ResidentialBusiness

Google is now using a much larger font for the knowledge panels shown in Google Search. The font size looks jumbo and it does not seem to be test, it seems to be live - I think.View the full article

Google Search is testing a feature to quiz you on the product you are looking for and then to give you more tailored recommendations for product suggestions. This box is titled "get tailored recommendations" and it reminds me of the AI powered recommendation ads, but these are different.View the full article

Everyone talks about how different social media platforms are, and it’s not hard to see why. X is treated as the town square. Threads wants to be the friendly alternative. Bluesky champions decentralization and user control. But when we analyzed 1.7 million posts, a surprising pattern emerged: posts on X, Threads, and Bluesky get the same median engagement. In other words, whether you posted on X, Threads, or Bluesky, the median engagement lands at exactly four interactions. At first glance, this might make these platforms seem more alike than we’d expect. But a closer look tells a different story. Beyond that baseline, their engagement dynamics diverge dramatically, revealing hidden patterns about virality, consistency, and audience behavior. The engagement patterns we’ve uncovered don’t just highlight platform differences — they show why a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work in 2025. Our data scientist analyzed posts from 56,000 users to uncover these trends, and what we found changes the way we should think about social media strategy in 2025 — especially if you’re deciding where to post and what to expect from each platform. Understanding the dataBefore we dive into engagement trends, let’s break down what we’re actually measuring and how we made sure these comparisons are fair. This analysis covers 1.7 million posts from 56,000 users across X, Threads, and Bluesky in early 2025. That’s a lot of data — but as with any social media study, context matters. What we’re measuringIn this analysis, engagements refer to the total number of interactions a post receives — likes, comments, reposts, all of it. We chose this metric because it’s the only one that can be directly compared across all three platforms. Now, if you’ve read our previous analysis comparing engagement rates on X and Threads, you might notice what looks like a contradiction. That study suggested that Threads posts tend to have higher engagement rates, while this analysis suggests that, on average, X posts receive just as many engagements as Threads posts. Both findings are true — because they’re measuring different things. Engagement rate measures how many people who see a post interact with it.Total engagements count all interactions, regardless of how many people saw the post.Neither metric is inherently better — it just depends on what you’re looking to measure. If you’re focused on how likely a post is to engage its audience, engagement rate matters more.If you care about how much total interaction a platform generates, total engagements tell a clearer story.This is a good reminder that platform comparisons depend on your perspective and that a single number rarely captures the full picture. What’s ultimately important to remember is that social media engagement data is inherently skewed, and some people will get more engagement than others regardless of the network they post to. We used a mixed-effects regression model in this analysis to control for those factors. How engagement patterns differ across X, Threads, and BlueskyThroughout 2024, the typical post on all three platforms performed the same way: Half of all posts on X, Threads, and Bluesky received four or fewer engagements. At first glance, this suggests that engagement levels are nearly identical across platforms. But looking a little closer, this isn’t always the case. For example, in February 2025: Threads increased to a median of 5 engagementsX remained at 4Bluesky dropped to 3These shifts may seem small, but they indicate that each platform is developing distinct identities and that external factors are always shifting, affecting how they perform. How engagement scales on each platformLooking at the median engagement tells us how a typical post performs, but it doesn’t capture what happens when posts take off. The large gap between median and average engagement means some posts go viral, pulling the averages up. This is similar to salary distributions, where a few high earners inflate the average, even though most people make much less. The average (baseline) number of engagements shows a dramatically different picture: X: 328 average engagementsThreads: 58 average engagementsBluesky: 21 average engagementsThe key point that explains these differences is that the variance in the number of engagements is much, much higher on X than on Threads and Bluesky. Engagements on X have a standard deviation of over 5,000, meaning there is a very wide spread in engagement. The median is lower than the average because the distribution of engagement is skewed towards 0. What is a standard deviation, and why does it matter?A platform’s spread (or standard deviation) tells us how far posts can climb beyond the baseline. A larger spread means any given post to the platform has higher viral potential, while a smaller spread means that posts get more predictable engagement. Basically, the three platforms are on a spectrum from Wild Virality → Predictability. Here’s what we discovered about the different spreads on each platform. X is high risk, high rewardX has the widest engagement spread, with posts deviating by 5,159 engagements from the baseline. Most posts still receive four engagements or fewer, but when a post takes off, it can go viral in the extreme. This makes X the best platform for viral reach, even though posting there means you run the 'risk' of modest engagement. The massive spread potential on X means that when a post breaks out, it can go viral in a way that’s nearly impossible elsewhere. Here’s how to play to X’s strengths: Post consistently. Since virality is unpredictable, regular posting increases your chances of landing a breakout post.Experiment with highly shareable content. Memes, hot takes, and news-driven posts thrive on X’s fast-moving algorithm.Expect inconsistency. Most posts will get little engagement, but the potential payoff is high.Threads offers consistent and predictable growthThreads has a moderate spread, with posts deviating by 628 engagements from the baseline. Its bump to a 5-engagement median suggests that engagement is stabilizing at a higher level. Unlike X, where virality is unpredictable, Threads rewards creators who post regularly with steadier audience growth than any other platform. To succeed on Threads: Focus on conversation-driven content. Posts that encourage replies and discussion tend to perform better than one-way broadcasts.Build a community. Unlike X, where virality is the goal, Threads supports more long-term, engaged followers.Bluesky offers niche but reliable engagementBluesky has the smallest spread, with posts deviating by 279 engagements from the baseline. While its median engagement has dropped to 3, the lower spread means engagement is more predictable. Growth on Bluesky is slower but steadier, making it better suited for niche, community-driven content rather than viral reach. Here’s how to approach Bluesky: Create for a specific audience. Bluesky isn’t about mass engagement — it’s about focused, community-driven content.Expect steady but slow growth. Engagement is more predictable than on X but less explosive.Use it for deeper conversations. Thoughtful, discussion-heavy posts perform better than viral-style content.Do you need a cross-platform strategy?The recent divergence in median engagement and engagement spread on X, Threads, and Bluesky tells us something important: These platforms are no longer interchangeable. Each platform now offers unique advantages depending on your goals. You can choose to focus all of your efforts on growing one social network, or you can work on a multi-channel strategy. If you go with the multi-channel approach, remember to tailor your strategy to each platform. You can still use strategies like cross-posting across platforms; we'd recommend you do so thoughtfully. To cross-post smarter in 2025: Customize for platform strengths. With a few tweaks, the same post might go viral on X, get steady engagement on Threads, and spark discussion on Bluesky. Adjust captions, formatting, or tone accordingly.Use scheduling tools to stay efficient. Posting manually across platforms is unsustainable. Use Buffer to note your ideas, draft your posts, and edit them for each platform, then post everywhere without extra work.Analyze your own engagement trends. While these patterns are platform-wide, your audience might engage differently. Use data from your own posts to refine your strategy.Most of all, stay flexible. Platforms and the trends that they create change fast. The key is adapting to how engagement evolves over time. 💡Check out Crossposting 101: Everything You Need to Know to Crosspost on Social Media EffectivelyWant more data?📚 Threads Drives 73.6% More Engagement Than X — Here’s What You Need to Know 📚 Data Shows Instagram Reels are Best For Reach — But Not Engagement 📚 From Instagram to Bluesky: How Social Media Use Has Evolved Since 2022 View the full article

Harvard Business Publishing Corporate Learning recently surveyed leaders and L&D professionals about what they’re looking for in a leadership development program. At the top of the list? Scalability. One of my passions—and one of the reasons my company developed our own learning platform—is expanding access to leadership development, so it’s exciting to see companies recognizing how important scalability is. At the same time; however, I know that making scalability work at your organization can be a tall order. For a long time, scalability and quality have seemed at odds in leadership development. An organization could spend its budget on highly effective, but expensive options like coaching for fewer people. Or it could bring leadership development to more employees, but settle for cookie-cutter programs. But that conundrum is becoming a thing of the past. Scalability and quality can go together in leadership development—no matter the size of your training budget. To get both, though, you have to embrace an approach that’s both high-tech and high-touch. Why is scalability so important? Before we get into the nuts and bolts of scaling quality leadership development, let’s talk about why it’s such a big deal right now. For starters, there’s a real gap in leadership pipelines. Only 20% of companies feel confident that they have strong future leaders lined up, and this is something we hear from clients all the time. At the same time, companies are starting to recognize the power of informal leaders—the people who don’t have a leadership title but still play a huge role in driving teams forward. A recent Harvard Business Publishing report highlights how organizations are shifting toward flatter structures and more cross-functional collaboration. That means people who used to simply carry out tasks are now expected to influence stakeholders, make strategic decisions, and communicate business impact—in other words, to lead, even without a formal title. With leadership expectations evolving, the challenge isn’t just developing leaders—it’s making sure leadership skills reach everyone who needs them. With tech, think beyond AI That brings us back to the question of how to make leadership development more scalable while maintaining quality. With just about any issue in business, people seem to rush to AI as the answer. While exciting things are going on, AI isn’t a magic-bullet solution for leadership development yet. The lingering problem is getting people (and teams) to actually use and benefit from them. But AI can be part of your scalability solution. In the Harvard survey, 60% of respondents said they’re incorporating AI into their development programs. (As my own company trains an AI coach, we’re focusing on making sure that using the coach will fit into people’s busy schedules.) However, don’t let AI overshadow other useful technologies. Micro-learning platforms are another huge trend right now, with nine out of 10 L&D professionals saying that the employees they serve prefer them. I’ve seen firsthand with our own platform how busy professionals embrace using “snackable content” to get leadership insights when and where they need them. Technology can also extend the reach of other leadership development tools. If you’re used to thinking in terms of using a single leadership development program at your organization, this may require a shift in mindset. But there’s lots of potential. For example, my company is very excited right now about the potential of combining our learning platform with our coaching services to help companies stretch their budgets farther. Enlist your current leaders for development  As I touched on earlier, technology is only part of the story when it comes to scaling leadership development. Leaders will always need to learn from other leaders, no matter how advanced AI and other high-tech tools become. I’ve also found that most organizations haven’t fully tapped into the knowledge their own people have. Unleashing this knowledge makes it a whole lot easier to scale leadership development. One strategy I always recommend is teaching your current leaders (including the informal ones) how they can help develop others. Ensure that the development they receive includes both coaching and delegation skills. Employees whose managers are adept coaches are eight times more engaged. And delegation gives employees a chance to grow “in the flow of work”—I’ve seen firsthand that this approach amplifies engagement, innovation, and customer satisfaction. Another way to enlist current leaders in scaling development is creating a mentoring program or updating your current one. Some of your employees may already have mentors or mentees, but formalizing mentorship programs makes them more powerful. Mentorship doesn’t just impart the information your people need to develop as leaders. It also ensures that information is relevant—the “touchstone” of an effective leadership development program—and it helps build the relationships your future leaders need. What’s next? I’m optimistic about scalable leadership development and the possibilities it holds. Making leadership development available to more employees will affect productivity—and even small shifts in productivity across a large population of employees can lead to big results. So how do you want to get the ball rolling to integrate scalability into your organization’s approach?    View the full article

This story was originally published by ProPublica. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is considering taking a first step to using cryptocurrency, according to a meeting recording and other materials reviewed by ProPublica and three officials familiar with the matter. Two officials told ProPublica they believe the initiative may be a trial run for the use of crypto across the federal government. The discussions have sparked concern among some at the department, especially about the prospect of paying recipients of major federal grants in cryptocurrency, an uninsured digital asset associated with financial speculation, dramatic swings in value and transnational crime. The focus of the discussions so far has been experimenting with using the underlying technology that makes crypto possible — the blockchain — to monitor HUD grants. Blockchain advocates argue that the technology is valuable on its own for such purposes. But the primary use of blockchain, according to experts, is for crypto transactions. “It’s just introducing another unregulated security into the housing market as though 2008, 2009 didn’t happen,” one HUD staffer said, referring to the subprime mortgage crisis. “I don’t see any way this will help anything. I see a lot of ways this could hurt,” said the official, who, like others in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. The HUD discussions have covered the potential use of a stablecoin, a form of crypto that is pegged to another asset to avoid wild swings in value, although such swings have happened in the past. The blockchain idea is being pushed, a HUD official told colleagues, by Irving Dennis. Dennis, the agency’s new principal deputy chief financial officer, is a former partner at the global consulting giant EY, also commonly known by its original name, Ernst & Young. EY itself is involved in the proposal as well: An executive of the firm discussed the idea with HUD officials last month. The crypto industry has found an ally in President Donald Trump, whose administration has tapped industryboosters to lead federal agencies, backed off investigations into crypto firms and created a “strategic Bitcoin reserve.” (Bitcoin plunged $5,000 within an hour of the news of the reserve’s opening on Thursday.) Trump himself has significant financial interests in crypto. On Friday, the White House is scheduled to host a “crypto summit” with leading figures from the industry. The proposal at HUD indicates a new way that the administration may seek to bolster the industry: by incorporating blockchain and possibly cryptocurrency into the routine spending and accounting practices of federal agencies. It’s a move that would align with the apparent desire of Trump adviser Elon Musk to use the blockchain to monitor federal spending. Dennis and HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett both denied the accounts of their colleagues. “The department has no plans for blockchain or stablecoin,” Lovett said. “Education is not implementation.” Robert Judson, the EY executive involved in the conversations, confirmed that they took place. “We as a firm were having discussions with select individuals at that agency,” he said when reached by phone. Judson told ProPublica he would seek EY’s approval for a full interview, then didn’t call back. The White House, EY and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. HUD officials held at least two meetings about the blockchain proposal last month. A list of attendees to the first meeting included staffers from the offices of the CFO and Community Planning and Development. CPD administers billions of dollars in grants that support low- and moderate-income people, including funding to develop affordable housing, run homeless shelters, support disaster recovery, relocate domestic violence survivors and build parks, sewers and community centers. It was the CFO’s office that called for the meeting, one person told ProPublica. Also listed as a meeting attendee was Judson from EY. For years Judson has advocated for the blockchain, a digital ledger of sorts that creates an immutable record of transactions saved across multiple computers. Boosters of the technology cast it as a way to cut middlemen such as banks and credit card companies out of financial transactions and make those transactions more transparent and secure. Judson has written that the blockchain can help organizations prevent money from being siphoned off for unintended purposes. “As digital assets such as stable coins or digital currencies take hold, more powerful applications will emerge for integrated value exchange,” he wrote. Dennis, who served as HUD CFO in the first Trump administration, also wrote, in a 2021 book, that the agency should use technology such as “blockchain, robotics, and next-generation financial management systems.” Stablecoins are backed by reserves including traditional currency, commodities and Treasury securities. That is supposed to ensure that their value — unlike that of, say, Bitcoin — doesn’t fluctuate. However, on several high-profile occasions, the value of stablecoins has done just that. At the HUD meeting, attendees discussed a “proof of concept” project in which CPD would begin to track the funding going to a single CPD grant recipient and possibly subrecipients on the blockchain. The need for the project was “not well articulated,” one attendee later wrote in meeting notes. Following the meeting, a HUD official wrote and circulated a memo within the agency panning the idea. “Without exaggeration, every imaginable implementation of this at HUD appears dangerous and inefficient,” the memo reads. HUD has no difficulty tracking grant spending, the memo contended, making the new technology unnecessary. Incorporating it would be time-consuming, complicated and require extensive training. And, if the project involved paying grantees in cryptocurrency instead of dollars, it would inject volatility and unpredictability into the funding stream, even if the currency was a stablecoin. In subsequent discussions with HUD staffers, the memo’s author described the proposal as a “beachhead” at HUD for the introduction of cryptocurrency, which the author compared to “monopoly money.” CPD officials continued to raise concerns in a follow-up meeting, a recording of which was reviewed by ProPublica. (Judson did not attend this one.) Some attendees saw merit in the blockchain idea, suggesting it could reduce inaccurate data from grant recipients and enable real-time reporting and monitoring of their spending. “Maybe there is something that we could learn from it,” one said, “especially if we feel like the broader federal government is moving towards some sort of stablecoin option in the future.” One official asked why the agency was considering the project. “Because it’s sexy,” someone replied. Another said, “Irv has asked us to pursue blockchain, so that’s why we are looking at it,” referring to Dennis. Many details were left unexplained at the meeting, including, crucially, whether the proposal would involve paying grantees in cryptocurrency. But some signaled that it would. “You can do it with what would be attached to a stable currency. That would be up to Treasury, and I think they’re already going that way, for what it’s worth,” one official said. “It would simulate the dollar.” Another added, “It would basically be a cryptocurrency that is linked to the U.S. dollar on a one-for-one basis.” A finance official suggested the idea could be applied more broadly across HUD. “We are looking at this for the entire enterprise. We just wanted to start in CPD,” he said. The agency is also considering the idea for the Office of Public and Indian Housing, he said, for “tenant eligibility and stuff like that.” That office serves the millions of people who live in public and federally subsidized housing. This is not the first time that federal officials have considered incorporating the blockchain into the work of the government. Agencies including the Treasury Department, the Department of Commerce and even HUD have been involved in a study, a prototype and a working group in recent years. But those who monitor the crypto industry were not aware of as broad an application of the technology in the federal government as what HUD officials have recently discussed. Some crypto experts were dubious. “It’s a terrible idea,” said Corey Frayer, a former official at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, where he focused on the crypto markets and financial stability. “It is absolutely wild that anyone with any sense would consider this.” Frayer, now at the Consumer Federation of America, warned that HUD grants paid in stablecoin could fall in value. He expressed greatest concern about the notion that the proposal could expand to other parts of the agency. If that included, for example, introducing stablecoin into the $1.3 trillion in mortgage insurance provided by the Federal Housing Administration, a fluctuation in the value of the stablecoin could have a major economic impact, he said. “Imagine a world in which all of the government involvement in the housing industry, all of the funds circulating in that environment, dropped in value by 13%,” he said, citing a 2023 episode in which a stablecoin briefly fell 13 cents below the dollar. “It’s hard to imagine that wouldn’t be catastrophic.” Hilary Allen, a law professor at American University who researches financial regulation and technology, noted that some high-profile attempts to use the blockchain for purposes unrelated to cryptocurrency have failed. She expressed skepticism that the technology would fare better in the context of government grants, where bad outcomes could harm those who depend on HUD funding to survive. “Blockchain technology has been around for 15 years. No one wants to use it. And so now we have an attempt to force the government to use it,” she said, with “the most vulnerable people” serving “as guinea pigs.” Mollie Simon contributed research. View the full article

Hello and welcome to Modern CEO! I’m Stephanie Mehta, CEO and chief content officer of Mansueto Ventures. Each week this newsletter explores inclusive approaches to leadership drawn from conversations with executives and entrepreneurs, and from the pages of Inc. and Fast Company. If you received this newsletter from a friend, you can sign up to get it yourself every Monday morning. During December 2024, Workday CEO Carl Eschenbach and his leadership team, including cofounder and executive chairman Aneel Bhusri, arrived at a big decision: the software company would restructure itself to free up operating dollars for investment opportunities tied to artificial intelligence (AI). The move would involve shedding hundreds of jobs, marking the biggest layoff in the company’s history. Even though the plan was finalized, Eschenbach says he was “not at peace” because he had not had a chance to share his thinking in person with Dave Duffield, Workday’s other founder and its largest individual shareholder. So, Eschenbach met Duffield at the Jax Truckee Diner near California’s Lake Tahoe—the very diner where Duffield and Bhusri decided to start Workday, and offer cloud-based software to human resources and finance departments—to lay out his rationale. “Dave said, ‘Carl, I support you. We brought you in to scale the company and we’re supporting you 100% in this very difficult decision,'” Eschenbach recalls. “The only thing he asked, which was obviously a ‘yes’ on my part, was that we take care of our employees who were moving on.” Humans vs. AI: Finding the balance In early February, Workday announced it was cutting 1,750 employees, or 8.5% of its workforce, with U.S.-based employees receiving a minimum of 12 weeks of pay with additional severance based on tenure. Workday is just one of many tech companies, including Salesforce, Microsoft, and Meta, announcing layoffs this year. Workday CEO Carl Eschenbach [Photo: Workday] But even as Eschenbach restructures his company to make room for more AI investments, he insists AI will not result in mass unemployment. In fact, he says of Workday’s layoffs: “If you fast-forward one year later, we’ll have the same, if not more people in the company because we’re going to rehire as we invest in [the AI] opportunity.”  The workforce more broadly will “peacefully coexist with the technology, we’ll leverage it, and we’ll become more productive as humans and as employees because of the technology,” he says. “It’s not just a replacement.” AI for CEOs I asked Eschenbach what kinds of AI agents or automation tools CEOs should embrace. He says all executives would benefit from agents that help with day-to-day “mundane” tasks (this is a common AI talking point) such as managing calendars or summarizing email messages. But he also noted that Workday is starting to roll out agents that can summarize financial data ahead of earnings calls and monitor transactions to help with audits. Aneel Bhusri [Photo: Workday] It’s a perspective echoed by Bhusri, who has served as CEO of Workday at various times over the company’s 20-year history. “Every CEO should be thinking about how to integrate agents that enhance their ability to think strategically and make informed decisions faster,” he says. “There are two primary types of agents: task-based and role-based. Task-based agents can create some efficiencies but can become easily siloed. Instead, I’d encourage executives to adopt role-based agents that can transform entire workstreams to free them up to focus on more strategic, impactful work.” But AI also has the potential to free up leaders to do more of the meaningful, person-to-person work that’s become an increasingly important part of the job. In 2018, Michael Porter and Nitin Nohria published research in Harvard Business Review that showed CEOs spend 61% of their time in in-person meetings. And while the study predated the pandemic and the rise of remote and hybrid work, there’s no question that face-to-face interactions—like Eschenbach’s meeting with Duffield at the Jax Truckee Diner—will continue to be part of the CEO playbook in the age of AI. How is AI helping you? Are you a CEO using AI to help you manage your time or run your business? Send your best examples to stephaniemehta@mansueto.com. Your responses may form the basis of a future newsletter. Read more: overcoming CEO challenges 4 ways top CEOs are making AI work for them The 4 most common problems for founder-led startups From founder-led to founder-inspired View the full article

Changes may be happening to the government at lightning speed, but come April, tax season will still be in full swing. And this year, it might be advisable to file early. At the moment, the government has until March 14 to avoid a shutdown, while President Trump and Elon Musk are continuing their mass layoffs of federal workers, including potentially cutting the IRS workforce by half. This could very well lead to delays in getting your refund. Chye-Ching Huang, executive director of NYU’s Tax Law Center, predicted that federal government layoffs “will hurt everyday Americans who pay their taxes and count on the IRS to pay refunds on time while encouraging wealthy people and large businesses to cheat on their taxes.” Yet, even as this tax season seems particularly topsy-turvy, it’s still worth doing your homework to understand what’s the same and what’s different this year, in an effort to make 2025 “your” year financially. Here are a few things to keep in mind: Make sure your personal data is safe from DOGE Filing taxes inherently means turning over personal data to the government. While as of yet, DOGE doesn’t have access to the IRS, Musk is pushing for access to the IRS’s databases. In a recent article, Fast Company personal finance writer Emily Guy Birken shared tips on protecting your personal information and finances. This included freezing your credit, and opening accounts at my Social Security and IRS.gov to prevent fraudsters from accessing your tax benefits. Decide to DIY or hire out Paying taxes is already painful enough, but doing them requires choosing between time (filing them yourself) and money (paying someone else to file them). If you work for one employer and are taking a standard deduction, your taxes are probably straightforward enough that it’s worth filing them yourself. And if you earn $84,000 or less, you may qualify to use the IRS’s online Free File program. However, if you work for yourself or have gone through a major life change last year—such as getting married (or divorced) or adding a new family member, selling a major asset such as a house or stock, or having moved to a different state—it might be worth the several-hundred dollars to pay a CPA to make sure you minimize errors and maximize your refund. Get up to speed on which deduction is best for you Taxpayers can choose between the standard deduction and itemizing deductions. The former is a lump sum that is deducted from taxable income, the latter requires itemizing expenses, which are then deducted from taxable income. In 2017, Trump nearly doubled the standard deduction, making it the better option for most taxpayers. For the current tax year, the standard deduction is $14,600 for single people, and $29,200 for married couples filing jointly. Understand the 1099-K Roughly one-third of Americans are gig workers, freelancers, or independent contractors. If you’re one of them, heads up: You might be getting a 1099-K form this year. The 1099-K is used to report payments received through third-party platforms, such as eBay, Uber or Lyft, Etsy, and Venmo. Though the 1099-K has been around since 2012, it used to be for only those who earned $20,000 or more and had 200 or more transactions. This year, if you made $5,000 or more on third-party platforms, you’ll receive a 1099-K. Before starting your returns, review your 1099-K to make sure it doesn’t include nontaxable payments such as Venmo transactions from friends and family, or items you sold at a loss. If there is nontaxable income included on your 1099-K, the IRS has added a space on the Schedule 1 form where you can report all the nontaxable income. View the full article

Explore the power of AI in PPC reporting. Discover how it fills data gaps, surfaces insights, and streamlines reporting. The post 3 Ways AI Is Changing PPC Reporting (With Examples To Streamline Your Reporting) appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Workplace stress reached an all-time high in 2022, according to a Gallup report. And a 2022 Work and Well-Being Survey from the American Psychological Association found that workers appreciate and seek mental health support in the workplace. That’s why it’s important for employees to learn and practice techniques that will help them lower their stress during moments when stress levels are high. One way to do this is by creating positive experiences during highly stressful situations, such as recalling times when we were confident, calm, and in control. These serve as emotional anchors that we can trigger at will. In my book, Emotional Intelligence Game Changers: 101 Simple Ways to Win at Work + Life, I share tips on how to increase our confidence. Here are several techniques for bringing ourselves into that state. 1. Identify the state we want to experience Take a moment to think of a time when you were in charge of the situation, relaxed and confident with the way things were working out. Remember the feeling that came to you. Think back to that time and try to replay the feelings and sensations in your body when that was happening. Focus on feelings such as confidence, calm, and joy you experienced. Ask yourself, what details can you remember that will bring you back to that place? 2. Find something that will trigger that state, time, and place Work on finding a physical action that will cause you to automatically think of the situation that brings you into a positive state. This could be a physical gesture, such as tapping yourself on a part of your body. Practice this gesture while bringing yourself into a positive state. And make sure you keep this gesture specific to this purpose, and try to avoid using it for anything else. 3. Check out the anchor in less stressful situations Instead of waiting to use it in a highly stressful situation, test out the anchor in moments when you aren’t feeling stressful. If it works effectively, then it should be able to work when stress is more prevalent. If the anchor isn’t working as you’d expect or want it to, revisit the anchor technique by intensifying the emotion around the event, and modify your trigger accordingly. 4. Keep practicing and strengthening the anchor Look for situations throughout the day when you can practice using your anchor. Any situation that increases your stress, even in small levels, is an opportunity to use and solidify the effects of the anchor. You’ll find that if you practice this technique over time, it will become easier to access when you most need it. You’ll no longer need to think of the anchor because it’ll become your natural response in stressful situations. 5. Put your body into it Another way of strengthening the anchor is to align our physical state with the feelings of confidence. When you straighten your body, put out your chest, and pull back your shoulders, you encourage your body to amplify readiness, strength, and confidence. Add this posture to your anchor. 6. Add an inner mantra Repeating a mantra over time can also add strength to the anchor. Personalize it to make it more uniquely yours. You’ll want to use words that are powerful, that deeply resonate with you, and that are true of how you felt during the time when you’re experiencing the feelings. 7. Think of situations where the anchor will be helpful The best way to strengthen the anchor is to anticipate situations where you know it can be useful, then practice using it during these times. Any place, time, or circumstance that brings you out of your comfort zones is a great time to practice. As you begin to experience the benefits of using this in various situations, you’ll find it more and more natural to practice these anchors, and you’ll also embed it in your habits and memories. View the full article

“This is for the crafty girls who want to save money,” goes the voiceover on a recent TikTok, panning over the cheerful purple-and-gray exterior of Savannah’s Starlandia Art Supply and its shelves stocked with art supplies. “You need to be going to creative reuse stores, which are like thrift stores, but for crafts.” Another TikTok keeps it even simpler, with the text “pov: you find out thrift stores for arts & crafts exist,” overlaid on a montage of the treasures available at Seattle Recreative—paint brushes, markers, a whole wall of yarn. In fact, there are dozens of these “creative reuse centers” spread out across the country, from Anchorage, Alaska, to Atlanta, Georgia. Some centers have been operating for decades; others have sprung up since the pandemic, amid renewed enthusiasm for crafty hobbies. They sell everything from crayons to stamps to beads to fabric, and their mission is explicitly tied to sustainability. Organizers say they’re getting more and more emails and calls from people interested in establishing their own local spot. And yes, the young people on TikTok—who love crafting—are very enthusiastic about the idea. It’s likely that interest will only grow with news that the fabric store Joann—a decades-old stalwart for sewers, knitters, and other crafters—is closing all its remaining stores. “My feeling is every municipality should have one of these,” says Barbara Korein of Retake/Remake in Peekskill, New York. [Photo: courtesy of the author] Retake/Remake is a bustling little spot tucked into a converted turn-of-the-century hat factory in northern Westchester County—and it’s my local creative reuse center, a regular stop on my Saturday morning rounds and my go-to for everything from old National Geographic maps for Girl Scout projects to cross-stitch materials to slightly patchouli-scented wrapping paper. Retake/Remake accepts donations on the first Tuesday of every month and typically gets around 1,000 pounds of materials, says Korein. “We’ve converted about 113,000 pounds of waste from the waste stream.” The items are affordably priced when they put them out on the shelves, too: I once bought several skeins of hand-dyed yarn, a merino wool and alpaca blend, for $10 each, with an original sticker price of $32; I’ve bought needlepoint canvases, which are famously pricy, for as low as $1. [Photo: courtesy of the author] The concept is an elegant solution to a longstanding problem: Generally, traditional thrift stores don’t know what to do with half-used art supplies. “It’s an easy thing to identify and it’s a hard thing to donate,” says Korein. Often, they go straight into the trash and eventually the landfill. But there’s demand for that half-empty box of crayons—teachers, for instance, who often spend their own money on classroom supplies. Many creative reuse centers have special programs to serve this group: Austin Creative Reuse, for instance, has a Materials Mobile, which brings a truck full of no-cost supplies straight to educators. Creative small businesses often turn to these stores, for instance, and artists are a core constituency: “If you have $20 left for your art supplies, and you go to a traditional art center and buy a $20 tube of yellow paint, then whatever you’re painting is going to be yellow, and also it’s going to be paint,” says Jenn Evans of Austin Creative Reuse. But at a creative reuse center, that same $20 might buy a variety of paints and materials—and broaden artistic horizons. “It allows the artist to create artwork from their brains and their heart and not just have it limited by the materials that they can afford.” [Photo: Austin Creative Reuse] “We’ve seen all people from all walks of life come in,” says Ulisa Blakely, Director of Programs and Development at The Wasteshed in Chicago. “But the patterns we typically see are students, teachers, artists whether they’re emerging or established, and also a lot of BIPOC people, which is awesome.” [Photo: Austin Creative Reuse] The basic idea has been around for decades: The country’s first creative reuse center, San Francisco’s SCRAP, was opened in 1976 by Anne Marie Theilen and artist Ruth Asawa. SCRAP grew out of a program by the San Francisco Arts Commission to bring working artists into schools, but money for supplies was scarce. Two years later, New York City’s Materials for the Arts was founded by Angela Fremont, an artist working at the Department of Cultural Affairs; it’s now a 35,000-square-foot behemoth (though shoppable by appointment only) supported by the City of New York. [Photo: Anthony Sertel Dean/courtesy Materials for The Arts] The idea percolated around the country over the years that followed, often in association with other reuse organizations. But it seems there’s been a jump in the last decade, and it’s accelerating. Each center serves as a catalyst for the next one—Korein, for instance, volunteered at Materials for the Arts for a decade and served on their board. “The more centers there are, the more people become aware of this idea,” says Evans. And it turns out to be a pretty seductive idea. [Photo: Anthony Sertel Dean/courtesy Materials for The Arts] New technologies are making it possible for word to spread faster, too, and TikTok in particular can translate directly to increased business. Kimberly Maruska, Executive Director of SCRAP Creative Reuse (which is unrelated to the San Francisco original and has four locations across the country), says that after a popular TikTok featured their Ann Arbor outpost, they saw a huge jump in sales and new customers who cited the Tiktok. “Those people are still coming in,” says Maruska. “They didn’t stop.” Part of the appeal of creative reuse centers is their sheer practicality—why trash perfectly good materials, when teachers and artists are both famously cash-strapped? They’re handy for businesses with leftover materials, or individuals who want somewhere to take emotionally complicated donations—people who don’t knit, for example, want their beloved great aunt’s yarn stash to go to somebody who’ll appreciate it. [Photo: Anna Droddy/courtesy Materials for The Arts] “In general, being creative is getting very expensive,” says Evans. Creative reuse centers are a way to try something new without a huge financial commitment, and even seasoned crafters are keen for more affordable options. But there’s a broader, less concrete appeal, too. “It’s an easy way to get involved in grassroots causes,” says Blakely. It’s an approachable step into a more sustainable life, and that’s by design. “We attract people to the idea of creative reuse by offering them low-cost art and craft and school supplies,” says Evans. “But then once they come to us, we want to open a conversation with them about the environmental aspects of what they’re doing and celebrate the fact that they’re shopping secondhand.” In an era of fast fashion and haul videos, creative reuse centers offer a particularly charming glimpse at another path. Creative reuse centers serve as community hubs, too. Centers generally offer programming beyond the materials. The Wasteshed and Austin Creative Reuse have both hosted trash fashion shows, for example, where competitors have to use provided materials in a kind of creative reuse-themed Project Runway. “We create communities around us,” says Maruska. “We’re taking in donations from local community members, businesses, we’re having educational programming, we’re partnering with other local nonprofits or libraries or schools.” Most of these centers are nonprofits; there’s little chance of a financial jackpot, and it’s a mission-driven labor of love that tends to attract passionate people. “It really feels good to be part of something that everybody seems to benefit from,” says Korein. All those aspects combine to create the quality I personally love best about Retake/Remake, which is that it allows me to imagine art as a practice for its own sake. I don’t have to produce anything gallery-worthy; I don’t have to justify it as a potential side-hustle. It doesn’t even have to be particularly good. It can just be for me—art as part of a straightforward human impulse to create. View the full article

Does it feel to you like there are way too many AI assistants to keep track of? Between ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, DeepSeek, and others, it’s hard to remember what each one excels at—if anything. Beyond just the underlying differences in large language models, each AI assistant has its own features, integrations, premium features, and peculiarities. I’m writing this guide both for myself and for anyone who wants to stay informed about generative AI. While I have some reservations, I also think it’s worth keeping an eye on what’s available. Rather than getting into the technical details of how these AI assistants work, I’ll focus on what they can actually do. ChatGPT by OpenAI The most recognizable name in generative AI is also the most fleshed out as a standalone consumer tech product, with features like web search, a built-in document editor, and a conversational voice mode. ChatGPT also provides one of the most robust free tiers of any AI assistant, with all but its most bleeding-edge features available in some capacity without a subscription. Notable features: Voice mode for engaging in back-and-forth conversation, including an advanced version with more emotive responses. Traits that define how ChatGPT should converse with you. Temporary chats that don’t appear in your history and don’t train OpenAI’s models. Canvas document editor that uses AI to generate and revise content. Web-search for bringing in real-time information. GPTs that bring in information from third-party apps and services. Reason button that offers more in-depth problem solving and decision making. Price: Free for limited model access, $20 per month for more advanced models and new features, $200 per month for unlimited access to experimental features. Claude by Anthropic As The New York Times has noted, Claude is a favorite among AI insiders for its sense of emotional intelligence, with responses that are “less like the generic prose generated by other chatbots.” While its features are on the bare-bones side—it can’t search the web and lacks a voice conversation mode (for now)—it does offer some helpful features for creating and interacting with documents. Notable features: Projects mode, which lets you upload documents and data for context in your chats. Artifacts, which are standalone documents and image files you can download for use in other apps. Styles, which let you refine how Claude writes its responses. You can even upload a document for Claude to try and mimic. Price: Free for limited usage. $20 per month for additional models, reasoning, and the Projects feature. Google Gemini Google’s AI products are more diffuse than some of its startup rivals. While Gemini exists in standalone form on the web and in mobile apps—and serves as the default voice assistant on newer Android phones—it also generates summaries in Google Search, and is baked into other Google products such as Gmail, Docs, and Chrome. All this makes Gemini a bit tricky to quantify as a whole, except that it feels unavoidable if you regularly use Google’s products. Notable features: Extensions for interacting with other (mostly Google) services, for instance by summarizing YouTube videos or flagging important message from Gmail. Gemini Live for free-flowing voice conversations. Google Assistant features such as smart home control and reminders. NotebookLM, a separate but popular product that can analyze your documents, create summaries, and even turn them into podcasts. Price: Free, with $20 per month Gemini Advanced subscription for Workspace integration, book-length document analysis, and more advanced models. Microsoft Copilot Just as Gemini is built into Google products, Copilot is weaved into Microsoft’s Windows operating system, Office suite, and Edge browser. Its actual capabilities aren’t much different from other AI assistants—it primarily uses OpenAI’s large language models—but it’s easier to access if you’re deep into Microsoft’s ecosystem. (Microsoft’s GitHub also has its own version of Copilot for programmers.) Notable features: Office tie-ins, including writing assistance in Word and spreadsheet analysis in Excel. Think Deeper offers access to OpenAI’s reasoning models. Copilot Voice offers free-flowing voice conversations both on desktop and mobile devices. Edge sidebar lets you summarize and ask about web pages. Pricing: Free for limited usage, requires Microsoft 365 (starting at $10 per month) for full Office integration, $20 per month Copilot Pro for advanced models, early features, and Copilot in Office web apps. DeepSeek DeepSeek, the product of a previously-obscure Chinese company, shook up the AI world earlier this year, offering performance on par with OpenAI’s latest models with training costs that were apparently miniscule (though later disputed). It’s also raised privacy concerns over the data it sends to China, and it won’t talk about topics that are censored in China, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre. Even so, American companies are now looking to use DeepSeek’s open-source code, including Microsoft, which is offering local DeepSeek models on Qualcomm-powered PCs, and Nvidia, which offers its own online version. As for DeepSeek’s own app, it’s a bit on the crude side, but it offers image recognition, document scanning, web search, and a “DeepThink” reasoning model for problem solving and decision making. Notable features: Unlimited access to DeepSeek’s latest models. Pricing: Free. Grok While Elon Musk’s AI assistant looks like a lot of its rivals on the surface, it has a kind of edgelord sensibility lurking underneath. Grok won’t flat-out tell you how to build a pipe bomb, for instance, but it won’t shut the conversation down, either. Instead, it’ll encourage you to ask more about pipe bombs in general and give you details about how they work when prompted. (Meanwhile, researchers have coaxed into providing dangerous weapon-building instructions in detail.) Notable features: Voice modes with distinct personalities, including “unhinged” and “sexy” versions. “Think” and “DeepSearch” modes that reason through answers and pull information from online sources, respectively. Price: Free with limited use of the latest models, $30 per month for increased rate limits and access to Think, DeepSearch, and voice modes. Perplexity This GPT-based AI tool started off as an alternative to traditional web search, but has since evolved into a more all-encompassing personal assistant with tools for managing documents and interacting with apps. It’s also developing its own web browser. (In other words, it’s becoming less reliant on scaping websites against their wishes.) Notable features: Web search results, with summaries and citations. Spaces for summarizing and analyzing documents. Agent features on Android devices, including music playback, reminders, and calendar interactions. Discover section with AI-generated news summaries. Price: Free for basic web search with some usage limits on other features, $20 per month for more deep research usage, unlimited document uploads, and a choice of AI models. Duck.ai With Duck.ai, DuckDuckGo offers a more privacy-focused alternative to the major AI assistants. DuckDuckGo says it’s made agreements with major AI providers so they won’t train their models on your data, and will only store it for 30 days at most. There’s no document interaction or voice chat, but it’s good enough for basic conversations. Private chat history that’s stored on your device, not online. Choice of large language models, including GPT-4o, Llama 3.3, Claude 3, o3-mini, and Mistral. AI answers in search results, with an option to customize how often they appear. Price: Free A few others Siri: While the current version of Siri isn’t based on large language models—and may not be for years—it will occasionally ask ChatGPT for answers on devices that support Apple Intelligence. Alexa+: Amazon’s just-announced AI overhaul promises more conversational capabilities than the old Alexa while still offering features like home automation, music playback, and TV suggestions. It’s launching on select Echo Show devices in an “early access period” next month. Meta AI: This one’s powered by Meta’s llama open-source models but is pretty basic as a consumer-facing product. It’s only available on the web or as a feature of the Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses. Standalone mobile apps are reportedly coming. View the full article

Treasuries rally amid continuing investor gloom over the outlook for US economyView the full article

The color of your house matters beyond aesthetics. An extensive body of research shows that painting buildings white (which reflects heat) can make them cooler, and painting them black (which absorbs heat) can make them warmer. This is the reason why most houses in Greece are white, and many houses across Scandinavia are black. But what about the rest of the world, where temperatures often shift with the seasons? Industrial designer Joe Doucet has developed what he calls a “climate-adaptive” paint that can change colors based on the temperature outside. The patent-pending formula, which is known as thermochromic paint, follows the same principle as 90s mood rings. Except instead of jewelry changing color, it’s the entire facade of a building. If the temperature outside is below 77ºF, the building will be black. If it’s above 77ºF, it will turn white. The formula can be mixed with other tints, so if you want a blue house, it would simply look light blue in the summer and dark blue in the winter. “It’s phenomenal to think about the built environment changing with the seasons as nature does,” says Doucet, who estimates that painting a building with this climate-adaptive paint could save an average of 20 to 30% on energy costs. The power of paintMany cities have turned to paint to alleviate urban problems like the heat island effect. In 2019, teams across Senegal, Bangladesh, Mexico, and Indonesia painted a total of 250,000 small household rooftops with white reflective pain as part of the Million Cool Roofs Challenge. In 2022, the city of L.A. covered 1 million square feet of streets and sidewalks in Pacoima, a low-income neighborhood, with solar reflective paint. Surfaces cooled instantly by 10 to 12ºF, and a year in, studies showed that the ambient temperatures throughout the entire neighborhood had dropped by up to 3.5°F. [Image: courtesy Joe Doucet and Partners]A climate-adaptive paint could make a difference for houses and apartment buildings, but also large industrial facilities like climate-controlled farms and warehouses that would otherwise turn to AC or heating to maintain a desired temperature. “It costs to heat and cool a large structure so anything you can do mitigate that cost makes sense commercially as well,” says Richard Hinzel, partner and managing director at Joe Doucet and Partners. Doucet first had the idea for a climate-adaptive paint while renovating his own home in Chappaqua, New York. “I put off what color it should be because I wanted to have an understanding of what color did in terms of energy use,” he recalls. The designer, who recently gave wind turbines a much-needed design makeover, built two scale models of his house, with the same kind of insulation material he used in the actual house. He painted the first model in black and the second one in white. For a year, he measured the surface outside and inside both models, and found that, in high seasons like summer and winter, temperatures between the two varied by as much as 13ºF. More specifically, in the summer, the white house was 12ºF cooler inside than the black house, while in the winter, the black house was 7ºF warmer inside. He says the opposite was also true. The black house was 13ºF warmer inside in the summer, while the white house was 8ºF colder in the winter. [Image: courtesy Joe Doucet and Partners]Doucet obtained these measurements from a scale model, not a full-sized house, but he notes the only difference between the two would be the time it takes for each space to heat or cool. “A smaller pan heats up and cools down faster than a larger one, but it does not get hotter or colder,” he says by way of example. At the end of the experiment, it occurred to him that the answer to his original question—what color to paint his house—was to paint it black in the winter and white in the summer. But that wasn’t a practical solution. The more practical solution—a paint that can be both at once—took two years to develop and about 100 more models to get the formula right. The team used commercially available latex house paint as a base, then mixed in their own proprietary formula. But crafting a formula that can sustain the transition from light to dark without degrading—and therefore ending up grey—proved difficult. If you’ve ever had transition glasses that got “stuck” on dark and never returned to clear, you understand the problem. If the paint degrades too fast and you have to repaint your house every month, then nobody will buy it. The first few formulas were degrading too fast, but the team eventually concocted a “secret sauce” that helps the paint last at least one year with zero degradation. This number reflects how long Doucet has been testing the paint in his studio. The final number could be even higher—or it could not. The paint is yet to undergo rigorous lab tests, so many unknowns remain. “We’re not starting a paint company,” says Doucet. Instead, his team wants to license the formula to paint manufacturers who would then take the climate-adaptive paint to the finishing line and launch it themselves. If the idea resonates and paint companies jump on the bandwagon, they will have to develop a competitive product that is both durable and priced accordingly. For now, Doucet estimates that the climate-adaptive paint will cost about 3 to 5 times more than a standard gallon of paint—though he says you’d quickly make that back in energy savings. “I’m confident that if there’s a positive response, this could do very well on the market,” he says. In the meantime, Doucet finished renovating his house and opted for black. “I couldn’t wait,” he says with a laugh. View the full article

When plastic entered the design world in the 20th century, it was hailed as a wonder material—something strong, durable, lightweight, affordable, and malleable enough to sculpt into expressive, futuristic-looking forms. But the material lost its halo as the environmental consequences became apparent, plastic waste being one of them. The design industry has been figuring out what to do about this for years. It’s tried recycling, reducing the amount of material in a product, developing bio-based compostable alternatives, or switching to something else entirely. But not all companies are able to easily switch up their production lines or find alternatives. Now, a growing body of research around plastic-eating microorganisms is reshaping how the industry is thinking about the material and its waste problem. Heller—a furniture brand that produces high-end plastic furniture and home goods like Frank Gehry tables, Mario Bellini chairs, and Massimo and Lella Vignelli tableware—is now making all of its furniture with an enzyme that will accelerate the rate of biodegradation. The hope is that if its products wind up in a landfill or at the bottom of the ocean, that they won’t be there for long. “Ten years ago, we were all drinking out of plastic water bottles and nobody really cared,” says John Edelman, the president and CEO of Heller. “But we learned that plastics are bad for the world.” The company began to make some products from recycled material, “but we wanted to get to the next level and become more sustainable,” Edelman says. “How can we be good for the planet and create incredible design?” He adds that the bioplastics and compostable plastics on the market now don’t work for Heller’s furniture because of performance requirements. Since everything is indoor-outdoor, it needs to withstand rain, snow, and the sun’s UV rays. [Image: courtesy Heller]Here’s how it works: The powder enzyme, developed by a company called Worry Free Plastics, makes plastic more enticing for microorganisms to eat, essentially turbocharging a process that already takes place naturally. When the plastic is in a zero-oxygen environment, like a landfill, the enzyme activates and attracts anaerobic bacteria that break down its polymers. As they eat the material, they generate biogas and soil. If the plastic is exposed to oxygen, as it would be in everyday use, the material remains stable. According to Edelman, it will take approximately five years for a Heller product made with the enzyme to biodegrade. Philip Myers, the cofounder of Worry Free Plastics, says its enzyme works in fresh and salt water, commercial composting facilities, and soil. A third-party testing company using ASTM methods (which involve placing an item in a controlled environment for 45 or 90 days, measuring the material loss rate, then calculating how long it would take for the entire thing to degrade) found that Worry Free’s enzyme could help a plastic bottle degrade, on average, in seven-and-a-half years and a plastic bag in five; the total time it takes depends on the density and thickness of the plastic and conditions in a landfill. Real-world environments are not as controlled as a lab’s and the actual degradation rate could be different. “One landfill might be more potent than another one,” says Stephen Andero, the vice president of science and innovation at Worry Free Plastics. “After doing thousands of tests, no two are the same.” That said, the estimated degradation time is significantly less than conventional plastic. A water bottle, for example, takes an estimated 450 years to decompose. The enzyme can also be added to all polymer plastics, including bioplastics like PLA, which aren’t composting as fast as manufacturers claim. Worry Free isn’t the only entity to explore enzymatic technology and the role microorganisms play in accelerating the degradation of plastic. In 2016, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a natural bacteria that eats PET plastic, which changed how the industry thought of managing plastic waste. Some researchers are now trying to engineer extra-hungry, plastic-eating bacteria. A materials science professor at UC Berkeley recently developed an enzyme that can make plastic “self-destruct” when exposed to heat and water. All of this research is leading to a boom in the bioremediation business. Now, manufacturers are bringing this science into the products we use every day. To date, most of Worry Free’s customers have been manufacturers of single-use plastics—items like coffee cup lids and pallet film. Myers is just as eager to find more applications for his enzyme as Edelman is to address circularity at Heller. Most of Heller’s furniture is rotationally molded, a process that involves putting a powder compound into a mold then heating it up. As it heats up, it coats the mold, and when it cools, it solidifies into the shape of the product. In order to make its furniture biodegradable, Heller mixes the enzyme into the power compound. Nothing else about its production line changes. “It’s a drop in technology,” Myers explains. “It doesn’t require them to change their equipment, their process—anything. It’s plug and play.” Heller began adding the enzyme to its production line in November last year. It’s going to be in all of its rotationally molded LDPE products. As old inventory moves off the shelf, the biodegradable items will enter circulation. There’s nothing different aesthetically about the pieces, and the retail price is the same. “Everybody talks a big sustainability game, but research shows they won’t pay more for it,” Edelman says. “My goal is to do something that is sustainable and at the same price . . . We actually achieved our goal of not just using recycled products, not just being recyclable, but going back to the earth.” While it’s not likely that people are buying $1,000 dining chair sets with the intent to throw them away, Edelman thinks that Heller’s adoption of enzymatic tech can spark more brands to do the same. “Sustainability is being applied to every product because the design firms are pushing it,” he says. They’re the catalyst.” View the full article

A new scientific study warns that using artificial intelligence can erode our capacity for critical thinking. The research, carried out by a Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University scientific team, found that the dependence on AI tools without questioning their validity reduces the cognitive effort applied to the work. In other words: AI can make us dumber if we use it wrong. “AI can synthesize ideas, enhance reasoning, and encourage critical engagement, pushing us to see beyond the obvious and challenge our assumptions,” Lev Tankelevitch, a senior researcher at Microsoft Research and coauthor of the study, tells me in an email interview. But to reap those benefits, Tankelevitch says users need to treat AI as a thought partner, not just a tool for finding information faster. Much of this comes down to designing a user experience that encourages critical thinking rather than passive reliance. By making AI’s reasoning processes more transparent and prompting users to verify and refine AI-generated content, a well-designed AI interface can act as a thought partner rather than a substitute for human judgment. From ‘task execution’ to ‘task stewardship’ The research—which surveyed 319 professionals—found that high confidence in AI tools often reduces the cognitive effort people apply to their work. “Higher confidence in AI is associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence is associated with more critical thinking,” the study states. This over-reliance stems from a mental model that assumes AI is competent in simple tasks. As one participant admitted in the study, “it’s a simple task and I knew ChatGPT could do it without difficulty, so I just never thought about it.” Critical thinking didn’t feel relevant because, well, who cares. This mindset has major implications for the future of work. Tankelevitch tells me that AI is shifting knowledge workers from “task execution” to “task stewardship.” Instead of manually performing tasks, professionals now oversee AI-generated content, making decisions about its accuracy and integration. “They must actively oversee, guide, and refine AI-generated work rather than simply accepting the first output,” Tankelevitch says. The study highlights that when knowledge workers actively evaluate AI-generated outputs rather than passively accepting them, they can improve their decision-making processes. “Research also shows that experts who effectively apply their knowledge when working with AI see a boost in output,” Tankelevitch points out. “AI works best when it complements human expertise—driving better decisions and stronger outcomes.” The study found that many knowledge workers struggle to critically engage with AI-generated outputs because they lack the necessary domain knowledge to assess their accuracy. “Even if users recognize that AI might be wrong, they don’t always have the expertise to correct it,” Tankelevitch explains. This problem is particularly acute in technical fields where AI-generated code, data analysis, or financial reports require deep subject matter knowledge to verify. The cognitive offloading paradox Confidence in AI can lead to a problem called cognitive offloading. This phenomenon isn’t new. Humans have long outsourced mental tasks to tools, from calculators to GPS devices. Cognitive offloading is not inherently negative. When done correctly, it allows users to focus on higher-order thinking rather than mundane, repetitive tasks, Tankelevitch points out. But the very nature of generative AI—which produces complex text, code, and analysis—brings a new level of potential mistakes and problems. Many people might blindly accept AI outputs without questioning them (and quite often these outputs are bad or just plain wrong). This is especially the case when people feel the task is not important. “Our study suggests that when people view a task as low-stakes, they may not review outputs as critically,” Tankelevitch points out. The role of UX AI developers should keep that idea in mind when designing AI user experiences. These chat UX should be organized in a way that encourages verification, prompting users to think through the reasoning behind AI-generated content. Redesigning AI interfaces to aid in this new “task stewardship” process and encourage critical engagement is key to mitigating the risks of cognitive offloading. “Deep reasoning models are already supporting this by making AI’s processes more transparent—making it easier for users to review, question, and learn from the insights they generate,” he says. “Transparency matters. Users need to understand not just what the AI says, but why it says it.” You probably have seen this in an AI platform like Perplexity. Its interface offers a clear logical path that outlines the thoughts and actions that the AI takes to obtain a result. By redesigning AI interfaces to also include contextual explanations, confidence ratings, or alternative perspectives when needed, AI tools can shift users away from blind trust and towards active evaluation of the results. Another UX intervention may involve actively prompting the user for key aspects of the AI-generated output, prompting users to directly question and refine these outputs rather than passively accepting them.The final product of this open collaboration between AI and human is better, just like creative processes are often much better when two people work together as a team, especially when the strengths of one person complements the strengths of the other. Some will get dumber The study raises crucial questions about the long-term impact of AI on human cognition. If knowledge workers become passive consumers of AI-generated content, their critical thinking skills could atrophy. However, if AI is designed and used as an interactive, thought-provoking tool, it could enhance human intelligence rather than degrade it. Tankelevitch points out that this is not just theory. It’s been proven on the field. For example, there are studies that show that AI can boost learning when used in the right way, he says. “In Nigeria, an early study suggests that AI tutors could help students achieve two years of learning progress in just six weeks,” he says. “Another study showed that students working with tutors supported by AI were more likely to master key topics.” The key, Tankelevitch tells me, is that this was all teacher-led: “Educators guided the prompts and provided context,” thus encouraging that vital critical thinking. AI has also demonstrated that it can enhance problem-solving in scientific research, where experts use it to explore complex hypotheses. “Researchers using AI to assist in discovery still rely on human intuition and critical judgment to validate results,” Tankelevitch notes. “The most successful AI applications are those where human oversight remains central.” Given the current state of generative AI, the technology’s effect on human intelligence will not depend on the AI itself, but on how we choose to use it. UX designers can certainly help promote good behavior, but it’s up to us to do the right thing. AI can either amplify or erode critical thinking, depending on whether we critically engage with its outputs or blindly trust them. The future of AI-assisted work will be determined not by the sophistication of the technology but by humans. My bet, as with every other technological revolution in the history of civilization, some people will get a lot dumber and others will get a lot smarter. View the full article

The generative AI revolution shows no sign of slowing as OpenAI recently rolled out its GPT-4.5 model to paying ChatGPT users, while competitors have announced plans to introduce their own latest models—including Anthropic, which unveiled Claude 3.7 Sonnet, its latest language model, late last month. But the ease of use of these AI models is having a material impact on the information we encounter daily, according to a new study published in Cornell University’s preprint server arXiv. An analysis of more than 300 million documents, including consumer complaints, corporate press releases, job postings, and messages for the media published by the United Nations suggests that the web is being swamped with AI-generated slop. The study tracks the purported involvement of generative AI tools to create content across those key sectors, above, between January 2022 and September 2024. “We wanted to quantify how many people are using these tools,” says Yaohui Zhang, one of the study’s coauthors, and a researcher at Stanford University. The answer was, a lot. Following the November 30, 2022, release of ChatGPT, the estimated proportion of content in each domain that saw suggestions of AI generation or involvement skyrocketed. From a baseline of around 1.5% in the 11 months prior to the release of ChatGPT, the proportion of customer complaints that exhibited some sort of AI help increased tenfold. Similarly, the share of press releases that had hints of AI involvement rapidly increased in the months after ChatGPT became widely available. Which areas of the United States were more likely to adopt AI to help write complaints was made possible by the data accompanying the text of each complaint made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the government agency that Donald Trump has now dissolved. In the 2024 data analyzed by the academics, complainants in Arkansas, Missouri, and North Dakota were the most likely to use AI, with its presence in around one in four complaints; while West Virginia, Idaho, and Vermont residents were least likely—where between one in 20 and one in 40 showed AI evidence. Unlike off-the-shelf AI detection tools, Zhang and his colleagues developed their own statistical framework to determine whether something was likely AI-generated that compared linguistic patterns—including word frequency distributions—in texts written before the release of ChatGPT against those known to have been generated or modified by large language models. The outputs were then tested against known human- or AI-written texts, with prediction errors lower than 3.3%, suggesting it was able to accurately discern one from the other. Like many, the team behind the work is worried about the impact of samizdat content flooding the web—particularly in so many areas, from consumer complaints to corporate and non-governmental organization press releases. “I think [generative AI] is somehow constraining the creativity of humans,” says Zhang. View the full article

Shifting political headwinds and escalating energy demands are shining a spotlight on Big Tech’s backpedaling on climate commitments. Companies like Meta and Microsoft, who were once vocal about their clean energy goals, are now pivoting towards dirty fossil fuels, pointing to deepened corporate complicity in an era of silence on climate action. Tech titans such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft have lined up to buy access to the new administration and have remained largely silent in the face of the new administration’s attacks on clean energy. This is a sharp pivot from Trump 1.0 when these companies overwhelmingly spoke up against the decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement. This time: crickets. A recent survey among U.S. adults indicates growing unpopularity for figures like Mark Zuckerberg, coinciding with deeply concerning trends in corporate behavior that appears to support an increasingly unlawful and autocratic federal administration. While Zuckerberg assures employees that the company is “holding true to its values,” he has also made it clear that a “productive partnership with the U.S. government” is a priority amid dramatic policy shifts. In recent weeks, Meta has ditched its fact-checking program; rolled back hate speech protections; cut back diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; and is full steam ahead with a $10 billion, 4 million-square-feet natural gas-powered data center in Louisiana that fuels pollution and accelerates fossil fuel reliance. Even though nearly 70% of the world’s 500 largest companies have a public climate commitment, the world’s largest tech companies, once leaders in the corporate climate commitment space, are abandoning their emissions targets. In light of this alarming about-face, tech workers should ask themselves if they support their company’s currying favor with a billionaire-led agenda that undermines environmental protections, rolls back climate rules, scrubs scientific databases and clean energy funding, and accelerates the production of climate change disinformation. If not in support of these trends, employees should actively use their influence to engage coworkers and press their leaders for responsive action. Some may decide that they can no longer be complicit in their employer’s backtracking on climate action, and will choose to leave—but we believe there is still opportunity to change companies from within. In the past, Silicon Valley employees have engaged a number of tools to exercise internal advocacy muscles: employee walkouts, protests, open letters, petitions. And those tactics sparked change. More recently, employees can follow the example of internal employee advocates such as those in Microsoft’s Sustainability Connected Community who have been elevating climate policy as a top company priority. Their advocacy led to Microsoft’s first Sustainability Policy Alignment Report last year focused on U.S. trade associations, spotlighting the company’s misalignment with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which consistently works to block climate policy progress). As a result, Microsoft committed to addressing lobbying misalignment, stating “we will redouble efforts to engage with the trade association to drive closer alignment in their advocacy for a more sustainable future.” Employees have organized events and educational webinars to engage coworkers and raise awareness, invited meetings with company leaders, sent emails to decision makers, asked questions at town hall meetings, and posted calls to action and engagement opportunities on internal message boards. This year, employees across companies such as Alphabet, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Pinterest, and Salesforce are also exchanging ideas and sharing best practices in order to amplify positive action. For those who choose to leave their company, advocacy might look like former tech employees who have launched a new Enabled Emissions Campaign, a global effort to curb the use of advanced technology for increased fossil fuel production. Those with inside knowledge of how AI is being developed might choose to speak up on how “We’re Wrong About AI,” as Will Alpine, a former Microsoft employee who built tech behind ChatGPT, did last month. Over these next four years, it will be essential to hold the line on climate action and clean energy deployment—and while employees should actively work for change, corporate leadership and investors must ultimately take responsibility and step up. Employees, however, have a critical role to play and should hold companies accountable when they don’t. Sustainability professionals should especially be empowered to provide reasoned and diplomatic calls to action that are in line with what science tells us about planetary boundaries. If you’re a sustainability professional, now is the time to publicly commit to advocating for climate policy, as more than 1,000 have done by signing the LEAD Statement. Big Tech leaders have previously acknowledged the climate crisis and been major buyers of renewable energy. With the growth of AI data centers, they should be advocating for clean energy rather than doubling down on continued dirty fossil fuel dependency. Leaders and employees must leverage their influence by continuing to prioritize clean energy action and supporting the development of the clean energy infrastructure. This includes supporting the maintenance of federal clean energy tax credits, upholding federal pollution and energy efficiency standards, prioritizing energy efficient and clean energy powered AI, and elevating climate-related financial risk as a serious and material risk to businesses and communities, especially the role of extreme weather events. There has never been a more important time to speak up. The decisions made by corporations today will have a profound and lasting impact on our environment, our society, and our future. There is no time to wait. View the full article

In business and sports, team dynamics impact outcomes. Whether you’re pursuing profits or championships, knowing what triggers your teammates can help you avoid conflict and stay on task. The problem is that taking time to better understand each other isn’t always our default setting, say John Eliot and Jim Guinn, authors of How To Get Along with Anyone: The Playbook for Predicting and Preventing Conflict at Work and at Home. “Blowups appear to be substance-driven, but they’re actually people-driven,” says Eliot. “The first step toward preventing and resolving conflict is to focus on figuring out the people participating in it not the underlying ‘problem.’” To work well with others, Guinn and Eliot recommend learning your teammates’ conflict triggers and go-to method of resolution. Three Conflict Triggers There are three distinct types of conflict, according to Eliot and Guinn. Not all conflicts trigger all people, and it’s common to have a blind spot for your own. Task conflict centers on getting things done. The person who is triggered by this type is goal- and deadline-driven. Their attitude is one where the ends justify the means. Process conflict centers on the way things get done. Someone who is bothered by process conflict doesn’t focus on end goals or delivery dates. They care about methods, systems, or policies with a “my way or the highway” attitude. Relational conflict involves the people in disagreement and their habits, preferences, or tastes. In this case, the parties will fight over anything simply because they don’t like one another. If there is no objective reason for a dispute, it’s likely relational. You can determine if a conflict type has triggered someone by watching how quickly they bring up the problem and if their tone changes. “Knowing someone’s hot buttons can help you prevent a lot of conflict,” says Eliot. “You know what situation you should or should not go to with this person.” Five Conflict Personalities How we handle conflict also follows patterns. When riled by one another, Eliot and Guinn say humans instinctively avoid, compete, analyze, collaborate, or accommodate, forming five go-to conflict personalities. The avoider sits back and waits to see if a conflict escalates before getting involved. This style lends itself to work efficiency and would rather get a job done themselves than delegate it. However, an avoider will also let a conflict fester or grow before resolving it. The competitor personality likes action and results. They prefer doing, and they thrive on clearly defined protocols. The downside is that a competitor can become impatient, rushing work, and they are often seen as being hard-nosed and inflexible. The analyzer has a penchant for evidence-based decision-making. They are patient and good at listening and gathering information. The weakness of an analyzer is that they can struggle with tight deadlines. They can also appear as controlling. The collaborator is a great communicator and has strong empathy for others. They make a good partner; however, they can lack time-management skills and are more prone to burnout. Finally, the accommodator is great at teamwork. In sports, they are the quarterback, often charismatic with an ability to account for different team members’ needs. Their weakness is that they’re often ego-driven, trying to do everything themselves. Conflict personality types and triggers work hand in hand. For example, someone who has a competitive conflict-handling approach will often be triggered by process. “You don’t want to [resolve the conflict] with a lot of small talk,” says Guinn. “Instead, use what’s called the ‘domino technique.’ Knock the biggest issue first, which will knock over all of the minor issues.” If someone has an analyzer personality style, they can be triggered by task conflicts, especially if they feel they are being rushed. Resolve this type of conflict with what Guinn calls a “momentum process.” “Identify and knock out the most inconsequential issues, one punch at a time,” he says. “Then move onto relevant issues that represent low-hanging fruit.” By understanding triggers and go-to styles for addressing them, you can get on the front side of conflict, predicting and preventing problems, says Guinn. “In order to have good teams, you don’t need to have a complex understanding of psychology,” he says. “Just take a couple of simple steps in terms of listening and understanding. Know what tone of voice to use and what pace to move with this person. These are simple things everybody can do. Little steps go a long way in relationship- and team-building.” View the full article

If you’ve ever wondered what a dinosaur might have actually sounded like, now there’s a way to find out. It comes in the form of the Dinosaur Choir, a musical instrument created by artists Courtney Brown and Cezary Gajewski. The instrument, which takes the form of an accurate, life-sized dinosaur skull, allows human musicians to recreate possible dinosaur vocalizations by blowing into a mouthpiece. It’s set to debut this weekend at the 27th Guthman Competition, a global contest to select the year’s most innovative new instrument of the future. The 10 semi-finalists hail from seven different countries, proposing prototypes that include everything from a customizable trumpet to a kind of guitar-harp combo and a flute-esque instrument called the “Udderbot.” Each of the contenders presents new musical possibilities, whether through the form of the instrument, the sound it produces, the user input, or some combination of the three. The Dinosaur Choir takes an extensive body of research into the anatomy of the adult Corythosaurus dinosaur and converts it into a playable, interactive experience—letting the musician actually embody the extinct creature itself. [Image: courtesy Guthman Musical Instrument Competition] Building an accurate dinosaur skull To begin mapping out the structure of the Dinosaur Choir, Brown and Gajewski first partnered up with paleontologist Thomas Dudgeon at the Royal Ontario Museum/University of Toronto, who provided them with a CT scan of a fossilized Corythosaurus skull. The scan allowed them to create an initial model of the dinosaur’s skull and nasal passage structure. Then, using this 3D skull, Dudgeon and Brown carried out a process called “retrodeformation.” This is essentially a kind of restoration, performed using existing diagrams and scientific papers for reference, to resolve any damage to the structure caused by prolonged burial. “After a skull is buried underneath the ground for millions of years, parts of it crush or bend,” Brown explains. “We use 3D modeling to restore the fossil so that it is closer to its original form.” With the retrodeformation step complete, the Corythosaurus skull replica (including internal nasal passages) was ready to be 3D printed. Next, Brown set out to encode the dinosaur’s actual vocalizations. “Researchers in biology and human anatomy have created computational models of the mechanics of the voice: human, bird, and alligator,” Brown says. “These are sets of mathematical equations that describe the air pressure change (ie, sound) that result from the biological and physical processes of the vocal folds. [. . .] I take these equations and put them into computer code to create sound in real-time.” Brown started by recreating bird vocal models based on existing models of the syrinx, or the avian vocal box. Then, she says, “because the sound is created by simulating the physical anatomy with math,” she was able to modify the model to fit with estimated dinosaur anatomy. We may never know exactly how dinosaurs sounded Despite all of these steps, there’s still an inevitable uncertainty as to the accuracy of the final sounds. No non-avian dinosaur vocal organs have yet been found, Brown says, as the vocal organs tend to be made of soft tissue such as cartilage, and therefore are much less likely to fossilize or preserve. “Additionally, vocalization is a behavior,” Brown adds. “An animal can potentially make more sounds using their anatomy than they actually produce—this is true on an individual level but also on a species level. This behavior is very difficult—perhaps impossible—to detect via the fossil record. What traces would the sounds leave behind?” To account for this variability, Brown made two different vocal models for the Dinosaur Choir: one based on a dove syrinx and one based on a raven syrinx. Currently, she notes, she’s also working on a third model based on an alligator larynx, “as it is not settled science whether most dinosaurs had vocal organs closer to alligators or birds.” The Dinosaur Choir is controlled by a camera and microphone, which detect the users’ mouth shape and breath, respectively. By manipulating these inputs, the musician can essentially “play” the Corythosaurus’ theorized vocal cords across a range of pitches and volumes, from a high, bright call to a low, almost mournful groan. Ultimately, we may never know exactly how our extinct predecessors sounded when they walked the Earth—but with the Dinosaur Choir, we can get pretty damn close. View the full article

Researchers at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology just invented a building material that could make construction projects stronger and more sustainable—and it’s based on the skeleton of an invertebrate that lives at the bottom of the ocean. The material, recently presented in the journal Composite Structures, was developed by RMIT University engineers. It’s inspired by the skeleton of the deep-sea sponge, whose lattice-like internal structures, which have been optimized over millions of years in the ocean, allow it to thrive thousands of feet underwater. The material’s unique structural properties make it simultaneously lightweight, strong, and extra resilient under pressure, meaning that it could eventually help make buildings sturdier with less steel and concrete. How are steel and concrete damaging the environment? For years, engineers have been researching new ways to cut down on steel and concrete in construction. That’s because both materials are produced at a massive scale, with equally massive impacts on the environment. As of 2023, annual global production of concrete was around a whopping 30 billion tons, and the production of cement—one of concrete’s key ingredients—was responsible for between 5% and 10% of global CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, the steelmaking industry churns out about 2 billion tons of the metal per year, accounting for around 7% of greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have explored a wide range of alternatives to traditional steel and concrete, including a steel alternative made out of plastic and a form of concrete stabilized by recycled diapers. Biomimicry as a basis for design The RMIT team’s sponge-inspired material could help reduce steel and concrete use in construction because of something called “auxetic behavior.” The word “auxetic” is a structural descriptor which means that, instead of becoming thinner when stretched and thicker when compressed, the material actually becomes thicker when stretched and thinner when compressed. A honeycomb, for example, is typically auxetic, as are biological materials like cat tongues and human muscle tendons. In the manufacturing world, auxetic materials are often used on the bottom of running shoes, allowing the footwear to expand while walking or running. Auxetic patterns are desirable in construction because they can absorb force and maintain their strength under intense pressure, just like the deep-sea sponge. Existing man-made auxetic materials typically use a honeycomb pattern, but RMIT’s new material uses a double lattice design supported by diagonal beams. Based on the team’s testing, the innovative structure makes the material 13 times stiffer than other fabricated auxetics. For this reason, the new pattern could be used in construction to enable “thinner load-bearing walls and slimmer columns without compromising structural integrity,” according to Jiaming Ma, the lead author on the new study. That would cut down on the amount of steel and concrete necessary to achieve a sturdy result. The material is still in the testing phase, so it’s too early to predict what wide-scale commercial use might look like. Still, Ma believes it could eventually have applications across a wide range of industries, from creating earthquake-resistant buildings to improving vascular stents and strengthening protective sports gear. View the full article

AI is poised to reshape businesses, but too many executives are oversimplifying its potential, focusing on automation rather than collaboration. As someone who’s spent my career studying the future of work, I’m excited about AI’s breakthrough potential—but cautious of the narratives being rushed into the spotlight. Recently, I reviewed Anthropic’s study, Which Economic Tasks Are Performed with AI? Evidence from Millions of Claude Conversations, and found that AI’s real impact isn’t as clear-cut as many believe. While AI is transforming business, leaders are overlooking key realities about AI’s impact and its real-world applications. Here’s what many are still getting wrong. 1. AI Is More About Augmentation Than Automation According to Anthropic’s findings, AI isn’t neatly fitting the narrative of the ultimate automation engine. The data consistently suggests a more balanced story of augmentation (57%) versus automation (43%). Yet, in research we conducted early last year, we found that 58% of global leaders viewed AI as mainly an automation tool—one that can reduce headcount and cut costs—while only 42% saw it as a way to amplify or augment human capabilities. This outlook ignores a crucial insight: AI often shines brightest when it’s working with people, not replacing them. In fact, the Anthropic study found that almost a quarter (23.3%) of tasks in these AI interactions are learning or knowledge acquisition tasks—meaning humans are leveraging AI to gather insights, sharpen strategies, and make more informed decisions. 2. AI’s Managerial Role Is Limited This bias toward automation is also manifesting in how the C-suite envisions AI’s managerial potential. The assumption is that AI can instantly step in to coordinate projects, supervise teams, or even make high-level decisions. However, the Anthropic data suggests that managerial capabilities show only minimal presence of AI usage—an important reminder of the practical limitations of current-generation AI tools. Effective management isn’t just a matter of oversight and efficiency. It’s about empathy, nuanced communication, and the capacity to inspire and guide people through complex organizational challenges. Today’s AI can sift data, generate written recommendations, and even assist with performance evaluations, but it can’t replicate the inherently human aspects of leadership that spark motivation and maintain trust. In other words, while AI can help managers be better managers—say, by flagging important trends or offering real-time feedback mechanisms—it isn’t replacing them anytime soon. 3. AI’s Impact on Work Is About Tasks, Not Titles Far too many executives assess AI’s influence as though it’s a straightforward, one-to-one replacement for entire roles when in reality, AI is infiltrating our workflows at the task level. This is why some leaders are underestimating how AI redefines the contents of a “job,” since a position is essentially a bundle of tasks—some routine, some creative. Unpacking roles to isolate the tasks most ripe for AI support is critical. A startling statistic from the Anthropic report: 36% of occupations show AI usage in at least 25% of their tasks, and in many cases, these tasks involve demanding cognitive skills, like critical thinking and systems analysis. AI is also used for active listening, reading comprehension, and writing support, but it hasn’t taken over the full scope of any single “job” as we might traditionally define it. Leaders who fail to disaggregate tasks from titles risk missing AI’s real value proposition—and short-changing both their organization and their people. 4. AI Adoption Rates Aren’t As High As Hype Suggests The hype suggests that nearly every industry is barreling toward AI ubiquity, with previous research forecasting 80% or more of roles quickly incorporating AI into at least 10% of their tasks. Yet, Anthropic’s real-world conversation data pegs that figure at 57%, not 80%. That’s a gap leaders need to take seriously. It’s not that AI’s transformative potential is in doubt, but rather that organizational readiness—and the barriers to entry for these technologies—are more formidable than many realize. From regulatory constraints to outdated IT infrastructures to insufficient training, there’s a lot that can stall AI’s momentum once you move beyond the pilot stage. As I often remind business leaders, a successful AI deployment requires more than the technology itself; it needs culture change, skill-building, and a strategic plan that engages employees at all levels. 5. We Need Greater AI Literacy at All Levels The Anthropic study suggests that AI usage is not as high among those with extensive specialized training, which might seem counterintuitive. Why wouldn’t advanced degree holders be at the forefront? Often, they’re operating in fields with strict regulations or complex intellectual frameworks that AI isn’t yet equipped to navigate without significant human oversight. As we prepare the next generation of degree holders for an AI-infused workplace, we must teach them how to effectively integrate these tools into their expertise, not just how to code or prompt an AI system. Being “AI-literate” means understanding both its limitations and possibilities—recognizing when it’s a smart collaborator and when it’s an inadequate stand-in for deeper human judgment. Shifting Mindsets from ‘AI Versus People’ to ‘AI with People’ If there’s a single takeaway for the C-suite, it’s this: Don’t be so quick to believe your organization’s future is solely about replacing humans with AI. Instead, focus on how human ingenuity can be amplified. Embrace the reality that AI’s revolution is happening at the granular task level, not the job title level. And remember that the best managers will always be the ones capable of empathy, strategic vision, and nuanced communication—traits AI, for now, can only tangentially support. Shifting from a mindset of “AI versus people” to “AI with people” is not just a semantic difference; it’s the key to unlocking AI’s full potential for sustainable growth and innovation in the modern enterprise. If the past few decades taught us anything, it’s that technology alone doesn’t define success; it’s how we adapt that sets us apart. And that’s a distinctly human endeavor. View the full article

Financial stress is forcing reform and recovery in many overlooked countries View the full article

FT survey finds ‘large fiscal capacity’, but economists urge would-be chancellor Friedrich Merz to spend funds wiselyView the full article

Consolidation is back on the agenda for industry as bankers eye more dealsView the full article

Collapse in respondents skewed results for some industriesView the full article