• Many Americans are resisting the construction of massive AI data centers in their communities.
• Some local and state governments are issuing moratoriums on data center development.
• Others have banned data center construction altogether.

Americans across the country are rallying against the AI-inspired data center boom.

Now, an increasing number of local lawmakers are backing them up, issuing restrictions, imposing moratoriums, or outright banning construction.

Data centers have become a major source of contention in the United States, where tech leaders, developers, and investors are pumping billions of dollars into the large-scale construction projects. The facilities house the servers powering the AI products sold by Big Tech companies and leading AI startups like Anthropic and OpenAI.

Although data centers in America aren't new, the AI revolution is fueling ever-increasing demand and requiring facilities that dwarf those of the past. A Business Insider investigation published last week found 1,416 data centers already built or approved for construction across 45 states and Washington, DC, in 2025.

The White House has supported this push for more data centers. In 2025, the Trump administration accelerated federal permitting for their construction and directed the US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick to provide financial support for certain projects. The administration also backed the Stargate project, a joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank that seeks to build out AI infrastructure.

Supporters say the data centers will create new jobs and strengthen the economy, and are necessary if the United States wants to compete with China to lead the world in AI. Critics, however, are more worried about how they will affect the largely rural communities where they are being built.

They worry about the impact on the environment, wildlife, water resources, air quality, electricity costs, traffic, and noise levels. Some have also criticized local officials and developers for what they say has been a lack of transparency in the approval process. Protesters have swarmed community meetings, launched petitions, and even taken legal action to stop data center developments in recent months.

Some high-profile figures in the data center game, including Jeff Bezos and Kevin O'Leary, have tried to sway public opinion. That PR push, however, hasn't had much impact. A Pew Research Center survey earlier this year found that the more Americans learn about data centers, the worse they feel about them.

• Business Insider asked six tech workers which task they're saving the most time on with AI.
• Some workers said AI has turned tasks that once took hours into minutes.
• Others said the productivity gains haven't necessarily led to shorter workdays.

Ask a tech worker how AI has changed their jobs, and chances are they'll answer with a single number: hours saved.

In interviews with Business Insider, Big Tech software engineers, product managers, and data scientists described using AI to compress hours of work into minutes. They use it to draft documents, summarize months of meetings, review code, automate reports, and more.

Faster doesn't always mean easier, however. One Amazon data scientist said AI is adding hours to his workweek as he builds the automation systems that should eventually save him time. Another Amazon employee said any time saved is quickly redirected to the next project.

Here's how six tech workers said AI is saving them the most time. (Their responses have been edited for length and clarity.)

The time AI saves me gets reinvested into the next problem

Priyanka Devi Ramesh is a business intelligence engineer at Amazon. She's 30 and lives in Virginia.

Document writing is where AI has had the greatest impact. With the help of an AI tool called Pippin, it's become easy to translate my thoughts about the projects I'm working on into polished documents that can be technical or customer-facing. This saves a massive amount of time — I spend hardly 15 to 20 minutes max to write and finalize a document that would have previously taken me well over an hour.

On the technical side, I use Kiro and Amazon Quick. Kiro is great for brainstorming ideas and making logic updates in minutes. I'm building agents within Amazon Quick to automate common customer questions about dashboards and to surface insights from data.

AI hasn't reduced my work time. We're constantly looking for ways to clean up messy data and finding opportunities to automate wherever possible — so the time saved in one area gets reinvested into the next problem.

AI helps me make sense of months of meetings at Google

Prerit Pathak is a security engineer at Google. He's 27 and lives in New York City.

I use Gemini for a variety of purposes, but recently it has bolstered my note-taking.

I used to take shorthand notes during meetings to record interesting or important information. Now, I let Gemini take notes on my work calls, and the improvement has been incredible. A summarization task — such as understanding what happened over the previous six months — that once would have taken one to two hours now takes five to 10 minutes.

I'm working longer hours now, so AI can save me time later

Sarthak Gupta is a data scientist at Amazon. He's 29 and lives in Seattle.

AI has been most helpful with building end-to-end automation pipelines for recurring workflows.

It used to take 8 to 10 hours over a couple of days to create a monthly stakeholder report that involved pulling data, cleaning it, generating visualizations, and writing the summary. Now, an AI pipeline handles the data pulls, transformations, and dashboard refreshes. I spend maybe 45 minutes reviewing the output and adding context before sending it out.

However, my overall working hours right now are running longer than normal. The reason is that we're in the middle of an automation phase. Building the pipelines, integrating the AI tooling, validating outputs, and onboarding all of this into existing workflows is front-loaded work, and that upfront investment is real. The payoff comes later, when the same task that took a couple of days collapses into a button click.

So in the short term, AI is actually adding hours to my week, not subtracting them. I'd expect that to flip once the foundational pipelines are stable and the automation is doing the heavy lifting on its own.

AI helps me turn messy ideas into polished plans

Tanvi Pisal is a UX designer working as a contractor for Apple via Red Oak Technologies. She's 29 and lives in San Jose.

One of the biggest ways AI saves me time is in early-stage product thinking and documentation.

As a product designer, I used to spend hours drafting product requirement documents, brainstorming user stories, mapping edge cases, outlining use scenarios, and refining ideation before I even got to visual design.

Now, I can start with rough notes or a messy draft, and AI helps turn that into a much more structured document in minutes. What used to take me three to four hours can often be reduced to 30 minutes with feedback and refinements.

AI gets me to the starting line faster at Amazon

Udit Mehrotra is a head of product at Amazon. He's in his 30s and lives in Seattle.

Writing product documents is where I've seen the biggest change. Every major initiative at Amazon starts with a written document, and for years, the first hour or two of that process was building scaffolding: setting up the structure, filling in the sections you know by heart, and building something worth reacting to before you could get to the actual thinking.

Now I can use AI to input the customer problem and constraints and get a solid first draft in minutes. What surprises me is that it's often more comprehensive than what I'd have written on my own under time pressure.

Getting from 80% to 100% is still where the real work lives, and AI doesn't change that. The strategic judgment, the tradeoffs between what customers need and what's technically feasible, the decisions that require years of accumulated context about a specific customer problem — that thinking still takes the same depth and care it always did.

What has changed is that I arrive at the starting line faster, with a more complete structure to react to and push against. The quality of the final document is often better as a result, not because AI did the hard thinking, but because I spent more of my time on it.

What used to take a week can now take a day

Iren Azra Zou is a software engineer at the trucking logistics startup Double Nickel. She's in her 20s and lives in New Jersey.

I use AI, mostly Claude Code, for the majority of my coding. It's honestly hard to quantify the time savings; it feels like what used to take a week can now take a day.

We also rely heavily on AI to review and provide feedback on code, unless a change is particularly risky. That alone saves a huge amount of time. Instead of waiting days for human reviews, you get multiple rounds of feedback within hours. It also means I spend less time reviewing others' code, which probably saves me several hours each week.

There are tradeoffs — less human review can have downsides. But right now, the speed of iteration and innovation is incredibly valuable for us.

Do you have a story to share about how you're navigating a career crossroads? If so, please reach out to the reporter via email at jzinkula@businessinsider.com, or via Signal at jzinkula.29.

• Google unveiled a new AI-powered search this week. It could ruin the internet.
• The changes mean you'll get a traditional list of links much less often.
• Instead, you'll get AI-powered answers, personalized just to you. That's not the internet we know.

Google is about to ruin the internet.

And I love the internet. I love websites. I love sending links to my friends. I spend nearly my entire workday looking at various Chrome tabs. I enjoy looking at websites I've never looked at before.

All of that is going to change with Google's new search updates, which lean into AI-generated answers. Its plans gave me an awful sinking feeling.

The big change will be to integrate AI even more into search — instead of typing in a few keywords and getting a list of links, Google will spit out more AI-powered answers to questions and personalized requests (I'll explain more in a bit.)

When a Big Tech company gives a demonstration of a new product, you've always got to look at it with some skepticism, so let's take this with at least a grain of salt: But Google, this week, said its new features would let an AI agent send you updates whenever your favorite athletes launch a new sneaker, for instance. (I am not sure how it knows your favorite athletes, but, at the same time, of course, Google knows that about you.)

A personalized internet isn't the internet

I really struggled to get into the mindset of someone who wants this. I'm not a sports fan or a sneakerhead, so new athlete-endorsed shoes don't thrill me, but I do enjoy shopping, so I can see the appeal of buying cool new sneakers. Do I want an alert when an athlete or brand announces this? Do I expect this to be something I wouldn't see in a TV ad, read in a style magazine, or see on the athlete's Instagram? Like, I guess I can see some convenience here, but there's already a robust ecosystem of ways to get this information that I find generally pleasurable to engage with.

Another example: Someone asking Google for advice on where to go for a hike with restaurants and parking nearby. That's a nice, wholesome project for a demonstration, but I can't imagine using Google in this way. I use Google in that time-honored way we've all been taught: typo-laden, two-word utterances — not elegantly worded requests.

I usually already know what I want to find; I just need help getting to the website that gives me the thing I want.

Google, of course, is bullish on its new product — and especially the personalization of it all. "We believe the best version of search is one created just for you," said Robby Stein, vice president of product for Google Search, during the I/O presentation this week.

I guess? Sure?

Stein gives an example of a college student asking about black holes. The student types a question in the search bar, and Google gives an AI-generated answer and creates a customized animation that shows how black holes work. (Eventually, it will give you a few links to other information about black holes.)

OK, cool. But that's not really what "search" is, right? That's just an AI chatbot that answers highly specific questions.

'Google Zero' might be coming

All this is obviously potentially very bad news for websites that have depended at least in part on Google search traffic, including the one you're now reading. There's been an expectation of this coming eventually — a doomsday event referred to glumly as "Google Zero" when Google traffic, which has been dropping across the news industry for the last few years, eventually hits zero. AI Overviews and people using other AI tools like ChatGPT to find information have already cut deeply into publishers' search traffic.

I am aware that my aversion to this new search experience may seem like self-preservation, since this is ostensibly not good for the journalism industry (in the short term, at least). But I assure you that my complaints are more personal and short-sighted. I am annoyed that this will change how I search and how I experience the internet.

I think of "the internet" as a place you go to; it shouldn't come to you.

I know it's outdated, but imagine the information superhighway — a physical space of roads, silos, and dungeons you can wander around. Google is the doorway to it. It hands you the map so you can give yourself a self-guided tour. But you're on your own in there.

By doing this for, say, 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for, say, two decades, you become quite adept at knowing where to look and how to navigate. I still think of the internet this way.

The new Google seems like a gated community

But a version of the new AI search is one where you never have to venture out onto the internet; it's brought to you in a sanitized form by an intermediary. It's like living in a gated community with a strict HOA vs. a walkable city with public transit.

I know that harping on the virtues of "websites" is something only old people do; a leftover of the techno-optimism of people who spent time on old-timey messageboards or blogs. And, well, sure, I'm an old crank, but I've also got the youth on my side on this one. As my colleague Dan DeFrancesco writes, Gen Z has an aversion to AI — and this may affect how they adopt these new Google search products. I say, if Gen X fads like hacky sacks are back, then so should caring about the open web.

I don't want Google search to trap me into its AI HOA! I want my internet experience to have a tacky-colored house, an unkempt lawn, and a year-round 12-foot Home Depot skeleton. That's what the internet should feel like to me: something to explore and venture out into, even if that means a tiny bit of imperfect friction.

• Google and Amazon have ambitions to sell AI chips to customers.
• That could make things awkward with Nvidia, which the two tech giants also rely on.
• Taking on Nvidia won't be easy, but one analyst said the process is now "irreversible."

Two of Nvidia's biggest customers might be turning into its biggest threat.

For three years, Nvidia's stock has defied gravity on the premise that the AI industry needs its chips. On Wednesday, when Google and Amazon reported their Q1 earnings, both signaled ambitions to sell their own custom AI chips directly to customers.

So far, Google's TPUs and Amazon's Trainium chips have only been available through Google and Amazon's cloud services. Customers can pay to use them, but they don't own them.

Nvidia is the undisputed leader in AI chips right now. While that shows no sign of stopping anytime soon, recent remarks from Google and Amazon suggest they are ready to challenge Nvidia's throne.

Andy Jassy, the CEO of Amazon, laid down the gauntlet to Nvidia in his annual letter to shareholders earlier this month.

"Virtually all AI thus far has been done on Nvidia chips, but a new shift has started," Jassy wrote, adding that it's "quite possible" that Amazon could start selling its chips directly to customers.

He put a timeline on this plan on the company's Wednesday earnings call, saying "there's a good chance" Amazon will start offering full racks of Trainium chips beyond its own cloud "over the next couple of years."

Google gave an even stronger commitment — and a nearer timeline.

On Wednesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai publicly said for the first time that the company plans to deliver TPU chips to a "select group of customers" in their own data centers this year, but said the "vast majority" of revenues from those sales won't be realized until 2027.

Pichai said there was a big opportunity for Google's semiconductor business, which would also help fund the next generation of chips. That flywheel could create a mammoth business for Google. Morgan Stanley said in a December research note that selling 500,000 TPU chips could add roughly $13 billion in revenue to Google's balance sheet in 2027.

The company said in its 10-Q filing that it had so far signed a "limited number of agreements" to supply TPUs to customers.

It's also where things could get awkward. Google and Amazon are also big customers of Nvidia. They purchase Nvidia's chips to lease to their customers in their own data centers. Amazon and Google have both said that they will continue to work with Nvidia.

Nvidia shares were down more thean 4% on Thursday. The company didn't immediately respond to a Business Insider request for comment.

'Concerned but not worried'

Breaking into Nvidia's chip dominance will not be easy, analysts told Business Insider.

"Nvidia should be concerned but not worried," said Alvin Nguyen, a senior analyst at Forrester. Nvidia has built a strong ecosystem of hardware, software, and support that has made it easy for customers to choose them, he said.

"Selling products is very different than access to them," he said, adding that Amazon and Google would need to provide services like education and support to enterprises looking to buy their chips.

Google and Amazon's chip racks are also "very bespoke and proprietary" and customized for their own respective data centers, said Patrick Moorhead, CEO and chief analyst of Moor Insights & Strategy. That poses a challenge for reaching mass adoption, he said.

Plus, the chip market isn't a zero-sum game. AI companies are increasingly diversifying and using chips from multiple suppliers simultaneously. OpenAI, for example, has chip deals with Nvidia, AMD, and Broadcom, among others.

However, custom silicon is becoming an "increasingly important part of the AI story" for Google and Amazon, Bernstein analyst Mark Shmulik wrote in a note on Thursday. Both companies are pitching their chips as being more cost-effective than Nvidia's.

That opportunity is also opening up as the needs of the AI industry shifts. Earlier this month, Google announced a new TPU chip specifically for inference — the process of running the models once they're trained — which is becoming more critical as more companies bring AI agents online.

Beatriz Valle, a senior analyst for enterprise technology & services at GlobalData, called the decision by Google and Amazon an "extraordinary move" that will diversify the chip sector — and reduce cloud providers' dependence on Nvidia chips.

"This process will take years but it is irreversible now," she said.

• Around 600 Google employees urged CEO Sundar Pichai to reject classified Pentagon AI deals.
• They said they want to see AI benefit humanity, not be used for autonomous weapons or surveillance.
• Google and the Pentagon are in talks to use Gemini in classified settings, per a recent report.

Around 600 Google employees sent a letter to CEO Sundar Pichai on Monday, urging him not to let the company's AI technology be used by the US military for classified operations.

The letter, signed by employees in Google's DeepMind and Cloud divisions, cited a recent Information report that Google and the Pentagon were negotiating the use of Google's Gemini AI in classified settings.

"As people working on AI, we know that these systems can centralize power and that they do make mistakes," the employees wrote in the letter. "We feel that our proximity to this technology creates a responsibility to highlight and prevent its most unethical and dangerous uses."

"Currently, the only way to guarantee that Google does not become associated with such harms is to reject any classified workloads," employees continued in the letter. "Otherwise, such uses may occur without our knowledge or the power to stop them."

Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. Google has not yet responded to the letter, said Jane Chung, the founder of Justice Speaks, a communications firm representing the workers. Bloomberg first reported on the letter.

Google has long faced internal pushback to its efforts to work with the US military. In 2018, it decided not to renew Project Maven, a Department of Defense contract to integrate AI into military operations, following pressure from hundreds of employees. Palantir later picked up the deal.

The same year, Google established a set of AI principles, including a pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance. Last year, it updated those AI principles to remove wording around weapons and surveillance.

The company also secured new contracts with the Pentagon last year to use its AI and cloud products. In March, the company said it would provide the Pentagon with AI agents in a non-classified setting. It also told Google DeepMind employees during a January meeting that they should expect more of these types of deals.

In the letter, Google employees raised concerns that classified work would lead to a lack of oversight into how the company's technology is used.

"We want to see AI benefit humanity; not to see it being used in inhumane or extremely harmful ways," the employees wrote. "This includes lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance but extends beyond."

Read the full letter below:

Dear Sundar,

We are Google employees who are deeply concerned about ongoing negotiations between Google and the US Department of Defense. As people working on AI, we know that these systems can centralize power and that they do make mistakes. We feel that our proximity to this technology creates a responsibility to highlight and prevent its most unethical and dangerous uses.

Therefore, we ask you to refuse to make our AI systems available for classified workloads.

We want to see AI benefit humanity; not to see it being used in inhumane or extremely harmful ways. This includes lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance but extends beyond. Currently, the only way to guarantee that Google does not become associated with such harms is to reject any classified workloads. Otherwise, such uses may occur without our knowledge or the power to stop them.

Making the wrong call right now would cause irreparable damage to Google's reputation, business, and role in the world. At this very moment, the safety of our own workforce and critical infrastructure are under active threat. Human lives are already being lost and civil liberties put at risk at home and abroad from misuses of the technology we're playing a key role in building.

We know from our own history that our leaders can make the right choices, for ourselves and for the world, when the stakes are high.

Today, we call on you, Sundar, to act according to the values on which this company was built, and refuse classified workloads.

• OpenAI has become a centerpiece in the AI talent wars, data reviewed by Business Insider shows.
• Workers often leave Big Tech for Sam Altman's venture and then move on to smaller startups.
• The average tenure for US-based OpenAI employees is around 16 months.

Workers leave Big Tech for OpenAI. They fan out across a growing ecosystem of startups. Rinse and repeat.

Since it launched ChatGPT, the Sam Altman-led company has quickly become a magnet for AI talent. It has pulled hundreds of researchers and engineers from competitors like Google, Meta, and Apple, according to data reviewed by Business Insider. After sticking around for a while, many of those employees go on to found or join rival startups of their own.

The company has nearly quadrupled in size since its chatbot took off in 2023, scaling from a small research lab of around 1,000 employees to a tech company with more than 4,000 workers.

To get a sense of how OpenAI is faring in the race for AI talent, Business Insider analyzed findings from workforce intelligence provider Live Data Technologies, which used LinkedIn to track the comings and goings of around 1,300 employees from January 2023 to March 2026.

Live Data Technologies analyzed publicly available professional profile data for OpenAI employees who had available information on previous employers. The roles analyzed ranged from engineering and research to product, human resources, and recruiting.

Representatives for OpenAI didn't respond to a request for comment.

The company's hiring pipeline is highly concentrated

OpenAI was originally founded by Altman and Elon Musk in 2015 to compete with Google's DeepMind AI lab.

Now, Google is the No. 1 source of talent for OpenAI, accounting for roughly a quarter of hires, according to the data.

Nearly half of OpenAI hires in the last three years came from either Google, Meta, Apple, or Microsoft.

Apple's Jony Ive joined OpenAI last summer to work on a new AI device. The project encompasses around 300 workers, many of whom came from Apple, The Information reported earlier this year.

The company has also made several high-profile hires over the past year, including Slack CEO Denise Dresser, OpenClaw founder Peter Steinberger, and Instacart CEO Fidji Simo.

Since 2023, OpenAI has added roughly four times as many engineers as it has lost, highlighting the company's rapid expansion as the AI race intensifies.

The battle for AI talent has become one of Silicon Valley's fiercest. Big Tech companies are aggressively competing for a relatively small pool of researchers capable of building advanced AI systems.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly taken a hands-on role in recruiting top AI employees, while Meta and other companies have reportedly offered massive compensation packages, sometimes valued in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in stock.

OpenAI is known for its high compensation packages. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that its employees receive an average of $1.5 million in stock-based compensation. Public salary data from H-1B visa applications shows that research scientists at the AI venture have salaries ranging from $245,000 to $685,000, while engineering roles are listed with a range of $165,000 to $290,000.

Where employees go after OpenAI tells a different story

Departures are fragmented, spreading across more than 150 different companies, including competitors like Meta, Anthropic, and emerging labs such as Thinking Machines Lab, according to the data. The majority of OpenAI employees left for smaller startups, venture capital firms, or academia, according to the data.

The data suggests OpenAI has become a centerpiece in the AI talent network, pulling researchers from Big Tech and sending alumni across the startup and VC ecosystem.

Only a handful of companies received more than 15 OpenAI alumni in the last three years: Anthropic, Meta, Google, and Thinking Machines Lab, the data shows.

Anthropic is perhaps the best-known example. It was founded by former OpenAI researchers, including siblings Dario and Daniela Amodei. VP of Research Max Schwarzer left OpenAI for Anthropic earlier this month.

Meanwhile, several OpenAI employees who left the company to help found Thinking Machine Labs in February, including Barret Zoph, rejoined OpenAI earlier this year.

Common roles at OpenAI include engineering and research, the data shows. The average tenure for US-based OpenAI employees is around 16 months.

Do you work for OpenAI or have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at gkay@businessinsider.com or Signal at 248-894-6012. Use a personal email address, a nonwork device, and nonwork WiFi; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Marie Pabelonio, a Google editorial lead, graduated from college with an English degree in 2009.
• She highlights the value of her English degree in adapting to AI's impact in the tech industry.
• AI helps her meet deadlines and focus on the bigger picture, but a human touch is still essential.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Marie Pabelonio, a 38-year-old editorial lead at Google, based in the Bay Area. This story has been edited for length and clarity.

I've been at Google since 2019, and as a writer, I knew AI would affect my role.

Looking back on my career trajectory, it feels like nothing short of a miracle that I ended up where I am. I graduated with an English degree in 2009, right after the financial crisis, and I'm now an editorial lead in people operations at Google, where I co-lead a small team that drafts and editorializes about 4,500-plus pages of HR policies. I've used AI to automate processes, refine drafts, templatize, and meet deadlines that would be impossible otherwise.

At this point, anyone, regardless of whether they're a writer or not, has felt it: Is AI going to automate me? Is it going to eventually just replace my job? I don't think I work more or less because of AI; I just work very differently.

I was a humanities major and fell into Big Tech

The job market felt very volatile when I entered it, which I think a lot of young people entering the workforce today feel.

I didn't have a career plan. I was an English major because I loved reading and writing, and if I found a job where I could do that and build a specific skill set on top of it, I would be OK.

My first job was as a fact-checker for the publishing arm of an industrial supply company, and then I became a copywriter in the advertising and marketing space. In 2016, I moved from Chicago to the Bay Area and became an editor at Amazon's subsidiary, Goodreads. I stayed in the Bay Area and made my way to Google by 2019.

I wasn't surprised that AI changed my job right away

We've heard the word "unprecedented" so much in the last six years or so that nothing surprises me anymore, including AI.

My team works with stakeholders and policy designers to interpret and draft policies, whether they're return-to-office, hybrid work, or immigration policies. There are areas where AI is useful in our work, and the tool has helped us regain more strategic time by automating tactical parts of our process.

This includes training the AI on standard article structure, to include four sections like background, key details, process, and related resources, formatting consistencies, including where headlines, a bulleted list, or a table would be used, and five to seven non-negotiable details the user needs to know from the policy.

I think there's still a lot of room for that human touch in that process. Once I have the output, I spend my time on the more strategic pieces, like verifying tone and voice, determining whether the article actually achieves the user goal, and how it fits with the broader content strategy of other articles.

In our writing, the goal is to inject humanity and warmth as much as possible, especially when explaining human resources topics like an employee's health insurance, compensation, performance reviews, and career growth. AI can't do that by itself.

AI saved me when I had a tight deadline

Around the time we started using AI, I had a big project to update existing policies, and I was on a tight deadline. I spent a lot of time upfront strategizing about how I could use AI to accelerate my work and meet my goals.

To address the overwhelming number of first drafts, I used AI to template a structure for readability, created a checklist for tone, style, and quality, and because of that was able to focus more on streamlining stakeholder reviews to check for accuracy. I met my deadline with a few days to spare. This was when it clicked for me that AI was changing things in a huge way, when this deadline looked really impossible, and then it wasn't.

Still, there were many times I had to validate and tweak the outputs. I never felt I could use AI as my secretary and leave it alone to do whatever it wanted.

Studying the humanities gave me a particular edge in the AI job market

I think there will be more of a premium on how we think, not what we know.

When it comes to writing, it's about being able to articulate the reasons behind your choices. Why this phrase and not that? Why put this insight here and not there? There's a rationale behind your judgment.

In job interviews, the question of how you use AI at work will inevitably come up now, and your AI output is only as good as your input. Good writers can get better, but bad writers can get worse, and just because you're writing fluently doesn't mean you're writing well. Studying literature so closely helped me reflect more on questions instead of answers.

This is the time to brag about how you develop your own sound judgment and how you use that judgment in your AI inputs. As good as it is to develop hard skills, it's just as important, now more than ever, to focus on soft skills too.

Do you have a story to share about your writing job in tech or AI? Contact this reporter, Agnes Applegate, at aapplegate@businessinsider.com.

• Taylor M. LaSane built a career coaching side hustle while working at Google.
• Last year, she accepted a voluntary buyout to focus on her business full-time.
• She shared why she made the leap — and her advice for others weighing major career moves.

Last June, Taylor M. LaSane faced a decision she'd been weighing for years: whether to walk away from her six-figure salary at Google to go all in on the career coaching business she started three years earlier.

Google had just offered voluntary buyouts to some US-based employees, including those in the finance organization where she worked, positioning the program as an option for workers who didn't feel "all in" on the company's direction.

LaSane said her buyout offer included just under six months of severance pay. While the payout would help ease her transition to entrepreneurship, the risk was still significant. She said her income from the business was roughly 10% of what she earned at Google — and she had to weigh the financial implications for her husband and their twin toddlers.

Around this time, LaSane learned about the unexpected death of her uncle at the age of 62. She said he had recently retired and been looking forward to having time to "relax and actually live." His death, coupled with the buyout offer, made her question how long she was willing to wait to pursue her own plans.

"It was a reminder that life is too short to wait for permission," said LaSane, who is 32 and lives in Atlanta.

She ultimately decided to apply for the buyout and, after being accepted, took the offer — with her employment formally ending in October.

Over the past year, I've interviewed more than a dozen workers like LaSane, many of them from Big Tech companies, who chose to quit their jobs without having another role lined up. Some eventually landed at another large company. Others stepped away from the corporate world entirely — joining smaller firms, launching their own ventures, pursuing career pivots, or focusing on personal priorities, such as parenting.

These people have become outliers in an economy where workers are quitting at one of the lowest rates in the past decade — a trend fueled by a hiring slowdown across tech and other sectors that has left many holding tightly to their jobs with few appealing alternatives.

Those who walked away told me they did so for a range of reasons: concerns about job security, changes in workplace culture, entrepreneurial ambitions, or a desire for more meaningful work. The common theme: they were seeking greater long-term control over their careers.

TikTok visibility and motherhood slowed the business

In addition to LaSane's main role at Google, she volunteered as a career coach through an internal program for Google employees. She said she enjoyed the work and led as many as eight 40-minute coaching sessions in a given week.

In 2022, after seven years with Google, her growing interest in coaching — among other factors — began laying the foundation for her eventual exit.

That February, she began making career-focused TikTok videos. Around the same time, she began questioning whether her role was the right fit for her after she worked hard for a promotion, earned it, and still felt an "empty feeling."

"I was taking meetings at 2 o'clock in the morning, my hair was falling out, it was not a great time," she said. "And then I got the promotion, and I felt worse than I did before."

After reassessing her priorities, she took another step toward career coaching. In May 2022, she formally launched SHYNE, a coaching company focused on helping corporate professionals navigate career transitions. Later that year, in October, she earned a certification in leadership and performance coaching from Brown University.

From there, LaSane began taking on clients in her spare time and generating a modest income. But two factors held her back from pursuing the business more aggressively: the time constraints of juggling a full-time job and her growing concerns about the visibility of her growing TikTok presence.

LaSane said a few Google colleagues mentioned seeing her videos, and while she was never discouraged from posting, she worried about the potential career implications of being so visible online. So she decided to scale back her posting.

"I think I was trying to balance having a business on the side, but also managing the internal corporate brand," she said.

In 2023, another development pulled her away from her side business: she became pregnant with twins. In May of that year, LaSane took a break from the business that lasted until around September 2024 — spanning her pregnancy and about 10 months away from work, including eight months of company-provided maternity leave and two months of vacation and medical leave. When she returned to Google in the fall, she also refocused on growing her business.

Going all in on entrepreneurship

LaSane decided to trade TikTok for LinkedIn as her primary platform — and leaned more into group coaching and live events. Then in early 2025, she began questioning more seriously whether her position at Google was still the right fit, as organizational changes — including a growing emphasis on AI — left her increasingly uncertain about her responsibilities and long-term path.

At the same time, she believed in her business's potential — and felt the eight to 20 hours a week she could devote to it outside work and family obligations were limiting its growth. She also weighed her job security at Google, which she felt wasn't guaranteed.

"Big Tech layoffs are happening everywhere, so it wasn't like staying there was necessarily any more stable than leaving," she said.

So when she learned about Google's buyout option and mulled it over, she decided to apply and was approved. After assessing her family's financial situation — which included her husband's income and her business earnings — she accepted the offer.

LaSane said that, on the whole, Google was a "great company to work for," adding that the community she built there is what she'll remember most fondly.

In recent months, LaSane said her business has evolved from a focus on one-on-one coaching into a "career studio" with workshops and group coaching programs. She's not currently taking a personal salary from the business, but said individual events and programs have generated revenue. She said last year's Dream Day event — a live coaching workshop — brought in about $3,000 in revenue.

LaSane said she wants to give herself at least a year to pursue the business full-time before considering a pivot back to the corporate world.

"I thought about the story I wanted to tell my kids," she said. "That she took this kind of risk and was willing to bet on herself in this way — that's the story I want them to know. So I think bailing out too soon wouldn't fit the narrative."

Among her top pieces of advice for people navigating their careers: Chase the purpose and future you want — not the one you think you're supposed to have.

"If you get clear about that, everything else will fall in place," she said. "That's what happened for me."

• Bushra Amiwala quit her job at Google last year to run for Congress full-time.
• She applied for a leave of absence, but said the request was not approved.
• She explains what pushed her to take the leap — and her advice for young professionals.

Last summer, Bushra Amiwala faced a career-defining choice: stay at Google or quit to run for Congress.

In May, Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who represents Illinois 9th District, announced she would not seek reelection. With the seat open, Amiwala said she began weighing a run, speaking with more than 100 district residents in and around Skokie, where she lives.

As she weighed the decision, Amiwala, 28, said she applied for a six-month unpaid leave of absence from Google. When her request was denied, she said she was left with two options.

"Do I run for this seat and quit my job, or do I stay at Google and never try?" she said. In June, Amiwala announced her candidacy, and on August 30, she resigned from Google to run her campaign full-time.

Over the past year, I've interviewed more than a dozen people — many from Big Tech companies — who quit their jobs without having another role lined up. They've become outliers in an economy where people are quitting at near-decade lows — a trend fueled by a hiring slowdown across tech and other sectors that has left many holding tightly to their jobs.

After leaving their jobs, some took relatively safe paths, eventually joining other companies in similar roles. Others made riskier bets, launching startups or pursuing entirely new careers. Amiwala took a different kind of leap: leaving Google to run for Congress, part of a small but growing wave of younger Americans entering politics.

"The idea of solving problems for people to make their lives easier has always inspired me," Amiwala said.

She asked herself 2 questions before quitting Google

This isn't Amiwala's first time running for office. In 2018, she lost a bid for Cook County commissioner. But a year later, while enrolled at DePaul University, she ran for the Skokie Board of Education and won. At 21, she became one of the first members of Gen Z elected to public office in the US. She balanced this part-time role with a sales associate job at Google based in Chicago, which she started after graduating in 2020.

The financial implications of leaving Google were a "huge consideration" for Amiwala. She said one reason she didn't pursue public service full-time sooner was that she wanted to provide financial support for her immigrant parents — and saw tech as a more stable path.

Despite these concerns, Amiwala said two questions helped her get comfortable with leaving Google. The first was, "Are you all talk and no action?"

"I was always talking about how I'd love to be able to make an impact in Congress," she said. "So it's like, are you all talk? Are you actually going to do it?"

The second question was whether, five or 10 years from now, she would regret the decision.

"For me, it was a no-brainer," she said. "I knew I'd regret not doing it, and that matrix of decision-making made it really easy for me."

Since resigning, she said she's taken some comfort from the savings and equity she'd accumulated over the years. She decided not to pay herself a salary from her campaign funds but has occasionally received small speaking stipends, which have helped cover some expenses. To cut costs, she said she's "deflated" her lifestyle, cutting back on dinners with friends and personal training appointments.

"I think there was a lot of lifestyle inflation that happens when working at a tech role that just isn't as necessary," she said.

Advice for young professionals — and aspiring politicians

Fifteen Democrats, including Amiwala, and four Republicans are running for the congressional seat in the March 17 primary. Recent polling points to three leading Democratic candidates: Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, Internet content creator Kat Abughazaleh, and Illinois state Sen. Laura Fine.

Amiwala said she's focused on her campaign and hasn't yet thought seriously about what would come next if she loses the election. But she's navigated challenges before in her career.

The summer after her junior year at DePaul, where she studied management information systems, she interned at a large consulting firm — but did not receive a return offer. That fall, during her senior year, she applied for a role at Google without a referral and, after a few interviews, received an offer.

Amiwala's advice for young professionals: It's unrealistic to expect your career to fulfill the financial, emotional, and spiritual aspects of your life that matter most. So you might have to look outside your job for these things.

For anyone considering leaving their jobs to run for office, she recommends speaking with community leaders who can provide insight into the issues constituents care about. She said that running for office isn't the only way to get involved politically, but that if you're considering it, it could be a sign you're well-suited for it.

"It's a very specific type of person who thinks about running for office," she said. "The average person does not think like that. So if that is something that interests you and you feel uniquely equipped to do it successfully, you absolutely should."