraced mindfulness practice. Meditation apps have raised hundreds of millions in funding, and companies are increasingly offering programs to employees to combat burnout and improve performance.

As a business reporter living in California, the wellness capital of the US, my prior experience with meditation mostly consisted of adding it to the list of habits I’d like to start each new year, and then proceeding to complete a handful of five-minute sessions sporadically, primarily as a means to squeeze in a little sun time before a full day at my desk. Maybe a class with a real-life Zen monk would be just the motivation I needed.

What I’d actually find was that my concept of meditation was way off and that it’s a lot simpler — and more attainable — than I’d made it out to be.

Meditation does not mean thinking about nothing

The class was held at the Venice studio of Open, a mindfulness startup, and organized by Tatcha, a luxury skincare brand whose founder has her own corporate-to-mindfulness origin story. Vicky Tsai worked on Wall Street as a credit derivatives trader before quitting to start Tatcha. She met Ito in 2016 during a class at his temple in Japan. He became the company’s first-ever “global well-being mentor” in 2021.


Toryo Ito seated at the front of a meditation studio fill of guests.

Toryo Ito sat still and at ease while most of us fiddled with our phones.

Kelsey Vlamis



Attendees — Tatcha fans who had signed up for the class through their socials — took photos of the room and spoke quietly to one another. Some set up cameras to record themselves. One attendee took an especially aesthetic flat-lay shot of her Tatcha-branded mat and towel alongside her purple shoulder bag, which matched perfectly.

I was immediately struck by the contrast between Ito and the rest of us.

Ito sat erect but calm, doing nothing. Sometimes he looked around the room and smiled. Other times, he looked ahead or softly closed his eyes. He didn’t fidget. Meanwhile, the rest of us were on our phones, taking photos, scrolling, anything but simply sitting still.

After about 10 minutes, the room quieted, and all attention shifted to him.

He welcomed us and asked if anyone had been to Kyoto, seeming surprised when a good chunk of the room raised their hands. He said Zen emphasizes two concepts: mindfulness and expanding the boundary of the self in order to dissolve it.

Ambitious, I thought, but intriguing.

Ito said that while there’s no perfect meditative state, we should focus on paying attention. The class was broken into three rounds of meditation, each lasting 10 minutes, give or take, during which we sat in silence with our eyes closed.

For the first session, he told us to pay attention to what we heard and smelled: the chime he rang to start the session, the birds chirping on the nature soundtrack playing in the studio, the air conditioner kicking on, the sound of a spray bottle, and the earthy smell that followed. He rang another chime at the end of the session, which felt like it flew by as I tried to focus on my senses.

For the second session, he told us to focus on the sensations in our bodies and had us lift one arm, hold it in place, then the other. Lastly, he asked us to meditate on a series of questions related to self-love: What color do you associate with self-love? “Light pink,” I thought. What drink? “Sparkling water.”

It was more involved than I expected. I thought the point of meditation was not to think about anything. What Ito taught me was that it’s actually about noticing.

“Intentionally disrupt that autopilot,” Ito told me after the class, adding that he prefers dynamic meditation, like walking, where you can feel the grass beneath your feet. He said he’d spent time earlier that day walking through Venice Beach.


Venice beach boardwalk.

The Open studio was a short walk away from the Venice boardwalk.

Walter Cicchetti/Getty Images



For people with high-stress jobs, Ito said meditation can be practiced in small moments throughout the day, for 10 minutes or even just one. He recommends lighting incense and actually paying attention to the smell. When you drink coffee, notice the taste.

Doing these little practices of just noticing things you previously missed can bring the benefits of mindfulness, which he said include stress management, increased creativity, and openness to new ways of thinking.

Small moments of noticing

When the class ended, the first thing I noticed was how different the attendees seemed.

There was a newfound stillness that had previously been missing, and very few immediately reached for their phones. We sat in silence, no one rushing to get up, as several people shared how they felt with the whole class. One busy mom said she felt “at peace.”

I did not become a perfect meditator that day — although Ito would likely say there’s no such thing — but what I learned was that I actually meditate, or practice mindfulness, more than I realized.

Each time I take a walk without headphones and notice the smell of jasmine. Or when I’m camping and zone out in front of the fire, doing nothing but observing the movement, warmth, and sound of the flames.

Which also might explain why, after each of these experiences, I feel some of the benefits that ancient wisdom and modern science have associated with meditation: lower stress, better sleep, and an overall sense of calm.

Since the class, I’ve been a bit more lenient with myself about what counts as meditation, which has helped me prioritize and appreciate these small moments of noticing.

The idea of noticing the taste of your coffee as a mindfulness practice might feel a bit silly. Then again, it’s a bit silly that I’ll weigh and grind my own beans, pull espresso in my expensive machine, and drink it in front of my computer, without even noticing once I’ve finished.




Source link

Lloyd Lee

Anthropic’s lawyer says government is ‘pressuring’ companies to ditch the AI startup, go to competitors

Anthropic’s lawyer said the US government is “pressuring” the startup’s customers to go to rival AI providers amid an escalating fight between the Claude developer and the Department of Defense.

During a status conference on Tuesday, Michael Mongan, an attorney for Anthropic, said the Defense Department’s decision to effectively blacklist the startup from working with the US military is bringing “real and irreparable harm” to the company each day.

Mongan said customers have begun “expressing doubt” about working with Anthropic and that the government has been on a pressure campaign to get Anthropic’s customers to drop the provider and go to competing AI companies.

“We’ve had university systems and business-to-business companies that have switched to competing AI companies,” Mongan said. “And this is all the predictable result of the defendant’s actions and the uncertainty they’ve created, as well as the fact that defendants have been affirmatively reaching out to our customers and pressuring them to stop working with Anthropic and switch to other AI companies.”

Last month, after contract negotiations with the AI startup fell apart, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Anthropic was a “supply chain risk” and framed the move as extending beyond direct military work.

“Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic,” Hegseth said in an X post on February 27.

The scope of the supply chain risk label is in dispute. Microsoft previously told Business Insider that its lawyers concluded the company can still use Anthropic for non-military-related work. The company also filed an amicus brief, urging the federal court to temporarily block the government’s supply chain risk designation.

The issue centers on Anthropic’s stance that its frontier model, Claude, cannot be deployed for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of US citizens. Defense officials have said in response that a private company cannot dictate what the military can and cannot do.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said in a blog post on February 26 that the company could not accede to the government’s demand for unrestricted, lawful use of its model. A day later, Hegseth formally designated Anthropic a supply chain risk.

Anthropic sued the government on Monday, seeking a temporary restraining order to continue doing business with the government as the case proceeds. The company said in the suit that the Defense Department did not provide adequate grounds to label it a national security risk.

In addition, the company said the designation has never been applied to an American company and that the move was retaliatory, violating the company’s First Amendment rights to express its views on AI safety and limitations.

The fallout from Anthropic’s blacklisting has been swift, according to legal filings.

Krishna Rao, Anthropic’s chief financial officer, said in a declaration filed on Monday that the DoD had contacted several “portfolio companies about their use of Claude” and that those clients have “grown worried and uncertain” about their ability to use the model.

The CFO said the government’s action could reduce Anthropic’s 2026 revenue by “multiple billions of dollars.”

Spokespeople for Anthropic and the Pentagon, as well as Anthropic’s lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment.




Source link

Patreons-CEO-says-AI-will-be-a-bloodbath-for-the.jpeg

Patreon’s CEO says AI will be a ‘bloodbath for the world’s creative people’ unless tech companies pay up

Jack Conte, the CEO of creator subscriptions platform Patreon, has a bone to pick with the Big Tech AI models.

It’s about compensation.

“The creator economy is being left out, loudly and notably,” Conte told Business Insider in an interview. “And by the creator economy, I don’t mean companies, I don’t mean Patreon. I mean creators.”

While AI companies like OpenAI and Meta are striking deals to license content from traditional media companies, “none of that infrastructure exists for independent creators,” Conte said.

In a roughly 45-minute video posted to Patreon on Tuesday, Conte further explained his personal stance on AI and the creator economy.

Conte said the key problem is that Big Tech companies don’t have much of an incentive to pay individual creators right now.

“I’m heavily in favor of some type of regulation that protects the rights holders and creators who are unable to protect themselves and go to the table with a bunch of leverage in moments like this,” he said.

AI’s standing under existing copyright law is still being assessed in real time. For example, in 2025, a federal court in California ruled that Anthropic’s training of its models on copyrighted books could be considered “fair use” if the material was lawfully obtained. Still, the AI company agreed to pay a $1.5 billion settlement to the author plaintiffs in the case after the judge ruled that copying and storing pirated books without consent did not meet the criteria for fair use. In January, a bipartisan bill was introduced in Congress to address transparency around how AI companies train on copyrighted material.

Conte wants to see AI companies start taking creators — and the rights to their content — seriously.

“I’m not anti-AI,” he said.

Patreon, a creator economy unicorn startup, has been internally using AI tools like Anthropic’s Claude and Cursor.

“I think it’s going to help humans make really beautiful things and be really self-expressive in an amazing way, just like synthesizers, just like sound and picture with movies,” Conte said. “But that doesn’t give people carte blanche to roll it out in a way that just creates a bloodbath for the world’s creative people.”

Conte doesn’t have a solution in mind yet for how creators should be compensated by companies training AI models.

“What we need to solve for is what the spirit of IP is solving for, which is how do you incentivize novelty creation?” he said.

He pointed to YouTube’s rights management system, Content ID, as a potential model. Content ID lets rights holders detect, remove, and monetize YouTube videos that feature their copyrighted work.

“Either I can remove my work from the training data, or I get paid when it’s used as training data and when it’s replicated, and I get credit for that,” Conte said. “I don’t know how to build that, but humans have done harder things.”

AI companies could start — and potentially already are — ripping a page out of social media’s playbook for paying or courting creators. Last year, Bloomberg reported that several AI companies were paying creators to license their unpublished content, including startup Moonvalley. OpenAI also recently hired Meta’s former head of partnerships, who oversaw Instagram’s relationships with celebrities and creators.

“We’re going to see some type of model emerge that compensates artists for their work,” Conte said.




Source link

Layoffs-are-feeling-awfully-tempting-for-companies-right-now.jpeg

Layoffs are feeling awfully tempting for companies right now

When the economy is uncertain, CEOs often reach for a familiar lever: job cuts.

And things are feeling far from certain these days.

January layoffs were the biggest for the start of a year since 2009, during the Great Recession, the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported last week. The Labor Department on Friday also announced a surprise drop in employment in February.

Everywhere business leaders look, they see question marks: about the economy, tariff policy, congressional elections, the impact of AI, and global conflict.

A lack of clarity in business is nothing new, yet sometimes the fog grows thicker. When it does, holding onto cash starts to look like the smart call to some CEOs, said Sunil Setlur, founder of Cognisen.co, a leadership and organizational strategy advisory firm.

That can mean cutting people, he said, because payroll often represents the biggest line item on a company’s balance sheet.

What investors like

While cuts are unpleasant for all but the most hard-nosed CEOs — and, of course, the affected workers — they’re often a hit with investors.

From Meta to Spotify, Wall Street has rewarded companies that announce layoffs in recent years.

When markets applaud job cuts, and compensation is tied to a company’s stock performance, that incentive structure can make such decisions “easier than they might otherwise be,” Setlur said.

In some industries, like tech, where many companies bulked up during a pandemic-era boom, layoffs can also bring payroll back in line with demand, he said.

For years, some firms have been trying to thin layers of both middle management and rank-and-file workers to create smaller, more nimble teams.

Amazon, for example, said in January that it would cut 16,000 corporate workers as part of an effort to become the “world’s largest startup.” Since late 2022, it has cut more than 57,000 corporate roles.

A number of companies, exercising the leverage they hold in a softer job market, are tightening performance standards — another way to reduce head count without announcing it outright.

The AI factor

Much of the chatter around recent layoffs centers on fears that this is just the start of AI decimating white-collar jobs.

In late February, the tech company Block laid off more than 40% of its workforce, citing AI-generated efficiencies allowing smaller teams to get more done. The company’s cofounder and CEO, Jack Dorsey, predicted that more companies would eventually embrace a similar slim down because of AI.

By some measures, it’s already happening. At companies in five industries likely to feel “significant near-term impacts” from AI adoption, employment fell by 4%, on average, over the prior year, while net productivity rose, Morgan Stanley reported in February. The financial firm surveyed more than 900 executives in several countries, including the US.

“Despite the perception that adoption is still in early stages, new data show AI’s impact is both measurable and accelerating faster than expected,” the report said.

Friday’s employment report, which showed a loss of 92,000 jobs rather than a gain of 55,000 as economists forecast, also revealed weakness in tech. One economist wrote that the industry is losing jobs at one of the fastest rates of the last two decades.

Job cuts often don’t have as much to do with AI as with pragmatic decisions to reduce costs, said Alibek Dostiyarov, cofounder of Perceptis, which develops AI-powered software for professional services firms.

That’s particularly true for firms that grew rapidly during the pandemic, only to see demand soften subsequently.

“AI is just a convenient scapegoat,” Dostiyarov told Business Insider.

Instead, while he estimated that the technology could deliver long-term efficiency gains of 20% to 30%, Dostiyarov said it’s more likely to lead to task elimination rather than one-for-one job losses.

In general, Tim Walsh, CEO of KPMG US, doesn’t see AI behind many corporate cutbacks. Instead, he told Business Insider, many businesses are reviewing their overall workforce to reassess where they need people.

“Deploying AI does not automatically lead to workforce reduction,” Walsh said. KPMG, he said, will likely need to hire more people as it continues to develop and incorporate AI tools into its business.

Understandably, AI anxiety remains pervasive, however.

“A lot of people have been just waiting for the AI shoe to drop,” said Jeff Fettes, CEO of Laivly, which uses AI agents to support customer service work for Fortune 500 companies. Yet because it often takes companies a while to adopt new technology, not all of the reductions are likely to show up right away.

Do you have a story to share about your career or a layoff? Contact this reporter at tparadis@businessinsider.com.




Source link