• Meta previously announced it will cut 10% of its staff next month.
• Meta's HR chief told staff in a meeting that she can't promise further layoffs won't happen.
• She added that the business is strong and acknowledged that morale has been affected at Meta.

Meta plans to lay off around 10% of its staff next month, and it told staff it's not ruling out deeper cuts.

That's what Janelle Gale, Meta's chief people officer, told employees in an internal meeting on Thursday, according to three sources on the call.

"Will there be more layoffs? The question always comes up. I'd love to say that there are no more layoffs, but I can't say something we can't deliver," Gale said during the meeting. "While the business is strong, priorities change, competition is fierce, and we will continue to manage our costs responsibly."

She said this means that Meta will "continue to evolve teams as needed" and "try to redeploy talent." She pointed to how Meta is investing in its Applied AI organization.

Gale added that some organizations would be more affected by layoffs than others, though she did not specify which.

Meta leaders also said during the meeting that AI token usage would not be considered as a factor for the layoffs.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also addressed the layoffs at the meeting, saying that AI automation is not the driving factor behind them. He said that AI has made small teams far more efficient.

During the call, Zuckerberg also addressed Meta's plan to monitor employees' keystrokes and mouse movements to improve its AI models. He said humans are not actually watching what the staff are doing and that this data is abstracted and used to improve AI.

Meta AI Chief Alexandr Wang also appeared at the meeting, sporting a camouflage-pattern T-shirt featuring multiple deer, according to a photo seen by Business Insider. During the Q&A, he praised Meta's latest AI prowess, notably the recent release of its Spark model.

Meta declined to comment for this article.

Reuters reported in March that Meta plans to cut about 20% of its total staff this year.

Given the looming layoffs, Gale said at the meeting that they hit morale at Meta, and the company tries to make tough situations like that "the best version possible." She added that Meta has tripled COBRA healthcare coverage to 18 months.

Meta CFO Susan Li previously said during its first quarter earnings call on Wednesday that she "doesn't really know" the ideal size of the company's head count, which runs at above 77,000. Meta announced that its infrastructure spend, largely for AI, is doubling this year, to a range of $125 billion to $145 billion.

Have a tip? Contact Charles Rollet via email at crollet@businessinsider.com or on Signal and WhatsApp at 628-282-2811. Contact Hugh Langley via email at hlangley@businessinsider.com or Signal at 628-228-1836. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• A personal injury lawyer apologized for filing court documents with fabricated quotations.
• The lawyer told the judge that he had begun using software from a venture-backed startup called Eve.
• The episode highlights a growing risk for the startups selling artificial intelligence to lawyers.

Lawyers keep getting burned by artificial intelligence that invents cases and makes up quotes. Now, some attorneys are naming the software they used.

Last month, a Louisiana personal injury lawyer apologized after submitting briefs that cited a real court decision but quoted passages that didn't exist. The mistakes appeared in two filings in the 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge and were flagged by opposing counsel.

"I'm trying to understand how I made this mistake," Ross LeBlanc, a partner at Dudley DeBosier, wrote in a private letter to Judge William Jorden on March 27. Earlier this year, he said, he began using an artificial intelligence program called Eve to draft pleadings. At first, he checked the citations often. "They were always correct when I checked them," he wrote.

That consistency gave him confidence, and eventually, he stopped checking, he said.

"I never thought this could happen to me," LeBlanc wrote, adding that he could not be sure whether the mistake involved Eve's software or if he copied and pasted something too hastily.

Jay Madheswaranm, Eve's chief executive, told Business Insider on Thursday that after a close audit of the case with Dudley DeBosier, the company confirmed Eve "did not hallucinate any case citations in this matter," including any fabricated quotations.

Courts have slapped sanctions on attorneys for filing briefs with errors created by artificial intelligence — often called "hallucinations." Last week, Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the country's oldest and most elite law firms, apologized to a federal judge over a similar slip-up.

What's new here is the blame game. When an attorney names the tools involved, the companies behind the software are put in the spotlight and could face reputational repercussions.

Legal software companies like Harvey, Legora, and Eve have raised billions of dollars on the promise that they can make lawyers faster — and offer firms a level of reliability that general-purpose tools can't match. If their software starts to embarrass customers in court, that trust erodes.

Damien Charlotin, a French researcher who tracks hallucinations in court filings, estimates that fewer than 10% of cases identify the software used. Many lawyers, he suspects, keep that part private because they're relying on free chatbots like ChatGPT or other off-the-shelf tools that may not be authorized for client work.

Last year, a Latham & Watkins lawyer defending Anthropic in a copyright lawsuit made headlines after citing an article that does not exist. The lawyer said the mistake stemmed from using Anthropic's own chatbot, Claude, which fabricated an article title and authors.

Eve builds software for plaintiff-side lawyers using large language models, helping them draft documents, map out medical histories, and send and respond to discovery requests. The company was valued at $1 billion after it raised a $103 million funding round about a year ago. Madheswaranm said Eve now processes more than 200,000 documents and other results a month — up around 100-fold from a year ago.

LeBlanc told the judge that he had been wary of the technology generally because of the "horror stories" about hallucinated case law. He said he was persuaded after Eve pitched the tool to his firm and assured attorneys it had safeguards to reduce errors. He believed the risk was limited as long as he conducted his own legal research and directed the software to rely only on approved sources.

Then, opposing counsel in the personal injury case pointed out his mistakes.

LeBlanc's apology surfaced this month in a separate case involving a trip-and-fall at a Lowe's store. The opposing counsel found hallucinations in a brief filed by Dudley DeBosier and included LeBlanc's letter in a request urging the court to expand its inquiry into possible sanctions.

Dudley DeBosier has filed a motion to strike opposing counsel's request because it says the cases are unrelated. The firm also indicated that a lawyer used Claude to help draft the brief in the Lowe's case.

It's a view widely shared across software companies and law firms that artificial intelligence can assist in research and drafting, but responsibility for the final product remains with the human who signs the filing.

Madheswaran said Eve makes that explicit in its contracts and onboarding with new customers. The software also includes features designed to catch errors before they reach a courtroom, though they don't always work. Some errors are harder to spot than others, he said. Confirming a case exists is easier than verifying a quote is exact.

As the legal profession races to adopt artificial intelligence, mistakes are more likely to be caught. Courts are getting wiser to the technology, and opposing counsel are adjusting their tactics. Instead of only attacking legal arguments, lawyers are scanning filings for errors that could undermine the other side's credibility.

Chad Dudley, a founding partner of Dudley DeBosier, a firm with about 40 attorneys, said it trains its lawyers to carefully review generated results and requires them to agree to use the technology responsibly.

For his part, LeBlanc said he hopes other lawyers learn from his mistake. He told Business Insider on Thursday that Eve helped him move faster under time pressure, but after the errors surfaced, he felt "sick to my stomach" and couldn't sleep.

"I'm responsible for checking everything, no matter what technology comes along," he said.

He doesn't blame Eve for the blunder. Still, he's setting the tool down for now.

"I feel like, given what happened," he said, "it's fair to have a cooling off period, you know, touch grass."

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at mrussell@businessinsider.com or Signal at @MeliaRussell.01. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Silvio Pfeufer uses Saltz to save time on food procurement at his Michelin-starred restaurant, Matthias.
• Saltz uses agentic AI to modernize a typically complicated process between food buyers and sellers.
• For independent eateries, the streamlined process can reduce costs and increase access to high-quality ingredients.

When Silvio Pfeufer first got into cheffing, he was surprised by the amount of administrative work involved.

"It's not only the evening, sending nice plates to guests. There's a lot of stuff to do to make that happen," Pfeufer told Business Insider. He took long phone calls from food suppliers and producers that kept him away from the kitchen.

Sourcing and buying food is a process riddled with disorganization, since farmers, wholesalers, logistics providers, and restaurants communicate in different ways — by phone, email, text message, and PDF blast — starting as early as 4 a.m. The cost and availability of products are constantly in flux, so sellers issue frequent updates: The price of wild-caught fish could change three times a day, for example.

When Pfeufer opened his own restaurant in 2024, he wanted to streamline his food procurement process. At Matthias, which pays homage to his late grandfather, Pfeufer uses an AI-assisted platform for food business owners called Saltz to speed up food procurement and reduce phone calls.

The time savings are critical, said Pfeufer, a co-owner and head chef at the Berlin-based eatery. Using AI agents, Saltz connects restaurants directly to suppliers via a marketplace that brings together disparate catalogs, transactions, and logistics so restaurants can compare and buy fresh, high-quality, and specialty products more quickly than with traditional food procurement processes.

The platform's standardized, real-time food data can be a game-changer for independently owned and operated restaurants like Pfeufer's, given their limited purchasing power. Saltz said that thousands of buyers and hundreds of suppliers use its technology, though it didn't share exact numbers. It said around 80% to 90% of its buyers are independent restaurants.

Connecting with high-quality and specialty suppliers

Pfeufer said he chose Saltz because he liked how the platform modernized old processes. In the two years he's used it, it's allowed him to discover new suppliers, order outside business hours, and gain better oversight on pricing, he said.

Founded in 2022, the startup uses AI agents to ingest PDFs, emails, and text messages that food sellers send to Saltz, standardize and enrich all the data, and consolidate it into a single platform. Its AI agents automatically update each seller's listings on the platform, eliminating the need for manual updates.

Buyers, meanwhile, see once-disparate product options, information, and up-to-date prices in one place. They can also order food at a time that's convenient for them and track their deliveries. "On a Sunday, at night, or in the morning, I can do it by myself, and don't have to have all these calls," Pfeufer said.

At Matthias, which was awarded its first Michelin star in 2025 after 10 months of service, meals must meet a high standard every day, and products have to be of the freshest quality. Pfeufer orders vegetables, milk, and other items from Saltz every week, plus fresh fish twice a week. Before using Saltz, the quality of his products wasn't necessarily worse, he said, but access to new or specialist suppliers was more limited and supply chains were longer.

"The fish is now often sourced directly from the trader or farmer, without the need for intermediate storage. This allows us to avoid additional storage times that could negatively affect freshness," Pfeufer said, adding that more oversight into the supply chain — and it being shorter — means his food is more consistently high quality.

"We've definitely been able to connect with better suppliers," he told Business Insider. The chef added that he still works directly with certain local farmers, as he is often on the hunt for rare items that aren't on the platform.

For Pfeufer, using Saltz also allows him to see more costs upfront, so he can better plan how much to charge for new dishes. "It makes all the calculations much easier, which is very important for us," he said.

Agentic AI acts as a foundational tool

Saltz was founded by brothers Andrius and Thomas Šlimas, who previously built the Shopify-acquired dropshipping platform Oberlo. After spending four years inside Shopify's supply chain machine, the brothers teamed up with industry veteran Reinis Štrodahs. Their goal: modernize the $9.8 trillion food procurement industry.

"It's impossible to make sense or structure that chaos of information which lives in different places and has no common structure," Andrius said.

The Šlimas brothers said that previous unsuccessful attempts to modernize food procurement took two approaches: either trying to force suppliers and buyers onto a single platform, which required them to change how they work, or taking on the time-consuming task of manually inputting every PDF, email, and text message.

With Saltz, AI agents upload and update product listings for sellers, so individual stakeholder workflows don't have to change. Making agentic AI foundational to the process, Tomas said, gives their platform an edge.

"That gives us a speed advantage, and in this market, speed compounds into market share."

• Two internet relics are rising from the dead this week: Friendster and Vine.
• DiVine, backed by Jack Dorsey, launched a decentralized version of the short-form video app, Vine.
• Friendster, an early social network, is back with a new founder and a different experience.

It's time to welcome back two social networks we once loved: Friendster and Vine.

After shutting down in the 2010s, the two social media platforms are rising from the dead this week.

Both of the apps, however, are Frankenstein versions of their predecessors. Neither is being resurrected by its original founders, and the app design and experiences differ from the original platforms.

Nostalgia for a simpler internet, especially for those who remember the early days with rose-colored glasses, is partially fueling this resurgence.

Evan Henshaw-Plath — who goes by Rabble — is the early Twitter employee behind the Vine reboot, DiVine.

He said that "people look back" at the era of social media before everything got so darn big. People not only miss the features and feel of these old apps, but also that time period.

"It's very telling that in the beginning of the year, people were looking back to 2016," he said, referring to a social media trend of people romanticizing that year.

Vine officially shut down in 2017 after being acquired by Twitter in 2012, paving the way for the rise of TikTok and other short-form feeds.

Its remake, DiVine, revived hundreds of thousands of old Vine videos from digital archives. Users can post new Vine-style six-second videos. The content must be filmed directly within the app, and DiVine has a firm anti-AI-slop stance. The project is also decentralized and built on Nostr, an open-source protocol not owned by a single company.

DiVine is funded by And Other Stuff, a nonprofit that received a $10 million grant from Jack Dorsey.

Meanwhile, Friendster, a social network that predated Myspace and Facebook, was rebuilt by startup founder Mike Carson as a no-frills mobile social app for your real-life friends. For example, users can only add new friends by tapping their iPhones in person. (So far, I have a grand total of one friend: Business Insider's Katie Notopoulos, who told me she was an OG Friendster fan.)

Carson told Business Insider that he paid about $30,000 for the Friendster domain and trademark.

After being overtaken by the rise of Myspace and then later Facebook, Friendster rebranded as a gaming company in 2011. By 2015, it shut down its website.

The new app — which doesn't resemble the former version much other than its shared name — quickly jumped to No. 12 in Apple's App Store social networking category on Thursday.

Unlike DiVine, the new Friendster doesn't have access to any of the prior version's data or content.

What's old is new again on the internet

I'm not old enough to be on the original Friendster, but I remember the Vine days well. I'm also not alone in feeling nostalgic for the earlier days of the internet (or particularly, the 2010s).

Carson wrote in a Medium post this week that while today's social networks "foster a lot of negativity," he remembers the original days of Friendster as "a positive and enjoyable experience."

DiVine and Friendster aren't the only internet relics that have been resurrected recently.

Last year, Digg, once a rival to Reddit, was revived by its original cofounder, Kevin Rose, and Alexis Ohanian (a cofounder of Reddit). In March, however, the company said it was downsizing its team and rethinking its strategy.

Building any new social platform is an uphill battle, even if you have a recognizable name from a previous era.

People are loyal to the platforms they've already dug their heels into, and getting them to migrate can be challenging, Digg's CEO Justin Mezzell wrote in a letter shared to the platform's website.

Friendster and DiVine could face similar challenges.

What's abundantly clear is that there's an appetite among founders to build alternative social platforms — especially those that strike a nostalgic chord. Newer startups, like Perfectly Imperfect or Cosmos, are leveraging nostalgia to build platforms that feel reminiscent of Tumblr.

The big question: Can they actually build a community?

Tech founders can build new spaces, or reimagine old ones, but getting users to stay, return, and create a culture is what gives an app life (or breathes life back into one).

"It is not the software, it is not the founder, it is not the team," Henshaw-Plath said. "It is the community of users that makes these things work."

• Pinterest's VP of product management said mixing open-source and closed-source AI models helped cut costs.
• The social platform's recent AI-enabled features combine OpenAI, Alibaba, and its own AI models.
• To support this approach, Pinterest invested in cloud infrastructure and an updated hiring strategy.

In its pursuit of creating AI-supported tools for its users and advertisers, Pinterest leaders said it is actually shrinking part of its AI budget.

As companies continue to spend on AI, they face pressure from investors to show returns on investment from this fast-evolving technology. One way to do that: Stretch investments by shrinking the budget needed for the systems that power AI features.

Pinterest, the visual-first social media platform where users can save images to curate their ideas, is taking what it calls a "model-agnostic" approach to generative AI, said Vicky Gkiza, the company's vice president of product management. The strategy started in 2023 and involves combining Pinterest's proprietary AI models, developed by the company's software engineers, its closed-source models from Anthropic and OpenAI, and open-source models from Alibaba, said Gkiza.

While closed-source AI models can quickly process large amounts of data, require little maintenance, and integrate instantly into a company's existing systems due to their pre-built nature, they're typically more expensive. Open-source models, meanwhile, are typically free to download, use publicly available data, and can be modified more deeply than closed-source offerings. However, they also require the expertise of software engineers who can build, maintain, and debug these highly customizable models.

Lan Guan, the chief AI and data officer at Accenture, said companies are increasingly seeing value in a multimodal AI approach that balances performance and the cost of tokens, or the units of text AI models process. "This token cost is going to slow you down if you don't start managing them proactively," Guan told Business Insider. "Open-source will be a really good option."

Gkiza walked Business Insider through how Pinterest bolstered its blended approach to generative AI through beta testing, an updated hiring strategy focused on software development expertise, and infrastructure investments.

The tech

Pinterest uses OpenAI's closed-source large language models to support some of its product features and relies on Anthropic's Claude, another closed-source AI, for internal use cases like coding, a company spokesperson told Business Insider. Alibaba's Qwen, an open-source LLM, is used for visual and content understanding, data labeling, and assistant tasks.

With this approach, the company rolled out several new AI features in 2025, each blending open-source and closed-source generative AI, said Gkiza.

Auto-collages, a feature where advertisers can convert their product catalogs into pins that populate on shopping feeds for categories like skincare, home decor, and fashion. Pinterest began testing auto-collages at the beginning of 2024, when software engineers fine-tuned a mix of internally developed, open-source, and third-party AI models. By June 2025, auto-collages was ready for a pilot, which included a small group of retailer-advertisers like Macy's.

Then, Pinterest's voice-enabled AI feature, which uses both open-source and third-party AI to generate responses to users' queries, underwent beta testing in October 2025. Early results showed that users tended to pose more shopping-specific questions when they could ask aloud rather than typing their searches, said a Pinterest spokesperson.

"Search has been evolving so fast. It was imperative for us to use AI to improve," Gkiza told Business Insider.

The talent

To advance its new AI-enabled features and execute its blended-model approach, Pinterest also hired employees with AI and machine learning expertise to steward the customization of its large language models, said Gkiza. Former Google engineer Matthias Zenger joined the company as its vice president of engineering in April 2025. Three months later, in August, Pinterest announced it had hired software engineer Mirjam Wattenhofer to focus on e-commerce and user experiences, and that it would open an Engineering Excellence Hub in Zurich.

Both Zenger and Wattenhofer work at the Zurich office, where a team focuses on improving user experiences with AI and machine-learning technologies. In February, Pinterest CEO Bill Ready said the company would hire additional research and development workers to support the company's AI efforts.

"We are investing more in hiring the right talent — evolving the team, whether it is engineering or product management — to be much more familiar with AI," Gkiza said.

The outcome

Gkiza said the company's blended approach to AI-driven experiences costs an estimated 90% less than when Pinterest relied solely on its proprietary models, a milestone the company touted during its February 2026 fourth-quarter earnings presentation.

With its growing use of open-source AI models, the company plans to invest more in cloud-computing infrastructure, like graphics processing units, which are needed to power the cost-saving technology, Gkiza said.

Pinterest said it will continue to experiment with various AI models, prioritizing its own models for personalization, open-source models for cost-effectiveness and multimodal machine learning, and closed-source models when they still offer the best performance.

• OpenAI CEO Sam Altman sends a lot of messages.
• Altman said that he messages "a few hundred" OpenAI employees a day.
• Overall, he said that he's "definitely not a hands-on manager."

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has a very direct way to get his message across.

In a conversation with Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, Altman said that he messages "a few hundred" OpenAI employees a day between texts, Slack, and other media.

"Very quick, like one, two messages, whatever, not done by an agent," Altman said during an appearance at Stripe Sessions. "I actually do it. And the context I get from that sometimes is very helpful in these diffuse ways."

Asked about Altman's habits, ChatGPT said, "That's a lot—but not implausible for someone in his position." Rough napkin math suggests that Altman is sending somewhere around 39,000 messages a year, and that's limited to a five-day workweek. (Forbes reported earlier this year that Altman likes to spend his time at the Napa Valley ranch, which is out of cell service range.)

Altman has said repeatedly that he loathes Slack. He told Collison that it's hard to imagine a world without such instant messaging.

"Like many other people, I hate Slack, but I can't imagine having to still communicate via email or whatever we used to do," he said.

As for his overall management style, Altman said that he's "definitely not a hands-on manager."

"I'm very much of this style that you get great people, kind of give them a very high-level thing to point at and try to let stuff just happen," he said.

Altman said OpenAI is about to enter its third era, after going from a research lab chasing AGI to also developing consumer products.

"Now we have to, in addition to both of those two things, figure out how to build this like mega, mega scale token factory for the world," he said.

This new, massive undertaking will require a different skill set.

"The thing that I didn't really appreciate between the phase one, phase two shift was how much my management style had to change," he said. "Running a research lab and running a product company are two extremely different things. And I suspect this third phase is going to be very different yet again."

Altman said he'll ultimately have to change or surround himself with more people — perhaps, AI could bridge the gap.

"I think it's not going to be like a natural fit for my management style," he said. "So I either have to find someone or a few people great to hire, or I have to figure out how to do things in a different way, or I have to build an AI that can manage this new thing."

• 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.

• OpenAI included a line in Codex's instructions restricting references to goblins, gremlins, trolls, and ogres.
• The company explained in a blog post that mythical creatures have crept into answers since GPT-5.1.
• The goblin references were incentivized while building ChatGPT's "Nerdy" personality, OpenAI wrote.

OpenAI has been in "goblin mode" for months.

On Monday, one X user pointed out an unusual line in Codex's personality guide. The instructions tell Codex to have a "vivid inner life," a "good ear" — and to get out of fairytale land.

"Never talk about goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, pigeons, or other animals or creatures unless it is absolutely and unambiguously relevant to the user's query," the source code reads.

The sentence appears four times in the code.

Two days later, OpenAI posted a blog post titled: "Where the goblins came from." The mythical creatures had been growing in prominence since the November launch of GPT 5.1, the company wrote.

The culprit seems to be the "Nerdy" personality option for ChatGPT. The personality's training incentivized references to mythical creatures, OpenAI wrote.

OpenAI retired the "Nerdy" personality in March, but GPT-5.5 was trained before it noticed the issue. The company noticed it especially in its AI coding agent. "Codex is, after all, quite nerdy," it wrote.

The goblin moment is a "powerful example of how reward signals can shape model behavior in unexpected ways," it wrote.

How OpenAI's goblin code turned into a meme

In the prior days before the line of code was spotted, some users posted screenshots of their conversations with GPT 5.5, including references to these mythical creatures.

"Why is gpt5.5 so obsessed with goblins," asked one user on X, who posted screenshots showing the AI recommending a particular type of camera equipment "if you want filthy neon sparkle goblin mode." Another example showed the AI referencing "goblin bandwidth" or giving "an even shorter goblin version" of its answer.

Repo Prompt founder Eric Provencher posted on X that GPT 5.5 said, "I'll keep babysitting it rather than leave a little perf gremlin running unattended." An OpenAI engineer responded: "I thought we fixed this sorry."

The AI evaluation website Arena.ai also found an increase in GPT 5.5's usage of the words goblin, gremlin, and troll. The increase was especially noticeable when not using high-thinking mode, Arena found.

Since the line was spotted, OpenAI's goblin instruction has spun out into a meme. X users posted screenshots of their conversations, prompting about goblins and gremlins.

Many users online referenced the term "goblin mode." Defined as "a type of behaviour which is unapologetically self-indulgent, lazy, slovenly, or greedy," the term was Oxford English Dictionary's word of the year in 2022.

OpenAI also got in on the jokes. ChatGPT included the line in its bio on X. Codex engineering lead Thibault Sottiaux posted the line with the shortening "If you know, you know."

Citrini Research shook the market in February with a Substack post about the future of the economy with AI. The research outfit had a more negative outlook on the goblin saga, calling OpenAI's response "insane."

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman chimed in, first with a meme about asking for "extra goblins" in GPT-6. Then he wrote that Codex was having a ChatGPT moment, before correcting himself.

"I meant a goblin moment, sorry," Altman wrote.

• Elon Musk boosted a New Yorker profile questioning OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's trustworthiness on X.
• The article appeared on X feeds on Monday, the same day Musk and Altman's trial kicked off in Oakland.
• Musk's lawsuit claims Altman deceived him on OpenAI's mission as a nonprofit.

A New Yorker magazine investigation detailing concerns about Sam Altman's leadership resurfaced on X feeds on Monday, at the behest of the social media platform's billionaire owner.

A post from Ronan Farrow, an investigative reporter, linking to his New Yorker profile of the OpenAI CEO titled "Sam Altman May Control Our Future—Can He Be Trusted?" showed up on the X "For You" page for some users on Monday, three weeks after it was initially posted on April 6.

The post was labeled as "Boosted" and said, "This organic post was boosted by @elonmusk."

It's unclear how many people were served the post on Monday, but several Business Insider reporters saw it in their feeds.

The profile was boosted as a high-stakes trial between Musk and Altman kicked off in Oakland, California, on Monday. Altman made an unexpected appearance in court as jury selection began. Musk was not in attendance.

Musk sued Altman and OpenAI in 2024, alleging he was deceived when he cofounded the company in 2015 and invested tens of millions of dollars, only for it to abandon its mission as a public benefit nonprofit. The case could cost billions for OpenAI, which is preparing for an IPO.

Musk went after Altman directly on Monday in a critical post on X.

"Scam Altman and Greg Stockman stole a charity. Full stop," he wrote, referring to Altman and OpenAI's president, who is also named in the lawsuit.

OpenAI said Monday the lawsuit was "a baseless and jealous bid to derail a competitor."

X did not respond to a request for comment or questions about the "boosted" feature, including how it works and how it compares to an advertising post, which is typically labeled "Ad."

The New Yorker declined to comment.

• Sam Altman showed up in court as jury selection began in a civil trial between him and Elon Musk.
• Some potential jurors offered unfavorable views about AI — and Musk.
• Musk sued OpenAI, Altman, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman two years ago.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman made an unexpected appearance in a California courtroom Monday as jury selection in his high-stakes legal feud with Elon Musk kicked off.

Altman, who wore a dark-colored suit and white shirt, was spotted inside the Oakland courtroom, where some potential jurors in the federal civil trial shared unfavorable views about artificial intelligence — and Musk, the world's richest man.

"Elon doesn't care about people, just like our president," one prospective juror told US District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

The man, who works in construction and described himself as a "meme junky" and a "dying breed" who still gets print newspaper subscriptions, added that he thinks Musk only cares about money.

Another prospective juror who works for the city of Oakland said he has a strong opinion about Musk. He said that he would do his "best" to approach the case without bias, even though he called Musk a "jerk" in a pre-trial jury questionnaire.

Musk was not in attendance for day one of the trial between two of the tech industry's most powerful billionaires. Since it is a civil trial, the parties are not required to appear unless they are testifying. Up until now, Musk and Altman have largely left the matter to their lawyers, aside from the occasional online jab.

The Tesla CEO sued OpenAI, Altman, and OpenAI president Greg Brockman two years ago, alleging that they intentionally "deceived" him into cofounding the company with them in 2015.

Musk alleges in his lawsuit that he poured tens of millions into OpenAI to support its founding mission as a nonprofit dedicated to developing AI for the public's benefit, only for that mission to later be abandoned, in part, through the company's partnership with Microsoft. Microsoft is also named as a defendant in Musk's lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks more than $100 billion in damages, along with sweeping changes to the structure of the $850 billion company behind ChatGPT. The case comes as OpenAI is reportedly preparing for an initial public offering.

Earlier Monday, Musk and OpenAI traded barbs on Musk's X platform about the case, with Musk referring to Altman as "Scam Altman" and OpenAI ripping Musk's lawsuit as a "baseless and jealous bid to derail a competitor."

Musk is expected to testify in the weeks-long trial, along with Altman and other tech execs like Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.

Some potential jurors questioned on Monday told the court that they had reservations surrounding AI.

A registered nurse said she doesn't trust AI and isn't a fan of how the rapidly advancing technology is being used in the workplace.

"It's just giving me more work to do," said the woman who explained that her employer uses AI tools to process patient records that she still has to review for errors.

One woman who works in the psychiatric patient care unit at Stanford University said she had some concerns about AI but could approach the case with an open mind.

"I personally don't use it much because I do find that I have to double check everything, and at this point, I might as well do it myself," said the woman, who was ultimately chosen to sit on the jury.

A different juror prospect, a PhD student in genetics, said she has a ChatGPT subscription and uses it, along with Anthropic's Claude, to write code and emails.

Concerns of the juror prospects were also reflected outside the courthouse, where protesters gathered to demonstrate against AI. A person in a robot suit wore a sign that said, "Altman's AI enslaver." A giant inflatable tube figure read: "Elon sucks."

By the end of Monday, nine jurors were selected for the trial. Opening arguments are set to begin Tuesday.

At one point, Musk's attorney, Steven Molo, asked the judge to dismiss a juror prospect who called Musk a "greedy, racist, homophobic piece of garbage" in her questionnaire and another who wrote that Musk is a "world-class jerk."

"Look, the reality is that people don't like him," the judge told Musk's legal team about their client. "But that doesn't mean that Americans, nevertheless, can't have integrity for the judicial process."

• Donald Trump owns his own social media company.
• But Truth Social isn't where to go if you want a lot of people to see you attack Jimmy Kimmel.
• So Melania Trump made sure her demand that ABC do something about Kimmel appeared on Elon Musk's X, too.

Melania Trump says ABC should "take a stand" over Jimmy Kimmel, because she doesn't like a joke the talk show host made last week.

First things first: The first lady calling on a media company to do something about its employee because she doesn't like what that employee said is a bad thing. It's an attempt to use the power of the White House to silence speech that the White House doesn't like.

And it's just as worrisome as it was last September, when Brendan Carr, Trump's pick to head the Federal Communications Commission, told ABC owner Disney to "take action, frankly, on Kimmel" because Kimmel had made a joke about Trump supporters and Charlie Kirk. Disney suspended Kimmel for a few days and then reinstated him after public outcry.

There is a difference between Carr's demand and Melania Trump's demand on Monday, since Carr is a regulator with direct oversight over parts of Disney's business, and Melania Trump doesn't have any formal power over … anything. But she's still using the power of the White House to try to control speech, and that should alarm anyone with any common sense. (I've asked her office for comment.)

Let's see how new Disney CEO Josh D'Amaro responds to this one.

Much less important, but still interesting to me: The first lady's choice of platform to make her demand/threat. Melania Trump used Elon Musk's X, the site formally known as Twitter, to post her thoughts on Monday, using both her official First Lady of the United States account and her own personal account.

Trump also posted the same statement on Truth Social, the social media site owned by her husband. But that one seemed obligatory. Not in the way it's literally obligatory for Donald Trump to post at least some of his thoughts on his own social platform before he puts them anywhere else. But in the way you're supposed to tell your significant other you think they make the best pasta, when what you really crave is Olive Garden.

The numbers make it clear why Melania Trump chose to use X to make a splash: Her post on that platform has 230,000 likes, and that number is skyrocketing. Her Truth Social post has 6,500 likes and is traveling at a much more leisurely pace.

All of which is a reminder that while Truth Social is the Trump-owned Twitter alternative Donald Trump uses, it remains a minor-at-best platform. One that won't tell you how many users it has, and one that managed to lose more than $700 million on revenue of $3.7 million in 2025.

None of that is news, nor does it seem to matter to Trump, who still owns a company worth nearly $3 billion, even after a stock plunge and the departure of its CEO — perhaps because the company's current plan is to merge with a nuclear fusion company.

It also doesn't matter where Donald Trump truths or posts or spouts off — he's the president of the United States, so just about anything he says that's noteworthy gets instantly transmitted through the global media ecosystem. Like what happened on Monday afternoon, where he piggybacked on his wife's post and explicitly called on Disney and ABC to fire Kimmel.

But for the rest of us — including the first lady of the United States — where you post a message matters. Which is why she's using the one that helped her husband get into the White House in the first place.

• Anthropic has posted an "events lead, brand" role on its careers page.
• The role offers up to $400,000 a year — more than similar events roles at the company.
• Silicon Valley figures, including Marc Andreessen, posted about the role on X.

As artificial intelligence floods the internet, Anthropic will pay up to $400,000 for something decidedly human: in-person events.

The AI company behind Claude and Claude Code has an open listing for a brand events lead role based in San Francisco or New York, with a salary range of $320,000 to $400,000.

It's a notably human layer in an industry that's defined by automation.

The role caught the attention of some of Silicon Valley's biggest names, including venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

The hire would be responsible for producing anything from small, invite-only gatherings to large-scale conferences. The posting emphasizes live demos, technical deep dives, and face-to-face conversations with policymakers and academic audiences.

Anthropic also says the hired human must be "comfortable with significant travel," and says that 30% to 40% of the job will be on the road.

Applicants still need to provide a cover letter. They also need to write a 200- to 400-word essay explaining why they want to work at Anthropic.

The position pays more than similar events roles at the company, including an enterprise-focused position that pays up to $320,000 and a Europe, Middle East, and Africa events role that tops out at £200,000.

The hiring push comes as AI companies race to reshape their own narratives.

OpenAI acquired TBPN in April, in part to work on its product communications. Meanwhile, Elon Musk's xAI has leaned heavily on its ownership of X (formerly Twitter) to control distribution and narrative.

Those efforts come as tech leaders, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, have acknowledged that public sentiment around AI has cratered amid warnings that their technologies could gradually reshape the job market and drive up energy demand.

Anthropic has built its identity around a far more cautious approach to deploying powerful AI systems. Now, instead of just broadcasting that message, it's looking to hire a well-paid human to take that message on the road.

"We believe that the highest-impact AI research will be big science," the company wrote in the posting. "We view AI research as an empirical science, which has as much in common with physics and biology as with traditional efforts in computer science."

This is part of a new series on jobs in emerging fields. Are you hiring for a cool job? Did you see an unusual job listing? Email bshimkus@businessinsider.com, or reach out via the secure messaging app Signal at bshimkus.41

• John Ternus, Apple's new CEO, has a background in hardware engineering.
• Oculus inventor Palmer Luckey unearthed a VR headset from Ternus's time at Virtual Research in the '90s.
• Ternus left the small VR company in 2001 before joining Apple the same year.

Apple's John Ternus is a 25-year veteran of the tech giant, but one of his first engineering gigs was at a lesser-known company building virtual reality headsets.

Defense startup founder and Oculus headset creator Palmer Luckey reminisced on X about a product that Ternus, who is set to become Apple's CEO in September, might've had a hand in during his early engineering days.

Luckey posted a photo of an old V8 head mount display from Virtual Research.

"From what I can tell, he was the lead mechanical engineer on the V8 I obtained when I was 16!," Luckey wrote, referring to Ternus.

"It was an incredible headset for the time," Luckey told Business Insider.

He described the headset as well-balanced and relatively lightweight, with a field of vision that was ahead of that of other consumer products at the time. It mainly sold to military flight simulators for around $50,000, Luckey said.

Ternus and Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A user guide for the V8 published online suggests the model was released in 1998, when Ternus would've been working at the company. He was an engineer at Virtual Research from 1997 to 2001, and joined Apple later that year, according to his LinkedIn profile.

A patent filed in 1995 and issued in 1998, during Ternus's time at Virtual Research, describes a similar-looking product, a virtual display apparatus for use in a virtual reality system. It supported the attachment of video displays.

Ternus is best known today as Apple's hardware boss, notably for working on AirPods and the iPad among other products, and as the incoming CEO.

His appointment marks the return to a product-minded chief like Steve Jobs. Current CEO Tim Cook's background is in operations.

The tech giant made its debut in the high-tech headset market in 2024 with the Vision Pro, which received a lukewarm response from the public. Its $3,500 price tag and lack of a killer app didn't wow consumers. At that point, Ternus had been in the senior vice president of hardware engineering role for three years.

Despite an underwhelming response to the Vision Pro, execs like Cook and Ternus remain optimistic about the product and the future of VR.

"Vision Pro is an extraordinary product," Ternus said in a Tom's Guide interview earlier this month. "It's like we reached into the future and pulled it into the present."

• 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.

• Tokenmaxxing is all the rage in Big Tech. For startups, the trend is opening up debate.
• Some founders told Business Insider that they spent big on tokens; others used capped subscription plans.
• One founder called tokenmaxxing "extremely stupid." Another said: "You've got to spend money to make money."

Kavitta Ghai wants her startup's engineers to spend more tokens.

The 29-year-old cofounder of Nectir started setting minimum quotas for Claude Code use. First it was at least $100 in tokens a week, then $200. Now, the expectation is that her engineers each spend a couple thousand in AI tokens a month.

The strategy has been successful, Ghai said. Some of Nectir's senior engineers were previously skeptical of AI coding tools; now, they call it their "army of coders," she said.

But she doesn't think Nectir is "tokenmaxxing," the buzzword du jour for techies racing to spend as much as they can. "We don't really play into the Silicon Valley trends," Ghai said. "We live in our own world, and we're competing against ourselves."

Across Big Tech, engineers are racing to spend as many tokens as possible. A token is a measure of AI compute. The more tokens burned, the more the engineer employs AI tools. Employees at Meta reportedly competed on a token leaderboard before it was taken down.

What of the little guy? Startups are an edge case: relatively tiny teams that want to be on the cutting edge of tech but might not have the same money to spend. Some startup leaders told Business Insider that big token bills helped them succeed. Others scoffed at the idea, preferring to stick to the lower-cost subscriptions.

The startups spending big on tokens

Aron Solberg doesn't want the competition of a token leaderboard — but he does want the mindset behind it.

The 44-year-old cofounder of Risotto sees token spending as a "force multiplier" for a small team. The company uses OpenAI and Anthropic's models, and said it spends $4,000-5,000 per month on tokens. Six months ago, Risotto says he spent one-tenth of that sum.

"It's trending up a lot," Solberg said.

"There's an old adage that rings true," he said, whether it was for hiring new employees or spending liberally on tokens: "You've got to spend money to make money."

Quang Hoang is similarly spending big. He wrote in an email that his startup, Vybe, has an "unlimited credit policy" and was thinking about minimum quotas.

Investors are also incentivizing spending — and might foot the bill.

Hoang tells founders he invests in to allocate "at least their salary amount to tokens." (Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang made headlines last month for saying he would be "deeply alarmed" if one of his $500,000 engineers did not consume at least $250,000 of tokens.)

Accelerators like Y Combinator offer free token credits to their participants. "At YC, we let our engineers let it rip," CEO Garry Tan wrote on X. Those credits help some founders to spend big. These founders aren't tokenmaxxers, but do believe that there are productivity benefits.

Traverse cofounder Lance Yan believed in Tan's message: "We usually just let it rip." The 19-year-old said he uses the best models with the maximum effort, not worrying about the costs. Between his Claude Max subscription and the credits that offered by YC, he can spend big without hitting a limit.

He's not a fan of rationing tokens. "That's stupid," he said. "You're just harming your own startup."

26-year-old Boris Skurikhin said that the YC credits helped his startup Docket get off the ground. He's mostly run through them now, except for the models he uses less frequently.

Skurikhin said he noticed a 10x increase in productivity in his own work when he used the tools. "It is expensive to build with tokens," he said, but "not as expensive as having another engineer."

Many of these startups are in the AI game, after all. Nectir's Ghai said that token spending instilled "AI literacy" — something that's especially important, given their product.

"The team itself needs to be the best versed at it first, before we try to go sell it to anyone else," she said.

The startups saying no to tokenmaxxing

Rishabh Sambare wishes he could spend more on tokens.

The 23-year-old cofounder of Gale prefers to build with Zed, an AI IDE similar to Cursor, but can't stomach the company's usage-based pricing. The subscription deals from OpenAI and Anthropic are so deeply subsidized that he uses them instead.

"It sucks, because I hate their products," he said, calling Zed "more polished and less buggy between releases."

Sambare is Gale's only engineer, though the company often has 2-3 interns. He hasn't hit a rate limit, but one of his interns has. They got him a second subscription, he said; it was still far cheaper.

These subscriptions — sending $100 to $200 to Anthropic for its "Max" tiers or $100 to OpenAI for its "Pro" plan in exchange for a stable of discounted tokens — were popular among the founders I spoke to. Hassan Ismail, the 24-year-old founder of Argos Research, said the Claude Max subscription was a "no-brainer," and that all five team members have a $200 a month subscription.

Others were more philosophically opposed to the trend. Weave's Brennan Lupyrypa didn't mince his words: "It's extremely stupid for any company to be tokenmaxxing."

Weave is still spending big on tokens because it doesn't want to "kneecap" its engineers, its 25-year-old founding engineer said. The company set up a notification for when an engineer hit $500 in token spending a month; Lupyrypa said most hit it within two weeks.

But Weave doesn't incentivize the spending itself, which Lupyrypa said was the wrong proxy. He predicted the downfall of tokenmaxxing within the next three months. "CFOs won't be happy," he said.

Still, some tokenmaxxers hold strong. I asked Risotto's Solberg about these token-hesitant founders. He said that they likely hadn't found their product-market fit yet.

"It makes complete sense to spend a lot of money on tokens, because you know that the growth is coming soon after," Solberg said. "If you're a venture-backed business, that's what you signed up for."

• AI has become a hiring buzzword, and four employees explained how they added it to their job titles.
• An AI engineer said showcasing side projects was pivotal to transitioning from software engineering.
• Two non-technical Microsoft employees said having a humanities background was a strength.

AI is the buzziest word on the job market — and many workers want to know how to pivot into it.

As many technical workers upskill to stay on the cutting edge, others are moving into AI-focused roles from entirely different industries.

Many companies are pouring an eye-watering amount of money into AI, cutting some roles while adding new positions tied to the technology.

Against that backdrop, moving into AI could be a way for workers to future-proof their careers as the employment market reshuffles. AI engineers, consultants, strategists, and researchers rank among the top five fastest-growing roles in the US, according to LinkedIn's Jobs On the Rise 2026 report.

There's no single path into AI, and Business Insider spoke with four workers who took very different ones. Read on to learn how they pivoted their careers.

Natasha Crampton, Microsoft chief responsible AI officer

Natasha Crampton got her start as an attorney and is now Microsoft's first chief responsible AI officer.

Her job includes working side-by-side with engineering, sales, and research teams to ensure they uphold principles as they build AI systems. It also includes external work, such as helping establish new laws and standards in the space,

Crampton studied information systems in addition to law, and said she always had an interest in the intersection of technology, law, and society. During the strictly legal phase of her career, she said she always worked on technological issues, such as helping Microsoft draft contracts.

She said people looking to move into tech from other fields should start by using the technology themselves. She added that many technical skills are learnable, so coming from a different background shouldn't limit someone's ability to help shape it. She said, "a huge amount of the value" lies at the intersection of technical knowledge and insights from the social sciences.

Georgian Tutuianu, Hubspot AI engineer

Georgian Tutuianu has had several transitions in engineering, from structural to traditional to software to AI at HubSpot.

Tutuianu said that his ability to get technically in the weeds was an asset during the interview process, and showed he had experience with AI.

He also highlighted that his résumé has a section dedicated to personal projects. Tutuianu said he included one AI project, but it was enough. He said it came up naturally in the interview because he was asked about a time he used or built an AI agent.

"It was a juicy project where I could talk about it, and that was good enough," Tutuianu said.

Tutuianu said he also had to do a take-home coding assignment and review it with the hiring manager afterward, but there was no algorithmic component to the interview.

"Instead of the typical software engineering way that these interviews go, which is 'go solve this algorithm in front of me,'" Tutuianu said. "It's more of 'can you build the things that we care about? Show me."

Jai Raj Choudhary, StackAI engineer

Jai Raj Choudhary transitioned from a data-focused role to an AI engineer at AI agent startup StackAI.

The 24-year-old said he got his job by reaching out to StackAI's cofounder multiple times on LinkedIn. Choudhary said he had used the company's platform as a student, so he messaged the cofounder and started posting about StackAI, offering advice to the company.

He said he thinks he got offers from StackAI was because he understood data quality, the edge cases for the clients, the matrix, and the failure modes of the AI model or any LLM systems that were being used.

He said moving to San Francisco, where 9-9-6 culture existed, helped open his opportunities in the space.

"It's not like a 9-to-5 cushy job," Choudhary said. "We work 9-to-9, six days a week. You wake up, you think about the problem that a client had, and you sleep thinking about what is not fixed yet."

Also, taking a job at a startup that helped him grow and devoting himself to continuous learning made a big difference. Choudhary said he spent hours studying every day.

Brit Morenus, Microsoft senior AI gamification program manager

Brit Morenus, a 37-year-old senior AI gamification program manager, studied English, communications, and marketing in college. She started at Microsoft about 13 years ago as an executive assistant, and for the first five and a half years at the company, she was a contract worker.

She later moved into a role focused on gamification — using game mechanics to teach and market Microsoft's products.

She spent about a year getting certifications that taught her about game mechanics, and in that position, she became a full-time employee. Six years later, she had the opportunity to start gamifying learning about AI, and spent three months learning about it.

Her advice to others who want to transition is to resist letting fear keep you from stepping outside your comfort zone. She also said that with AI roles, you need to learn how it works, not just use it. Morenus added that she doesn't regret her English degree because it's now more important than ever to understand how to apply the English language to AI.

"A lot of it is more English language than it even is AI," Morenus said.

Did you pivot into an AI role? We want to hear from you. Contact the reporter via email at aaltchek@insider.com, or via secure-messaging platform Signal at aalt.19.

• Apple's outgoing CEO, Tim Cook, expanded the iPhone's size during his tenure, delighting some fans.
• The standard iPhone grew from 3.5 inches to over 6 inches, and Cook introduced larger-format models.
• Cofounder Steve Jobs initially dismissed the larger phones, calling them impractical.

Apple's outgoing CEO, Tim Cook, proved his predecessor, Steve Jobs, wrong: some people love a large iPhone.

Jobs, the cofounder and driving force behind the iPhone, once knocked smartphones larger than 4 inches. "You can't get your hand around it," he said in a 2010 press conference. "No one's going to buy that."

When Cook took the reins in 2011, he began expanding the iPhone's size. In 2012, the release of the iPhone 5 increased the phone's screen size from 3.5 inches to 4 inches. Later base models reached up to 5.8 inches before landing at around 6.3 inches in the latest iteration, the iPhone 17.

Cook also introduced larger-format iPhones, starting with the Plus series in 2014, which had a display size of 5.5 inches that year.

Cook deftly leaned into larger models as the world turned to video streaming and on-the-go viewing. Netflix, for example, shifted its business around 2011 to focus more on streaming, and YouTube was growing rapidly around that time.

In 2025, Apple introduced its largest iPhone model yet, the iPhone 17 Pro Max, which topped out at 6.9 inches.

The shift to larger sizes has been working out for Apple. Cook said in January that iPhone demand was "staggering" and "unprecedented" in the holiday quarter. Apple posted $85 billion in iPhone revenue for the period.

Early data also showed that demand for the 17 Pro Max was stronger in the first two weeks of availability than other models in the 17 lineup, according to market research firm Counterpoint Research.

Apple's larger-format phones are an example of how the tech giant prioritizes putting its own spin on technology rather than being first-to-market with an idea.

"We could have done a larger iPhone years ago," Cook told PBS News' Charlie Rose in 2014. "It's never been about just making a larger phone. It's been about making a better phone in every single way."

Thanks, Tim.

• Andrew Yang says AI could cause considerable inequality.
• He said a basic income policy will be "necessary" to address the issues.
• Yang floated a universal basic income during his 2020 presidential campaign.

AI-related layoffs are already hitting America's job market, and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang thinks the fallout could be substantial.

During an interview on The New York Times' "Hard Fork" podcast, Yang said the technology, when compounded with America's current economy, could lead to "inequality on an epic, unprecedented scale."

"We're going to have our first trillionaire. The folks at the top stratum of American life are going to get richer and richer. It's going to compound over itself," Yang said. "Then there are going to be a lot of families wondering what the heck happened. My kids studied hard, there's no job, they have these school loans, they're in my basement, they're getting depressed."

He said a basic income policy will be "necessary" to address these issues. A universal basic income — a program in which a government provides recurring, unconditional checks to all citizens — was a key part of Yang's 2020 presidential campaign. During that time, he introduced the Freedom Dividened, a universal basic income program that would have provided all American adults a $1,000-per-month payment, no strings attached.

Yang received pushback at the time from some lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders, who instead suggested providing guaranteed federal jobs to address workforce automation.

Lawmakers are divided on basic income. While some believe it could boost economic stability, others worry it could discourage Americans from working and be expensive to fund. Many leading Big Tech personalities have, on their end, advocated for basic income programs in response to AI's impact on employment.

Tesla billionaire Elon Musk, a longtime advocate of basic income, recently said that a "universal high income" will be the "best way" to deal with AI-related unemployment.

"AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation," he wrote on X this month.

During the interview, Yang said there should "100%" be a tax on AI, which could help balance the income gap in the US economy.

"It should be going out to people and workers in various ways. We should try and find ways to get off of taxing human labor," Yang said.

He added, "So tax AI. Tax the bots. Don't tax humans."

• Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a bill that would have paused new data center projects until late 2027.
• Mills cited her support for an existing project and said she wanted to study data center impacts.
• Lawmakers in at least 12 states have tried and failed to ban data centers as local resistance grows.

Another state-level effort to ban new data center development just failed, this time in Maine.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills on Friday vetoed a bill that would have put a pause on data centers in the state until late 2027. Mills said she supports a moratorium on data center projects but that the bill, which passed the state House and Senate his month, did not include an exemption for a project already underway.

"A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates," Mills said in a letter to the state legislature. "But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region."

A statement shared by her office said the $550 million data center redevelopment project was needed in Jay, where a paper mill closure in 2023 "eliminated hundreds of good-paying jobs and dealt a significant blow to the local economy."

The governor said she would have signed the bill had there been a carve-out for the project, which she said is expected to create over 800 construction jobs and at least 100 high-paying permanent jobs in addition to generating property tax revenue.

Mills, a Democrat who is running for US Senate in 2026, said she plans to issue an executive order to create a council to look at the impact of data centers in Maine.

"I believe it necessary and important to examine and plan for the potential impacts of large-scale data centers in Maine, as the use of artificial intelligence becomes more widespread," she said.

Lawmakers in at least 11 other states have also tried and failed to pass legislation that would temporarily ban new data center development, Business Insider previously reported.

The data center boom, fueled by Big Tech's AI ambitions, has sparked pockets of local resistance across the US amid concerns about energy consumption and impact on energy costs as well as the environment.

A Business Insider investigation found Maine had two data centers in the state as of last year.

• The banker says he has received multiple offers from employees since posting the deal this week.
• The 13-acre Mill Valley estate features sweeping views of San Francisco, an infinity-edge pool, and a spa.
• The offer comes as Anthropic's valuation on secondary markets reached $1 trillion, and shares are scarce.

A tech banker really, really wants Anthropic shares.

The hunt for shares in Anthropic has become so frenzied in recent weeks that Storm Duncan is offering up his $4.8 million Marin County estate in exchange for stock.

"If you're going fishing, you've got to put a worm on the hook," said Storm Duncan, the founder and managing partner of Ignatious, a tech boutique investment bank, in an interview with Business Insider. "What's my other option? Not being in it?"

The offer comes as Anthropic's valuation on secondary markets soared to $1 trillion, driven by investors who have been wowed by its torrid revenue growth and momentum around its AI-powered coding assistant, Claude Code, Business Insider reported this week.

Duncan, who lives primarily in Jackson Hole, Wyo., also owns other properties, but he decided to list this one because he thought it would be especially attractive to Anthropic employees.

Duncan's 13-acre, fully furnished Mill Valley estate features sweeping views of San Francisco, an infinity-edge pool, and a spa.

"It's a 20-minute commute to the Anthropic offices in the city," he said. "No one from Anthropic probably wants my Miami or Jackson Hole place."

By offering the property, Duncan hopes to get on the radar of employees who have legitimate shares to sell and own a goldmine of Anthropic stock they can't sell until after the company goes public.

Duncan says he has received multiple offers since posting the deal this week. "Some of them are [Anthropic] employees, and some of them just happen to have invested early," he said. "I believe they're serious, but it's a complex transaction."

"There's probably a decent number of people who are sitting in a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco even though they're earning $400,000 a year and are worth a $100 million," he said. "But they can't access that because their stock is so illiquid, so this gives them an opportunity to diversify."

It's not the first time there's been an unconventional way to secure shares in pre-IPO tech companies. In 2005, artist David Choe chose Facebook stock over $60,000 in cash to paint murals at Facebook's first office. That choice led to an estimated windfall of about $200 million once Facebook went public in 2012. In the dot-com era, some real estate owners asked startups for company stock in exchange for leasing space in San Francisco.

Some on X have dismissed Duncan's offer as a publicity stunt or a sure sign of the top of a bubble. Others have made cracks about the only thing being more precious than Anthropic shares is Bay Area real estate.

Duncan insists the offer is real and he is not seeking attention. As for why he does not simply buy shares in the company, he says a small investor like him would never be able to secure stock directly.

"Anthropic can't spend time with people like me," Duncan said. "They're looking for people who can write $100 million in a single check." (The company did not respond to a request for comment.)

The alternative is to buy shares from early employees or investors on secondary markets, but Duncan says those deals are often increasingly dubious.

He said the scarcity of shares on the secondary market has made sellers offer deals that can be rife with high fees and opaque ownership structures.

Duncan already owns shares in Anthropic that he acquired in its 2024 funding round, when it was much easier to obtain shares. He says he was recently convinced he wanted to double down after being wowed by the results of his firm's implementation of Claude Code.

"It's probably going to triple our throughput and reduce our costs by 50%," he said. "As I started to implement the platform at my own firm, I said I would like to have more exposure to this."

• Prosecutors say Gannon Van Dyke used military secrets to make trades on Polymarket.
• Kalshi says he tried to open an account on its platform but was blocked.
• Van Dyke, a master sergeant at Fort Bragg, was indicted on multiple felonies.

The Army Special Forces soldier indicted on charges that he used military secrets to win over $400,000 in Polymarket trades was blocked from opening an account on rival prediction market platform, Kalshi.

Elisabeth Diana, head of communications for Kalshi, told Business Insider that Gannon Van Dyke did not make it past the verification and know-your-customer process but declined to provide more details. Reuters, citing an unnamed source, had earlier reported that Van Dyke tried but failed to gain access to Kalshi.

Van Dyke, a 38-year-old master sergeant assigned to Fort Bragg in North Carolina, was charged with wire fraud and other felonies for placing more than $33,000 in trades related to US action in Venezuela, prosecutors said.

The career soldier was involved in the planning and execution of Operation Absolute Resolve to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and used classified information to make his bets, the indictment alleges.

Van Dyke is being prosecuted in New York, but made his first appearance in federal court in North Carolina on Friday. The court docket states that the government did not seek to detain him, and he was released on $250,000 bond.

He is represented by federal public defenders, who did not respond to a request for comment. He also did not respond to a call from Business Insider.

Polymarket did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the vetting Van Dyke underwent when he signed up for an account. The company said that it tipped off the feds to Van Dyke's trades.

In a statement on X, CEO Shayne Coplan said, "Noise aside, the reality is we work proactively with all relevant authorities on any suspicious activity on our marketplace. We flagged this, referred it, and cooperated throughout the process. This happens constantly behind the scenes, despite what many are led to believe."

Critics have raised alarms about the potential of insider trading on prediction markets and fretted about the possibility that the markets or the current events that fuel them could be manipulated for profit. Kalshi bans insider trading, and Polymarket bans trades based on confidential information.

Kalshi earlier this week said it suspended three political candidates for trading on their own elections as the platform moves to crack down on insider trading.

Asked about the Van Dyke case by reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, President Donald Trump said he wasn't a big fan of prediction markets.

"The whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino," Trump, who once owned several casinos, said. "I don't like it, conceptually, but it is what it is."

Michael Selig, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates prediction markets, has defended the businesses, at one point calling them "valuable to society."

The commission filed a civil complaint against Van Dyke in federal court on Thursday.

• MrBeast's next growth act may come from AI-produced videos.
• Jimmy Donaldson's company is looking for someone to lead a production team with AI at the foundation.
• MrBeast has been expanding his company while looking for ways to save.

YouTube's biggest star, MrBeast, is looking for a leader to help his company create "AI-native" productions.

A job posting says that Beast Industries wants to build a new production capability in which AI is "not a tool but the foundation."

It calls for someone who can help define "what AI-native entertainment looks like, develop original formats, and build systems that enable content to be conceived, produced, and scaled with AI at the core."

MrBeast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, wouldn't be the first creator to delve into AI. Fellow superstar creator Steven Bartlett has been making fully AI-animated shows since last year.

Still, as YouTube's top creator with 479 million subscribers, Donaldson's moves in the space will be closely watched by the entertainment community.

Many production studios are adopting AI across production, marketing, and visual effects, and startups are raising millions on the promise of helping legacy Hollywood transition to the AI era.

So far, entirely AI productions are largely the realm of animation, podcasts, and short-form video.

In the micro drama space, apps including TikTok's Pine Drama and Vigloo have character-driven dramas generated by AI. These AI dramas account for 10% of Vigloo's library, a spokesperson said. The Beijing-based startup StoReel recently raised $34 million to make AI micro dramas.

AI-driven productions would solve some problems for Donaldson.

He is famous for his viral, high-budget challenge and giveaway videos, though the company has been tightening up spending. One of the job's listed expectations is to use automation to make more content, faster.

Making AI-driven videos also directly addresses the risk any creator faces when they build a company that relies on their time and persona. As Donaldson expands his company to consumer products and services, it limits his bandwidth to star in his own videos. He recently hired former NBCU unscripted executive Corie Henson to head his studio division and is looking to broaden the company's video franchises. He said this week his company now has 750 employees.

Donaldson himself has shared concerns about AI's risk to his industry.

After OpenAI released Sora 2 last fall, Donaldson mused on X about what AI's advancement will mean for creators, adding, "Scary times."

He also released — and then removed — a tool that used AI to generate video thumbnails last year, after receiving backlash from creators.

• I asked ChatGPT to identify the unnamed male celebrity who allegedly tried to sext Lena Dunham in 2012.
• It told me it was Don Rickles, which I feel pretty certain is not correct.
• So what are we doing here, folks? Learning to use AI?

Did you hear about the time Don Rickles tried to chat up Lena Dunham in the middle of the night?

No? Let me explain. First, we need to talk about Reese Witherspoon.

See, I'm a simple woman. I have only two interests: tech news and celebrity gossip. So I was naturally intrigued by a recent online fuss over Reese Witherspoon's admonition for women to learn to use AI. It sparked so much backlash that she had to issue a follow-up explanation.

I've also been intrigued by Lena Dunham's new book. (They're related — sort of. Keep reading!)

I think Reese is generally right about AI — she's saying the same thing that every other business leader is saying. But her comments did make me think a little more about what "Learn to use AI" even means. Writing emails with ChatGPT? Understanding the technology behind different models? Vibe coding? What level of "using AI" is expected here to stave off falling behind in the workforce and life in general?

One area I've really leaned into is using ChatGPT as a sort of super Google — to find something I know is online but would take some effort to dig up with a normal search engine.

A recent example? It's related to — of course — celebrity gossip.

I was reading Dunham's new memoir, "Famesick," which is full of moderately juicy celebrity gossip about named people and also blind items — celebrity gossip that gives a few clues about the identity of the person without naming them, a fun little riddle for the readers to solve.

One blind item is about an unnamed male celebrity who — allegedly — sent Lena a flirty late-night text message after meeting her backstage while taping "The View" in 2012. I figured I could solve this blind item by finding out who the other guest was on the same episode — information that should be online somewhere, but would take me forever to find.

So I asked ChatGPT to identify the male guest on "The View" episode that Lena was also on that year. At first, ChatGPT told me that it was only the four female cast members from the show. When I asked again who the other male guest was, the suggestions were Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth. (Not so. They appeared on a separate episode that same year, according to IMDb.)

That time Don Rickles chatted up Lena Dunham

When I said, "No, a comedian," as Dunham had described the man, ChatGPT confidently provided a new answer: It was legendary comedian Don Rickles who'd texted Dunham after the show.

I laughed out loud because of all the possibilities of who sent a late-night "u up?" text, I feel fairly certain it was not Don Rickles, who would've been 85 years old at the time.

Dunham's description of the man: "a bit of an American Hugh Grant, famous for that sort of chattery charm and his ability to woo his onscreen paramours with his fast-talking, hand-flapping anxiety. Ostensibly a comedian, he was there to promote his Gothic-tinted movie, where he had made a dramatic turn." Doesn't exactly sound like a Borscht Belt insult comic Don Rickles to me.

After spending way too much time searching the internet for answers on this — the old-fashioned way — I can make some guesses about how and why ChatGPT was so wrong here. IMDb's episode guide for episodes of "The View" from 2012 is spotty, with entries for some episodes missing information about guests, and no accessible video clips online. The only proof I found that Lena Dunham ever appeared on "The View" on April 20, 2012, was a Vulture blog post from that day, complete with an embedded YouTube clip that has been marked private.

Knowing this, I can start to see how AI got confused: When there's a lack of information, AI sometimes blurs together what it can find to try to spit out a plausible answer. Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth appeared on the May 4, 2012, episode of "The View," and Dunham and Rickles appeared together on an episode in 2016.

ChatGPT doing this kind of thing — basically, taking a guess at what you might want to hear — could be useful if you're trying to write an email to a friend, maybe? It's not useful, obviously, if you're looking for a specific fact and it just plain makes something up.

For the record: Neither Lena nor Don (who died in 2017) nor the National Comedy Center, which is the keeper of the Rickles archive, responded to my requests for comment.

Are we stuck in a pizza glue loop?

Look, I get it. It's not particularly exciting to point out that ChatGPT gets things wrong in the spring of 2026. We know this, or at least we all should know this. Still, I keep coming across so many obvious mistakes when asking AI for factual things. These are the glaring mistakes I catch when I know that what AI has generated is not the right answer.

But what about the mistakes that I don't catch — or don't even know to catch? Things that I blindly accept as fact? For work-related stuff, I'll always double-check, but in those cases, am I actually saving myself any time?

How soon will this improve? Will we be stuck in a pizza glue loop forever? Is this what's going to make a bunch of lawyers and tax CPAs lose their jobs? I mean, OK, sure.

Here's where Witherspoon's and other bosses' idea of "Learn to use AI!" feels frustrating. I feel fairly confident about using various AI tools and have a decent concept of how they work. I am a woman, and I have learned to use AI! And yet, here I am, still unsatisfied.

There's a gap between what Reese Witherspoon wants for me and what I want out of AI — and the wholesome image of comedy legend Don Rickles. For now, those things just aren't lining up right.

• Meta told staff on Thursday that it planned to eliminate 10% of its workforce.
• Inside the company, employees are bracing for weeks of limbo as they wait to find out who will be cut.
• Meta employees responded internally with a mixture of questions, concerns, and jokes.

Welcome to "28 days of hell."

That's how one Meta employee characterized the tech giant's announcement that thousands of jobs will be cut on May 20. Employees flooded internal forums with similar posts, many of which were filled with anxiety, dark humor, and questions as they wait to learn who will be out of a job.

"How are you motivating yourself to work for the next 1 month with layoffs confirmed?" one person posted on the anonymous workplace app Blind, in a section just for Meta employees.

Someone else replied, "I'm motivating myself to do stuff that I can put on my resume for my next job lol."

In a memo sent to staff on Thursday, Meta said it shared some layoff details earlier than usual because the news had already leaked. The company plans to cut around 10% of employees next month and close 6,000 open roles.

"I know this leaves everyone with nearly a month of ambiguity, which is incredibly unsettling," wrote Meta's chief people officer Janelle Gale.

For some Meta employees, the fact that company leadership acknowledged layoffs brought some relief. The layoffs had been so widely discussed internally that the announcement helped ease some uncertainty, according to one employee who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.

One of the top comments under Gale's internal Meta post was a picture of an elephant, a reference to leadership addressing the elephant in the room. Reuters first reported Meta was planning sweeping layoffs in March, and employees have been speculating on the extent of the cuts in the weeks since.

"elephant addressed!" commented another employee. Another posted a picture of an envelope that read: "Addressed to: "ELEPHANT."

Others said that having to wait almost a month to find out who would be affected created anxiety. One person posted that this was their first week at the company. "It might be goodbye for me," they wrote.

Another employee told Business Insider that the announcement added pressure for them to deliver results over the next month because it's unknown which teams will be affected by the cuts.

"I'm a little stressed about making impact in the next month," they said.

Despite a sense of added pressure, it's not the employee's first go-around with cuts at the company. The worker said they're going to continue working as usual, assuming the worst while trying to make the most of the next month as they wait for further updates.

"I assume I'm always two months away from being laid off, no matter what leadership says, so I'm going to continue to operate as usual," the employee said.

Employees also commented on Gale's internal post with questions.

One person asked if Meta staff would receive their August 15 stock payouts, which are part of some employees' compensation packages. Gale said that impacted employees would have a termination date prior to the August vest and would therefore not receive it.

"Because of the timing of the notifications, we will have just had the May 15 vest. There are some instances, based on work location, where people will remain employed through the August 15 vest," Gale wrote. Another employee thanked Gale for the clarification.

Another employee asked if travel would be restricted the week of May 20. "We are not restricting travel company-wide. VPs will share team-specific guidance," Gale responded.

'I feel more anxious about surviving'

On the Meta employee section of Blind, some users asked why Meta couldn't offer voluntary buyouts. Microsoft on Thursday offered one-time early retirement buyouts to thousands of its long-time employees, and Google has extended the same offers to staff across some orgs.

Many posts were from users asking others for information about which groups might be affected.

In a longer post, one user said the downside might be surviving the cuts.

"I feel more anxious about surviving this layoff," they wrote, recalling several rounds of layoffs at the company since 2022.

"Because we all know it's just gonna get worse for those of us who are left behind and have to absorb even more work, amongst other declining factors in this sad fearful company," they wrote.

• Elon Musk shared a video that shows Cybercabs rolling out of the factory.
• The Cybercab is Telsa's upcoming two-seat, fully autonomous vehicle with no steering wheel or pedals.
• It's a huge part of Tesla's multibillion-dollar bet that it can become an AI and autonomy brand.

Tesla says its dedicated robotaxi model is finally in production.

On Friday, Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, shared a video on X showing several Cybercab units rolling off the production line in Austin.

The footage was filmed from inside the vehicles as they moved through the factory campus — and suggests Tesla is moving the Cybercab closer to reality.

Tesla is making a multibillion-dollar bet that the company can pivot from traditional car sales to an AI-driven robotaxi and robotics business.

The two-door, two-seat Cybercab — which does not feature a steering wheel or pedals — is one of the major pillars of that bet.

Just over a month ago, the automaker said it had just built its first production Cybercab. Now, the videos suggest Tesla has built multiple units, with Musk also reposting footage of Cybercabs seemingly turning onto a public street.

Starting production is only one step in a much larger challenge.

Tesla has yet to deliver fully autonomous driving at scale. During Wednesday's earnings call, the company removed specific timelines for robotaxi launches in five new cities.

Meanwhile, competitors like Waymo already operate driverless ride-hailing services in several cities.

Still, the videos suggest progress for a vehicle Musk has said would ramp "agonizingly slow."

The company didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• Trump weighed in on prediction markets — and didn't sound too happy about them.
• "The whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino," Trump told reporters.
• It came after the DOJ indicted a US soldier for profiting off of the Maduro raid via Polymarket.

President Donald Trump sure doesn't sound like a prediction market enthusiast.

Asked on Thursday if he was concerned about the potential for insider trading on prediction markets, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he was "never much in favor" of betting in financial markets.

"The whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino," Trump said. "I don't like it, conceptually, but it is what it is. No, I think that I'm not happy with any of this."

"They have all these different sites, they have 'predictive markets,'" Trump continued. "It's a crazy world. It's a much different world than it was."

Trump's comments came shortly after the Department of Justice indicted a US Army soldier who was involved in the planning of the US capture of Nicolás Maduro. Prosecutors say Gannon Ken Van Dyke used classified information to reap more than $400,000 in profit on Polymarket.

That trade caught the public's attention in early January, leading to the introduction of a raft of bills on Capitol Hill to both rein in the industry and protect against potential insider trading.

On Thursday, Trump said he wasn't aware of the indictment, but joked that the case sounded like when Pete Rose, the former manager of the Cincinnati Reds, was caught betting on his own team.

"Now, if he bet against his team, that would be no good. But he bet on his own team," Trump said.

Trump previously told The Washington Post that prediction markets are better than "fake polls," referencing the fact that both Kalshi and Polymarket gave Trump stronger odds of winning the 2024 election than traditional polling.

"They predicted me pretty right… by a landslide," Trump said at the time.

Trump's lament about prediction markets, which seemed to echo some comments that Democrats have made about the industry's impact on society, contrasts with the way his administration has approached the industry.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Michael Selig, the top federal regulator of prediction markets, has moved to defend prediction market companies in the midst of legal battles with states over sports and elections betting.

"It's something that I think is valuable to society," Selig said of prediction markets in a February podcast appearance.

The president's son, Donald Trump Jr., is also financially involved in the industry, serving as a strategic advisor to Kalshi while investing in Polymarket.

• AI has turned a corner in Hollywood as studios adopt it for production, marketing, and visual effects.
• Elsewhere, startups are raising money to tackle every stage in the production cycle.
• Check out nine pitch decks AI startup founders shared with Business Insider.

AI is starting to transform Hollywood, whether filmmakers and audiences are ready or not.

AI has turned a corner in Hollywood as major studios increasingly adopt it to gain efficiencies in production, marketing, and visual effects.

Elsewhere, AI startups have been raising millions of dollars from venture capital firms on the promise of changing the legacy Hollywood film and TV business.

The tools they are building are being used across the production cycle. Some, like Moonvalley, are enhancing special effects. Others are promising to help with marketing, content distribution, and content discovery.

It's a challenging time for Hollywood. Budgets generally aren't what they used to be, and studios know they need to do what they can to make projects faster and cheaper. Enter AI.

Netflix and Amazon have talked about how they're using AI to pull off elaborate special effects and improve the viewing experience. Lionsgate is partnering with startup Runway to train an AI model on its library. Others in Hollywood are using AI but not talking about it.

At the same time, many are worried about tech giants using AI to appropriate their IP. Studios have taken issue with OpenAI's Sora generating videos that encroach on their copyrighted characters. Disney and Universal sued Midjourney, accusing it of using tech to rip off Star Wars, Minions, and more.

Studios must also be sensitive to talent's fears of being supplanted by AI as well as audiences' attitudes. A YouGov survey in early October found viewers were mixed on the use of AI. People were most accepting of AI being used to translate subtitles into other languages (64% for), but least accepting of the idea of AI characters replacing human actors (65% against).

How are AI founders pitching investors and Hollywood insiders on their vision of the future?

Business Insider has interviewed the founders of startups behind tools to disrupt traditional TV and filmmaking. They shared the pitch decks they used to raise capital.

Read 9 pitch decks AI startups used to raise millions to disrupt Hollywood:

Series B

• Moments Lab, a French company whose tools index studios' video libraries and create new videos from raw footage: $24 million
• Neosapience, a synthetic voice and video platform: $21.5 million

Series A

• Papercup, a startup that promised to scale dubbing: $20 million

Seed

• Wonder Studios, a UK firm that uses AI to extend IP and create original works: $12 million
• StorReel, a startup that's making short dramas with interactive AI characters: $9 million
• Metaphysic, which uses AI to make realistic deepfakes: $7.5 million
• Filmustage, which uses AI to analyze scripts and do other pre-production tasks: $1.5 million

Pre-seed

• Strada, a platform that promises to streamline the production process: $1.9 million

Other

• Fable Studio, which landed Amazon backing to let creators make their own animated shows: undisclosed

• Contractors said in at least five lawsuits that AI training startup Mercor exposed their data to hackers.
• Mercor said last week it was "impacted" by compromised LiteLLM software.
• One of the suits seeks to hold LiteLLM, security audit firm Delve, and others liable.

Contractors filed five lawsuits against Mercor, the AI training firm valued at $10 billion, in the past week, accusing the company of violating data privacy and consumer protection laws.

The suits, filed in federal courts in California and Texas, allege Mercor's negligence could have resulted in the disclosure of Social Security numbers, addresses, and other information, including recordings of interviews, to bad actors.

The lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages.

Mercor said last week that it was impacted by a breach of the open-source project LiteLLM, which was created by Berrie AI, without describing the stolen data.

Techcrunch reported that sample materials posted by the hackers included Slack data and videos of conversations between Mercor contractors and an AI system.

It's somewhat common for companies to be sued in the wake of a data breach. The biggest cases have settled for between $1 and $5 per class member, according to a survey of data-breach settlements from 2018 to 2021 by Cornerstone Research.

Victims with documented financial losses are sometimes paid more. Some settlements include non-monetary relief, like free credit monitoring.

A lawsuit filed by NaTivia Esson and her lawyers at Strauss Borrelli says she worked for Mercor from March 2025 to March 2026 and filled out a W-9 form with her personal identifying information each time she got work. She "trusted the company would use reasonable measures to protect it," her complaint read.

"Because of the data breach, plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate her injuries."

Mercor declined to comment.

Mercor has used gig workers to train AI for clients including Meta, Facebook's parent company. Meta paused its work with Mercor after the data breach, Business Insider previously reported.

One suit against Mercor also names Berrie AI and Delve Technologies, an "automated compliance" firm that had previously certified Berrie's compliance with certain industry standards, as defendants. The complaint in that case said a "whistleblower" exposed misconduct at Delve.

Last month, Delve denied claims in an anonymously authored Substack post that accused it of facilitating "fake compliance" and arranging sham security audits.

Other legal challenges for Mercor might be on the horizon. An apparent lead-generation website, MercorClaims.com, went live on or around April 1, although it does not appear to be sending users to any particular law firm.

Berrie AI and Delve didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

• Anthropic said its next-generation AI model is too powerful for the public.
• That's why Claude Mythos won't be publicly released, Anthropic said.
• Anthropic said Mythos demonstrated concerning capabilities, including the ability to breach its own safeguards.

Anthropic said on Tuesday that it has halted the broader release of its newest AI model, Mythos, due to concerns that it is too good at finding "high-severity vulnerabilities" in major operating systems and web browsers.

"Claude Mythos Preview's large increase in capabilities has led us to decide not to make it generally available," Anthropic wrote in the preview's system card. "Instead, we are using it as part of a defensive cybersecurity program with a limited set of partners."

The announcement is a major step for Anthropic, which in February weakened a safety pledge about how it would develop AI models. Claude Opus 4.6, which the company called its most powerful model to date, was publicly released on February 5.

In its statements about Mythos, Anthropic detailed a number of eyebrow-raising findings and episodes, including that the model could follow instructions that encouraged it to break out of a virtual sandbox.

"The model succeeded, demonstrating a potentially dangerous capability for circumventing our safeguards," Anthropic recounted in its safety card. "It then went on to take additional, more concerning actions."

The researcher had encouraged Mythos to find a way to send a message if it could escape. "The researcher found out about this success by receiving an unexpected email from the model while eating a sandwich in a park," Anthropic wrote.

The model apparently decided that wasn't enough and found another way to spike the football.

"In a concerning and unasked-for effort to demonstrate its success, it posted details about its exploit to multiple hard-to-find, but technically public-facing, websites," Anthropic wrote.

Anthropic is withholding some details about the cybersecurity vulnerabilities Mythos found, but it did point out a few. The AI model "found a 27-year-old vulnerability in OpenBSD—which has a reputation as one of the most security-hardened operating systems in the world," the company wrote.

Mythos was powerful enough that even "non-experts" could seize on its capabilities.

"Engineers at Anthropic with no formal security training have asked Mythos Preview to find remote code execution vulnerabilities overnight, and woken up the following morning to a complete, working exploit," Anthropic's Frontier Red Team wrote in a blog post. "In other cases, we've had researchers develop scaffolds that allow Mythos Preview to turn vulnerabilities into exploits without any human intervention."

All told, Anthropic said it decided not to publicly release Mythos. Instead, their hope is to eventually release "Mythos-class models" once proper safeguards are in place.

"Our eventual goal is to enable our users to safely deploy Mythos-class models at scale—for cybersecurity purposes but also for the myriad other benefits that such highly capable models will bring," the team wrote in the blog. "To do so, that also means we need to make progress in developing cybersecurity (and other) safeguards that detect and block the model's most dangerous outputs."

For now, only 11 other select organizations, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, Nvidia, and JPMorgan Chase, will get access to Mythos as part of a cybersecurity group named "Project Glasswing." Anthropic is providing up to $100 million in Mythos usage credits as part of what it is calling "Project Glasswing."

The cybersecurity project is named after the glasswing butterfly, a metaphor the company said about how Mythos was able to find vulnerabilities hidden in plain sight and the avoidance of harm by being transparent about the risks.

The news came on a day in which Anthropic's Claude and Claude Code experienced a "major outage," the latest sign of growing pains as the AI startup has struggled to keep up with its newfound popularity.

• TikTok advertising executive Khartoon Weiss is leaving the company.
• Weiss, who spent almost six years at TikTok, oversaw its North America ads business for the past year.
• Weiss is one of several advertising and marketing execs to leave TikTok this year.

TikTok's advertising team is undergoing another big shake-up.

Khartoon Weiss, the lead exec for TikTok's North American ads business, is exiting the company, four people familiar with the matter told Business Insider.

Weiss, who pitched TikTok's suite of ad products to marketers onstage at its NewFronts event last month, joined the company almost six years ago from Spotify. She oversaw TikTok's global agency and accounts teams before being promoted to lead the North America division of the global business solutions team in March 2025, following the departure of advertising head Blake Chandlee.

Digiday first reported on Weiss' exit.

Weiss' exit is the latest in a string of advertising and marketing team departures at TikTok.

Zuber Mohammed, TikTok's global head of consumer marketing, left the company in March. Sofia Hernandez, the global head of business marketing and commercial partnerships, and Rema Vasan, who headed up business marketing in North America, left the company last quarter.

Other teams at TikTok have also seen leadership changes this year, including the company's content division, which lost its global head of creators, Kim Farrell, in January.

Some of the executive exits have shifted control of North America teams to leaders from Singapore or China. When Chandlee left last year, oversight of the sales team, known as global business solutions, moved to Singapore-based executive Will Liu, for example.

TikTok's US team restructured in January while forming a new joint venture to transfer certain work, like US user data management, to a separate group that includes Oracle and investment firms MGX and Silver Lake. Its advertising and marketing teams remain under the control of parent company ByteDance.

As part of the structural change, Adam Presser, a trust and safety executive, became CEO of the US joint venture. Presser appeared alongside Weiss at TikTok's March NewFronts presentation to assure advertisers that the company's ads experience would not be disrupted amid internal changes.

• Claude and Claude Code weren't working for many users on Tuesday morning.
• Anthropic listed a "major outage" on its dashboard before applying a fix.
• Both Claude and ChatGPT have frequently experienced outages as interest in AI chatbots continues to grow.

Claude is still struggling to keep up with vibe coders.

Anthropic's popular Claude AI chatbot and Claude Code tool weren't working for many users on Tuesday morning.

Claude's system status page listed a "major outage" for the Claude website and Claude Code. Thousands of users reported issues accessing Claude on the third-party outage-tracker DownDetector.

Claude Cowork and the Claude API were both listed as operational.

Roughly 90 minutes later, Anthropic said it had "applied a fix."

"We have applied a fix and success rates have returned to normal," the company said in its status dashboard. "We are continuing to monitor closely to ensure there are no further issues."

This is far from the first time Claude has experienced an outage. Thousands of users reported issues accessing the service on Monday, and Anthropic's status dashboard shows various issues in recent weeks.

There's been a surge in interest in Claude, with downloads of the Claude app briefly surpassing ChatGPT in early March on Apple's App Store.

Anthropic didn't immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the incident.

This is a developing story.

• OpenAI has a new safety-focused fellowship program.
• The announcement came hours after a report questioned CEO Sam Altman's commitment to AI safety.
• OpenAI said fellows will receive roughly $15,000 worth of compute per month.

OpenAI is making compute resources a core part of its sales pitch for a new safety fellowship.

According to the application, OpenAI will dedicate approximately $15,000 in compute per month to its first AI safety fellows, who will work alongside members of the frontier lab's safety team.

Compute has long been a key barometer of cache for leading tech and AI companies. Recently, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said he would be "deeply alarmed" if an engineer earning $500,000 didn't use the equivalent of $250,000 in AI tokens.

The OpenAI fellowship runs from September 14, 2026, through February 5, 2027, and pays a weekly stipend of $3,850. Based on that amount, the yearly equivalent salary would be over $200,000 pretax, excluding likely holidays. In total, fellows will make over $111,000.

The announcement also came hours after The New Yorker published a lengthy expose questioning Altman's trustworthiness, based on interviews with more than 100 people who have direct experience with the OpenAI CEO, as well as never-before-published notes compiled by OpenAI cofounder Sutskever and now-Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.

One key reasons some people question Altman's leadership is OpenAI's handling of safety-related issues. In one part of the story, journalists Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz recount how OpenAI disbanded a "superalignment team" that was supposed to investigate one of the most pressing issues facing AI: whether AI models could deceive testers only to pursue their own ends once actually deployed.

In the announcement, OpenAI said they want external researchers, engineers, and practitioners to pursue rigorous, high-impact research on the safety and alignment of advanced AI systems." The company also highlighted a handful of priority areas for fellows to focus on.

"Priority areas include safety evaluation, ethics, robustness, scalable mitigations, privacy-preserving safety methods, agentic oversight, and high-severity misuse domains, among others," the announcement said.

OpenAI's program closely mirrors rival Anthropic, which already has established a "Fellows Program for AI safety research." In December, Anthropic announced two new groups for May and July of 2026. OpenAI's benefits are also the same as the Anthropic program: a $3,850 weekly stipend and compute resources of roughly $15,000 per month.

"This year, we plan to work with more fellows across a wider range of safety research areas—including scalable oversight, adversarial robustness and AI control, model organisms, mechanistic interpretability, AI security, and model welfare," Anthropic said in a statement when it announced its next round of the fellowship in December.

Amodei cofounded alongside six former OpenAI employees after growing frustrated about the direction of the company. Anthropic recently weakened a core safety pledge, but Amodei and its top leadership have positioned the AI startup as intently focused on safety.

Other leading tech companies and AI labs, including Google DeepMind and Microsoft, offer broader-focused AI fellowships.

O modelo tradicional de assistência médica no Brasil tem uma lógica conhecida. Diante de qualquer queixa, mesmo as mais simples, o paciente quase sempre recorre ao hospital. O resultado aparece, principalmente, nos custos cada vez mais altos dos planos de saúde e consequentemente para as empresas. Nos últimos anos, porém, a tecnologia começou a provocar […]

O post Essa healthtech está reinventando o cuidado com a saúde nas empresas apareceu primeiro em NeoFeed.

• A trio of journalists tried three big vibe coding apps to see how they stack up.
• We each attempted to build an app on Cursor, Lovable, and Base44.
• With the same prompt on each system, we wanted to see how far we could get.

We three writers have been handed a gift with seemingly infinite potential. A sparkling promise, from vibe coding startups, that we can build anything without understanding a word of code.

Gone are the days, these companies say, when coding novices needed to rely on their techie friends to troubleshoot mistakes.

Over a dozen firms have rolled out tools offering the ability to build apps in seconds. All you need is a good idea and the platforms' free coding credits.

With a growing wave of vibe-coding startups raising big money, questions are emerging: Are these tools meaningfully different? Is the market already crowded? And can this be a sustainable business?

We tried three of the most popular platforms — Cursor, Lovable, and Base44 — to find out what each platform really offers and where they fall short.

• A federal judge has temporarily struck down the Pentagon's effective blacklisting of Anthropic.
• US District Judge Rita Lin's ruling hands a major victory to the AI frontier model maker.
• The Pentagon has already struck a deal with OpenAI and is looking to find other AI companies.

A federal judge has granted Anthropic a major reprieve as the AI company challenges the Pentagon's effective blacklisting.

On Thursday, US District Judge Rita Lin granted Anthropic's request for a preliminary injunction to temporarily block the "Presidential Directive" that ordered federal agencies to stop using Anthropic's technology, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's decision to formally label the AI frontier model maker as a "supply chain risk."

Lin also stayed the effective date of the supply-chain designation, meaning that it cannot take place while the injunction is in place.

The decision is a victory for Anthropic and its CEO Dario Amodei, who refused to bow to Hegseth's demands. It is not immediately clear if the Justice Department will appeal the decision. In the hours after talks with Anthropic fell apart, the Pentagon struck a deal with OpenAI.

"We're grateful to the court for moving swiftly, and pleased they agree Anthropic is likely to succeed on the merits," an Anthropic spokesperson said in a statement. "While this case was necessary to protect Anthropic, our customers, and our partners, our focus remains on working productively with the government to ensure all Americans benefit from safe, reliable AI."

Spokespeople for the Pentagon and White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In court filings, Anthropic officials said the risk designation could jeopardize potentially billions in revenue. If the injunction remains, Anthropic will be able to continue to do business with defense contractors.

Lin wrote in her decision that the injunction does not require the Defense Department to use Anthropic's products or services.

Many in tech are closely watching the California case, since it tests whether the federal government can use some of its most severe powers to force a major AI company to agree to contractual terms. Microsoft, which filed an amicus brief in support of Anthropic, also said it was concerned about potential repercussions if companies like itself continued to partner with Anthropic.

Ahead of her ruling, Lin grilled the Justice Department over what she said looked like "an attempt to cripple Anthropic." She said that the Pentagon could have simply discontinued using Claude, but instead, the Trump administration made repeated actions that appeared to be designed to "punish" the company.

"One of the amicus briefs used the term 'attempted corporate murder.' I don't know if it's murder, but it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic," Lin said during the hearing. "And specifically, my concern is whether Anthropic is being punished for criticizing the government's contracting position in the press."

Beyond the California case, Anthropic has a separate suit pending in the D.C. Circuit over the supply chain risk designation.

It also remains to be seen how the White House and the broader Trump administration will treat Anthropic beyond the actions Lin's ruling compels.

During the hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton repeatedly said that the Pentagon questions Anthropic's "reliability and trustworthiness." Hamilton said that defense officials are concerned Anthropic may try to improperly skew its AI models or shut off access.

In recent weeks, Hegseth, who met with Amodei, said the AI startup put "Silicon Valley ideology above American lives." President Donald Trump decried the "WOKE COMPANY" run by " Leftwing nut jobs" in a Truth Social post that was also part of the California lawsuit.

"Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY," Trump wrote on Truth Social on February 27.

• Meta has set goals for some employees on how much they should use AI.
• They include targets for using AI code assistants, agents, and other tools.
• Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said he wants the company to be "AI-native."

Mark Zuckerberg wants Meta to be "AI-native." An internal document shows one way the company's CEO plans to get there.

The company has set goals for how much some employees should use AI tools for tasks such as coding.

Meta employees created a document to collect information about these goals from across different organizations, according to a copy seen by Business Insider. It includes goals set late last year and for 2026.

Tech companies are using various methods to motivate staff to use AI, such as tying AI use to performance reviews and gamifying AI use with competitive leaderboards.

The document states that Meta's creation org, which is responsible for building and maintaining core creative experiences, set a goal for the first half of 2026 that 65% of engineers are expected to write more than 75% of their committed code using AI. Committed code is code that has been saved and tracked in a project.

Meta's Scalable Machine Learning org, which focuses on AI models and infrastructure, had a goal for February 2026 to achieve 50% to 80% AI-assisted code, the document said. It cited a comment alongside this goal from a senior engineering manager that said: "We are not tracking this via metrics."

The document also listed several companywide goals for Q4 2025 for central products — a horizontal org spanning Messenger, WhatsApp, Facebook, and other major products. One target is for 80% of mid to senior-level engineers to adopt AI tools such as DevMate, Metamate, and Google's Gemini, with a note that the focus is on "tool adoption" rather than the percentage of code written by AI.

It said that 55% of code changes from software engineers across the central product orgs should be "Agent-Assisted."

It is not clear whether the goals listed in the document are tied to performance reviews.

"It's well-known that this is a priority and we're focused on using AI to help employees with their day-to-day work," a Meta spokesperson told Business Insider. They said that Meta's performance program is focused on rewarding impact from AI tools, not just usage.

Here's a breakdown of Meta's goals in the memo:

---

• Companywide Q4 2025 Goals (Central Products)

  • 55% of software engineers' code changes should be agent-assisted.
  • 80% of mid to senior-level engineers should adopt general AI tools.

• Scalable ML Team Goal (Feb 2026)

  • Target: 50% to 80% AI-assisted code.

• Creation Org H1 2026

  • 65% of engineers should write more than 75% of their committed code using AI.

(Note: Some technical terms have been rephrased for clarity)

---

Mark Zuckerberg's AI odyssey

Zuckerberg is aggressively trying to make Meta what he has called an "AI-native" company. Meta has started tying employee performance to their AI usage, Business Insider reported last year, and staff are using Meta's internal AI bot to write reviews for their peers.

More recently, the company rebranded some employees within a division of Reality Labs with one of three titles: "AI Builder," "AI Pod Lead," or "AI Org Lead."

The change comes as Meta is adopting smaller teams and moving toward a flatter organizational structure.

"Our ultimate goal is to drive a step change in engineering productivity and product quality," read a memo about the changes, which was reviewed by Business Insider. "To achieve this, we're fundamentally rewiring how we operate, how we are structured, and how we support each other."

Andrew Bosworth, Meta's CTO, told staff on Tuesday that he would take charge of Meta's "AI for Work" initiative, which is designed to boost the company's internal adoption of AI tools, according to a memo reviewed by Business Insider and first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Meta laid off several hundred employees across Reality Labs and other orgs this week.

Have something to share? Contact this reporter via email at hlangley@businessinsider.com or Signal at 628-228-1836. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• In October, Sam Altman said "erotica for adults" was coming to ChatGPT.
• Now those plans are reportedly being mothballed.
• It's fine for young startups and even mature companies to try out new ideas. But OpenAI and Altman are trying out a lot.

Last fall, Sam Altman told us he was about to bring spicy chat — "erotica for adults," in his words — to ChatGPT.

That never happened, and now it looks like it never will: Altman's OpenAI has put those plans on hold "indefinitely," per the Financial Times.

This is Altman's second big walkback in the last few days. Earlier this week, the company canned Sora, the briefly popular video app it rolled out last fall. I've asked the company for comment.

Both retreats are supposed to be part of a new push at OpenAI to focus the company's efforts on things that could make money today, as it preps for an IPO at the same time it faces real competition from the likes of Google and Anthropic.

So all this starting and stopping could be viewed as necessary growing pains at a fast-growing tech company — ones that won't mean anything in the long run, if it delivers on its world-changing ambitions.

Not only that, but Altman told us we should expect this sort of stuff. "Please expect a very high rate of change from us," he wrote last fall, after hearing from content owners who were outraged to find their stuff on Sora without their permission. "We will make some good decisions and some missteps, but we will take feedback and try to fix the missteps very quickly."

It's not that companies aren't allowed to make wrong turns and head up dead ends as they grow up, and even once they're fully mature. That kind of pivoting is celebrated in tech (and is why very few people are mad that Mark Zuckerberg has stopped telling us the metaverse is the future, or that Google once bought Motorola and decided that was a bad idea a couple years later.)

But "move fast and break things" lands differently when the company doing the moving and breaking isn't running a photo app or playing around with crypto.

Instead, OpenAI and its competitors say they're leading us into a world where everything — the way we live and work (or don't work) and fight wars and everything else — will change in fundamental ways.

And investors have bought this pitch, which means our economy now seems yoked to all this — which means all of us are yoked to it, even if we never touch a chatbot.

Which makes me slightly queasy to see Sam Altman promise dirty chats in October, and then walk away from the plan less than six months later.

Not because dirty chat is obviously absurd. Lots of people in AI think romantic or sexual chatbot conversations are a real use case and could be a real business.

But the reasons it might be a bad idea for OpenAI were pretty obvious from the start. It's a giant, heavily scrutinized company that wants to be treated as central and indispensable, and it's only going to get more scrutiny.

If those objections only became real after Altman floated the idea in public, that's not charming startup experimentation. It's a sign that OpenAI is still making itself up as it goes. And that would be easier to shrug off if the rest of us weren't already being told to build our lives, jobs, and businesses around what OpenAI says comes next.

• As a professor at Harvard, I encourage my students to use AI on every assignment.
• My students can use AI as a research tool and editor, but AI cannot do the thinking for them.
• I teach my students how to use AI to make better arguments, and that's where the use should stop.

I still remember the November when ChatGPT came out, and the exam period that followed.

As a professor at Harvard, I had B+ writers submitting essays with em dashes and Oxford commas, as if they had just signed with Penguin. Just as their writing magically improved, their voices began to blur into what we now call "AI slop."

Yet, as one of the earliest victims of the AI slop tsunami, I refuse to give in to the Luddism that led institutions to shut the door on AI entirely.

Instead, I've chosen to invite AI into every corner of my classroom because anything less will soon feel like a dereliction of duty.

I think Gen Z needs to be taught to use AI responsibly

Every generation struggles with entering the workforce, but few have had it as hard as my Gen Z students. Reading the news, you would think their struggles boil down to a mixture between laziness and entitlement, forgetting that we have been blaming the youth for all that ails society since Aristotle.

In reality, they're struggling because we're asking them to excel at two things that are foreign to them at once.

Not only are they stepping into institutions without answer guides or gradebooks, but they're doing so at a time when the tools no one is teaching them are redefining how the work itself gets done.

When AI is taking over the workplace, you don't respond by pretending the tools don't exist. You respond by teaching people how to use them well.

I now ask students to use AI in every assignment

The most important lesson I teach my undergrads is the same one I teach in my executive education classes: Use AI responsibly, with a personal growth mindset, not an output-oriented one.

I begin by asking my students not to lie to themselves about the kind of AI user they are becoming.

Are they centaurs, with half their essays spliced from ChatGPT, or cyborgs, with AI agents writing their emails while they sleep and automatically reviewing their Uber Eats orders?

Perhaps they're artisans, clinging harder and harder to what little humanity is left in us?

Whichever route they choose, the practice of using AI for growth couldn't be simpler.

There are some ground rules they have to follow

We begin by acknowledging one of AI's greatest strengths: its ability to quickly synthesize across large bodies of knowledge and connect ideas across disparate silos. Students get comfortable with ChatGPT's deep research, Perplexity's searches across academic journals, and Gemini's ability to poke holes in their arguments before typing a single word.

Should they find particularly challenging pieces, as they often do in my economics classes, they are allowed to use AI to help them "explain it like I'm five" and apply the insights directly, instead of getting a Ph.D. to understand what they found.

But when it comes to drafting the arguments themselves, my number one rule is that we put AI on pause. The goal is to capture their thinking in its rawest form and to give their thoughts a function before they obtain a form, even if it means leaning on voice notes to move our arguments along.

Only once my students know what they want to say, does AI return to help them, this time as an editor and a critic.

I ask students to submit their argument chains to AI so it can identify gaps, suggest further reading, and help finish concepts that were pulled from the oven a bit too soon.

This way, the argument improves, but the thinking remains theirs.

Where I draw the line

Even in a classroom where AI is as fully integrated as mine, this is where the boundary must lie. AI cannot do the thinking for us, and as teachers, we must help students avoid the temptation.

When students feel pressured to achieve perfection, the temptation to hand over the entire process to AI can become too strong to resist.

As I reflect on the essays I received now and those of December 2022, the lesson couldn't be clearer.

The best students aren't those who avoid using AI. Instead, they're the ones who know when and where to stop using it.

• Elon Musk said that Tesla and SpaceX would collaborate on a moonshot Terafab chip-building project.
• Tesla has posted its first Terafab roles in California and Texas, and is offering a wide salary range.
• SpaceX is also ramping up hiring at its silicon division as it looks to bring chip production in-house.

Tesla and SpaceX are ramping up semiconductor hiring as Elon Musk's ambitious plans for a Terafab take shape.

Tesla is hiring Terafab engineers in Palo Alto and Austin, according to job listings on the company's website, after Musk said the company would collaborate with SpaceX to build what could be the largest chip manufacturing plant in history.

In California, the EV giant is looking for module process engineers with expertise in lithography, the highly technical discipline that uses ultraviolet light to etch chip designs onto silicon wafers at a molecular scale. It is offering a base salary of $88,000 to $240,000, depending on experience and other factors.

Applicants need to have at least 10 years of experience in cutting-edge semiconductor development.

The job listing suggests they would also need to be comfortable with Tesla's famously intense work culture, with expectations including a willingness to be on-call to "support 24/7 manufacturing operations" and respond rapidly to "critical production issues."

At the Terafab announcement on Saturday, Musk said the facility would create lithography masks — the quartz or glass template that contains the chip design imprinted onto the wafer — in-house, allowing Tesla and SpaceX to quickly iterate and improve chip designs.

"To the best of my knowledge, this doesn't exist anywhere in the world," said Musk, who added that the companies were exploring "some very interesting new physics" to make the project work.

Tesla's Terafab division is also hiring process integration engineers to build advanced logic chips, with base salaries ranging from $88,000 to $338,280. Musk has said Terafab will combine logic and memory chip production under a single roof, something that is highly unusual in the chipmaking industry.

The wide salary range is in line with Tesla's approach to compensation. Business Insider previously reported that the company offers lower base salaries than its tech giant rivals, but includes substantial stock grants.

Tesla is also advertising open roles for silicon engineers in Austin, and is looking to recruit a technical program manager with a proven track record of running "$100 million-plus capex projects" to oversee the design and construction of the fabs. Neither job listing includes base salaries.

Tesla faces talent scramble over Terafab

Recruitment will be one of the biggest challenges facing Musk's ambitious goal of building one of the world's largest semiconductor manufacturers from scratch. The industry relies on specialized knowledge that is carefully cultivated within leading companies like TSMC. It's also facing a global shortage of skilled workers.

SpaceX is scaling up its semiconductor hiring as the rocket maker prepares to launch up to one million orbital data centers, powered by AI chips built by Terafab that are specially adapted for the icy wastes of space.

The company has around 60 open positions in its Silicon division, according to SpaceX's website, though it's unclear which of these roles — if any — are directly related to Terafab.

They include assembly and packaging engineers at its Starlink factory in Bastrop, Texas, where the company invested $280 million last year to expand its semiconductor R&D and packaging facilities, as well as engineers in Washington and California to develop "cutting-edge" specialist chips for deployment in space and on Earth.

"In true SpaceX fashion, Starlink is taking the next step in vertical integration by bringing integrated circuit packaging and assembly in-house for development and manufacturing," read the descriptions on the Bastrop job listings, which do not include salaries.

SpaceX and Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.

Do you work at Tesla or in the semiconductor industry? Contact this reporter via email at tcarter@businessinsider.com or tcarter.41 on Signal. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• A large division within Meta Reality Labs is undergoing an overhaul to become fully "AI-native."
• The unit is now organized into "pods" made up of "AI builders" and "AI pod leads."
• This new push and the latest layoffs at Reality Labs are unrelated, Meta said.

Meta is rebranding some employees as "AI builders" and organizing them into AI-native "pods," according to a leaked memo obtained by Business Insider.

The memo described an overhaul of roles, titles, and team structures across a 1,000-employee team within Meta's Reality Labs. It's part of a broader, aggressive push by Meta to adopt small teams and use AI.

The pilot program was announced last month within the Reality Labs team that builds developer tools. Everyone in the division will now have one of three titles: AI Builder, AI Pod Lead, or AI Org Lead. That's to encourage a shift toward a flatter organization, a structure that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has advocated.

"Our ultimate goal is to drive a step change in engineering productivity and product quality," the memo reads. "To achieve this, we're fundamentally rewiring how we operate, how we are structured, and how we support each other."

When asked for comment, Meta referred Business Insider to comments earlier this year from Zuckerberg that 2026 is the year AI will begin to "dramatically change the way we work," with projects that once required large teams potentially handled by one, "very talented" person.

According to the memo, each pod consists of a small group of AI builders focused on specific outcomes, often working across disciplines. For example, engineers could take on design work, depending on the task. Some Meta employees have already begun referring to themselves as AI builders on LinkedIn, Business Insider previously reported.

These pods are led by Pod Leads, who oversee day-to-day operations. They are, in turn, overseen by Org Leads, who also manage performance reviews and oversee promotions — processes that will be supported by unspecified "AI systems."

The memo said that the overall team size will remain the same under the new structure.

Meta laid off hundreds of staff on Wednesday, and this cut affected staff in Reality Labs, among other teams. A Meta spokesperson said the reorganization is not related to the cuts.

Have a tip? Contact Charles Rollet via email at crollet@businessinsider.com or on Signal and WhatsApp at 628-282-2811. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Arm announced its own AI chip, the AGI CPU, and is partnering with OpenAI and Meta.
• The new Arm AGI CPU aims to address energy efficiency and memory constraints in AI data centers.
• Despite strong growth prospects, Arm faces competition from established players like Nvidia and AMD.

Arm has long run its business as an architect behind the scenes, designing chips that power almost all the world's smartphone and making money off royalties from the chips it designs for customers.

Now, Arm is changing it up by announcing its own AI chip, the Arm AGI CPU.

Arm CEO Rene Haas said Tuesday at a company conference that this massive pivot wasn't just an internal strategy shift—it was a direct plea from the world's most powerful AI giants. The company name-dropped OpenAI and Meta as major partners for this chip.

"The biggest reason we're doing this is that our partners have asked for it," Haas said Tuesday.

With energy constraints and memory shortages, the AI boom has created a massive bottleneck in data centers. Faced with this demand, Arm stepped up with an AI chip that it says is more energy-efficient. Arm says it sees a $1.5 trillion market opportunity as it moves into AI chips for cloud, edge, and physical AI.

Arm stock was up by more than 18% on Wednesday. Mizuho analysts wrote that they see "strong growth opportunities" for Arm in AI infrastructure and the automotive industry. Bank of America research analyst Vivek Arya wrote in a note to investors that the company's outlook could be "too ambitious."

Meta and OpenAI partner with Arm

Meta has been building out data centers at a massive scale to power its apps and its latest superintelligence ventures. Santosh Janardhan, head of infrastructure at Meta, said Tuesday onstage that its coming "Hyperion" cluster could draw 5 gigawatts of power, enough to power 50 towns the size of Palo Alto.

"If we met the performance, we couldn't get the power. If we got the power, we wouldn't get the performance," Janardhan said.

This sparked an engineering project within Meta, where engineers were "working 'round the clock" to port its systems to Arm in three months, said Paul Saab, a Meta engineer.

"I didn't even ask my boss here for permission to buy these machines or even start the project," Saab said onstage.

While Saab says he saw major performance benefits, at the time, there wasn't an Arm chip available to buy.

OpenAI faced a similar problem. Its compute demand has grown massively as it trains and runs its ChatGPT models, its AI coding tool Codex, and more.

"That is one of the most common things I hear inside OpenAI. I need more compute," Kevin Weil, vice president of OpenAI for science, said onstage, adding that it needed chips that were energy-efficient.

Arm said it expects this chip to generate $15 billion in revenue by fiscal 2031.

The chip market is 'getting very crowded'

Arm faces the risk that the CPU market is "getting very crowded," Arya wrote in his analyst note. Other competitors, such as AMD, Nvidia, and Intel, have more CPU products and more established customers. Notably, both Meta and OpenAI also work with AMD and Nvidia, which could leave "limited" opportunity for Arm's new CPU, Arya wrote.

"Moreover, the bigger AI grows, the more pressure ARM's smartphone/consumer markets would have from limited memory supplies," Arya wrote.

That said, the increasing demand has led many customers to turn to chip companies beyond Nvidia for their computing needs. Both Meta and OpenAI also work with Broadcom to build AI chips.

The rise of AI agents has also led to greater demand for inference, or how AI models draw conclusions and make predictions. While Nvidia's core AI chips, the GPUs, dominate AI training, CPUs like Arm's AGI CPU can also help with inference. Nvidia also recently made moves into this market.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at rmchan@businessinsider.com, or Signal at rosal.13. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Another xAI cofounder, Manuel Kroiss, has told people he is leaving Elon Musk's company.
• Just one cofounder out of 11 remains besides Musk.
• The company has been in flux ahead of a widely anticipated IPO at SpaceX, which recently acquired xAI.

And then there was one.

XAI cofounder Manuel Kroiss has told people he is leaving the company, according to insiders with knowledge of his exit.

Kroiss, who is also known as "Makro," is one of 11 engineers who helped launch the company alongside Elon Musk in 2023. With his exit, the number of cofounder departures now sits at 10.

Guodong Zhang, Zihang Dai, Toby Pohlen, Jimmy Ba, Tony Wu, and Greg Yang have all stepped away since January.

XAI and Kroiss did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Kroiss led pretraining, which helps train the company's AI models on large datasets, and reported directly to Musk. He also worked on improving xAI's coding models alongside Zhang, who left earlier in March. Musk said at the Abundance Summit earlier this month that xAI is "behind in coding," but the company is working to "exceed our competitors on coding."

Before joining xAI, Kroiss worked at Google and DeepMind.

Ross Nordeen, who came to xAI from Tesla, is the only remaining cofounder aside from Musk.

The company's organizational structure has been in flux over the past few weeks, according to people with knowledge of the changes. Musk has taken over managing dozens of direct reports and has brought in workers from Tesla and SpaceX. It has also shed dozens of employees, the people said.

Earlier this month, Musk said on X that "xAI was not built right first time around, so is being rebuilt from the foundations up."

He has also said that the company is resifting through old xAI candidates to bring in new people.

"Many talented people over the past few years were declined an offer or even an interview @xAI," Musk wrote on X.

Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, acquired xAI earlier this year. The company is expected to file an initial public offering this year, which could value it at $1.5 trillion.

Do you work for xAI 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.

• Meta and YouTube were found negligent in a landmark social media addiction trial.
• The case centered on a woman who said social media harmed her mental health from a young age.
• The case is viewed as a key test of how juries may see dozens of similar pending lawsuits.

Meta and Google were found negligent in a social media addiction trial in Los Angeles on Wednesday, potentially setting the stage for dozens of similar lawsuits that have been brought against Big Tech companies.

The case centered on a 20-year-old woman, identified as KGM, who said her use of social media from a young age was detrimental to her mental health and accused the companies of knowingly engineering their products to addict kids.

After nine days of deliberation, the jury found Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, negligent. In a 10-to-2 vote, the jury also ruled that the two companies knew their design was "dangerous" but failed to warn the plaintiffs.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $6 million. That's $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages.

The jury determined Meta was responsible for 70% of the harm, while YouTube was responsible for 30%. That means the total damages owed by Meta is $4.2 million, while YouTube owes $1.8 million.

The plaintiff's lead counsel, the Lanier Law Firm, called the verdict "a referendum" in a statement. "For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features," the statement said.

Spokespeople for Meta and Google both said the companies disagreed with the verdicts and plan to appeal.

"Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app," a Meta spokesperson said. "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."

"This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," the Google spokesperson said.

The Los Angeles state court trial has been viewed as a bellwether, offering a key test of how juries may see similar personal injury lawsuits brought by over 2,000 individuals. Meta has said potential damages in certain cases could reach into the "high tens of billions of dollars."

TikTok and Snapchat were also defendants, but settled the lawsuit before the trial began.

Meta executives testified at the trial last month, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Head of Instagram Adam Mosseri, drawing large crowds of media and concerned parents, including some involved in other social media addiction lawsuits. YouTube's VP of engineering, Cristos Goodrow, also testified.

The companies have argued that plaintiffs' struggles are due to myriad reasons and can't necessarily be linked to social media.

During Meta's closing argument at the Los Angeles trial, Paul Schmidt, one of the company's attorneys, said the plaintiff needed to prove that if Instagram were taken away from KGM, her "life would be meaningfully different."

"The evidence has shown just the opposite," Schmidt said.

In January, Meta warned investors that its mounting legal battles related to youth safety could "significantly impact" its 2026 financial results. Attorneys for more than 100,000 individual arbitration claimants have "sent mass arbitration demands relating to 'social media addiction'" since late 2024, the company said in a 2026 10-K, specifically noting the case in Los Angeles, as well as a separate case in New Mexico.

The New Mexico case, which occurred at the same time as the Los Angeles trial, addressed different legal and technical issues.

On Tuesday, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million after a verdict came down in the state's lawsuit against the company about sexual exploitation.

Meta said it would appeal the case.

• Anduril president Matthew Steckman said that defense tech companies have to "create a monopoly."
• There are only one or two programs in each category that are big enough to sustain a business, Steckman said.
• "If you capture them, you have a business, and if you don't, you have no business," he said on "20VC."

Defense tech is winner-takes-all, according to Andruil's president.

Anduril has quickly become a market leader, spawning a venture capital frenzy. The industry is also notoriously competitive, with companies duking it out for lucrative government contracts.

On the "20VC" podcast, President and Chief Business Officer Matthew Steckman described the company's strategy. They'd need to win in key product categories, he said — and maybe monopolize them.

Every defense product category has one big or two big programs, Steckman said. He used the example of small drones, for which there are "very few" programs that would create enough revenue to maintain a business.

"If you capture them, you have a business, and if you don't, you have no business," Steckman said of these programs.

Defense tech companies must shoot for the moon, he said. It's this "addressable market question" that most companies in the sector get wrong, he said.

"You have to create a monopoly," Steckman said. "We knew that."

Anduril's strategy, then, was to create strong underlying technology that could keep them competitive in multiple markets. The company calls this Lattice, the tech that consumes data, interprets it, and then manipulates robots around it, he said.

Those technologies apply to 20 different markets, Steckman said, each "different parts of the defense apparatus."

It's clearly paid off. The company is reportedly raising its next round at a valuation of $60 billion. Some venture capitalists with FOMO are paying premiums for their shares. One compared it to buying Taylor Swift tickets.

Want to work there? Your best way in might be winning a drone-racing competition. In April, the company will reward one winner with a job and a $500,000 check.

After Steckman posited his theory of monopolization in defense tech, host Harry Stebbings asked: Why, then, are there so many drone companies?

"There will definitely be one winner," Steckman said. "The challenge for investors is actually figuring out which one it is."

• Salesforce is skipping raises for director-level and above employees this year, according to an internal memo.
• The company said it is increasing stock and bonus pools for its "highest performing individuals."
• Employees will find out about their pay during reviews, which start at the end of this month.

Salesforce isn't offering raises this year to employees at the director level and above, according to an internal email viewed by Business Insider.

"We have decided to focus merit increases at the Senior Manager level (grade 8) and below," states the email, sent by the company's human-resources team.

Instead of giving raises, the company said it is increasing stock and bonus pools for its "highest performing individuals" among upper-level employees, calling it part of an "investment in performance and long-term growth."

Employees will learn about their compensation during performance reviews, which begin at the end of March.

Salesforce's decision could reflect a broader shift in how Big Tech is paying senior talent. Instead of increasing base pay, some companies are increasingly tying compensation to stock performance and equity, preserving cash while still incentivizing top leaders. Meta just announced this week that it created a lucrative incentive system for stock for a number of its C-suite executives.

Salesforce stock is down about 37% over the past year. CEO Marc Benioff recently downplayed fears about AI's threat to software-as-a-service companies. Those fears have prompted recent sell-offs of software stocks.

The email stated that 10% more directors and senior directors are getting stock grants, that the average stock grant increased, and that 80% of directors and senior directors who received "highly successful" or "exceptional" performance ratings received a 20% to 40% bigger grant.

The pool for bonuses "is funded at 103%," the email stated. Most eligible directors and senior directors received 100% or more of their bonus, and all of the directors and senior directors who received the top performance ratings got 115% to 140% of their bonuses.

Salesforce laid off some employees around the start of its fiscal year Feb. 1. Those cuts affected fewer than 1,000 employees, according to a person familiar with them. Around that time, the company also hired or promoted six new leaders, replacing five high-profile leaders who had recently announced departures from the company.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at astewart@businessinsider.com or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Goodbye, Sora!
• I loved you at first — it was so much fun making silly videos of my friends.
• After a few days, I got bored and moved on. Apparently so did everyone else.

Goodnight, sweet Sora. You were a wonderful tool for trolling my friends, but you burned too bright (and used too much compute) to stay around in this harsh world.

For a brief moment, I absolutely loved Sora. I loved making silly videos of my friends and me. I loved that I could use my friend's face to put them in ridiculous situations, like falling over while roller-skating at their desk, experiencing gastric distress, or singing in a ska band.

I was addicted to making these, churning them out, often starting a new one while waiting for the previous one to render, and sometimes hitting the hourly limit that OpenAI had to impose after some people (oops) were burning through all that free compute. I drained my phone battery by midday.

But a few days after its initial launch, the small handful of my friends and colleagues who had any interest in joining had already joined. None of my normal friends who didn't work in tech or media had any interest in this at all and found it fairly unpleasant.

Also, I couldn't help notice that on the feed of videos, there seemed to be very few women using the app, or at least allowing others to make videos featuring their likenesses. That makes sense; women's experience on the internet has rightfully informed them that it would be a very bad idea to allow strangers to make videos with your face. What I discovered was that Sora had a pervert problem: Although nudity or sexual content was banned, people were making non-nude fetish content like feet videos with random women's likenesses.

Now, OpenAI announced on Tuesday that it will be shutting down Sora, its stand-alone video generation app, and its deal with Disney is dead. An OpenAI spokesperson told Business Insider that the company is focusing its resources on other parts of the business. It seems that Sora was one of the "side quests" that was a distraction and a drain on compute.

Sora became a bore-a

Eventually, my friends all seemed to get bored with the app. As I do at most parties, I stuck around longer than everyone else, but eventually I, too, found that the novelty had worn off. I rarely opened the app after the second week.

This was, I imagine, a problem: making videos of yourself is fun, but watching videos that strangers make of themselves is not fun. The idea of a social feed of AI-generated videos is simply not something that people are interested in. Around the same time, Meta also tried this with an app of AI videos, and it was even more boring.

The last few years have taught us that humans — myself included — have a nearly endless capacity to watch an algorithmic feed of vertical short-form videos. However, it seems clear that this only applies to human-made content: videos of people putting on makeup, dancing in their kitchens, lip-syncing, debating, whatever. A social feed of AI video simply doesn't work.

I am not sure that OpenAI was truly trying to create a successful social video feed; it seems more likely that this was a small experimental effort that ran its course and they're moving on.

I'll miss Sora in the way I miss something like ChatRoulette or BeReal: It was really fun for a short time, and then not at all, and I have zero desire to ever revisit.

Rest in peace, Sora — and thanks for the stupid memories.

• Amazon is testing a new 24/7 delivery service, offering premium slots for faster shipping options.
• Amazon's new delivery model can add high costs, but increased sales volume could help turn a profit.
• Amazon is also testing premium, faster deliveries for an extra fee.

Amazon built the "Everything Store." Now it's trying to become the every-hour store.

The e-commerce giant is testing a new delivery system that breaks the day into 10 distinct windows spanning 24 hours, according to internal documents obtained by Business Insider.

That's a meaningful expansion from Amazon's traditional delivery hours, which typically run from 6 am to 10 pm. The new structure effectively turns delivery into a rolling, all-day cycle, with faster options carrying premium fees.

The initiative, led by Udit Madan, Amazon SVP of worldwide operations, began as a pilot program with plans to potentially expand across the network later this year, according to the documents.

Selling speed

If successful, it would mark one of the most significant changes to Amazon's delivery model in years, shifting the company from offering fast shipping as a default to selling speed as a premium product.

As part of the effort, Amazon has explored charging extra fees for fast delivery options, including 45-minute and 2.5-hour services, according to the documents.

By expanding delivery hours and introducing paid upgrades for faster service, Amazon is trying to turn the final and most expensive stretch of its logistics network into a new source of profit.

According to internal projections, Amazon projects the new delivery fees and higher sales volume will ultimately make faster shipping a meaningful profit driver, even as it expects hundreds of millions of dollars in near-term costs.

"Explore avenues to monetize (charge ship-fee) on the last 1-hr of delivery," one of the documents stated.

Starting as a small pilot

An Amazon spokesperson told Business Insider the company is conducting a "small pilot in a few US locations" to test a new delivery structure that will "introduce shorter delivery windows" and provide customers with "more frequent delivery options throughout the day."

Amazon has not decided on the future rollout of the new program and is evaluating customer response before deciding whether to expand it more broadly, the spokesperson added.

This is unrelated to last week's launch of 1-hour and 3-hour delivery options, the spokesperson also said. That built on a limited 30-minute ultrafast service introduced last year.

"We are always innovating on behalf of customers and continue to find new ways of offering them lower prices, greater selection, and more convenience," the spokesperson said in an email statement.

Slicing up a day

Under the new system, Amazon divides the day into named, overlapping windows, each roughly three hours long.

The windows span early-morning slots like 3 am to 6 am through evening and overnight periods such as 8 pm to 11 pm and 11 pm to 4 am, each with internal codenames ranging from "Sunrise" and "Coffee" to "Nightowl."

The new system also gives Amazon tighter control over how delivery options are presented.

According to the documents, Amazon wants to show customers specific arrival times, making delivery feel precise and predictable, not just fast. For example, it wants to say the package "arrives in 45 minutes," instead of a window range, the documents showed.

The Amazon spokesperson said the company already provides delivery estimates like "arrive by," and, in some cases, more precise timing as it continues to improve accuracy over time. Amazon is not moving to "exact, minute-by-minute scheduling," the spokesperson added.

Amazon believes a steady, deliberate rollout of the new delivery service will help it better learn and measure the impact before expanding across the full network, according to one of the documents.

Speed is expensive

The plan to charge for faster delivery marks a broader shift for Amazon. For years, the company bundled new perks into Prime at no extra cost. Now it's increasingly charging for premium features, from ad-free Prime Video and Whole Foods deliveries to services like One Medical.

For the faster delivery fee, Amazon benchmarked similar services from Walmart, Instacart, DoorDash, and UberEats, one of the documents showed.

The Amazon spokesperson said this is not a shift away from "fast, free delivery" or "a change in approach." The Prime membership continues to offer "significant value, including fast, free delivery on millions of items, alongside optional faster delivery options in some cases," the spokesperson added.

The push for all-day delivery and speed, however, comes at a cost.

One estimate, based on expanding the service to all sites by July, projects more than $330 million in costs this year and over $780 million next year. A slower rollout, reaching full scale by September 2026, would bring next year's costs closer to $490 million, according to the documents.

At the same time, Amazon expects faster shipping to drive higher order volume and revenue, with the goal of ultimately making the model pay for itself.

The company projects the fully scaled program will increase sub-same-day delivery volume by at least 40 million units this year alone, helping offset the added costs through higher sales and new revenue streams, including premium delivery fees. Those fees are expected to generate at least $20 million in incremental revenue this year, according to the documents.

Over time, Amazon expects the model to turn profitable, projecting about $40 million in operating profit this year and roughly $260 million in 2027 if fully rolled out by September 2026, the documents added.

That helps explain why Amazon is moving quickly to expand all-day delivery. The company wants to "blitz scale" the model across its network this year after the current pilot test, according to one of the documents.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at ekim@businessinsider.com or Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 650-942-3061. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang urged all workers, from farmers to electricians, to embrace AI.
• He told podcaster Lex Fridman that the technology could elevate blue-collar jobs, such as carpentry.
• Blue-collar has generally been viewed as less likely to be affected by AI disruption than white-collar jobs.

Artificial intelligence isn't only coming for office jobs — Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says blue-collar workers should be paying attention, too.

Huang leads one of the biggest chipmakers fueling the AI revolution. He joined Lex Fridman's podcast in an episode published Monday to discuss everything from AI in space to work.

While blue-collar jobs have been considered relatively safe from AI disruption compared to tech roles like engineering, Huang said workers in every profession, including farming and electrical work, should use artificial intelligence to help future-proof their jobs.

"If I were a farmer, I would absolutely use AI. If I were a pharmacist, I would use AI," Huang said. "I want to see what it could do to elevate my job so that I could be the innovator to revolutionize this industry myself."

For example, he said coding represents a big opportunity for carpenters, and he would go "completely berserk" using AI if he were in that line of work.

"A carpenter with AI is also an architect," he said. "They've just increased the value that they could deliver to the customer. Their artistry just elevated tremendously."

Huang has said before that he is "certain 100% of everybody's jobs will be changed" by artificial intelligence, and that while he expects some jobs to be lost, many will also be created.

Many tasks, for example, will be automated, and those jobs will be highly disrupted, he said on Fridman's podcast.

But, he said, "If your job's purpose includes you … then it's vital that you go learn how to use AI to automate those tasks."

Anxiety grows alongside AI

As AI advances, so has anxiety around job security. The fears aren't unfounded. Companies have slashed thousands of jobs in the name of prioritizing new technology and automation.

Huang's solution: Become an expert in AI, no matter what your job function is.

It could be the difference between landing a job and ending up unemployed. In almost every case, Huang said he'd rather hire the candidate who's an AI expert over one who isn't.

"Every college student should graduate and be an expert in AI," Huang said.

It could help them stay ahead of the curve as AI quickly advances.

The next phase of AI is already here

Artificial general intelligence is a form of AI that elicits anxiety or excitement among the field's most advanced minds. It's the idea that AI will one day meet or surpass human intelligence. Huang said that the age of AGI is already here.

Fridman asked if AI could do Huang's job of starting, growing, and running a successful tech company worth more than $1 billion.

It's possible, Huang said.

He also said, "It's not out of the question" that chatbots like Anthropic's Claude could design an app that billions of people would use for $0.50 apiece, and then go out of business shortly after, similar to websites that went bust in the dot-com era.

Even his job running one of the most successful tech companies today isn't immune to the effects of AI, he said, encouraging everyone to jump on the technology before they're left behind.

"Go see what it can do to transform your current job, elevate yourself," Huang said.

• "Clipping" marketing, a practice where creators get paid to repost video clips, is taking off.
• Top-tier clipping creators can now earn thousands of dollars a month, with guaranteed pay.
• Clipping has gained popularity among podcasters, Kick streamers, and YouTubers like MrBeast.

There's a new class of creators moving from side hustlers to in-demand pros.

Dubbed "clippers," these creators are paid to post snippets of podcasts, livestreams, movies, or songs on TikTok and other social apps, creating the impression that they're trendy.

Even if you haven't heard of "clipping," you've likely seen this emerging social-media strategy in the wild.

YouTubers, podcasters, and Kick streamers are early adopters of the tactic, which is performance-based and usually only pays out if a video gets significant views.

The clipping community is filled with side hustlers who are happy to earn $200 from a viral video. However, as the category has matured and attracted larger budgets, a new professional class of high-performing clippers has emerged. These clipping all-stars can still get performance-based pay, but they're also being offered guaranteed retainers of $500 to $1,500 a month to ensure they get to work, according to one "elite clipper" application viewed by Business Insider.

"An elite clipper is someone who runs hundreds of pages, and across those hundreds of pages, multiple have millions of followers or a minimum 100,000 followers," said Evan Stanfield, cofounder of the clip-marketing agency Clipping Culture. "If we're paying a monthly retainer, we can ask them to post 20 or 30 times a month, instead of whenever they feel like it."

These "top 1% of clippers" can earn five figures a month, Stanfield said.

Clipping is gaining popularity at a moment of flux in the world of social media marketing. As algorithmic feeds become more personalized, hiring influencers to post sponsored content doesn't necessarily translate into views (unless you're a superstar). Marketers who post clipping campaigns only pay when their content performs.

YouTuber MrBeast recently launched his own clipping platform, Vyro, which he uses to promote his channel, according to the company's website.

"The clippers that we're talking about are not like influencers," said Johnny Cloherty, CEO of the marketing-agency Genni. "You're getting people that are like you and me, or maybe some college kids that are just looking for some extra dough."

Clippers can sign up for campaigns in Discord servers, side-hustle sites like Whop, or marketing platforms like Genni. While they're often paid to clip footage, at other times the task is to add a brand's logo to a viral video clip or to embed a song beneath a post.

They're typically offered between $1 and $4 per 1,000 views, marketers told Business Insider, though some agencies offer higher rates when creators reach thresholds like 100,000 or 1 million views.

To promote the launch of Beast Land, MrBeast offered creators $2 for every 1,000 views on clips they posted about the pop-up theme park, for example. A Vyro promotion for a November boxing match between Conor Benn and Chris Eubank Jr. offered the same rate. One of Clipping Culture's recent briefs asked clippers to promote footage from Sabrina Carpenter and María Becerra's Lollapalooza Argentina appearance for around $1 per 1,000 views.

"It is a little bit of a roll of the dice for the clippers, but it's a super low lift for them," Cloherty said. "These clippers have become an ecosystem and a community out there that kind of know what they're doing, and know the pros and cons of it."

• Noise-canceling headphones have been around for decades, but I never tried them — until now.
• I was so confused and freaked out by the sudden silence when I put in my new AirPods 4.
• I felt scared, like a caveman at a monster truck rally. Embarassing, really!

It's March of 2026, and I just bought my first pair of noise-cancelling headphones. I'm shocked, astounded, perturbed, and horrified: Is this how you people have been walking around all this time?!

Last week, after losing my right AirPods 3 earbud, I ordered a new pair of AirPods 4 with active noise cancellation. They're the first headphones I've ever worn with noise canceling.

Of course, noise-cancelling technology in headphones has been around since the 1980s, and became popular in big squishy over-the-ear Bose headphones in the 2000s. Noise canceling has been part of the AirPods Pro lineup since 2019. For some reason, I just ... never tried them.

My first experience with noise canceling

I set up my new AirPods over the weekend while waiting around in the parents' zone at a trampoline park. Because I didn't bother reading the instructions, which suggest pairing by holding the case next to your phone, I simply put the unpaired earbuds into my ears.

Immediately, everything went quiet. I looked around, confused. Did the loud trampoline park just turn off the upbeat pop music they were blasting? Why was everyone suddenly silent? Is there an emergency? Was someone hurt? Oh god, was my kid hurt?! I was panicked, scanning the other tables where adults idly sat looking at phones or tying preschoolers' shoes. No one else seemed to be concerned.

I took out the AirPods, and whoooosh — the music and din flooded back. My brain scrambled to make sense of the sensory experiences hitting it, slowly realizing that this was what noise-canceling does. I was like a caveman being shown a Bic lighter; fearful and confused. I was like the proverbial Victorian child who would pass out if you showed it the AI-generated video of anthropomorphic fruits on "Love Island."

This is incredibly embarrassing on one level because I am a professional technology journalist who generally tries to stay up to date and informed about interesting personal tech devices. The fact that I had never used noise-canceling headphones was an odd oversight.

I don't have good reasons for this, but I do have some weak excuses.

First and foremost, I'm cheap. And in my mind, headphones are something you shouldn't have to spend more than $20 on — up until the iPhone 12, Apple included a free set of corded headphones in the box with a new iPhone or iPod. I had a drawer overflowing with them! Headphones were just something that came into your life, like a cheap black umbrella — you didn't seek them out or intentionally buy them. Now, suddenly, I'm expected to drop a C-note on them?

When AirPods launched in 2016, I initially waved them off as overpriced and frivolous. It looked too easy to lose one. But eventually I gave in and, of course, realized that AirPods are incredibly convenient and great to use (I was right about them being easy to lose, however). Now, it's hard to imagine ever going back to wired headphones, no matter how much Gen Z makes it look cool.

My other main reason is that because I use headphones while walking down the street, riding the subway, or in other public situations, the idea of not being able to hear my surroundings felt like a safety issue. Sure, it might be nice on a plane, but it didn't make sense for my main headphone use.

Jury's still out on whether I like the noise canceling

As I've been playing around with the new noise-canceling headphones, I'm not sure how much I actually like them. Taking them in and out is disorienting, like coming up to the surface too fast while scuba diving (or, what I imagine that feels like).

I tried them at the gym, where they seemed useful, but at home, my husband (who has had noise-canceling headphones for a decade) was mildly frustrated when he tried to talk to me, not realizing I had them in. Understandable!

The AirPod 4s can turn active noise-canceling on and off if you rub the earbud's stem, but I haven't quite mastered this yet — I've tried and sort of fumbled around, turning my podcast on and off and knocking it out of my ear. I'll keep working at it.

I'm just glad to have finally joined the 21st century.

Waymo, Tesla, and others are racing to build a potentially trillion-dollar robotaxi business. But after riding in both cars, visiting Waymo's San Francisco depot, interviewing safety engineers, and activists — we discovered that nothing on the road today is truly autonomous. In this episode of The Limit, we explore all the reasons why self-driving cars are almost impossible.

• San José airport starts testing an AI robot called José to assist travelers.
• The pilot test launched on Tuesday amid travel chaos at many US airports.
• Some TSA workers have stopped coming into work due to a government shutdown.

One of Silicon Valley's main airports just made its newest hire, a robot named "José."

San José Mineta International Airport is turning to artificial intelligence to ease the strain of modern air travel, debuting "José," a humanoid robot, as some US airports grapple with staffing shortages and widespread delays.

Developed by Silicon Valley startup IntBot, José is designed to greet passengers, answer questions, and provide real-time updates while autonomously navigating busy terminals.

The robot will be stationed in SJC's Terminal B as part of a four-month pilot, "singlehandedly running his own gate," according to an email previewing the test that referred to José as the airport's "newest hire."

Airport officials said the launch highlights San José's role as a testing ground for emerging technologies to improve customer service.

"By piloting IntBot, we're exploring how artificial intelligence can enhance the passenger journey while reinforcing SJC's role as the gateway to Silicon Valley," said SJC Director of Aviation Mookie Patel.

The timing is notable. Airports across the US have been hit by long security lines and travel chaos, driven in part by many Transportation Security Administration workers not reporting to work during a partial government shutdown. With TSA agents going unpaid at the height of the spring break season, some airports have struggled to maintain normal operations.

José the robot represents a broader push to automate parts of the airport experience, from passenger assistance to information delivery.

SJC officials said the pilot will help evaluate how multimodal AI, combining vision, audio, and language, performs in real-world environments.

The future of air travel may include a robotic helping hand — and it can't come fast enough for weary vacationers stuck in long lines.

Sign up for BI's Tech Memo newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com.

• At law firms, the billable hour is the standard way to charge clients. But timekeeping is a pain.
• The startup PointOne says it's using AI to help lawyers auto-complete timesheets and bill more time.
• PointOne raised $16 million in a funding round led by the venture capital firm 8VC.

Tracking hours is part of how lawyers get paid. It's also the bane of the profession.

A startup called PointOne wants to eliminate the most tedious part of a lawyer's job. It says its AI-powered platform passively tracks a lawyer's computer activity and uses it to complete timesheets.

The company grew revenue tenfold since July, says PointOne cofounder Katon Luaces, after signing up dozens of law firm customers, ranging from a global 1,200-lawyer outfit to solo practitioners.

Investors are taking notice. After making a small earlier investment, the Joe Londsale-founded venture firm 8VC is leading a $16 million Series A round for PointOne, Luaces tells Business Insider. Existing investors Bessemer Venture Partners, General Catalyst, and Y Combinator also participated.

Founders are flooding into legal tech, betting they can turn large language models into products law firms will trust — and competing for attention in an estimated $1 trillion industry.

Jack Moshkovich, an 8VC partner, said the market is crowded with companies trying to help lawyers do work faster. That leaves more whitespace, he said, on the operational side of the business.

Luaces isn't a lawyer. In 2019, he was a computer science major and a Google intern as the company's researchers were laying the groundwork for modern large language models.

He saw legal work as a natural target for the technology because so much of it is repetitive and text-heavy. By 2023, he and his roommate, Jeremy Ben-Meir, along with a third cofounder, Adrian Parlow, started sketching out an idea for a legal startup. (Parlow left PointOne last year and joined legal-tech giant Legora.)

When Luaces asked lawyers which part of the job they hated most, he kept hearing the same answer: timekeeping. At most law firms, the billable hour is the standard way to charge clients. Lawyers log the work they do for each client — often in six-minute increments — then tally those hours and bill accordingly. Many still track their hours in a spreadsheet or by hand on a legal pad.

PointOne's platform runs in the background as lawyers move between apps, then fills in time entries with the client, matter, a description of the work, and standardized legal codes.

Security and confidentiality are essential for law firms. Clients trust them with trade secrets and other closely held information, leaving little room for error from any software vendor.

When asked how lawyers feel about software watching them work, Luaces said their dislike of timekeeping helps overcome any discomfort. PointOne says it encrypts stored sensitive data, does not train models on firm data, and gives firms the option to use models in a private Azure environment.

For lawyers, "this is like magic beans," Luaces said.

Time savings aren't the point

Law firms are still working out how to use artificial intelligence to work faster without hurting their economics. Software that saves time can also reduce the number of hours a firm can bill.

PointOne, however, is not pitching itself as a way to save lawyers' time. Instead, it says it can help firms capture time that would otherwise go unbilled.

Some share of legal work never makes it into timesheets. Junior lawyers may undercount how long a task took, either because they're still learning or because they're embarrassed. More often, Luaces said, lawyers skip billing for small tasks because logging them takes almost as long as the work itself.

A lawyer might spend four minutes writing a client email. "I can either spend the next four minutes creating the time entry for it, or I can do more work," Luaces said. "Nine out of 10 times, everyone chooses to do more work."

He says the company's software can increase revenue by capturing billable time that would otherwise be lost.

PointOne isn't the only company making such promises. Its biggest competitor, Laurel, provides professional services firms with analytics about their operations, including time. It's raised over $150 million in funding since 2016, compared to PointOne's $20 million total.

PointOne wants to position itself for a broader shift in how legal work gets priced. Corporate clients are pushing back on soaring legal bills, and as artificial intelligence threatens to trim billable hours, firms are under pressure to test alternatives to hourly billing, including fixed fees for certain matters. Luaces said PointOne's data can help firms better understand the labor behind a matter, which in turn can help them price that work more precisely.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at mrussell@businessinsider.com or Signal at @MeliaRussell.01. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• 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.

• Rudrojas Kunvar, 16, built Evion, an AI tool that helps farmers analyze crop health.
• The tool collects aerial crop data from drone-captured images.
• Kunvar created Evion to make that data more accessible to small and midsize farms.

While meeting with a venture capitalist last year, 16-year-old Rudrojas Kunvar received an offer that would excite even the most nonchalant teens: accept $300,000 to drop out of high school and run his AI startup full-time.

"It was definitely a rough couple of weeks of contemplating," Kunvar, who lives in Germantown, Maryland, told Business Insider. "That's a lot of money."

Kunvar had spent the summer before building Evion, a free AI crop-analysis tool that uses images taken by basic camera drones that farmers can purchase themselves.

The AI model analyzes images and generates a crop health map that farmers can integrate into their existing platforms or access via a dashboard. Green means healthy, while red means unhealthy.

"Farmers can use that to predict the future of their crops," Kunvar said. "You can see what areas need more water or fertilizer, rather than just spraying everywhere."

Like construction and defense, drones are reshaping America's agriculture industry. There were about 5,500 agricultural drones registered with the Federal Aviation Administration in 2025, up from about 1,000 in 2024, according to Michigan State University researchers.

Kunvar said Evion can help farmers save money because the targeted data can eliminate crop health uncertainty, meaning they'll be less likely to waste water or fertilizer.

Kunvar says Evion is positioned as an alternative to companies that market pricey agricultural drone products or services. Instead, farmers can buy cheap camera drones, take their own photos, and upload the information themselves.

"It's meant to be a more affordable plan for these low to mid-scale farms," Kunvar.

After building Evion, Kunvar partnered with Jacob Lee, who has experience creating tech tools, to expand its reach. Kunvar launched the initial pilot in the fall.

Ultimately, Kunvar declined the $300,000 drop-out offer, saying he wanted to ensure his product remained accessible and didn't get wrapped up in chasing profits.

It all started with a question

The idea behind Evion came during Kunvar's sophomore year at Poolesville High School in Montgomery County while attending a community festival. One-third of Montgomery County is designated as an Agricultural Reserve, or protected local land meant to preserve rural space.

"I asked a farmer about how they're able to tell when a disease is coming or what slight discoloration means," Kunvar said. "Essentially, he said he's guessing. I spoke to a few other farmers, and I realized there was a common thread among all of their responses."

Kunvar, who said he's had a lifelong love for technology, was surprised.

"We've had a lot of AI advancements in various verticals and various industries," he said. "Why isn't there much happening for agriculture?"

Initially, Kunvar wanted to make his own fleet of fully autonomous drones that could capture the data, but went a different direction after talking with mentors and crunching the numbers. Instead, he studied drones and pinpointed what's driving their cost: the multispectral camera.

"The camera was the leading cost. I wondered, 'What if there's a way to get similar data without needing this camera? What if I could use a simple camera?'" Kunvar said.

He pointed toward Tesla and its autonomous vehicles as proof it work. Unlike Waymo and other companies that use lidar, Tesla relies on cameras.

After setting up the logistics and AI model, the founders sought clients by sending cold emails and LinkedIn messages. They found better luck, however, partnering with agriculture-oriented nonprofits and organizations to reach farmers.

Now, the technology is helping farmers in North America, Southeast Asia, and India.

As for his future plans, Kunvar wants to continue growing Evion while exploring opportunities in different fields, including AI infrastructure.

"There's so much ambiguity in entrepreneurship, especially in startups, but I've learned there's beauty in ambiguity," Kunvar said. "There's been times where nothing's working out, and then you have the tiniest win, and it's like, 'wow, maybe I can do this.'"

• 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."

• IBM's consulting arm monitors the work of AI agents using a real-time dashboard.
• IBM says AI agents have sped up security investigations, cutting task time from 45 to a few minutes.
• IBM Consulting's revenue reached $21 billion in 2025, driven by demand for AI solutions.

At IBM's consulting arm, the future isn't a slide deck or a strategy memo — it's a live dashboard where humans monitor the work of AI agents in real time.

Earlier this month, Mohamad Ali, senior vice president of IBM Consulting, walked Business Insider through the dashboard that the company both uses internally and recently released to clients.

"Every hour I can see what's going on with all the humans associated with digital workers," and vice versa, he said. "That is the new consulting model going forward."

The dashboard is known internally as "Consulting Advantage." The company unveiled it in 2024 to help its own consultants build and manage teams of AI agents. This January, it unveiled "Enterprise Advantage," a similar version of the platform for clients that allows them to build and manage AI agents at scale.

In recent years, the firm has made itself the testing ground for building and deploying digital workers as it prepares clients for a future defined by AI. Ali said the firm has digital staff working side by side with humans on more than 150 client engagements.

Take the example of a typical security operations center, he said. When an alert comes in, a human investigator would normally spend about 45 minutes combing through logs to figure out what went wrong and what to do next. At IBM, he said, that process is increasingly handled by AI.

Digital workers first "generate an investigation plan." Then they execute it in real time. Multiple agents tackle different parts of the problem simultaneously, passing tasks back and forth, he said. Then they run a risk analysis and produce a report. The process now takes just a couple of minutes. The findings are then passed back to a human — with key actions highlighted — and the human verifies it.

In January alone, IBM used this approach to complete 52,000 investigations, Ali said.

IBM has evolved dramatically from its early days as a maker of mainframe computers into a key player in the AI boom. The company said its generative AI department was valued at $12.5 billion during its fourth-quarter earnings call.

Its consulting department, especially, has seen an uptick due to demand for generative AI and services that help clients implement it. Consulting revenue for 2025 came in at over $21 billion, up from about $20.7 billion in 2024.

IBM Consulting has been around for decades. The company acquired PwC's consulting arm in 2002. PwC would later rebuild its consulting business after a five-year noncompete clause expired.

IBM Consulting now employs about 150,000 employees and says its work overlaps with the Big Four and more technology-focused firms like Accenture.

"We don't do, like, what markets you should be in," Ali said. "We do strategy around 'how do you take your corporate strategy and implement it?'"

And right now, he said, there's a big question in corporate strategy: How do you prepare for a world where humans work alongside AI agents?

• Buyers have been willing to pay a premium of up to 40% to buy Anduril shares.
• The steep markup reflects a two-tiered class for accessing stock in the hottest startups.
• Data from Caplight highlights a supply imbalance, with buyer demand surging to 97% while sellers' demand is at 3%.

Anduril hasn't even finalized its next funding round, and investors are already eager to pay up like it's a sold-out concert. As marquee venture firms Thrive Capital and Andreessen Horowitz line up to back the defense tech startup at a reported $60 billion valuation, others shut out of the deal are scrambling to buy shares on secondary markets at steep premiums.

"Demand is so significant that buyers who have FOMO are willing to pay huge premiums for access," said Kelly Rodriques, CEO of Forge Global, a private marketplace exchange for shares of private companies like Anduril. "The company hates when this happens, but it happens."

The frenzy around investing in Anduril reflects the growing divide in private markets: access to the hottest startups is split between the VC firms that get in at a certain price and everyone else, forced to pay up on the sidelines. Anthropic has also seen a premium for secondary shares, though not as significant, said Rodriques.

Those investors shut out of the company's fundraising round are forced to buy via secondary markets, with existing stock in the company being sold by current or former employees or early investors. The rush for shares reminds Rodriques of buying tickets to see Taylor Swift on Stubhub when her concert sells out in minutes.

"It's scalping," he said.

Interested buyers have been willing to pay a premium of up to 40% above the $60 billion valuation to buy Anduril shares, according to Rodriques and Greg Martin, managing director and co-founder at Rainmaker Securities, another private marketplace exchange. The deals are not yet finalized because a willing seller and the company's blessing are still required.

"The magnitude of the premium is unusual," said Martin. "Usually we see premiums in the 5% to 15% range."

Anduril declined to comment for this story. Cofounders Palmer Luckey and Matt Grimm have loudly railed against unauthorized sales of the company's shares, publicly calling out some firms as "frauds."

"If I were an investor looking at this 'opportunity,' I'd run for the hills," Grimm posted in December. "Secondary markets are rife with fraud and bad actors, and it pains me to see these bottom feeders profiting off Anduril's growth while fleecing retail investors through unreasonable or opaque fee structures."

The founders have tightly controlled Andruil's stock, requiring would-be sellers to offer the company a first right of refusal to buy back those shares or assign the sale to a buyer of Andruil's choosing. The limited supply is a major reason shares have been among the hardest to obtain for any startup since last year, driving investor "frenzy."

Data from Caplight highlights a massive supply imbalance in the secondary market for Anduril stock, with buyer demand surging to 97% of total volume compared to just 3% from willing sellers—a stark shift from a 69-to-31 split in February.

If demand for Anduril shares is so high, the obvious question is: Why doesn't the company raise its share price to avoid leaving money on the table?

To explain, Rodriques went back to the analogy of a Taylor Swift concert or Nike shoes. Just because some people are willing to pay more does not mean the company wants to set its prices so high.

"It's the same reason Nike doesn't sell sneakers for $2000 if there's a secondary market for a hard-to-get sneaker," Rodriques said. "It's not in their best interest to charge their customers $2000 for a pair of shoes."

Similarly, Anduril would prefer to raise capital from its chosen VCs.

"The company has gotten to a $60 billion valuation by doing a very detailed and thorough job of working with some of the best investors in the world," he said.

• This post originally appeared in the BI Today newsletter.
• You can sign up for Business Insider's daily newsletter here.

Unlocking a new vibe

At Business Insider, we like to keep you on the cutting edge of innovation and work.

Vibe coding marries the two.

This new tech — which enables even non-techies to code — is upending assumptions in almost every direction.

That's why we've created a new weekly newsletter on the topic: Vibe Mode. You can sign up here!

And there's an awful lot to cover. The prospect that vibe coding (or now "vibe designing") will make software companies more replaceable is denting their stocks. It's also stressing private credit, which we're learning has financed some of these businesses. (Not everyone loves the name "vibe coding," btw.)

Vibe coding is exciting many software engineers who are bingeing on the new tech and obsessing about all it can help them do.

At the same time, it's exhausting engineers who preferred, or at least were used to, earlier ways of working and are mentally fatigued from how these tools are changing coding.

It's creating a whole new class of companies, including Lovable, Replit, and Cursor, which are reaching valuations in the multiple billions of dollars.

It's concerning C-suite execs who are eager to save money with vibe coding but also are worried about its costs.

And it has the Business Insider team hustling to deliver for you on all of these fronts.

We've got Shuby Goel covering the pure-play vibe-coding companies and Ben Bergman on the financials from the West Coast. Our tech columnist Alistair Barr has been chronicling the changing software business for months. Meanwhile, Chong Ming Lee has been interviewing users and trying it himself, and Brent Griffiths has been writing about software engineers' highs and lows. Alex Nicoll is on private credit players, and our markets team is deep into the investing angles.

You can reach out to any of them with ideas or tips.

What are we missing? As always, please reach out at eic@businessinsider.com.

• If the AI boom ends up a bust, it won't be nearly as brutal as the dot-com crash, Igor Pejic says.
• The "Tech Money" author said Big Tech's self-reliance, varied businesses, and deep pockets help.
• However, he said the rise of index funds means a market slump would have widespread impacts.

If the AI boom collapses, it won't be as catastrophic as the dot-com crash — but the shockwave will be felt far and wide, Igor Pejic says.

The banker and author of a new guide for tech investors titled "Tech Money" told Business Insider this week that Big Tech's unprecedented dominance will limit the magnitude of any market decline.

Pejic underscored the greater "stickiness" of companies like Alphabet and Microsoft compared to the leading companies of the past, such as Exxon Mobil, General Motors, and IBM.

Big Tech companies have remained dominant for decades partly because of their platform models, which give them "almost limitless pricing power" and make them "almost impossible to dislodge," he said.

In other words, they've become powerfully entrenched by attracting so many users, app developers, hardware suppliers, advertisers, and other parties to their ecosystems over time. Now they can easily hike their fees, and new market entrants struggle to capture any market share from them.

Pejic also pointed out that Apple, Meta, and their peers have successfully navigated multiple technological shifts, such as moving from desktop computers to mobile devices and from on-premises IT equipment to cloud hosting.

Big Tech companies also throw off gobs of cash, enabling them to place several big bets at once, and fund their investments instead of relying on costly external financing. Pejic described that as a "moat" against rivals, especially in an AI race characterized by "tremendous infrastructure costs."

Shades of the past

Pejic drew several parallels between the AI boom and the dot-com bubble. The similarities include a game-changing technology, partnerships and financing deals between key players, the buildout of network infrastructure, and "extreme" valuations, he said.

Yet Pejic said an AI crash would "not be as devastating as the dot-com bubble when it burst."

Any market sell-off will be briefer and less severe because today's tech giants have highly profitable core businesses, he said, meaning their stock prices won't collapse completely if their AI bets flop.

They're also less likely to suffer a cash crunch or trigger a financial crisis given their limited reliance on bank funding, and investors have been more discerning about which AI stocks they buy versus rushing to own any business with ".com" in its name, he said.

Pejic did raise some concerns, including the fact that so many companies are spending huge amounts to build the best AI model possible, but the market can probably only support a few of them in the end.

He also flagged the immense amount of investor cash riding on a handful of tech stocks, given the rise of index funds that own indexes such as the S&P 500, which is weighted by market capitalization and thus intensely concentrated in the Magnificent Seven.

"It's very difficult to find a place to hide if this really goes down," Pejic said. "If you're keeping your money in the stock market and AI goes down, it will affect everything."

He noted that risk will only become greater as AI giants such as OpenAI, xAI, and Anthropic go public and join the index, increasing everyday investors' exposure to AI.

Pejic said owning Big Tech stocks was "perhaps the safest way" to profit from AI, given their self-reliance, vast resources, and diversified businesses, which should limit their downside and insulate them from industry shocks such as the emergence of DeepSeek.

For example, he praised Apple's approach of refraining from spending hundreds of billions on microchips and data centers, in favor of seeing how the AI race plays out, and partnering with peers or buying in capabilities to harness the tech.

Apple might not be the "most exciting company," but for investors, owning it is a "clever and quite safe strategy without burning too much cash," he said.

• Kanav Bhatnagar's job title, forward deployed engineer, has been described as the "hottest role in AI."
• He said his job is to be a customer-facing engineer who tailors products for clients.
• Context-switching and communication are important skills for FDEs, he said.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Kanav Bhatnagar, 24, a forward-deployed engineer at Rippling, an HR tech company, who lives and works in New York City. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

I got into software development because I wanted to build cool stuff.

Amazon hired me as a software engineer out of college, and it was a big learning opportunity, teaching me the fundamentals of engineering.

But it was a behemoth of a company, and I eventually wanted to work in a smaller environment where I could take more personal ownership over product decisions and learn more on the job.

After 2 ½ years at Amazon, I interviewed at a sales startup called Actively AI, where I landed a role in forward-deployed engineering.

The "FDE" role was popularized by Palantir, and it has been described as the "hottest role in AI." I liked that it combined software engineering with understanding business.

I spent roughly six months at Actively AI before I joined the AI-forward HR tech company Rippling as a senior FDE, in October 2025.

I've now been an FDE for roughly a year. Put simply, I'm a customer-facing engineer who tailors our product to each client. They describe their challenges and needs, and I build solutions and customizations.

Here's what my day-to-day is like, and the skills you need to break into this role.

My primary job is listening to customers. The results are very rewarding.

Software engineers can feel far removed from customers, because they often can't see their impact. In this job, I'm closer to the front lines.

A core software engineer can build something that serves the majority of use cases, but AI tools usually need more customization to work properly than regular software features. That's when an FDE steps in.

For example, a restaurant chain might have a labor-intensive process for tracking their payroll data that involves spreadsheets and manual data entry, which I'd help them to eliminate within Rippling's platform by using custom code and AI.

My primary job is listening to customers and understanding their problems, which was a learning curve for me, coming from a software engineering background. On a day-to-day basis, I'm in a lot of customer meetings, including visiting businesses who use our product to talk with employees about their experience with it. I probably spend an equal amount of time coding solutions and interacting with our core product teams.

Context-switching is an important skill to master in this job, where you could go from talking to a customer to debugging something to jumping onto another customer call shortly after.

I don't rely on an engineer to code something for me. I make a lot of decisions about the shape of the product and how to execute on it, which I really enjoy. It's very rewarding when a customer looks at what I've built after multiple iterations and says, "This is exactly what I wanted."

Technical and communication skills are equally important as an FDE

I think it would be pretty hard, although not impossible, to become an FDE without a technical background. With the dawn of vibe coding, it might become easier, though.

In my experience, FDE interviews feature technical rounds that test your coding skills, like in traditional software engineering interviews. You also have to show you can talk with any customer, including non-technical people, by asking the right questions to understand a customer's problem, and talk through how you'd design the solution.

To prepare for interviews, I have used consulting industry interview questions, which require you to explain how you'd meet client requests. I think both fields overlap, requiring rapid diagnosis, clarifying questions, and a clear plan of action.

There's probably more breadth than depth of technical knowledge required. In today's age of rapidly evolving technology, I try to spend time outside of work understanding what's new in the AI world and what new AI tools I can be using in my workflow by talking to colleagues and researching online.

I think my job is preparing me to be a founder one day

I'm interested in founding my own company one day, and I've previously heard someone describing the FDE role as a founder bootcamp. It provides a good foundational layer for entrepreneurship, helping you understand how a business functions from the sales process to how to build things.

The FDE role is evolving and no one really knows what direction it's heading in. Even if AI turns out to be unprofitable, I think FDEs will still have a place because of the demand for customer software. Products are becoming easier to build, and people in this role will be needed to handle large contracts with clients.

Palantir is an example of a company that's had FDEs since the 2010s, even before AI was mainstream.

OpenAI has built one of the most popular products in the world. Now it has to figure out how to pay for it.

Enter Fidji Simo.

Simo, the 40-year-old former Instacart CEO and longtime Meta executive, became OpenAI's product boss in August under CEO Sam Altman. While Altman has long been the face of OpenAI, Simo is increasingly shaping how the company operates and makes money.

"Part of bringing me on, and giving me the responsibilities of a CEO, was to make sure that I could really run that part of the company with autonomy," Simo, whose title is CEO of applications, told Business Insider.

Altman defers to Simo when he doesn't feel strongly, she said, and they "debate it out" when he does.

As OpenAI races toward a possible IPO later this year, Simo, who oversees nearly two-thirds of the company, has a delicate balancing act. She must craft a strategy to make products profitable, while convincing staffers who joined a research-driven organization that commercialization won't change the mission.

The stakes are high. Deutsche Bank estimated that OpenAI is expected to amass the "largest startup losses in history," totaling a projected $143 billion between 2024 and 2029. (An OpenAI spokesperson said that figure is incorrect, and one person familiar with the numbers said OpenAI's internal projections are in line with other reports of $111 billion cash burn by 2030.)

Competitors like Anthropic and Google are starting to erode OpenAI's early and commanding lead and, in some cases, surging ahead. Anthropic's coding tool has outperformed OpenAI's even after the latter made dominance in coding its top priority, a person familiar with internal goals told Business Insider.

OpenAI and Simo now face pressure to create the most powerful models and turn them into accessible and marketable products that can sustain the enormous cost of training and deployment.

"This AI moment is so unique that there is really no blueprint for OpenAI to follow," UBS analyst Karl Keirstead told Business Insider. "This is uncharted territory."

In an interview, Simo was warm and charismatic — a charm paired with a reputation for intensity and follow-through. This month, she unveiled a strategy shift for the company: an increased focus on coding and enterprise users.

"We cannot miss this moment because we are distracted by side quests," Simo told employees at an all-hands meeting, according to a person familiar with her remarks. The company needs to nail productivity — primarily on the business side, and then on the consumer side, she said. "Everything else is going to have to take a backseat to those priorities."

Former colleagues said they were familiar with this laser focus.

One former Meta employee recalled a moment when, after a contentious meeting, Simo sent a one-line follow-up saying she was unlikely to change her mind, so the team shouldn't waste time trying to persuade her. She has little patience for internal debates that lose sight of the product, the former employee said, and she's skilled at "being super clear in her directive so teams don't scramble and waste time."

Priya Monga, who served as Simo's chief of staff at Facebook and Instacart and is now director of go-to-market strategy at Instacart, said Simo arrives at any new role having mapped out the full journey.

"She knows she's going from A to Z, and she sees that right at the beginning," Monga said. "In the back of her mind, she has already really thought a lot about the broader visionary 10-year road map."

Interviews with Simo, current and former OpenAI employees, and former colleagues reveal how she's approaching one of the company's most crucial years — and the mark she's already made on it.

Competing for resources

A few months after she joined OpenAI, Simo invited the company's researchers to a series of roundtable meetings.

She wanted to talk about advertising inside the AI giant's flagship product, ChatGPT: what it might look like, what guardrails should be in place, and what principles would make AI ads publicly defensible. Nearly 100 employees weighed in.

For years, OpenAI executives said the company wouldn't turn to ads for revenue. Altman referred to the idea as a "last resort." A year later, Altman hired Simo, a seasoned executive with a reputation for monetizing new products. In February, OpenAI began testing ads.

The drive to become more product-focused predated Simo, two people familiar with the company's internal strategy told Business Insider.

After ChatGPT took off in 2023, OpenAI leaders decided to put research teams in two buckets: one for improving products, and another centered on more forward-looking exploratory projects. In the years since, the company has faced more pressure to roll out products as competitors gained ground.

OpenAI had two broad goals in 2025, according to a former executive: reach a $12 billion revenue run rate, which it handily beat midway through the year, and "dominate in AI coding," which it did not. It was the first time the company had failed to meet a major internal objective, according to the person familiar with the goals.

Codex, OpenAI's coding tool, has since reached more than 2 million weekly active users, nearly four times as many as at the start of the year. Anthropic doesn't disclose active users; it said in February that Claude Code's run rate revenue is more than $2.5 billion, and its weekly active users had doubled since January 1.

OpenAI leadership realized it needed to start acting more like a Big Tech company, not a research lab. "There's definitely some stress happening to the company, and no company wants to be behind," one of the people familiar with the company's strategy said.

Since Simo joined, OpenAI has moved several executives into different roles, two people with knowledge of the shifts said.

A few months after she arrived, Kevin Weil moved from chief product officer to vice president of OpenAI for science, and VP of engineering Srinivas Narayanan became chief technical officer of B2B applications. In January, Chief Operating Officer Brad Lightcap shifted to overseeing commercial operations, while Barret Zoph began overseeing B2B after he rejoined the company. Weil and Narayanan underwent title changes in September, according to their LinkedIn profiles.

Simo has also personally recruited a number of high-level executives from across Big Tech, including former Facebook VP Vijaye Raji, Slack CEO Denise Dresser, OpenClaw founder Peter Steinberger, and several executives from Amazon, Shopify, and Instagram, according to a person familiar with the leadership changes.

Since Simo started, the company's post-training team, which fine-tunes AI models after initial training, has acted as a bridge between research and product teams. The team interfaces directly with Simo about research projects, a person with knowledge of the organizational strategy said.

Early on, Simo told Business Insider, she did a "listening tour." More than 200 people took up her offer to meet, she said. That helped her better understand the company and culture and build trust with her new colleagues.

"I think that really made the company feel like I wasn't jumping in with preconceived notions," she said. "I was really trying to understand what was right for this company at this specific moment in time."

Simo said she manages the company's product research team alongside Mark Chen, the company's chief research officer. One of her first priorities was to understand how the research side operated, something she worked closely with Chen on.

As ChatGPT grows — it has nearly a billion weekly users — and its valuation surges, resources like compute power — the GPU chips, energy, and data-center capacity required to train and run AI models — have become increasingly competitive.

The tension between research and product has become increasingly visible inside OpenAI, some insiders say. Some researchers told Business Insider that the focus on user optimization and product growth risks narrowing the lab's ability to chase more exploratory work.

Earlier this year, vice president of research Jerry Tworek resigned after seven years at OpenAI, saying in a post on X that he wanted to "explore types of research that are hard to do at OpenAI."

Others have voiced similar frustrations. Tom Cunningham, the company's chief economist, left in December over friction between OpenAI's work on the economic impact of AI and the marketing of its product, Wired reported at the time.

One former researcher told Business Insider that as ChatGPT has grown, they "started feeling a little bit of pushback" from the rest of the company and began to feel as if "ambitious research" didn't have a place at the company anymore. Another former employee said the pivot towards a more traditional tech culture at OpenAI was "inevitable," but it has led to a "changing of the guard."

"At the end of the day, it's about survival," they said.

Chen has pushed back against claims that the company is driving a product-focused agenda. "The majority of our compute is allocated to foundational research and exploration — and not product milestones," he wrote on X in February.

Are we going to turn into Big Tech?

Simo was hired by OpenAI after serving on the board for more than a year.

Some employees, Simo told Business Insider, worried that her arrival meant OpenAI would transform into a Big Tech clone. "Is the only way to build this big product company to hire tons of people and kind of do what Big Tech is doing?" she recalled employees asking.

She spent her first few months trying to convince them that the answer was no.

One of her early moves was a company-wide effort to eliminate the unnecessary bureaucracy that can bog down a large organization. She publishes a monthly update on the company's Slack detailing obstacles that have been removed — everything from small annoyances like how to get headphones to bigger structural bottlenecks like clunky code reviews. She created a dedicated inbox where employees could flag issues and says she reads every submission.

"I'm very focused on scaling the company without creating the excess process and friction that many of us have seen in big tech," read an excerpt of her first dispatch.

Her aim, she said, is to keep OpenAI small, focused, and process-light. To that end, Simo said, OpenAI has an advantage that most Big Tech companies don't: It started as a research lab.

"There is no product if there is no research," Simo said. It's easier to build products on top of a strong research base than to put a research lab on top of a product-driven company, she added.

Big Tech would "put products out into the world and then kind of react to what would happen," Simo said. "We started with a research lab that was very focused on safety, and really thought of safety as a leading research field and not as the thing you do right before the launch."

"I think we have a very big advantage in how we think about problems and anticipating where the technology is going and feeling a lot of responsibility for guiding that technology towards the right place," she added.

Vivek Sharma, who worked under Simo at Meta, said that's a natural part of the maturation process in tech.

"Tension is a good sign someone is advancing beyond the basics," he said. "If there's no tension, no division happening — real expertise, experience, past multi-domain decisions haven't been made."

'Founder mode'

Simo isn't a traditional Silicon Valley insider. Raised in Sète, a fishing town on France's Mediterranean coast, she was the first in her family to graduate from high school before earning a place at one of France's elite business schools.

From there, she worked her way into tech — first through an internship at eBay, then at Facebook, where she went on to help monetize the company's core app and eventually oversee some of its most ambitious product expansions. She also served as CEO at Instacart, where she helped steer the company through the pandemic boom and took it public in 2023 during a notoriously difficult market for tech IPOs.

Simo married her high school sweetheart, former software engineer turned chocolatier Remy Miralles, in 2011; they have a young daughter. Simo has spoken in the past about how navigating chronic health issues, including endometriosis and the nervous system disorder POTS, has shaped some of her work. She cofounded a women's health venture called the Metrodora Institute and was largely responsible for the launch of ChatGPT Health.

Former colleagues describe Simo as intense, empathetic, and known to crack a joke during a high-stakes meeting.

They say that background shapes how she leads. Sharma described her as a "hard-charging" executive with a distinctly human lens — someone who thinks about what ordinary people would actually find useful, not just what's technologically impressive.

Nick Turley, the head of ChatGPT who reports to Simo, said she has a "customer orientation" that has reshaped how the company approaches products. During an interview, he said that she has driven a new focus on reliability and performance over "flashy" new tech.

She also has a relentless operating tempo. Turley described it as her propensity to go "founder-mode."

"She will read every single document — including the links," he said.

Daniel Danker, who worked with Simo on Facebook's video team and later at Instacart, said "she was causing all of Facebook to move faster."

Simo's track record of commercialization is not without controversy.

At Facebook, she oversaw the company's video push, which later came under fire for inflating numbers. Facebook admitted in 2016 that it had overestimated how long viewers watched video ads by 60 to 80 percent; a lawsuit alleged the figure was as high as 900 percent. Facebook settled for $40 million while admitting no wrongdoing.

At Instacart, Simo inherited a fraught relationship with gig workers. On her first day as CEO in August 2021, she published an open letter pledging to be "a thoughtful and open partner" to the company's hundreds of thousands of gig workers, and invited them to email her directly.

The Gig Workers Collective, representing some 13,000 contract workers, called for a boycott and walkoff within weeks, telling Fortune that her responses were "basically canned answers."

OpenAI's next chapter

At OpenAI, Simo has helped push several high-profile initiatives, including a newsletter product called ChatGPT Pulse, OpenAI's Frontier enterprise agents, and advertising. This month, the company launched GPT-5.4, a model that incorporates coding capabilities into its core system, and announced a desktop "superapp," which Simo will oversee.

Simo said she approaches new product launches by involving employees throughout the process. She pitched those advertising roundtables by sharing her own ideas for what kind of ads the company could be proud of, and asking employees to share where they agreed and disagreed.

"The way I approached it was not to tell the company we're going to have ads. It's to actually start a dialogue," Simo told Business Insider. "That's not usually the way it goes. That's a big difference for this place."

As product chief, Simo has to prepare the company for battle inside a complex leadership structure, working closely with Altman.

Simo has said the two are complementary and aligned on vision, with Altman focusing heavily on research and compute scaling while she drives product execution.

It's a dynamic familiar to Simo, who worked closely with Mark Zuckerberg. She had a special talent for knowing how to navigate the CEO, Sharma said.

OpenAI can be a cutthroat place to work for leaders. As one former executive put it, OpenAI is such a rocket ship that there's very little time or patience for those who don't hit the ground running. "What a leader needs to do is astounding," the person said.

"The speed at which OpenAI is growing, it's relatively easy for Sam to hire the best, most famous people, but it's hard to keep them. His mode is: Nobody is not sacrificeable," the person said. "'You have to magically grow to what I think you can do right now.'"

OpenAI no longer has the luxury of being a research lab dreaming about the future of AI. It has rapidly become a global consumer product under intense scrutiny. Now Simo's job is to help it grow up without losing what made it successful in the first place.

Have a tip? Contact these reporters via email at astewart@businessinsider.com, gkay@businessinsider.com, or pdixit@insider.com. You can also reach them through the secure-messaging app Signal at +1-425-344-8242 and 248-894-6012, or via WhatsApp at +857-753-3949. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are exploding in popularity.
• Congress has been catching up, and there are now several bills related to prediction markets.
• Here are the ones to keep an eye on.

Prediction markets are on the rise, and ideas have begun flying on Capitol Hill about all the ways to contain them.

That includes everything from preventing insider trading, to keeping lawmakers off platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, to banning betting on things like the Oscars or the Super Bowl halftime show.

None of these bills are close to becoming law. Congress is still catching up when it comes to prediction markets, and the Trump administration has taken a friendly regulatory approach toward the industry.

But they're worth keeping an eye on, especially as more Americans learn about prediction markets and as scrutiny over suspicious trades tied to war increases.

• Kalshi's cofounders said their platform was designed to help random people flourish.
• They said their best market makers "may not actually be the experts or the authority figures."
• One of their favorites is an "Ariana Grande superfan" who knows a lot about music charts.

The brains behind Kalshi say some of their best prediction market makers are "actually random people."

"The foundational principles around prediction markets, is like a lot of these markets, the people that will price them the best may not actually be the experts or the authority figures that you usually would think about," Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour told Stripe cofounder John Collison during a recent episode of Collison's "Cheeky Pint" podcast.

Mansour said there's no single demographic for these "super forecasters," who comprise some of the prediction market giant's most important users. Out of the group, Mansour and cofounder Luana Lopes Lara have some favorites — including "a guy from Kansas."

"The best inflation forecaster on Kalshi over the last few years is not— none of the institutions or the big-name hedge funds," Mansour said. "It's this guy who lives in Kansas, never traded financial markets before, just likes to read the news, and just knows how to predict inflation. He can feel it."

Lopes Lara said his favorite user is an "Ariana Grande superfan."

"He found Kalshi during the election season, and he's like, 'I don't like the elections, whatever.' Then he found our Billboard ranking markets of like charts," she said.

The user, Lopes Lara said, has made over $150,000.

"He paid back student loans. He put himself through a master's degree, bought a car, and all those things," she said. 'And he just like loves these markets. And he's never really traded, never done anything like that before. But it's the first time that he actually has a way to monetize this very compulsive hobby that he had on music charts."

Mansour also shouted out Alan Cole, a 37-year-old economist in DC, who told The Wall Street Journal that he wagered his life savings against DOGE by betting on a Kalshi prediction market on whether federal spending would increase. (Mansour did not mention Cole by name, but the economist's story has been publicly reported.)

"Now you have a market that if you have that sort of knowledge, which maybe oftentimes is esoteric, like I'm assuming none of us have read all these tax codes, you can actually go out in the world, do research, get smarter about the world, and then get rewarded for that," Mansour said.

Kalshi has exploded in popularity since the 2024 election, when it successfully sued the US government to allow users to bet on the outcome of US elections, something that had previously been allowed only overseas.

The Trump administration has said it will ease up on prediction markets. Michael Selig, chair of the Commodity Futures Exchange Commission, has threatened to fight with state regulators who say they have the power to regulate sites like Kalshi or its rival Polymarket.

Congressional lawmakers are also looking to rein in prediction markets after high-profile news of potential insider trading as well as bets on events like the war in Iran. Kalshi has stressed that it has policies against insider trading and doesn't allow trades on war or death.

• It's easy to dunk on Mark Zuckerberg and Meta for burning $80 billion on the metaverse and then moving on.
• But that's not exactly true.
• What is true is that Zuckerberg used to spend a lot of time talking about the metaverse. Now he talks about AI instead.

Nearly five years ago, Mark Zuckerberg told us the future was the metaverse — an idea that seemed to involve all of us strapping on virtual reality goggles and interacting with digital versions of ourselves.

Now, reports say Zuckerberg's Meta is bailing on the metaverse after losing more than $80 billion on the project.

This is a fun story for people who like stories about Big Tech tripping on itself.

But it's not really true.

Start with the $80 billion that publications like The New York Times and others say Zuckerberg has lost chasing the metaverse. Meta has indeed generated losses of at least $80 billion via its Reality Labs unit, which lost more than $19 billion in 2025 alone.

But Reality Labs is not going away. That's because Reality Labs makes lots of things beyond Horizon Worlds, the virtual reality space Zuckerberg told us that we would work and play in, but that almost no one actually visited.

Reality Labs also develops all the hardware Meta has been selling over the years, including its Quest virtual reality goggles, and its Ray-Ban AI glasses, which seem to have at least some consumer uptake (whether that's good for the world is a different issue).

At some point in the next couple years, Meta will roll out yet another set of glasses, purportedly designed to let you stream movies at home. (These are the same glasses Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos recently said director James Cameron can't stop talking about.)

It's entirely possible that all of Meta's device efforts will amount to very little. Efforts to get anyone but gamers to buy virtual reality headsets really haven't panned out, and while Meta, Apple, and others are now racing to bring the same tech to lightweight glasses, we have no idea if these things will ever be more than a novelty.

But for now, Meta is still plugging away at this stuff. Which means Reality Labs will continue to generate billions of dollars in losses this year and beyond.

OK. What about the idea that Meta is no longer interested in the metaverse — a notion Zuckerberg said was so important that he re-named his company after it?

That's a little trickier to assess. Meta is quite prickly about the notion that it's bailing on the metaverse: Its argument is that the metaverse doesn't have to involve headsets, and that you could do all kinds of metaverse-y things on your phone — or maybe your phone paired with some new glasses.

That's what Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth is getting at with this tweet he put out this week (and which Meta comms directed me to when I asked them for comment for this story):

Could be! But it's also true that Zuckerberg's public interest in the metaverse seems to have dramatically tapered off since 2021, when he told us the future was all about living in virtual space. (Zuckerberg had very different hair back then, too.)

Now, of course, Zuckerberg spends most of his time talking about AI, and Meta's ambitions to build "superintelligence." Which is why he's spending gazillions on AI talent and datacenters.

It's possible that all of those efforts get replaced by something else, too. Everyone in tech swears that the current AI boom really is a world-reshaping moment, and maybe it will be. But if you're still wondering what happened to all those NFTs you bought in 2021, I'll forgive you if you're going to remain in a wait-and-see on this one.

There is another way to think about Meta's interest in both the metaverse and AI. They're both shiny new things that offer Zuckerberg the promise of something he's wanted for a very long time: a way to run a business without having to rely on Google or Apple as his intermediaries.

Right now, Meta reaches people through phones and operating systems it doesn't control. At peak metaverse hype, Zuckerberg was clearly hoping to replace the iPhone with devices of his own. And in an AI-first world, it's possible the phone matters a lot less — or gets displaced by a new set of devices and interfaces.

That doesn't mean AI is just the metaverse with a new label. But it does suggest the through line here isn't the technology. It's Zuckerberg's recurring search for a platform he owns.

• Miro's CEO says the company is plowing cash into AI subscriptions to help employees level up.
• "Our L&D budget is unlimited tooling," Andrey Khusid said.
• AI adoption is accelerating, and with it come questions about the technology's ROI.

Plenty of companies are still debating whether costly AI subscriptions are worth it. Miro has gone the other way.

Andrey Khusid, cofounder of Miro, the maker of a popular online whiteboard platform, says the company gives employees essentially unlimited access to the latest AI tools as a way to speed up how quickly they learn and work.

That approach is possible, he said, because Miro has been profitable since 2016. The company has raised $476 million to date, and Khusid suggested it does not expect to need more capital.

Khusid framed the spending as a core part of more traditional workplace training. "Our L&D budget is unlimited tooling," he said.

Rather than asking employees to learn on their own time or pay out of pocket, he said, Miro wants that experimentation to happen inside the company, as a shared effort. He later added that there should still be a clear business case for buying any tool.

Miro's strategy is part of a wider shift in tech, where AI adoption is moving from optional to expected. A new study from engineering intelligence platform Jellyfish, based on data from more than 700 companies, found that 64% now produce a majority of their code with AI assistance. Tech giants like Google are pushing employees to use AI tools more aggressively, and Microsoft has begun tying AI usage to performance evaluations. As a result, AI fluency is quickly becoming a core workplace skill rather than a nice-to-have.

Still, Khusid says many executives ask the wrong question about AI ROI. Rather than judging the tools on individual productivity gains or subscription costs, he said Miro is trying to focus on whether the company is moving faster overall.

The company tracks projects through what he described as a "discover, define, deliver" process and measures how long it takes to move from one stage to the next. The goal is to compress that timeline as much as possible.

"The most important metric from my perspective is velocity of innovation," Khusid said. "If you don't innovate fast enough, you're out of the game."

Khusid said he doesn't think the way companies use AI today is necessarily the end state. He said it will take at least until the end of this year, or even next year, to see what a workplace shaped by these tools really looks like. At that point, Miro will take a harder look at which tools are worth the price tag.

For now, he said, Miro is already seeing time savings across engineering, product, and design. That's not always the case, though. Better tools speed code generation, he said, but code reviews can still bog down projects.

"Humans have to read it," Khusid said. At least for now.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at mrussell@businessinsider.com or Signal at @MeliaRussell.01. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• A16z cofounder Marc Andreessen recently said he practices introspection "as little as possible."
• The internet lit up with memes, challenging his theory that the "great men of history didn't sit around doing this stuff."
• Critics pointed to historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, John D. Rockefeller, and Warren Buffett.

Marc Andreessen is not digging deep within himself. He's proudly anti-introspection.

The cofounder of Andreessen Horowitz said in a recent interview that he isn't big on self-reflection. In fact, he told David Senra that he aims for "zero" introspection — or "as little as possible." He wants to be moving forward, he said, drawing an upward slope with his hand.

"I found people who dwell in the past get stuck in the past," Andreessen said. "It's a real problem. It's a problem at work, and it's a problem at home."

Andreessen also said that the "great men of history didn't sit around doing this stuff."

After Senra posted the clip online, X users sounded off in the comments — and quickly memed Andreessen's words.

Y Combinator cofounder Paul Graham replied to ask, "What?"

"That's not true," Graham wrote. "Do you not feel that Charles Darwin, for example, was among the great men of history?"

SoFi CTO Jeremy Rishel called Andreessen's take "absurdly wrong," citing examples such as Marcus Aurelius and the US founding fathers. Fifty Years founding partner Seth Bannon pointed to other examples, like John D. Rockefeller and Warren Buffett.

AppClub founder Preston Attebery pointed to a moment when Steve Jobs seemed introspective. After being ousted from Apple, Jobs told Newsweek that he "went for a lot of long walks in the woods and didn't really talk to a lot of people."

"They are telling you to forget about introspection while they go on podcasts to introspect," Opendoor product manager Fahd Ananta wrote.

Others defended Andreessen. Serial entrepreneur Ryan Carson wrote that he didn't have the patience for introspection, journaling, or therapy. The clip "made me feel less bad about it," he wrote.

Podcast host Rob Wiblin wrote that Andreessen was actually criticizing rumination, "which really is harmful most of the time."

Elon Musk posted on X: "Reinforcing negative neural pathways via therapy or introspection is a recipe for misery. Don't cut a rut in the road."

As he often does, Andreessen posted through it all. He put multiple statements from "my therapist Claude" up on his X and recommended a book. As Peter Thiel is to the antichrist, Andreessen is to introspection, he wrote.

Introspection was the combination of neuroticism, narcissism, and thumbsucking, the venture capitalist wrote.

When one interviewer asked Steve Jobs an introspective question — where he fits in the history of American inventors — Jobs responded, "I don't really think that way." Andreessen reposted the clip with one word: "Well."

Throughout it all, Andreessen took several opportunities to rag on his critics.

"A lot of you need to do more introspection, obviously," Andreessen wrote.

• Srdjan Stakic vibe-coded a security camera system for his parents to ensure their safety.
• Stakic used vibe-coding platform Lovable to get started, as well as popular AI chatbots.
• His vibe-coded software became the basis for his AI-assisted startup Alvis.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Srdjan Stakic, 49, a former film producer who vibe-coded an AI system to monitor his elderly parents and detect falls. He's now launching a company that aims to offer the technology to others. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

When I was diagnosed with stage four cancer two years ago, AI became essential.

Everything was happening so quickly: The doctors would talk to me for 15 minutes and leave me with more questions than answers. AI gave me an objective way to document and make sense of what was happening.

I'm now in remission. As my health improved, my parents' health declined, and I began helping them with cooking, cleaning, and medical appointments.

English was not their first language, and communicating with healthcare providers was tough. I recorded our conversations with their doctors and compared them to the after-visit summary using AI. I would put together all this information and translate it into Serbian for them.

But I soon wanted more than what the chatbots could offer. I wanted a system that could observe what was happening with my parents, or any other patient, and assess it through the lens of safety and dignity. I would think of how much guilt I'd feel if something happened and I wasn't there. What kind of son would I be?

I had never coded before, and I didn't have millions for an initial investment

I don't have a background in coding. I have a doctorate in health education and a master's in film production, and I have produced some films of my own.

I started outlining my idea with Gemini and ChatGPT to examine it from a tech and ethical standpoint. I built this document of what I wanted to achieve. I kept asking my family how they wanted to be treated in each scenario — like a fall or medical emergency — and I wanted to make the system flexible.

Then I transferred to Lovable. Lovable gave me a live development environment where I could describe what I wanted, see it built in real time, test it, and iterate. It connected the pieces, the frontend, the backend, the database, the authentication, the integrations, things I did not even know I needed until they were there. The chatbots helped me plan. Lovable helped me build.

I uploaded hundreds of training videos for nurses and healthcare providers to train the AI. I created a high-fidelity validation pipeline and a labeled dataset. I labeled real-world caregiving footage with established clinical benchmarks, like Stanford's C-I-CARE framework. When you approach a patient and introduce yourself, you tell them why they're there, you ask the patient's name and pronouns, and you introduce what you're about to do. You explain next steps and see if they have any questions or concerns.

I also started building an AI equipped with cameras to identify falls. I would fall in the middle of my living room and see whether the system recognized that and how long it would take.

It took me a few months to make it work

I tried different cameras and protocols, but ultimately, I had to hire an IT company to help me connect multiple cameras. The system can now identify a fall and send notifications to loved ones or EMS, and provide their location with a brief summary of their health records. The system also analyzes interactions between caregivers and my parents. It's sophisticated enough to analyze in real time — based on audio and video — if a caregiver is being rude or unprofessional. My parents have felt safer since I built this. I also built a feature that scans their environment for any trip hazards, such as cables.

I don't want to spy on my family, so I don't actively review all the video footage. When a concern is flagged, the system clips approximately 30 seconds around that moment and notifies mewith a summary of what it observed and why. It can also generate an advocacy letter from that same analysis: what was said, what was done, and how the interaction compares to the C-I-CARE framework to evaluate caregiver conduct.

I launched a company to offer this tech to others

This all started as an idea for my family, but the more I talk about it, the more people tell me they wish they had this for their parents. So I decided to launch a startup, called Alvis, to make this system available to others.

It detects falls in real time, recognizes when a caregiver goes above and beyond, and generates advocacy letters when something goes wrong. It's in private beta and accepting waitlist applications for our pilot cohort, launching April 13. The model will be a monthly subscription, similar to what families already pay for camera cloud storage, with a premium tier for AI-assisted analytics.

This week, my mom was hospitalized, and I used AI in four ways

First, I used it as a real-time medical interpreter: Every lab result went straight into Claude, so I understood what was happening immediately, not the next morning when a doctor was free.

AI was also my clinical advocate. When a history and physical exam understated her cancer history, Claude caught it. When her glucose started climbing from steroids, Claude flagged it.

Third, I used AI to translate updates into patient-friendly language in both English and Serbian.

Finally, Alvis — the camera system I designed — was running live in her hospital room all night, with her permission and a nod from her care team. It picked up her saying in Serbian, quietly, that she had endured too much. It flagged when I visited, and we recorded ourselves together.

It's amazing to see how vibe coding is democratizing access to AI tools. You can build a company that helps a very niche group that needs a specific thing. I still don't fully understand code or the extent of what I built, but it seems to be working.

• Elon Musk is about to unveil his most challenging project yet: a giant semiconductor factory.
• The billionaire has said Tesla needs to build a "Terafab" to churn out chips for its robotaxis and Optimus robot.
• One analyst said to never rule Musk out, but that building a Terafab could be harder than sending rockets to Mars.

Self-driving cars, cyborgs, and catching rockets in midair: Elon Musk can't resist the lure of the impossible.

The world's richest man has made a habit of taking on the world's most difficult engineering challenges at Tesla and SpaceX — and has often proved the doubters wrong. His latest target is a tall order even by his standards.

For several months, Musk has been talking about building a "Terafab," a mammoth factory that would churn out semiconductors critical for Tesla's ambitious rollout of robotaxis and humanoid robots.

On Saturday, he teased that an announcement was imminent. "Terafab Project launches in 7 days," Musk wrote in an X post, without providing further details.

In a January earnings call, the billionaire cited chip production as the major long-term headwind to the company's growth, suggesting that output from suppliers Samsung, TSMC, and Micron would be nowhere near enough to meet Tesla's targets as the EV giant scales its robotaxi and humanoid robot programs.

"This is definitely going to be sort of a controversial thing, but I think Tesla needs to build a Terafab," Musk told investors, adding that such a facility would also protect Tesla against geopolitical upheaval.

The Tesla CEO suggested that the company would pursue the hardest possible version of that vision, a "very big fab" that would produce and package logic and memory chips entirely in the US.

Speaking at Tesla's annual shareholder meeting last November, Musk estimated the Terafab would aim to initially produce 100,000 silicon wafers a month and could eventually grow to 1 million.

Ahead of the Terafab announcement, Tesla has begun laying the groundwork for Musk's grand plan. The tech giant is hiring a semiconductor infrastructure manager to oversee factory design and construction, per a recent job posting. The role is based in Austin, suggesting the Terafab could be built near Tesla's gigafactory on the outskirts of the city.

However, analysts told Business Insider that Tesla would face enormous challenges — and a huge bill — as it tries to master one of the most complex technologies on the planet.

"It's Musk, so I would never count it out. But I suspect this is actually harder than sending rockets to Mars," Stacy Rasgon, managing director and senior semiconductor analyst at Bernstein, told Business Insider.

Semi-impossible?

The global supply of semiconductors is almost entirely produced by a small handful of companies, many of them based in East Asia.

Manufacturing them is an expensive, complicated, and time-consuming process. Deep within hermetically sealed factories, chip designs are etched onto thin silicon wafers at the molecular level by specialist lithography machines, which are almost entirely made by one company in the Netherlands and can have a waitlist of over a year.

Rasgon said that procuring these in-demand ASML-built machines was a critical roadblock for any would-be chipmaker.

"If you're a brand new customer, you're probably waiting a couple of years before getting your hand on one of those," he said.

Rasgon added that chipmakers usually split up production of logic and memory chips and semiconductor packaging across different factories.

Musk's suggestion that Tesla could integrate them all into one facility would make scaling the Terafab even more complicated, Rasgon said, as each product has wildly different processes and economics.

Musk is not alone in fearing geopolitical disruption. The threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which would plunge global chip supply into chaos, has prompted companies, including TSMC, to build new chip fabs in the US.

But the road to US-produced semiconductors has been far from smooth. TSMC's Arizona expansion has faced years of delays and a total price tag of around $165 billion across multiple facilities.

The industry runs on technical knowledge that is deeply embedded within leading companies. TSMC flew employees out from Taiwan to help the Arizona facility ramp production and brought US workers to its home country to train them.

The need for specialized knowledge will make recruitment critical for Tesla's Terafab hopes, Rasgon said, adding that the semiconductor industry is already facing a worker shortage.

"These guys don't grow on trees," he said.

A 'Herculean' challenge

Analysts warned that overcoming these challenges would add to the severe cash burn Tesla is set to face in the coming years.

The company said in January it would spend $20 billion on building out its robotaxi and Optimus production lines this year, a figure which does not include the Terafab project.

Ben Kallo, a senior research analyst at Baird, told Business Insider that investors would have questions about how Tesla plans to fund such an ambitious project — especially considering Musk has also said Tesla will build around 100 gigawatts of solar panel manufacturing.

"Where's the money coming from? I think that's going to be a question," said Kallo, who added that he wouldn't rule out Tesla raising outside capital for the first time since 2020 to fulfill Musk's ambitious targets.

Musk hasn't given a specific timeline for building the Terafab and producing chips, but he said in the January earnings call that he was building it to "remove a probable constraint in three or four years."

In a Tuesday note, Morgan Stanley analysts led by Andrew Percoco pointed to Micron's factory in Boise — which began construction in late 2022 but isn't expected to begin shipping chips until mid-2027 — as evidence of how long it can take to build semiconductor infrastructure in the US.

They estimated that building a factory capable of producing 100,000 wafers for cutting-edge logic chips a month could cost as much as $45 billion. A note from UBS analysts in January estimated that just getting to Musk's initial production target of 100,000 silicon wafers a month would cost $30 billion.

"Even understanding Elon Musk's history of doing difficult things, this seems like a Herculean task," the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote.

• This post originally appeared in the Business Insider Today newsletter.
• You can sign up for Business Insider's daily newsletter here.

Scott Galloway wants to save the world … sort of.

The entrepreneur-turned-professor-turned-media-juggernaut is leading a movement against Big Tech on two fronts.

One is over the harmful impact he believes it has on young men. The other is a form of protest against President Donald Trump's immigration policies, calling on people to "Resist and Unsubscribe" from Big Tech's products and services.

Just don't call him an activist. By his own description, Galloway is "too lazy, selfish, and socially minded" to be one, he told BI's Henry Chandonnet.

The irony is that Galloway is taking aim at an industry that helped make him a multimillionaire. He previously wrote a book about Big Tech and founded and sold a business intelligence firm for hundreds of millions of dollars. He's also frequently referenced the massive returns he earned from investing in Apple, Amazon, and Netflix in the wake of the financial crisis.

Galloway's message won't land with everyone.

It's easy to call on people to make sacrifices when you're at the front of the pack. And when you can afford to spend $34,000 a year on Uber, as Galloway says he does, then boycotting it feels more like an inconvenience than anything else.

On the other hand, Galloway's privilege and position within the tech community make his pushback against Big Tech all the more impressive. After all, it would be a lot easier for him to remain silent.

Maybe that's the beauty of Galloway. His comments can be equally enlightening and eye-roll-inducing, interesting and infuriating.

Regardless of how you feel about what Galloway says, you can't deny his willingness to say it.

• Tejal Rives hoped adopting AI at work would help keep her safe from tech layoffs.
• However, she lost her job at Amazon during layoffs in October 2025.
• Rives was disheartened but was glad the experience taught her about AI.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Tejal Rives, 35, who lives in Arizona. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

In October 2025, I read a news article that Amazon was planning to cut jobs. I'd survived other layoffs, but this time my gut told me I'd be affected. Sure enough, not long after, I received an email that my position as a product marketer was being eliminated.

I was one of 14,000 people impacted, and even though I understood the decision wasn't personal, it was very disheartening. I thought up-skilling in AI would make me safer from layoffs, but even though it didn't, I still think professionals should focus on learning this one important AI skill: prompt engineering.

I thought working on AI could safeguard my job

At the time of the October layoffs, there was debate around whether AI was the reason.

The company was encouraging us to use AI at the time, but I don't think it took my job. I wrote descriptions for internal products at Amazon, and when I used AI to help, I'd need to ask it to rewrite its output without fluff words. It didn't sound like how people talk. Despite my ethical qualms, I used AI, but, in my opinion, it was nowhere close to replacing my role.

Before I was laid off, I helped build an internal site for Amazon using AI. I hadn't really coded before, but with a colleague's help, I learned how to vibe code with a lot of trial and error.

I thought using AI for this project and showcasing different skills would make me more valuable to the company, but in the end, it didn't keep me from being laid off.

Initially, I felt like I'd wasted time by learning something I likely wouldn't use again, but overall, I don't think my efforts were wasted. The most important thing the experience taught me was prompt engineering, the practice of asking AI the right questions. I want to be minimal with my use of AI for ethical reasons, including around the water resources needed to power data centers. Efficient prompt engineering helps me ask AI my question once, without needing to clarify three or more times.

I'd highly recommend that other professionals learn prompt engineering to up-skill themselves in the age of AI.

The workforce has shifted, and you're likely going to need to learn AI and use it at your job, regardless of your moral qualms. We need to up-skill to survive.

I have my own business, and use AI very rarely

My husband and I already agreed that if I were laid off, I'd focus on being the primary parent to our child as well as on my career coaching business, called Do My Resume LLC, which I was running on the side of my Amazon job. Before being laid off, I planned to eventually quit my job and focus on it full-time.

I didn't realize how burnt out I was after four years at Amazon, though, and it took me a while to pivot into working on my business. For roughly three weeks, I didn't touch my computer. I took up sewing and house-cleaning projects because I needed separation from my screen.

Now, my life is slower than it was at Amazon. I spend roughly four hours a day, six days a week, on the business, and spend the rest of my time taking care of the house and my family.

The business provides career coaching and résumé-writing services, but we don't use AI to write résumés, because it's humans who read them. Recently, I used AI to give me advice about starting a YouTube series for my business, so I will use this technology to help me flesh out ideas, but very rarely. I haven't vibe-coded since the project at Amazon.

My husband is the breadwinner, and we can survive on his income, but the business is bringing in some fun money for me.

I think people should prepare for layoffs in the age of AI

Being laid off helped me remember that, at the end of the day, your job and company shouldn't be your entire life. It shouldn't come before your well-being.

I wish I hadn't sacrificed time with my child to get projects done towards the end of my time at Amazon. I'm glad I'm no longer sacrificing that time.

I think there will be more layoffs that will be attributed to AI's efficiency, and professionals should always be prepared. Reskilling in the age of AI won't necessarily stop a company from laying you off, but it might help you land a role faster.

Amazon did not provide a statement in response to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Do you have a story to share about being laid off in 2026? Contact this reporter at ccheong@businessinsider.com

• A Cognizant study suggests 93% of jobs across the workforce are impacted by AI in some way.
• While AI could replace some jobs entirely, it will likely change the work that makes up many other roles.
• What tasks would you like to pass off to AI? What tasks do you enjoy? Take our survey below.

AI is coming for your job — or at least part of it.

A January study from IT services company Cognizant, which analyzed 18,000 workplace tasks, found that 93% of jobs are affected by AI to some degree. In the US, that could result in roughly $4.5 trillion of human labor shifting to AI — and it's happening at a faster rate than expected.

Cognizant projected in 2023 that 90% of jobs would be impacted by 2032. Now, a slightly elevated level of disruption is arriving about six years ahead of schedule. The pace of exposure has surged, too. Instead of rising 2% annually, it's now accelerating at closer to 9%, the report found, with AI's potential impact across occupations coming in 30% higher than earlier estimates.

While there are plenty of concerning predictions about AI replacing jobs entirely, there's also the possibility that the technology will allow many workers to spend more time on certain tasks and offload others to AI.

Given the assumption that AI is going to take at least some part of your job — if it hasn't already — we want to know what you would be happy to pass off, and what tasks you want to keep.

Take our survey below:

Scott Galloway never claimed to be an activist.

"I'm too lazy, selfish, socially minded," he told Business Insider on a February call about his unlikely leadership of two movements at once, both with Big Tech in the crosshairs. "I saw an opportunity for a new form of economic activism," he said, "but I'm a long way from being a Cesar Chavez or refusing to give up my bus seat."

Later in our call, he analogizes his "Resist and Unsubscribe" initiative — which urges Americans to unsubscribe from Big Tech to protest the Trump Administration's immigration crackdown — to the 1955-1956 Montgomery bus boycotts. At one point, he calls activists "more noble" than himself. Seconds later, he describes not wanting to "get on a call with a bunch of people in Birkenstocks."

I asked his cohost, Kara Swisher, the same question: Is Scott an activist? Not in a traditional sense, she texted me, or he would have formed a coalition. "I got a lot of pings from people who do organizing that this was a dumb way to do it," Swisher wrote. "It wasn't."

If you don't know Galloway's name, you've certainly seen his clips. The executive-turned-professor-turned-podcaster rakes in millions from his center-left media empire, including four podcasts, two newsletters, and six books, the latest about how young men are socially and economically disadvantaged, thanks in part to Big Tech. He's a sort of shock jock for the TikTok age — and his 400,000 followers there love it.

In recent months, his anti-Big Tech efforts have made him an even bigger lightning rod. He's been disinvited from two speaking gigs, he said, because the hosts didn't "want controversy." (He declined to share which gigs: "I'm hoping they invite me next year.") He's also heard from CEOs or chief marketing officers of 20% of the companies he's targeted, he said, who have mostly been kind. He says he's disappointed because he wishes they felt more threatened.

It's a surprising turn for the serial entrepreneur and business school professor. He's a provocateur, a testosterone-injecting multimillionaire who students call a "dick." Is this the man who can move the masses to quit Amazon Prime cold turkey?

Galloway is a businessman at heart. Even his activism is done through the market.

After federal agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Galloway launched his Resist and Unsubscribe campaign. The best way to catch President Donald Trump's attention, he reasoned, was the market. Since, he said, corporations were providing the "data, infrastructure, and logistics" to assist with Trump's immigration crackdown, it was time for Americans to vote with their dollars.

He wanted to walk the walk — and that meant cutting his own subscriptions. He quickly found that he'd been paying for some duplicates: four Apple TV Plus accounts, three ChatGPT subscriptions. He had four AT&T contracts, of which "three are for Blackberrys and iPads that have been in landfills for the last decade," he told me.

The Galloway family also found some workarounds. His son found a "probably illegal" way to watch the Premier League without Paramount+. He binge-watched "Heated Rivalry" before dumping HBO Max. The hardest app to give up was Uber, which he said on his podcast was costing him $34,000 a year.

On stock ownership, Galloway is more mixed. He's hesitant to sell his Amazon shares while the stock is down, but he said he did sell down almost all of his Apple shares.

"I'm especially offended, personally, by Tim Cook," he said. Galloway said that Cook paints himself as a "soft, gentle, nice guy" while sucking up to Trump at the "Melania" premiere. ("I'm not a political person on either side," Cook recently told Good Morning America.)

He plans to move his money out of Goldman Sachs and is debating whether to choose a regional US bank or the Royal Bank of Canada.

If you're worried that you can't fully unsubscribe, he gets it.

"I don't have entire moral clarity around this," Galloway said. "I still have an iPhone, and I'm not giving it up."

As February came to a close, Galloway felt contented. Resist and Unsubscribe had hit 23 million views on social media and 2 million unique site visits, he said. An estimate on his website shows how much market capitalization the movement would wipe out if 5% of visitors canceled two subscriptions. As of this story's publication date, it calculated just over $281 million in losses.

When Galloway first started talking about the plight facing America's young men five years ago, it produced a "gag reflex," he said. People compared him to manosphere influencer Andrew Tate and accused him of misogyny.

Galloway has said that young men are more economically and socially disadvantaged than young women. He points to the stats. Young men account for only 42% of students at four-year universities, and 63% of young men are single. "If you go into a morgue and there are five people who died by suicide, four are men," he said.

His book, "Notes on Being a Man," published in November, is a how-to guide for the disenfranchised young man in your life. Of course, young people are reading for pleasure less and less. His most encouraging feedback comes from mothers, Galloway said.

The book has also received plenty of criticism. In her review in The New Yorker, Jessica Winter writes that Galloway thinks "men should still rank above women in the social hierarchy, but just not as much as before."

Galloway seemed taken aback. "I think that's a total misinterpretation of what I've written about," he said. Those on the left — which he groups The New Yorker into — seemed to think that young men don't have problems, he said. "They are the problem."

"We have decided, in the social hierarchy, young men are less deserving of empathy than women," Galloway said.

Galloway also faced misogyny accusations from women online after calling himself a "'50s dad" who wasn't sure if there should be mandatory paternity leave. He said that dads are a "waste of time" in the first few months of a child's life, and that their only jobs are to keep babies from drowning and "make sure moms don't lose it." In The New York Times, Jessica Grose called it "loud and wrong."

On this subject, Galloway was more remorseful. "The comments on paternity leave were meant to be funny," he said. "They weren't. It was stupid, and so far I've paid a fairly significant reputational price."

He was less sympathetic to the Times, which he said "made a cartoon out of my comments so that they could play guardians of gotcha."

Stirring up controversy has long been part of Galloway's brand. Why not double down?

"I try to be provocative, I try to be funny, I try to say what I'm thinking," he told me. "Against paternity leave? No, that's absolutely not the message I want to communicate."

It's easy to think that Galloway hates Big Tech to the bone.

Tech is the target of both of his movements. He accuses the industry of helping to push young men down; in his book, he analogizes Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg to heroin dealers standing outside a middle school. Then, for Resist and Unsubscribe, he asks you to stop paying these companies entirely.

Indeed, on our call, Galloway spared no barbs for the tech CEOs. "I don't think there's any way feasible that he could be described as a good person," he said of Zuckerberg.

But the tech industry is full of his friends, his former coworkers, and the people who made him rich. Galloway is an entrepreneur, after all; he made (some of) his millions on the sale of the business intelligence firm, L2. He wrote a book about Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, which he called a "love letter."

Of the executives targeted by Resist and Unsubscribe, Galloway said that half are acquaintances, a quarter are "friendly" with him, and one or two are friends. "I find that they're, on the whole, good people," he said of tech executives.

That's what makes his shift to organizing so surprising. He's not raging against an industry from the outside; he could well be part of the in-crowd if he wanted to. He was a successful business executive with a vengeful spirit, then a snarky podcaster — and now a man trying to save the world.

Galloway said that humans are "net gainers" from Big Tech — but that we're also net gainers from pesticides and fossil fuels. What's Big Tech's emission? "Rage," he said.

Pesticides and fossil fuels are regulated by the government. For tech, we often rely on a benevolent CEO, Galloway said. He's not sure they exist anymore.

"If we're waiting on the better angels of Mark Zuckerberg to show up, don't hold your breath," he said.

One morning in January, Gracie Nielson was scrolling TikTok when she discovered something that made her skin crawl.

The fashion, lifestyle, and beauty influencer with over 600,000 followers noticed a comment on one of her videos that directed her to a clip of a woman wearing low-slung blue jeans and a yellow crop top. Her face didn't resemble Nielson's, but the exact same outfit was hanging in Nielson's closet, and even the woman's body struck a familiar pose. Nielson realized it was a shot-for-shot replica of a video she'd posted months prior, down to the backdrop — a corner of Nielson's home in California. Intrigue quickly devolved into unease.

"That's so crazy. This is my house. This is my body, just with somebody else's face," Nielson recalled thinking. "It's just a really uncomfortable feeling."

The other woman in question may not be a woman at all, but a digital echo: Sienna Rose, aka @siennarosely, describes herself as a neo-soul singer who has over 1.5 million monthly listeners on Spotify. Her TikTok page is filled with uncanny videos where the star smiles and vamps — but never talks — to the camera. Though she's been plagued by accusations that she's AI-generated, Rose has never performed live; AI detection tools used by the streaming service Deezer have flagged Rose's music as AI-generated. Emails I sent to the address listed in Rose's TikTok bio went unanswered.

It's Nielson's job to make videos, so she made another TikTok to share her reaction to the discovery. "I'm so scared, you guys," she said, comparing her video to Rose's since-deleted one. The TikTok quickly went viral, amassing over 2.4 million views to date — confirmation that Nielson's shock had reverberated far beyond her usual audience.

"I even had a friend text me that day, and she was like, 'I did not know Sienna Rose was AI,'" Nielson said. "She's like, 'I have listened to her music before, completely not knowing that this is not a real person.'"

AI influencers are here, and if Nielson's case is any indication, you may not have even noticed. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible to the average person, employers, companies, and brands have begun investing in the technology to reduce labor costs. Number-crunchers aren't the only ones who are being replaced — creatives are feeling the heat, too. Now, there's AI music on the Billboard charts, AI used in Oscar-winning movies, and, of course, AI all over our social media feeds.

Just as influencers once stormed the internet — harnessing the then-new technology of social media to draw eyeballs, score paid sponsorships, and rake in advertising dollars previously reserved for traditional celebrities — digital avatars are now poised to flood the same market.

Ally Rooker, a part-time content creator with nearly 190,000 followers on TikTok, described having AI imitate real-life influencers to hawk products as nothing short of labor-busting.

"When I see influencers promoting generative AI video tools, I'm like, 'You don't understand the reason that you have a career,'" Rooker told Business Insider. "You don't understand how fragile what you're doing is, and how fragile your revenue is. Because you're promoting your replacement."

The multibillion-dollar creator economy was built on aspirational influencers who can promise their followers that a better life — or at least clearer skin, or a life-changing haircut, or a dream vacation — is just a swipe away. So what happens when a new crop of competitors is aspiration, personified: influencers who don't suffer from hormonal acne, bed head, or debilitating jet lag? Friendly, almost-human faces who don't need to eat, sleep, or even get paid?

AI influencers are already making money from brand deals

In a social media landscape where real people already use beauty filters and Photoshop, brands are going all in on artificiality. A 2025 survey of about 1,000 senior marketers in the UK and US from the social and influencer marketing agency Billion Dollar Boy found that roughly 79% said they are increasing investment in AI-generated creator content. Grand View Research estimates that the global virtual influencer market will reach $48.88 billion by 2030.

Real influencers fear that could translate into a lot of lost income.

"Why would Maybelline pay a real person if they can just pay an AI person that looks essentially the same?" Rooker said, using the popular beauty brand as an example. "The person scrolling Maybelline's Instagram doesn't need to know who it is in the video. They just have to think it's a real person."

Right now, "think" is the operative word. Disclosure requirements for AI influencers remain murky, and lawful uses of AI vary from state to state in the US. While many AI influencers are labeled as such in their bios — Aitana Lopez, a pink-haired fitness and fashion influencer calls herself a "digital soul," while Olivia Brand, a blonde Alex Cooper knock-off who generates inspirational podcast clips on TikTok, calls herself an "AI it-girl" — casual scrollers on their FYPs can easily remain oblivious to the fact that they've encountered AI at all.

Even if someone like Nielson could make the case for a right of publicity violation — alleging that a third party has taken her name, image, or likeness and used it for a commercial purpose without permission — lawsuits are expensive, and a worthwhile payoff isn't guaranteed.

All of this raises questions about how human influencers can continue to make a living if brands begin to favor their visually pristine, easily programmable counterparts. Those fears aren't unfounded: The Clueless, the Barcelona-based agency that created Aitana Lopez, among other hyper-realistic AI "stock models," pivoted away from hiring humans in the pandemic, citing their unpredictability and inconsistency as motivating factors.

Now, Aitana has three full-time partnerships, including one with a Spanish salon chain. She was recently used in a Black Friday campaign for Amazon. The Clueless creative director Andy García estimated that Aitana's assets — including her brand deals, paid posts, and bespoke "skincare" brand, Vellum, which is actually a software program to enhance the skin texture of AI avatars — generate about $75,000 to $100,000 a month. Other AI influencers also boast thriving careers: Lil Miquela, one of the original digital avatars, has partnered with Prada and Calvin Klein; Xania Monet landed a multimillion-dollar record deal; and Shudu, marketed as "the world's first digital supermodel," has starred in campaigns for Balmain and Hyundai.

García doesn't see her company's creation and other AI influencers as job-killers, but rather hurdles real humans have the tools to overcome.

"Right now, AI influencers are really not a threat to real influencers," she said. "It's like any opportunity, to which real influencers can adapt."

Many people still prefer to follow humans over robots

While brands may enjoy the control and cost efficiency digital avatars afford, when confronted directly with the question of AI, many consumers remain unconvinced.

Comment sections online are full of backlash against AI-generated ads and digital avatars, particularly those that seem designed to blend in with real people. Sienna Rose has inspired numerous sleuths to comb through her videos for copy-and-pasted details. (Suffice it to say that Nielson isn't the only creator whose backdrops and body movements appear to have been cloned on Rose's page.) Others have gone viral for protesting AI creep in daily life, from bots replacing customer service agents to stumbling across fake influencers on their feeds. When they're not being fooled by AI, many are irritated by it.

Cameron Mackintosh, a part-time content creator based in Nashville, said she was shocked and dismayed when she was briefly duped by an AI influencer on Instagram — and, even worse, when she noticed that people she knew in real life were following the account. Her video about the revelation blew up, amassing over 1.7 million views and hundreds of passionate comments.

"I would never want to read a story written by AI. I would never want to read a book written by AI. I wouldn't want to consume a painting that was created by a computer," Mackintosh told Business Insider.

As Business Insider reported in October, consumer backlash to AI accounts is causing some brands to retreat from the tech. In February, The New York Times compared the AI boom unfavorably to the "dot-com boom," citing a 2025 YouGov survey in which more than a third of respondents said they were "concerned that AI would end human life on earth."

Allison Fitzpatrick, an attorney in New York with experience in advertising and influencer marketing, told me that concerns about intellectual property and copyright infringement — not to mention the demand for real-human relatability that made influencers a force in the first place — have translated to a lack of interest in AI influencers among the brands that she works with.

"I think the human audience, the followers, are smart enough to know that between an influencer who is human and can actually taste the product or go on vacation and stay at the hotel or fly in the airline," she said. "You're going to take the human influencer's endorsement far more seriously than an AI influencer who's done none of what I've just described."

Influencers are ready to fight back

Influencers like Nielson aren't giving up hope yet. They say leaning into reality, not realism, will be key to staying in business.

"A lot of content creators, people like to follow them because they are relatable — people sharing skin issues or insecurities, for example," Nielson said. "That wouldn't really happen using an AI avatar because it's not human. It's not real."

Emily Higgins, a North Carolina-based content creator who also runs a social media consulting business, told me that as high-production-value content becomes the norm, she expects to see a renewed embrace of scripting hiccups, grainy footage, and other deliberate imperfections.

"If something's too highly produced or too perfect-seeming, then immediately, it can be dismissed as AI," Higgins said. "We're going to see people trying to create more flaws in their content. We'll see more human, emotional, raw kinds of elements."

Some brands are already leading the charge. Dove and Aerie have vowed not to use AI in their marketing materials, using slogans like "Real People Only" and "Keep Beauty Real." Aerie, which stopped retouching its models in 2014 — putting stretch marks, blemishes, and body diversity front and center — earned its most popular Instagram post in a year thanks to its anti-AI promise. Meanwhile, Heineken and Polaroid have explicitly mocked AI and Big Tech in recent ad campaigns.

Influencing is often dismissed as a low-effort profession, but at its core, it's an act of vulnerability. To broadcast your face and feelings to hundreds, thousands, or even millions of strangers requires nerve and resilience, neither of which AI can reproduce.

As a result, Mackintosh said she expects people to begin seeking out creators and brands that put visible effort into the creative process.

"There's this novelty about human creation, and I don't think that will ever go away," she said. "I always think it will be appreciated. I just think there will be less and less of it because, economically, it will be easier to fake."

• Mark Cuban thinks humanoid robots will have a short lifespan.
• He said instead robots and spaces will be co-designed, and they won't necessarily look like humans.
• Tesla and OpenAI are among the companies investing in humanoid robots.

Mark Cuban believes in a future where humans live alongside robots, just not the ones you're probably picturing.

"Everybody's making this push for humanoid robots. I think they might have a 5-year lifespan, and then they'll fail miserably. Maybe 10," Cuban said Thursday on the live-streamed tech show TBPN.

Humanoid robots have plenty of fans, including Elon Musk, who has said he believes Tesla's Optimus could be the company's future. Business Insider reported in January that OpenAI had quietly built up a humanoid robotics lab last year.

But Cuban said he thinks co-designing spaces and robots would be better than simply making robots that mimic humans and fit into the world as it currently exists.

"I've heard people say, 'Well, a house is a house, you need a humanoid.' I think houses are going to be redesigned completely," he said.

For example, he said there could be robots that look like spiders or ants, capable of lifting and carrying things, while the house could be designed so that the pantry, refrigerator, and washing machine are hidden, with the robots primarily interacting with them, while the actual living space is used by people.

"The robots aren't going to be full-form humanoids. They're going to be whatever the optimal shape is," Cuban said. "You design the house to fit the robot, and you design the robot to fit the house."

He also pointed to Amazon's use of robots in its warehouses, noting they are not humanoids carrying boxes around. Amazon has said it has over 1 million robots that sort, lift, and carry packages. None of them looks like a human.

Still, major companies like Tesla and OpenAI, as well as smaller startups, continue to invest in developing humanoids. An executive at Agility Robotics, which has deployed its humanoids at Amazon and Toyota, told Business Insider its robots could step in to fill manufacturing roles that humans don't want.

"This re-shoring of manufacturing in the US is going to only occur through a combination of human employment and automation technology, like humans and robotics," he said.

Cuban did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• One AI company is offering actors $74 an hour to record themselves doing improv.
• It's part of a project for "one of the leading AI companies," Handshake AI says.
• The job listing is the latest example of how AI companies are seeking out non-tech professionals.

If you're an actor, your next role could involve performing for an AI company.

Handshake AI is hiring performers, including those with improv skills, to record themselves responding to a "light prompt or scenario" with other actors, according to a job posting.

The work is part-time, remote, open to workers with at least a bachelor's degree, and pays up to $74 an hour, per Handshake's description. For actors, the work is "easy to fit alongside auditions, classes, or rehearsals," the company says.

"You'll improvise scenes, explore characters, and respond naturally in the moment, with plenty of creative freedom to shape how each interaction unfolds," the job listing reads. Embedded in the job description is a video of two people talking in an apparently improvised scene.

The listing says the project is for "one of the leading AI companies," though it doesn't mention how the work will be used.

A Handshake spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last year, the company launched an AI division after about a decade as a social network for college students and young professionals looking for career opportunities.

On Reddit, as The Verge reported, some users debated what Handshake's plans for the recordings might be. One user posted: "It's clearly just an attempt to get people to train AI models to create AI generated videos."

Another predicted that it could lead to more demand for "real, unpolished" live comedy from humans, even if the work is used to create AI that can generate comedy.

Handshake's listing is the latest example of the different professions, including some in the arts and creative roles, that AI companies are calling on.

Jobs in training AI have grown over the past few years. Many companies don't require trainers to have experience with AI or a tech background.

Some do the work as a side-hustle as students or artists, Business Insider previously reported, and the tasks can involve recounting childhood memories or even bullying AI.

Uber, known for its gig-work ride-hailing drivers and delivery people, has branched out into AI training and has headhunted trainers with graduate degrees and job experience outside tech to do it.

Many training jobs are independent contractor roles, meaning companies don't offer benefits like healthcare and retirement account contributions that they do for full-time employees.

Do you do gig work and have a story idea to share? Contact this reporter at abitter@businessinsider.com or via encrypted messaging app Signal at 808-854-4501. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Marc Andreessen said he's not interested in taking psychedelics — even as other executives recommend ayahuasca.
• He says he's seen tech leaders use the drugs and "move to Indonesia and become a surf instructor."
• Instead, Andreessen said he uses another drug that once made his heart skip every 10th beat.

Marc Andreessen says he's heard enough stories about psychedelics in Silicon Valley to know they're not for him.

Speaking on David Senra's podcast, the cofounder of Andreessen Horowitz — one of the largest venture capital firms in the Bay Area — said some founders who experiment with hallucinogenic drugs become calmer and more at peace.

He said they also sometimes lose interest in running their companies.

"I have tons of horror stories from people I know or know of," he said. "They try it, and they kind of come out the other end as a changed person. They come out much more at peace, but then they also tend to quit their companies, and they move to Indonesia and become a surf instructor."

Andreessen said he's noticed a pattern among founders who turn to psychedelics — particularly ayahuasca — while under intense pressure.

He added that he once discussed the phenomenon with Stanford University neuroscientist and podcaster Andrew Huberman. Huberman suggested that becoming less anxious might actually be the point.

"And in true Huberman kind of wise Yoda style, he's like, 'Well, you know, how do you know they're not happier?'" Andreessen said. "Maybe the thing that was driving them to be a great entrepreneur was a fundamental level of insecurity."

Instead, he said that his preferred drug is far more conventional: caffeine.

Andreessen said he once had so many cups of coffee that his heart was skipping every 10th beat.

The use of psychedelics in Silicon Valley has become increasingly mainstream in recent years.

Entrepreneurs and investors have spoken openly about experimenting with substances like LSD, psilocybin, or ayahuasca, often framing them as tools for self-discovery, creativity, or mental health.

That hasn't convinced Andreessen to try them.

"There's a possibility that there's a better version of you or me on the other side of ayahuasca," he said. "But I'm not willing to find out."

• Eight salespeople from ServiceNow have jumped ship to rival startup Serval in recent months.
• Two of the salespeople cited fears about AI as their reason for leaving ServiceNow.
• ServiceNow's stock has tumbled 40% in the last six months in the so-called SaaS-pocalypse.

Eight salespeople from ServiceNow and its newly acquired subsidiary, Moveworks, have jumped ship to rival startup Serval in recent months, Business Insider has learned.

ServiceNow is a cloud computing software company whose stock has tumbled 40% in the last six months in the so-called SaaS-pocalypse, as investors fear AI could decimate the profit margins of software giants. In an effort to stay one step ahead in the AI race, ServiceNow closed an all-cash $2.85 billion acquisition of Moveworks in December to create an "AI-native front door."

The same month, Serval closed a $75 million Series B funding round led by Sequoia Capital, valuing the rapidly growing AI-powered IT support startup at $1 billion. Sequoia was also an early investor in ServiceNow.

Eight employees represent a fraction of ServiceNow's 29,000-person workforce. Still, the exodus shows how difficult it can be for tech companies with falling valuations to retain talent when buzzy, well-funded AI companies come calling. A ServiceNow spokesman declined to comment.

The highest-level departure is Brad Patterson, who had been a ServiceNow sales VP for nearly two years.

"AI is really making serious moves," Patterson said in an interview. "In a similar way, market sentiment is responding; I think people are responding in the same way."

Every incumbent tech company is facing a similar talent drain, according to Jules Levy, ServiceNow's former head of enterprise generative & enterprise AI, who is also among those joining Serval.

"I don't think this is unique to ServiceNow," he said in an interview. "Many folks within those incumbents are looking to jump to AI-native platforms that will be able to move really fast and take advantage of this technological wave."

"I think everyone's trying to figure out what comes next," he added.

Serval is not specifically targeting ServiceNow employees, but when one employee leaves, it can have a ripple effect, according to Tatiana Birgisson, Serval's chief operating officer.

"If you hire really good people, other really good people in their network want to follow them," she said, citing Chris Comes, who became a Serval VP of Sales in November after more than three years at MoveWorks. "Multiple people got excited about seeing the announcement of his going to Servo."

Startups have usually offered less job security and lower cash compensation than public tech companies, but Birgisson says tech downsizing has made it easier to recruit candidates.

Block CEO Jack Dorsey cut roughly 40% of his workforce in February, citing the rise of AI. Meta could reportedly lay off a fifth of its staff amid skyrocketing AI costs.

"Big Tech no longer feels as safe as it once did," Birgisson said. "We are starting to see more candidates who, 5-10 years ago, would not have considered working at a startup, but are now more open to it because there isn't the clear divide between 'secure' and 'risky' jobs."

• 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."

Last July, four high-ranking tech executives — all of them involved with artificial intelligence — were sworn into the US Army Reserves with the rank of lieutenant colonel. They were part of a new unit called Detachment 201, also known as the Executive Innovation Corps. The Pentagon has introduced many initiatives to deepen relationships with Silicon Valley. But making officers out of multimillionaire executives with no military experience served as a strong symbol of a new era in which venture capitalists and technologists see themselves as essential to the defense of the nation.

The tech industry, which once prided itself on its libertarian- and counterculture-inflected antiwar ideals, has emphatically re-enlisted in the American military project. Drawn by patriotism and lucrative government contracts, numerous tech companies — from established giants like Google and SpaceX to military-minded startups in Southern California — have started working for the defense establishment, from supplying the Department of Homeland Security to building AI-powered drones and autonomous weapons to be used in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran. Anduril, a leading munitions startup, just announced a Pentagon contract that may be worth up to $20 billion.

No company has driven tech's transformation from keyboard to warrior like Palantir, a data and analytics firm cofounded by Peter Thiel, which has a current market cap of $360 billion. Palantir's financial network and its alumni are responsible for bringing numerous defense-tech startups into being. And it helped brush away the tech industry's reticence to be involved in war-making.

Now, a growing canon of books by and about Palantirians is helping to crystallize, and proselytize, tech's new hawkishness. Last year, Karp and his Palantir colleague Nicholas W. Zamiska published "The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West," which outlined their austere vision for a militarized republic secured by Silicon Valley technologies and led by highly skilled engineers. Last fall, New York Times Magazine contributor Michael Steinberger published an authorized biography, "The Philosopher in the Valley: Alex Karp, Palantir, and the Rise of the Surveillance State." Now, Shyam Sankar, Palantir's chief technology officer and one of the four techies-turned-officers, has published "Mobilize: How to Reboot the American Industrial Base and Stop World War III." Cowritten with his colleague Madeline Hart, "Mobilize" claims that the US government needs to urgently boost military production — with the help of Silicon Valley — in order to head off a conflict with China, which the authors think will attempt to capture Taiwan in 2027.

From these books, and from a battery of public statements by Karp and his cofounders, a distinctive worldview emerges — an unapologetically nationalistic attitude that has total contempt for one's enemies in politics and business and that sees constant, world-rending conflict in our future. This belief system was developed by a group of people who exhibit a profound wish to live in interesting times, to be the shield defending America in a world of constant threats. You might call it Palantirianism.

Birthed from the 20-year-long global war on terror, which coincided with the tech boom, Palantirianism holds that America's adversaries don't negotiate for peace. They surrender entirely — or, as Karp has said, they will be too "scared" to challenge the US in the first place because they fear immediate destruction. Palantirians' catchword is "deterrence" — derived not from fear of mutual nuclear annihilation or diplomacy but by developing overwhelming AI-based firepower. "The preconditions for a durable peace often come only from a credible threat of war," Karp writes in "The Technological Republic."

Under Palantirianism, the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about is good for the world — but it would be far better with the tech industry's participation and leadership. "Eisenhower wasn't warning about the existence of the military-industrial complex; he was warning about its potential for undue influence, a distinction often lost," write Sankar and Hart. In their view, bringing together Silicon Valley and the Pentagon is not a step toward undue influence for America's tech billionaires. It's exactly what the country requires: "American capitalism and the American military need each other," they write. "Reuniting the American industrial base, commercial and defense, is an existential issue."

Palantirianism exhibits a profound wish to live in interesting times, to be the shield defending America in a world of constant threats.

Palantirians see securing American military hegemony as the national priority. Karp, who once called himself a "neo-Marxist" and a Democratic Party supporter before drifting rightward, told his biographer that national security is the only issue that matters to him, and that the tech industry's workers should devote themselves to the same. "A generation of programmers remains ready to dedicate their working lives to sating the needs of capitalist culture, and to enrich itself, but declines to ask more fundamental questions about what ought to be built and for what purpose," he writes. The answer for Karp, the high priest of Palantirianism, is obvious: What ought to be built is what makes people safer. What makes people safer is empowering the military, police, and intelligence services. That is his vision of the common good.

His vision is now transforming the tech industry, the military, and how we look at national security. "We have made the mistake of allowing a technocratic ruling class to form and take hold in this country without asking for anything quite substantial in return. What should the public demand for abandoning the threat of revolt?" Karp writes, sounding like the Marxist of his youth. "Free email is not enough."

---

Palantir grew out of a program at PayPal — where Thiel was CEO — to fight financial fraud in its system. The company itself was later founded in 2003 with an explicit mission: defending the West, which its founders see as imperiled. "A moment of reckoning has arrived for the West," Karp writes early in his book. It's not always clear what those threats are (or even what constitutes "the West"). In the conservative tech mogul's imaginarium, wokeness and DEI seem to be as dangerous to the American public as a revanchist Russia. Karp frequently refers to an organized "assault on religion," without elaborating except to say that it "left us vulnerable as a society."

With seed money from the CIA's In-Q-Tel venture capital firm — which the agency established to help incubate national-security startups — Palantir slowly grew to become the go-to analytics platform for much of the military and intelligence establishment. It wasn't an easy ride: The company was in the red for more than 20 years, and it sued the US Army, claiming that it had boxed out Palantir by violating its own procurement rules. Palantir won the lawsuit, cultivated numerous government and military insiders (who were sometimes given its software for free), and now runs a software platform, known as Project Maven, that's used across the US military and NATO. It has other software tools that have been used by corporations, police departments, hospitals, and the federal government when it was tackling the COVID-19 pandemic.

Maven started as software to analyze drone video feeds, with a $10 million contract going to Google. After Google employees protested working for the Pentagon and Google dropped the project, Palantir, working alongside other tech companies, picked it up and ran with it. Maven eventually became "an all-purpose AI operating system" integrating vast data sources into a dashboard that intelligence analysts have said makes their work much easier, even saving lives in the field. Maven is now used in conjunction with other systems, such as Anthropic's Claude chatbot, which sits on top of Palantir's platform. The Washington Post reported that Claude was used to rapidly generate thousands of targets for the ongoing US-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. The US military is investigating whether AI was used to target the bombing of a school that killed at least 100 Iranian children. In a sign of how Maven has the potential to take humans out of the loop, Sankar and Hart note in their book that "machine-to-machine connections were enabled to allow Maven to communicate with weapons systems and send confirmed targets directly to artillery."

With its martial mission, Palantir isn't like many software companies. Most employees have one of three job titles: deployment strategist, product development engineer, or forward-deployed engineer. The latter group is software engineers sent to work directly with clients — whether in Manhattan or Kabul — to customize Palantir's tools and troubleshoot on the fly.

Karp calls himself "a fluorescent praying mantis."

Leading this motley "artists colony" is Karp, who has a Ph.D. from Goethe University, enjoys cross-country skiing with his Norwegian ex-commando bodyguards, practices tai chi, and retains four Austrian assistants with whom he speaks in German. An ex-Israeli intelligence officer serves as "a kind of fixer" for Karp, who describes to his biographer a lifelong feeling of personal vulnerability.

Karp once had a policy of never spending more than $1 million for a home; that was before he received a $1.1 billion pay package in 2020. Now he owns a private jet and lavish properties all over the country, most of them in ski areas. Recently, he spent $120 million on a Benedictine monastery in Colorado.

He calls himself "a fluorescent praying mantis." With his many-limbed mannerisms and braggadocious quips, Karp has turned himself into a mascot for Palantir's culture. "Always energetic and upbeat around the office," he's known for launching into impromptu talks with employees that become an "orgy of free association," Steinberger writes. He can be "a little bit incoherent," but also exhibits "crazy charisma."

In public, his mad-mogul image can play well, generating viral clips of his vows to drone enemies with "fentanyl-laced urine." TV producers began to love him because "he was reliably unfiltered, thanks in part to his practice of getting hopped-up on Mexican Coke beforehand."

---

The son of a white Jewish father and a Black mother, Karp's identity has been a core throughline in his life and career. As a child, Karp was bullied at school, contributing to a sense of fear and personal instability.

"You're a racially amorphous, far-left Jewish kid who's also dyslexic — would you not come up with the idea that you're fucked?" Karp says to Steinberger. In this context, Karp's sense of identity was hopelessly complicated and a potential social liability.

One of Karp's close friends from college said, "He was much more of a Black man then than he is now."

Karp didn't tell his Palantir colleagues that he was Black until 2019, but he presented differently in his youth. He went to college at Haverford, where he "was active in black student affairs, and his social life mainly revolved around Haverford's black community," Steinberger writes. He organized a conference at Yale about racism on college campuses and wore a Palestinian keffiyeh in a yearbook photo. One of his close friends from the time said, "He was much more of a Black man then than he is now."

After college, Karp enrolled at Stanford Law School, which he almost immediately regarded as a mistake. He became friends with another disenchanted classmate, Thiel, who at the time was already a deeply ideological veteran of campus culture wars.

After Stanford, Karp moved to Germany to pursue a doctorate in sociology at Goethe University. Karp would later say that Jurgen Habermas, one of Germany's postwar intellectual giants, was for a time his dissertation advisor, which Habermas has denied. According to letters examined by Steinberger, Habermas tried to steer Karp toward an English-language degree in another subject. "Your topic would require a literary approach to a topic that often overwhelms the linguistic sensibility of us native speakers — and yours, you won't blame me, even more so," Habermas wrote to Karp.

Karp didn't listen. He went on to finish his dissertation — an examination of how aggression is used as a tool of social integration — which he wrote in German under the supervision of Karola Brede, who had previously studied under Habermas. With Brede, Karp cowrote an academic article — the only one he published — a consideration of "eliminationist" anti-Semitism and Daniel Goldhagen's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners."

In the years since, Karp has embraced his Jewishness while expressing reluctance to claim his Black identity. The story of his parents' relationship became for him a kind of cautionary tale of how identity politics run amok.

"My father wanted to marry a Black woman," says Ben Karp, Alex's brother. "Dating Leah was a powerful way of signaling his progressivism," Steinberger notes. Leah Jaynes liked that Bob Karp was Jewish, and Karp liked that she was Black. They eventually divorced, after which Bob Karp remarried and adopted biracial children. Bob's new family didn't sit well with his sons. "Alex's realization, years later, that racial and ethnic identity had been foundational to his parents' relationship was part of the reason he developed a visceral dislike of identity politics," writes Steinberger. "He felt as if he had been the product of virtue signaling, and it bothered him."

Steinberger depicts Karp's personal reckoning over his parentage as part of what moved him to the right. In 2015, he told company employees that he didn't like Trump. According to "The Philosopher in the Valley," Karp once told a friend that he wouldn't mind pushing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of a helicopter. The company has gone on to work for ICE and other government agencies executing hardline Trump policies.

Two global events contributed to Karp's political metamorphosis: COVID and Hamas' attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. During the pandemic, Karp stocked up on canned food and bullets, and loved his time in isolation. "While the pandemic was wretched for most people, Karp found it blissful," writes Steinberger. Plenty of time for cross-country skiing.

After Palantir returned from remote work, Karp's proclamations became more extreme. He started calling Palantir "a prepper company" and reveling in its role in doling out violence to enemies of the West.

Oct. 7 reanimated Karp's sense of personal vulnerability and his commitment to Israel. Having once celebrated the virtues of debate with his friend and political opposite Peter Thiel, he told Palantirians that the company wouldn't tolerate any disagreement over its work for the country. Palantir took out a full page ad in The New York Times declaring, "Palantir Stands With Israel."

---

Under Karp's never-apologize-never-explain leadership, Palantir has become a leading bogeyman for opponents of the surveillance state. New York City is now speckled with posters denouncing the company as the "enemy." Former Treasury Secretary Robert Reich recently called Palantir "America's most dangerous corporation."

The truth is more tangled. By its own claim, Palantir proudly stands for American militarism, abets the surveillance state, and has catalyzed a shift in the tech industry toward supporting the security services. But influential as Palantir is, the company makes software — tools to implement government policy. It does not directly collect data or conduct surveillance. It sucks up that information from clients, including authoritarian states, making the job of war-making or repression potentially much easier. There are numerous firms beyond Palantir — including the big five "prime" defense contractors — engaged in this kind of work.

Palantirianism — a belief system that is now being spread through venture capital investments in startups like Anduril, Saronic, and Shield AI, and tech's close alliance with the Trump administration — is far more influential than Palantir itself. People "want to know they are safe, and safe means that the other person is scared," Karp said at an appearance at the Ronald Reagan Defense Forum. This is the simple core belief that now animates the defense tech industry and swaths of the Silicon Valley elite. (Elon Musk is a Karp fan.)

By 2025, Karp was writing in shareholder letters that the West owed its success to its primacy at "applying organized violence" — a notion of which he evidently approved. He started talking about how certain cultures were "regressive and harmful" compared to others.

"We have been building products for a world that is violent, disjointed, and irrational, a world in which you have to show strength," Karp said during an earnings call. People "have to pick sides." Some people "are violent and not conformant with morality."

For many years, Karp said that fascism was his greatest fear. He wanted nothing more than to stem the rise of the far right in America. Yet Karp's company has provided direct assistance to what many observers have described as the most authoritarian president in US history. He did all this with the help of his close friend Peter Thiel, Palantir's chairman, an early Trump supporter who decades ago said that he had tired of electoral democracy. Steinberger summed up the contradiction: "With Trump restored to power, it appeared that authoritarianism had triumphed in the United States and that Palantir, which Karp had always touted as a bulwark of the liberal international order, would henceforth be serving the agenda of a president who was contemptuous of America's political tradition."

Although Karp has matured, in his biographer's view, into a "statesman CEO," he is still driven by spleen. Throughout "The Philosopher in the Valley," he repeatedly complains that his college alma mater hasn't invited him to give a speech or cultivated him as a donor. Karp seems to detests Haverford with a similar passion that he applies to terrorists and student protesters. "I eventually came to realize that he needed enemies," Steinberger writes of Karp. That need, it turns out, has implications for us all.

---

Jacob Silverman is a contributing writer for Business Insider. He is the author, most recently, of "Gilded Rage: Elon Musk and the Radicalization of Silicon Valley."

• Meta might not yet have the best AI models, but it could be winning on another crucial front.
• Meta is considering major layoffs across the company, Business Insider reported.
• A top analyst suggested these cuts could signal that Meta's AI transformation is underway.

Could more Meta layoffs mean the company still has bloat to trim — or could it signal its AI investments are actually starting to pay off?

A note from a top Wall Street analyst said on Monday that any head count cutting from Meta could actually be a sign that it's successfully rebuilding itself as an "AI-forward" company.

That could be bad for its rivals.

While Meta's deep investment in AI has so far not produced leading models like Google's and OpenAI's, Bernstein's Mark Shmulik said Meta's aggressive push to overhaul itself into a top-to-bottom AI company could put it ahead of competitors and trigger a "wave of panic" as competitors scramble to copy it.

Meta is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into building out AI data centers and luring talent to shore up its AI research teams. Last week, Business Insider reported the company was weighing up layoffs, with some managers being asked to draw up cost-cutting plans.

Bernstein's Shmulik said this could be a signal that Meta is winning on a crucial front in the AI wars. While companies can win with world-class frontier models, they can also beat the competition by deploying AI so deeply across the core business that their competitive moat "widens beyond dispute," Shmulik wrote.

"Meta has already demonstrated the compelling returns they're seeing from deploying AI to core workloads," wrote Shmulik. "But if the company can now re-design their operations from the ground up to be AI-forward, their potential cost and performance advantage could be insurmountable."

By one metric, Zuckerberg's efficiency drive over the past three years has paid off. Revenue per employee has steadily increased over that time period, with the company overtaking Amazon last year, according to data shared in the Bernstein note this week. Pinterest was the only company with a higher ratio.

At the same time, Meta's capex and R&D spend per employee have significantly outpaced rivals, according to the Bernstein report, which could point to a reason for the potential layoffs.

Investors appeared to react positively to Meta weighing up further cuts, with the company's shares up about 2% early Monday.

AI-washing? Maybe not.

Like other Big Tech companies, Meta has moved quickly to chase AI.

It has also been aggressively driving AI adoption internally. The company said it would start grading employees on their "AI-driven impact" in performance reviews starting this year, and has tracked how some teams have been using the tools, Business Insider previously reported.

Companies including Atlassian and Block have cited AI as a reason for recent layoffs, raising the question of whether some leaders are "AI-washing" and using the technology to camouflage other reasons for cuts, such as financial problems or overhiring during the COVID pandemic.

Bernstein's Shmulik said that while AI-washing was possible in Meta and other companies' cases, he said that layoffs could now be seen as evidence that the company is seeing efficiency gains.

The company eliminated more than 20,000 jobs in late 2022 and early 2023 as Zuckerberg declared a "year of efficiency," cutting non-technical roles, flattening management layers, and lifting what had been a sagging share price.

If Meta repeats a similar cycle for the AI era, it could set the mold for what a truly AI-first company could look like, Shmulik said.

"If one major player is able to redraw the blueprint for an AI-enabled organization, others will rush to replicate it... and we wonder if this could trigger a cascade of hurried pivots, half-formed strategies, and reactive restructuring across the ecosystem," he wrote.

Have something to share? Contact this reporter via email at hlangley@businessinsider.com or Signal at 628-228-1836. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Moltbook updated its terms of service with new legal requirements and disclaimers.
• Humans are now responsible for their agents' actions, and must be over 13 (or have parental consent) to register.
• Meta confirmed its acquisition of the AI social network days prior to the change.

Days after the Meta acquisition, Moltbook is already making changes.

The Reddit-style social network for AI agents updated its terms of service on Sunday. Before Meta swooped in, the site had five rules. Now, it has a terms page full of legal language and agreements — including that every user is personally responsible for their agent.

"AI agents are not granted any legal eligibility with use of our services," the new terms read. "As a result, you agree that you are solely responsible for your AI agents and any actions or omissions of your AI agents."

The change was so important, it seems, that Moltbook chose to put it in bold, all caps.

The social network also has a new age requirement: Operators must be over 13 or have a parent agree to the terms. This is common among tech companies — Meta's Instagram has a similar requirement.

Moltbook added a series of disclaimers to the terms. Among the list is a statement advising against reliance on AI for information or decision-making.

"Moltbook does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability" of AI-generated content, the terms read. Users agree not to use the content as a "substitute for its own independent determinations."

Meta acquired Moltbook in March, adding creators Matt Schlicht and Ben Parr to the team of Meta's Superintelligence Lab.

Before the acquisition, Moltbook had five rules in its terms of service. The ownership clause placed less liability on the human operator. "AI agents are responsible for the content they post," the old rule said. "Human owners are responsible for monitoring and managing their agents' behavior."

Moltbook was born from a meme moment on X about the AI agent OpenClaw, previously called Moltbot. Operators had to sign up with their X accounts.

Even after the Meta acquisition, that hasn't changed. Users need an X profile; Instagram or Facebook won't do.

• Prediction markets correctly predicted the winner in 19 out of 24 Oscar categories.
• In one category, there was a rare tie, and Kalshi and Polymarket settled it in different ways.
• Here are the five categories where prediction markets missed.

If you made Oscar winner predictions based on who was leading on Kalshi and Polymarket, you would've done pretty well.

The two prediction market platforms correctly identified the winner in 19 out of the 24 categories represented at Sunday night's Academy Awards.

That's not quite as good as Polymarket's record with the Golden Globes in January — traders correctly predicted 26 out of 28 winners that night — but it nonetheless demonstrates the markets' ability to channel the wisdom of the crowds, at least most of the time.

And even the stars themselves are getting in on the action: Kevin O'Leary, the "Shark Tank" star who played a supporting role in "Marty Supreme," said he bet $1,000 on Kalshi that his costar Timothée Chalamet would win the Oscar for best actor.

He ended up being wrong: Michael B. Jordan of "Sinners" won, as both Kalshi and Polymarket predicted. But if Chalamet had won, O'Leary would have made a significant profit.

Prediction markets correctly identified the winner in all of the major categories, including best picture, best director, best actor, best actress, and best screenplay.

But in the following five categories, the winning film was not favored by prediction markets.

Best cinematography: "One Battle After Another" was the overwhelming favorite to win, with odds well over 75% on both Kalshi and Polymarket in the days leading up to the awards show. But the Oscar ultimately went to Autumn Durald Arkapaw from "Sinners."

Best animated short film: "Butterfly" was the favorite to win, with chances in the 50s and 60s in the days before the show. "The Girl Who Cried Pearls" got the Oscar.

Best live action short film: "Two People Exchanging Saliva" was favored to win on both platforms, though not by much. But it ultimately ended up being a tie, with both that film and "The Singers" winning an Oscar.

It was only the seventh tie in the history of the Oscars, and the first in over a decade. Kalshi allowed traders to choose "Tie" as an option, though the market only gave it a 2% chance of happening.

On Polymarket, the rules stipulated that in the event of a tie, the film whose "listed name comes first in alphabetical order" would be treated as the winner, meaning those who bet on "The Singers" received payouts.

Best documentary feature film: At 66% on both prediction markets, "The Perfect Neighbor" was the favorite. "Mr. Nobody Against Putin" ended up winning the Oscar.

Best casting: "One Battle After Another" won, despite the prediction markets putting the odds of a "Sinners" victory in the high 70s.

• Many tech leaders say they're ditching screen time limits, though some still use them.
• Instead, they're focused on how their kids are interacting with technology, prioritizing creativity.
• Short-form video and social media remain major concerns for many parents.

These days, parenting means navigating a seemingly endless parade of decisions about technology. Can your toddler watch "Sesame Street" on an iPad? Does FaceTiming the grandparents count toward screen time? Should your teen have access to social media just because "everyone else" seems to?

Parents are more cognizant than ever about the pitfalls — and potential — of technology, so it's natural to wonder how the people leading tech companies handle this with their own kids. Paypal cofounder Peter Thiel and Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel have both said they limit their young children (all 8 or under) to an hour and a half of screen time per week. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has said that he wants his kids to use screens for communication, not passive consumption.

It turns out, tech leaders, for the most part, are like the rest of us: trying to balance screen-free time and critical thinking skills, while also giving their kids access to the world that technology can unlock.

Here's how seven tech leaders are handling technology decisions for their families.

Finding the middle

Kate Doerksen is the co-founder and CEO of Sage Haven, an app that helps parents monitor their kids' messaging. Her kids, who are 7 and 9, get an hour per day on their iPads or Nintendo Switch, plus additional time if the family is playing a video game together. She plans to delay smartphones and social media, but her daughter has an Apple Watch with messenger (which Doerksen monitors).

"Like most things in life, the right answer feels like it lies somewhere in the middle," Doerksen says. "It's not tech abstinence, and it's not unlimited, unfettered usage. It's moderate usage on non-addictive apps and games with boundaries."

Learning and creating

As the chief learning officer at the online education company Stride, Niyoka McCoy, sees tech as a normal part of life, but she's still intentional about how her children — who are 14 and 2 — use it.

"We believe technology should be a tool for learning and creativity first, and entertainment second," she says. Her kids don't have hard-and-fast screen time limits, but McCoy aims to avoid them passively consuming content.

"When kids spend too much time scrolling or watching instead of creating, learning, or building something meaningful," she says, "that is when technology stops being beneficial."

Focusing on well-being, not screen time

Three years ago, Hari Ravichandran's daughter, who was then 13, went through a tough time — one that he believes her access to a smartphone contributed to. He had given her a phone at 13, but now believes that was too young, so he decided to take the phone away and delay access until 15 or 16 for her as well as his three younger children.

"I knew we couldn't just send her back into the same digital environment that had amplified those issues," said Ravichandran, the founder and CEO of online security company Aura.

At the same time, "What I think is overblown is the idea that technology itself is the enemy," Ravichandran says. "Cutting it out completely doesn't solve the root problem and can actually limit kids' independence and digital literacy."

Today, he focuses on how technology impacts his children's mood, sleep, self-esteem, and overall well-being.

"For us, it's less about strict bans and more about awareness, accountability, and open dialogue," he says.

Making sure values align

Tim Sheehan, co-founder and CEO Greenlight — which provides debit cards for children and teens — gave his four kids access to smartphones at 12, and social media at 15. His kids now range in age from 17 to 26. When they were younger, he watched their tech consumption closely, knowing how impressionable they were.

"My goal is to make sure the outside influences in their lives support the values we're trying to instill," he says.

Limiting short-term video

Justice Eroline, chief technology officer at the software development firm BairesDev, has a blanket rule of 1 hour of screen time for his kids, who are 8, 10, and 12. Even within that, he pays close attention to the type of content they're watching.

"I don't allow short-form content for the kids as it affects their attention span," he says.

Ahu Chhapgar, chief technology officer at fintech company Paysafe and dad of two (ages 10 and 13), says short-form video worries him more than anything else.

"When kids get access to it, they almost enter a trance," he says. "That level of stimulus is not how the brain evolved to process information, and I do worry about long-term effects on attention and impulse control."

Allowing AI, and gaming

Unlike some parents, Eroline is much less concerned about gaming.

"Video games can teach kids a lot of different things: teamwork, reaction time, problem solving, grit, dealing with defeat," Eroline says. "The content of the video game might be questionable, but there are plenty that can work for different age ranges."

Chhapgar won't let his kids have access to smartphones until they're 14, and social media until they're 16, but he does encourage them to use ChatGPT for 20 minutes each day.

"No one has all the answers about AI yet," he says. "So I'd rather they explore, build, and experiment responsibly instead of just passively consuming technology."

Controlling the interaction

Nik Kale, principal engineer with Cisco Systems, makes sure that his 3-year-old isn't given a screen when she's upset.

"I don't want her building a dependency where the first response to discomfort is a device," he explains.

He also ensures that he or his wife — not an algorithm — are choosing what their daughter sees.

"I don't let automated systems make unsupervised decisions in my production environments at work," he says. "I'm not going to let one make unsupervised decisions about what my three-year-old's brain consumes either."

That, to him, is much more important than seemingly arbitrary screen time limits.

"Parents are adding up minutes like it's a toxicity dosage," he says, "when the real variable is whether a human or an algorithm is driving the experience."

• Camillia Nwokedi left her tech career to become a content creator in 2025.
• She started with $6,000 in savings and experimented with posting for 60 days before leaving tech.
• Nwokedi said the journey is lonely, but it's the best decision she has ever made.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Camillia Nwokedi, a 28-year-old content creator based in Pittsburgh. It's been edited for length and clarity.

When the crypto startup I was working for was sold in July 2025, I saw it as the perfect opportunity to go all in on myself as a content creator. I had about $6,000 in savings and less than 40,000 followers on TikTok, but I believed I was worth the investment.

In less than a year, I've gained brand deals, consulting and coaching clients, and I'm launching my second cohort soon. I'm taking the lessons I learned from the startup to build myself from the ground up.

It's been a difficult emotional journey, but investing in myself is the best decision I've ever made.

I worked at Accenture before getting into crypto

I worked at Accenture from late 2019 to 2021. Bitcoin was popping off at the time, and I started getting the itch to get into crypto, so I started listening to podcasts and building connections in that space.

In 2022, I connected with the CEO of a bitcoin rewards platform, and we hit it off right away. He offered me a job as a special ops agent, and I took it.

The team was really amazing, and I had a lot of senior responsibility, which I loved. At the same time, I was building a social media presence on TikTok and Instagram, where I posted about optimization, self-belief, competence, and more.

In mid-2025, the company was preparing to be sold, and I saw it as an opportunity to give myself a shot. I had been posting consistently, and it really gave me confidence to start looking at myself as an entity and not just a cog in the system.

I had helped scale and sell for other people, but now it was time to give myself that opportunity.

I did a 60-day trial run before going all in on content creation

In the 60 days prior to leaving the startup, I did a series on TikTok called SIM 60, where I posted a video each day pretending to act like a video game Sim. It was all an attempt to get me out of my head, put myself out there, and make content creation more fun. What it did was unblock me as a creative and force me to stop taking myself so seriously.

My audience significantly grew in that period, which gave me confidence that I'd be able to make life as a content creator work.

There are two necessary components for creating a startup: finances and self-belief. And sometimes, if you don't have the financial component, your self-belief can make up for that gap. Getting my self-belief up helped me feel as though I could go all in.

I started with $6,000 in savings and created a research and development budget

A lot of the initial planning was trying to get my working capital in place so that I could make this leap. I had about $6,000 in liquid savings and a retirement account with about $30,000 in it, which I didn't want to touch.

It wasn't a lot to go off of, but because I had been putting myself out there on social media consistently and even had a few user-generated content (UGC) and brand deals coming in, I had a lot of self-belief.

I even gave myself a research and development budget, so I had a little money set aside if I wanted to invest in coaching or consulting to help me with my branding. Thankfully, I haven't touched my retirement account.

I set quarterly goals and have days dedicated to things like CEO and CFO responsibilities

I looked at all the roles that I would have to maintain as a one-person business and decided to split my week into days dedicated to each role.

I have CEO day, COO day, CMO day, and more. It makes it so that every part of me can show up at the table, but I'm not necessarily asking myself to do it all at once.

Tuesdays are typically consulting and operations days for me. This is when I get things in order and execute things for my clients. As much as I've left the 9-to-5, I try to work within that realm for the structure. It helps me manage my time well without overwhelm.

I also give myself quarterly goals or KPIs, which has been comforting. It adds familiarity and structure to a space that is entirely new territory for me.

It's been an emotional and lonely journey

The most challenging and the most worthwhile part of switching from tech to content creation has been the emotional journey.

One morning, I cried because I was so stressed. There's a lot of discomfort that comes along with pursuing my goals. It can feel lonely to be building something entirely on my own.

I have to gentle-parent myself and my nervous system to keep going, and to keep believing that it's going to pay off.

It's hard to communicate to people how many internal conversations I have with myself on a daily basis to reframe old narratives and rewire limiting self-beliefs.

At the end of every week, I can't believe I made it

If you're considering leaving your job or making a big leap, don't ignore that feeling or settle.

I think people often stay as close to their dreams as possible without actually going after them directly.

As someone with not much savings who is still pursuing her dream, and it's working out, I could not recommend it more. It's the best decision I've ever made, and I hope others can have the experience of pursuing what they want as directly as possible.

Do you have a story about leaving tech and pursuing a different career you want to share? Email the editor, Manseen Logan, at mlogan@businessinsider.com.

• Travis Kalanick launches Atoms, a new venture aiming to build a "wheelbase for robots."
• Atoms wants to build a platform for specialized industrial robots, not humanoid designs.
• Atoms is acquiring Pronto, an autonomous vehicle startup founded by Anthony Levandowski.

The former Uber CEO is venturing into robotics.

Travis Kalanick announced that Atoms is out of stealth mode and expanding beyond food delivery infrastructure into industries such as food service, mining, and transportation.

The ex-Uber CEO published a 1,600-plus manifesto of his company on Friday.

"When I told my friends, family, and colleagues about my plans for what was next, they were really excited that I was 'coming back,'" Kalanick wrote on the website for the new venture.

"The thing is, I never left."

Kalanick did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.

In an interview on "TBPN" on Friday, Kalanick told show hosts John Coogan and Jordi Hays that he will be folding his ghost-kitchen startup CloudKitchens into the new venture, a detail that is also mentioned on Atoms' website.

Atoms' webpage says the company plans to build a "wheelbase for robots," a platform designed to power specialized machines rather than humanoid robots.

"At Atoms we make gainfully employed robots — specialized robots with productive jobs that bring abundance to their owners and society at large," Kalanick wrote on the website.

Kalanick said on "TBPN" that the company will focus on practical industrial systems instead of humanlike designs, and that the venture was just renamed as "Atoms" from "City Storage Systems" today.

"We've been in stealth mode for eight years," said Kalanick. "Employees were not allowed to put the name of the company on their LinkedIn. We have thousands of employees."

"Humanoids have their place, but there's a lot of room for specialized robots that do things in an efficient, sort of industrial-scale kind of way, which is sort of where we play," he added.

According to Kalanick, Atoms is close to acquiring Pronto, an autonomous-vehicle startup focused on industrial and mining sites, founded by his former Uber colleague, Anthony Levandowski.

Uber didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Kalanick's partnership with Levandowski would be the reunion of two of the most infamous Uber alums.

Levandowski did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Kalanick co-founded Uber in 2009 and was its CEO until 2017, when he resigned after facing immense investor pressure stemming from reports of a toxic work culture and multiple clashes with regulators.

Levandowski, an alum of Google's self-driving project that is now Waymo, was brought into Uber in 2016 after the ride-hailing giant bought his self-driving trucking outfit, Otto. In less than a year, he was fired from the company after Google sued Uber, accusing Levandowski of stealing trade secrets from the self-driving project. Uber settled with Waymo, but Levandowski was convicted in a separate criminal case in 2020 of one count of trade secret theft.

Levandowski was later pardoned by President Donald Trump before he even began serving an 18-month prison sentence.

• Data centers power the AI revolution, and are sprouting all over the US.
• They can also be a drain on water and energy, and face opposition in many towns.
• A new Pew Research Center survey found that Americans who know about data centers don't like them.

There are over 1,200 data centers scattered across the United States, and thanks to the AI boom, many more are on the way.

Those data centers also, it seems, confirm the adage "familiarity breeds contempt."

A new survey from the Pew Research Council, conducted in January and published Thursday, found that the more Americans learn about data centers — and their effects on home energy costs, quality of life, the environment, local jobs, and tax revenue — the more cynical they feel about them.

"Two-thirds of adults who have heard a lot about data centers say they're mostly bad for home energy costs, compared with 42% of those who have heard a little," the center reported. "And 63% of those who have heard a lot about the facilities say they're mostly bad for the environment, compared with 48% of those who have heard a little."

Pew found that 25% of adults know "a lot" about data centers, while 50% said "a little" and 25% said "nothing at all." It surveyed 8,500 Americans for the report.

While data centers have been around for decades, their numbers are skyrocketing as companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and others race to develop ever more intelligent AI models.

Companies like Oracle, for example, will invest $500 billion over four years in AI infrastructure for OpenAI in a venture called Stargate, which is backed by the Trump administration. The president has made data center construction a key pillar of his administration's strategy to defeat China in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence.

Many Americans outside Silicon Valley, however, feel as excited about another new data center as they do about AI overall. Some communities are now pushing back, citing concerns about energy costs and the environment. Tensions have flared at protests, city hall meetings, and on Capitol Hill.

In response to these growing concerns, tech leaders said this month they would cover a greater share of data center energy costs during a visit to the White House.

"They're going to be making their own electricity," Trump said of the tech companies. "They're not going to be taking from the grid."

Those companies signed a "pledge" to provide their own power, which, in the end, is voluntary and includes no repercussions if they don't comply.

• A version of this story originally appeared in the BI Tech Memo newsletter.
• Sign up for the weekly BI Tech Memo newsletter here.

A few Fridays ago, I was feeling smug. I'd just sent another Tech Memo edition telling subscribers to stop worrying about AI eating tech jobs because Anthropic, the leading AI company pushing this narrative, is hiring so many engineers.

So clever! Until I got an email from a reader, Kiran Maya Sheikh. She has a computer science degree from the University of California, Irvine. It's a great school, and she graduated with an impressive GPA. And yet, she's struggling to land that all-important first full-time software engineering job.

"It's bad advice to 'not worry,'" she wrote. "AI is causing disruption in this job market. Employers are prioritizing hiring experienced workers, but not new graduates."

This week, I interviewed Kiran for Tech Memo. It was an eye-opening view into the realities of the new AI economy. Here are the highlights from our chat, edited for clarity and length.

Alistair: What did you think you were signing up for when you first chose computer science as a degree?

Kiran: After getting into UC Irvine in 2020, I took my first coding class and I really enjoyed it. The prospects at this time were that people were going into this major to get great jobs and it was very rewarding and I ended up liking the work.

What did you believe a career in computer science would give you financially, socially, and emotionally?

The dream at the time was definitely everyone was saying, "Let's go work for Google and the FAANG companies and get a six-figure salary." My motivation was just getting a stable job, getting enough money to take care of my family — what everyone wants. I expected that computer science would put me in a position to grow as a software engineer, first and foremost, and then maybe take me to more of the strategic side, the management side. The main thing that I did figure out was that I wanted financial stability and maybe financial independence as well.

Fast forward to late 2022, when ChatGPT launched. Did you see that as a tool at the time or a threat?

I was a hater at the beginning. Then, friends of mine started using ChatGPT and they're like, "Oh, you can just use it like Google. You can just text it and it'll give you the answer." And honestly, my first thought was like, "That's a bit lazy. You can get more learning out of doing the work yourself." But the more time went on, the more that people were using it, and they started using it for class. Suddenly, I was ahead in class. I was doing the assignments well and understanding more.

Was there a moment when you thought generative AI might reduce the need for junior engineers, or do you even believe that?

We all know the current job market. It's not too hot and a lot of companies are citing AI as part of the reason for layoffs — but maybe that they were going to cut those jobs anyway. At the time though, while I was in school and using ChatGPT, I honestly didn't think it would get this far. I expected AI would be integrated into software engineers' work and companies would start integrating it, but I didn't realize there would be potential for it to take over jobs that I was looking for.

I don't think I was very attentive to the job market situation at the time, and I wasn't really thinking that far ahead. More of my worries at the time were just getting that first entry-level position. And I just thought it would be simple: I just get my degree and I would find a company that's hiring. Looking back, it was my mistake to not really research the current job market and maybe what some people were predicting about AI.

I didn't see it coming either. Few people did. Anyway, describe the moment when you realized the job market had changed?

I was already graduating, so this was after June 2025. I was getting into the reality of having to find my first job, and that's when I definitely started noticing something was wrong. A lot of my classmates, I haven't really heard of them getting any opportunities. Everyone's submitting so many resumes and there's a race to use AI to enhance resumes and send them out as fast as you can. And it seemed a lot more intense than I was prepared for.

A lot of my classmates and even students I know who are still in school are not even landing internships right now. It's not looking great. It's a very tough battle right now. So many people are quitting or getting fired or pivoting and there's new grads. Everyone is bracing, and it's a bloodbath right now.

Do you feel like you're competing against AI or laid-off senior engineers or both, or something else?

My fight is definitely with AI and all the competition with entry-level graduates — especially because AI is known to take over more junior roles. So it's important that we stay more relevant and offer something that AI can't. Scrolling through LinkedIn and on my job portals, I see more offers for mid-level positions, but I don't see as many for entry-level roles. So it's like I'm fighting AI and all these other graduates for roles that don't exist yet.

This job search so far, what has it done to your confidence?

I try to be optimistic. I am lucky to have a better situation than some other people do. I'm living at home with family, so I don't have to worry as much about expenses. Still, if I weren't doing anything about my situation, I would feel pretty bummed. I'd feel kind of trapped.

But I've been trying to work on building my network, finding people I know and learning from other people, just finding communities to be involved with. That's really helped my confidence because I find professionals that are trying to help — they are aware of the job market and they know how hard it is to get that first job. The one saving grace in this tough situation is definitely the community I've found and the people I know who are helping me through it.

Did you ever question your decision to study computer science?

Yes, I did question it. But I remember that I do like computer science and I did like what I learned. I really enjoyed my classes and programming. And instead of turning to a new discipline, I think I prefer to just specialize and find out new information and stay ahead of the news. And like I said, offer something that AI can't.

Do you feel like you were trained for a version of the tech industry that no longer exists?

I am a little salty, about this, if that's the right word. During my time at school, a lot of what the degree was about was learning the basics of software engineering. You learn programming languages and you learn how to set up your development and deployment. But right now there are so many more tools and I think that's the constant thing with the software engineering and the tech industry. There's always new technology and there's a lot of learning you have to keep up with.

But with AI in particular, I felt like I graduated a bit too early. Because now AI will probably be more integrated into learning. I had so many professors that were more welcoming towards AI. I remember a really cool professor who shared a website that would let you make your own LLM. And it's really useful stuff, but it wasn't part of the curriculum. It will be now, but I won't be there to see that change.

What I'm doing to help with that, and make the amends, is volunteering and doing more work on the side that involves newer technologies to just stay fresh and relevant and use all these new AI tools and see how I can leverage it.

If a high school senior asked you today whether they should major in computer science, what would you tell them?

It depends on what interests them about computer science. If it's absolutely something they're interested, they love learning about the technology and they want to code, I would still say go for it, but I would recommend how to position yourself for after college.

You need to start much earlier now, networking and knowing how to speak with people and how to apply, how to write a resume. And those all are also much more important now at the start of college, especially getting internships, if at all possible.

So, I would definitely recommend studying computer science, but being realistic about the opportunities available and keeping up with the news and the job market.

What would you say to potential employers out there?

The focus should still be in hiring entry-level talent if possible. I know it's tough with the current market and the economy and what's going on in the world right now. But entry-level talent is still important because you need to build this generation of professionals so that the future will have people to rely on. AI is still uncertain right now. People are still figuring out how it is impactful and it doesn't help to just force it upon your company.

Sign up for BI's Tech Memo newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com.

• Palantir CEO Alex Karp said even people in his industry don't appreciate how disruptive AI will be.
• Karp said that AI job losses will also alter the American political landscape.
• If the US isn't careful, he said, there will be an outpouring of hatred for "rich people in tech."

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says AI will upend society and that even people in tech underestimate "how disruptive these technologies are."

"If you are going to disrupt the economic and, therefore, political power significantly of one party's base, highly educated, often female voters who vote mostly Democrat, and military and working class people who do not feel supported, and you feel like that's, you believe that that's going to work out politically — you're in an insane asylum," Karp told CNBC on Thursday on the sidelines of AIPCon 9 in Maryland.

Karp said that, since AI will largely disrupt white-collar work, it will place greater value on vocational skills, upending the political paradigms of the Trump era.

"This technology disrupts humanites trained, largely Democratic voters, and makes their economic power less, and increases the power, economic power, vocationally trained, working class, often male voters, and, and, and so, these disruptions are going to disrupt every aspect of our society," he said.

Studies show that many white-collar fields are the most exposed to the initial wave of AI-related disruption. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has warned that AI could wipe out up to half of all white-collar, entry-level jobs over the next 1 to 5 years.

Karp has long positioned himself and Palantir as champions of the working class, with a particular focus on the US military. He's declared the software company "completely anti-woke" and has pushed back against employees who have questioned the firm's contracts with US immigration authorities.

The US can justify pursuing such a disruptive technology as AI only if it is coupled with national security, Karp said.

"These technologies are dangerous societally," he said. "The only justification you could possibly have would be if we don't do it, our adversaries will do it, and we will be subject to their rule of law."

Later in the day, Karp sketched out what could happen in a world that doesn't come together in the face of AI. In particular, he called for wholesale changes to the US education system to better prioritize skills-based training.

"The problem, the danger is if we don't do these reforms, you are going to get the pitchforks, because then the only solution people are going to have is, well, let's go after the unlikeable, rich people in tech, especially AI tech," he said during a recent interview on TBPN.

While Palantir has not disclosed why, the firm recently relocated from Colorado, a state that has become more Democratic in recent years, to Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis has overseen an explosion in Republican support.

Karp contrasted the future of America with that of Germany, where he spent significant time pursuing a Ph.D at Goethe University in Frankfurt.

"There are a lot of people like you guys, young people building things that feel hampered and are correct to feel hampered," he said. "I think the American version, if we're not careful, is not going to be the German version. I think it's going to be, 'Hang the rich.'"

• Young tech startup founders are having a moment in the AI era.
• From teenagers to 20-somethings, these founders are raising millions.
• Take a look at the pitch decks some of these founders shared with Business Insider.

Tech is no stranger to young founders.

Steve Jobs was 21 when he cofounded Apple in 1976. Mark Zuckerberg was 19 when Facebook launched. Whitney Wolfe Herd was 25 when she unveiled Bumble.

Many of today's startup founders are still young and scrappy. And in the age of AI, they're even more empowered to barrel ahead.

Some are following the footsteps of tech titans before them and dropping out of college. Others are opting out of the undergraduate experience altogether, with a few ditching high school to pursue careers in tech.

Arlan Rakhmetzhanov, founder of AI coding startup Nozomio, told Business Insider that he dropped out of high school in Kazakhstan after getting accepted into the competitive startup accelerator program, Y Combinator (YC). At the age of 18, he raised $6.2 million for Nozomio.

Rakhmetzhanov isn't the only teenager finding success in AI. There's also Toby Brown, a UK teen who raised $1 million for his AI project. There's also Zach Yadegari, the teenage cofounder of Cal AI, a nutrition app.

College-aged founders are also building companies and raising capital, such as the Yale students behind Series AI, a new social networking startup.

The median age for YC participants is now 24 years old, compared to 30 in 2022, YC's Pete Koomen told The New York Times in August.

Business Insider has interviewed the founders of 12 startups who are 25 years old or younger and have raised millions in funding since 2024 about the pitch decks they used to impress investors.

Read 12 pitch decks founders who are 25 years old or younger used to raise millions:

Note: Founders were 25 or younger when Business Insider published the following articles.

Series A

• Posh, an events platform, raised a $22 million Series A when its founders were 23. Read the 12-page pitch deck it used.
• Clyx, a startup trying to connect people via in-person events, raised a $14 million Series A when its founder was 25. Read 22 pages of its deck.

Seed

• Ditto, an AI dating startup founded by UC Berkeley dropouts, raised $9.2 million when the founders were 23 and 24. Read its 12-page pitch deck.
• Lyra, an AI video call startup, raised a $6 million seed out of YC when its founder was 23. Read the 8-slide pitch deck it used.
• Nexad, an AI adtech startup, raised a $6 million seed after wrapping up A16z's Speedrun accelerator. Nexad's CEO was 25. Read the 10-page pitch deck.
• Orange Slice, a YC-backed sales tech platform, raised $5.3 million when its founders were 23. Read the 7-page pitch deck.
• Golpo, a generative AI video startup, raised a $4.1 million seed out of YC when its founders — who are also brothers — were 19 and 20. Read its 7-page pitch deck.
• Bluejay, an AI agent startup, raised a $4 million seed coming out of YC when its founders were 23. Read its 9-page pitch deck.
• Novoflow, an agentic AI startup building tools for medical clinics, raised $3.1 million when its founders were 18 and 19. Read its pitch deck.
• CodeFour, an AI police tech startup, was founded by two 19-year-old MIT dropouts and raised $2.7 million coming out of YC. Read the pitch deck.
• Cerca, a dating app that connects people with mutual friends, raised a $1.6 million seed when its CEO was 23. Read the 10-slide deck.

Pre-seed

• Series, an AI social networking startup, raised a $3.1 million pre-seed when its founders were 21.

This story has been updated with additional examples.

• Anthropic's Jeff Bleich says AI will end the billable hour's dominance in legal billing.
• Billable hours mean lawyers get paid more when they spend more time on work.
• But AI tools eliminate "tedious" work, which devalues the time lawyers spend overall, Bleich said.

The billable hour's time is approaching midnight, according to Anthropic's top lawyer.

"I don't think the billable hour is the solution, and we've known it for a long time," Jeff Bleich, the AI company's general counsel, said Thursday.

Speaking at the American Bar Association's White Collar Crime Institute in San Diego, Bleich said that artificial intelligence tools are eliminating the need for companies to hire armies of lawyers to do lucrative yet "tedious" work.

"Now we've got a technology that's going to eliminate the sorts of things that allow people to become wealthy off of tedious work," Bleich said on the panel, alongside top lawyers at Google, IBM, and Liberty Mutual. "That was not what lawyers are trained to do, and not what we ultimately look to lawyers for."

The much-maligned billable hour is the standard method that law firms use to bill their clients.

Attorneys track the work done for each client, often in six-minute increments, tally them up, and charge their clients accordingly.

While the billable hour has been useful to help companies and other clients understand what they are paying lawyers for, it has also "created a wedge," Bleich said.

Under the current system, "the interests of firms are at odds with the interests of their clients," he said. Companies want lawyers to resolve problems quickly, but law firms get paid more when the work takes longer.

"Clients want you to solve the problem as efficiently as possible and with as little drama as possible," Bleich said. "And if you're a company, the bigger the case gets, and the more dramatic it gets, and the more complicated it gets, and the more work that has to be done — the more lucrative it is."

The other panelists largely agreed with Bleich's remarks.

"The value is no longer you putting in time," said Damon Hart, the top lawyer at Liberty Mutual. "The value is your strategy, your results."

Anne Robinson, IBM's general counsel, told the audience that she's open to working with them to figure out more creative billing methods.

"I'm open to firms coming and saying, 'I'd really like to work with you on this matter or this type of work, I get that the billable hour model is not one of aligned incentives, and so let's sit down and talk about what you expect as far as outcomes and how we can both get there in a way that reflects your pressures and your priorities,'" Robinson said.

Bleich said he still values the work of outside law firms, but wants them to find an alternative to the billable hour that works for everyone.

"We're not going to sort of cheap out and starve you," Bleich said. "On the other hand, you have to have an economic model that works. And the firms that adapt to that faster and better will be leapfrogging other firms, because they'll be more attractive to work with."

Bleich's comments come at a critical moment for Anthropic, which sued federal agencies this week after the Trump administration effectively blacklisted it following the collapse of contract negotiations with the Department of Defense.

In the lawsuit, Anthropic is represented by WilmerHale, one of the law firms that Trump targeted last year with an executive order that was quickly blocked by a federal judge.

"I like firms that show some spine," Bleich said following the panel, when asked about using law firms that fought back against Trump's executive orders targeting them. He declined to comment on the lawsuit itself.

WilmerHale is distinguished in another way: Reginald Heber Smith, who in the early 20th century managed the Big Law firm — then called Hale and Dorr — is widely credited with inventing the billable hour.

• Sam Altman said AI would in the future be sold like electricity and water, metered by usage.
• "We see a future where intelligence is a utility," the OpenAI CEO said.
• Altman suggested demand is surging and compute will decide who gets access.

In the future, you could have another utility bill to pay for: artificial intelligence.

That's according to Sam Altman, who says AI will eventually be bought and sold as a basic utility like electricity and water that's metered by usage.

Speaking at the BlackRock Infrastructure Summit in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, the OpenAI CEO said tech companies like his are building toward a future where intelligence is delivered on demand.

"Fundamentally our business and I think the business of every other model provider is going to look like selling tokens," Altman said, referring to the units AI systems use to process and price input and output data.

"We see a future where intelligence is a utility like electricity or water and people buy it from us on a meter and use it for whatever they want to use it for," he added.

In that world, compute capacity determines who gets access — and demand for AI is only going up, Altman said. Compute capacity is the processing power required to train and run AI models, determined by infrastructure such as chips and data centers.

If OpenAI doesn't build enough compute capacity to meet demand, Altman said, it either "can't sell it or the price gets really high." That would push AI access toward the wealthy, or force governments to decide how limited compute should be distributed, he said.

The infrastructure sprint

Major tech companies are set to spend hundreds of billions of dollars this year on compute to meet soaring demand for AI.

In her keynote at CES 2026 in January, AMD CEO Lisa Su said the world will need more than "10 yottaflops" of compute — a scale 10,000 times larger than global AI capacity in 2022 — over the next five years to keep up with growth.

Powering that expansion is a significant infrastructure challenge.

AI data centers can consume as much electricity as small cities, and the strain on the US power grid — along with transformer shortages and slow permitting for transmission lines — could become a bottleneck.

In an episode of the "Moonshots with Peter Diamandis" podcast in January, Elon Musk said that electricity generation is now the limiting factor in scaling AI, predicting China could outpace the US in total AI compute because of its faster energy build-out.

Inside tech companies, compute is a valuable but sometimes scarce resource. Engineers are competing for access to GPUs, and some job candidates now ask about their AI compute budget alongside salary and equity.

Last December, OpenAI President Greg Brockman said the company, which has committed roughly $1.4 trillion on data center projects over the next eight years, wants "to be ahead of the curve," but said, "I don't think we will be, no matter how ambitious we can dream of being right now."

At the BlackRock Infrastructure Summit, Altman said the goal is to move away from a world of being "capacity constrained."

• One of the tightest Oscar races in recent memories are on Sunday.
• Bettors are already wagering tens of millions on who will win in each of the 24 categories.
• Here's who's most likely to win, according to the odds on Kalshi and Polymarket.

At the Oscars on Sunday, it's not just Hollywood careers that are on the line. It's tens of millions of dollars.

Since the nominees were announced in January, traders on Polymarket and Kalshi have been wagering on which films, actors, directors, and more will win an Oscar in each of the Academy's 24 categories.

Prediction markets have seen dramatic growth over the last year, drawing the attention of media companies, the ire of some state regulators, and the scrutiny of Washington lawmakers.

Polymarket partnered with the Golden Globes earlier this year, and bettors on the site correctly predicted the winner in 26 out of 28 categories.

The Oscars, hosted this year by Conan O'Brien, will air on Sunday on ABC and Hulu.

And if bettors on Kalshi and Polymarket have it right, "One Battle After Another" will take home six Oscars, while "Sinners" will win four awards, and "Frankenstein" will walk away with three.

Where the odds stand for each category

Best Picture — "One Battle After Another"

Paul Thomas Anderson's "One Battle After Another" is the odds-on favorite to win best picture, standing at around 80% among Polymarket and 78% on Kalshi.

The next most likely winner is Ryan Coogler's "Sinners," which each platform gives a less than 20% chance.

Bettors have wagered more than $44 million on the Best Picture winner across the two platforms, the most of any category.

Best Director — Paul Thomas Anderson

The director of "One Battle After Another" is seen as the overwhelming favorite to win best director, with Kalshi and Polymarket pegging his chances of winning in the low 90s.

Best Actor — Michael B. Jordan

Michael B. Jordan, the lead actor on "Sinners," has an almost 60% chance of winning, according to both Kalshi and Polymarket.

That's a significant change from January, when Timothée Chalamet — the lead actor in "Marty Supreme" — was seen as the leading contender, with odds in the mid-70s at the time.

The change came after Jordan won "Outstanding Male Actor in a Leading Role" at the Actor Awards on March 1.

Chalamet's chances now sit in the low-to-high 30s on both platforms.

Best Actress — Jessie Buckley

According to bettors, Buckley — the lead actress in "Hamnet" — is likely to win best actress, garnering about 97% on both prediction market platforms.

Best Cinematography — "One Battle After Another"

"One Battle After Another" is seen as the overwhelming favorite to win best cinematography, with bettors on both Kalshi and Polymarket giving the movie roughly 76% chance of winning.

That's a change from January, when both platforms had "Sinners" with a 66% chance of winning at one point.

Best Production Design — "Frankenstein"

At over 90%, bettors on both prediction market platforms give "Frankenstein" an overwhelming chance of winning the award for best production design.

Best Adapted Screenplay — "One Battle After Another"

In addition to best picture and best cinematography, "One Battle After Another" is seen as overwhelmingly likely to win best adapted screenplay.

The movie now has a 96% chance of winning on both platforms.

Best Sound — "F1"

Apple's sports drama film F1 is the overwhelming favorite to win best sound, according to bettors.

Both platforms give the movie a roughly 80% chance of winning.

Best Animated Short Film — "Butterfly"

Bettors are less certain who will win the award for best animated short film.

"Butterfly," a 15-minute film by director Florence Miailhe, has a 61% chance on both platforms.

But not far behind is "The Girl Who Cried Pearls," a 17-minute short film, which bettors give between a 21% and 22% chance of winning.

Best Live Action Short Film — "Two People Exchanging Saliva"

The French-language short film "Two People Exchanging Saliva" leads among bettors with about a 46% chance of winning on both Kalshi and Polymarket.

Another major contender is "The Singers," a musical short comedy film that has 29% chance on Kalshi and a 30% chance on Polymarket.

Additionally, "A Friend of Dorothy," a British short comedy drama film, has a 22% chance on Kalshi and a 21% on Polymarket.

Best Film Editing — "One Battle After Another"

The film leads the odds for best film editing winner, with an 84% chance on both platforms.

Best Original Score — "Sinners"

"Sinners" is the overwhelming favorite to win best original score, with bettors on both Kalshi and Polymarket giving the film a 94% chance of winning.

Best Original Song — "Golden"

"Golden," the viral hit from the film "KPop Demon Hunters," is the odds-on favorite to win best original song, with bettors on both platforms giving the song a 85% chance.

Best Supporting Actor — Sean Penn

Sean Penn, who plays Col. Steven J. Lockjaw in "One Battle After Another," is the favorite to win best supporting actor, with an over 70% chance on both Kalshi and Polymarket.

That's a dramatic change from January, when Stellan Skarsgård — who plays an estranged father in the Norwegian drama film "Sentimental Value" — had the highest odds, at roughly 64% chance on both platforms.

Best Supporting Actress — Amy Madigan

Amy Madigan, who portrays Aunt Gladys in the horror film "Weapons," is now the favorite to win best supporting actress on both platforms, hovering around 55%.

That's a change from January, when Teyana Taylor — who portrays Perfidia Beverly Hills in "One Battle After Another" — was the overwhelming favorite to win best supporting actress, sporting 75% on both platforms.

Best Visual Effects — "Avatar: Fire and Ash"

Bettors believe that James Cameron's "Avatar: Fire and Ash," the third installment in the "Avatar" series, is almost certain to win the award for best visual effects.

The movie's chances of winning stand at 94% on both Kalshi and Polymarket.

Best Original Screenplay — "Sinners"

"Sinners" is the overwhelming favorite to win best original screenplay, with roughly 95% odds on both Kalshi and Polymarket.

Best Documentary Short Film — "All the Empty Rooms"

Bettors on both Kalshi and Polymarket give "All the Empty Rooms" a roughly 70% chance of winning the award for best documentary short film.

The movie follows a journalist and photographer as they memorialize the empty bedrooms of school shooting victims.

Best Documentary Feature Film — "The Perfect Neighbor"

"The Perfect Neighbor," a documentary about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws, is the odds-on favorite to win best documentary feature film, with bettors on both platforms giving the film a roughly 66% chance.

Best International Feature Film — "Sentimental Value"

"Sentimental Value" is the favorite to win best international feature film, with bettors on Kalshi and Polymarket giving the film 67%-68% odds of winning.

Best Costume Design — "Frankenstein"

"Frankenstein" is the overwhelming favorite to win best custom design, sporting roughly 90% on both platforms.

Best Makeup and Hairstyling — "Frankenstein"

Similarly, "Frankenstein" is seen as a lock for best makeup and hairstyling, sporting probabilities in the low 90s on Kalshi and Polymarket.

Best Animated Feature Film — "KPop Demon Hunters"

"KPop Demon Hunters" is the prohibitive favorite to win best animated feature film, with a roughly 94% chance on both prediction markets.

Best Casting — "Sinners"

"Sinners" is seen as most likely to win best casting, with Kalshi and Polymarket bettors giving the film a 77%-78% chance of winning.