Anthropic is facing legal action from the estate of Elvis Presley over allegations that the company used his music to develop AI models without obtaining the necessary rights. 

The lawsuit, which was filed on Friday and reported by Billboard, claims that Anthropic has infringed upon 274 of Presley’s songs, including classics like “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” “A Little Less Conversation,” and “Don’t Be Cruel.” Richard Busch, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed the seriousness of the matter, stating, “The Elvis Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce these exclusive rights against the defendant that has built its entire business model based on copyright infringement on an unprecedented scale. The Elvis Plaintiffs are deeply protective of these iconic songs.”

The lawsuit was initiated by Authentic Brands Group, the entity that holds the rights to Presley’s music, alongside other organizations that also have a stake in his catalog. Billboard reports that the legal documents allege that the AI tool 'Claude' has produced infringing material for nearly every song across all available music catalogs online, including those owned by the plaintiffs. Even after purportedly implementing measures to prevent copyright violations, Claude reportedly continues to generate outputs that closely resemble existing songs. In one instance, when asked to adapt specific songs “for a modern audience,” Claude admitted that the results were almost indistinguishable from the originals, consisting of similar structures and hooks with only minor alterations.

In a separate case earlier in August, Round Hill Music filed a lawsuit against both Suno and Anthropic, claiming widespread copyright infringement for using a significant number of their songs to train AI models without authorization. Anthropic has also faced previous lawsuits from Universal Music Publishing, Abkco, Concord, and BMG on similar grounds regarding the use of lyrics for training its AI assistant, Claude.

Rolling Stone reports that the plaintiffs are seeking $150,000 in damages for each song that they claim has been infringed. Attempts to reach Anthropic for comment by The Hollywood Reporter have gone unanswered.

Anthropic Faces Lawsuit for Utilizing Elvis Presley Music in AI Model Training

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:Anthropic Sued for Using Elvis Presley Music to Train AI Models. No text in image.

Anthropic Sued for Using Elvis Presley Music to Train AI Models - The Hollywood Reporter

- Anthropic is sued for using Elvis Presley songs to train AI models without permission.  
- The lawsuit claims infringement on 274 Presley songs, including iconic hits like "Can't Help Falling in Love."  
- Plaintiffs seek $150,000 per song for copyright infringement in the lawsuit filed Friday.  

Anthropic has been sued by the owners of Elvis Presley‘s music for allegedly utilizing his songs to train AI models without permission.

As reported by Billboard, the suit was filed Friday and claims the company infringed 274 songs of Presley’s, including “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” “A Little Less Conversation” and “Don’t Be Cruel.”

“The Elvis Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce these exclusive rights against the defendant that has built its entire business model based on copyright infringement at a scale never seen before,” wrote lead attorney Richard Busch. “The Elvis Plaintiffs are deeply protective of these iconic songs.”

Authentic Brands Group, which owns the rights to Presley, filed the lawsuit alongside other entities that also own rights to the “Jailhouse Rock” singer, according to Billboard.

Related Video

“‘Claude’ has created infringing output of copyrighted material of virtually every song from every catalog available on the internet, including the Works,” the lawsuit states, per Rolling Stone. “Even after the Defendant supposedly put up ‘guardrails’ after being sued, in one of its latest iterations, Claude continues to infringe: when recently asked to recreate specific songs ‘for a modern audience,’ Claude did so and admitted: ‘These renders keep landing very close to the originals: same structure, same hooks reused with light rewording, and full sets of verses/choruses/bridges. That’s edging past ‘inspired by’ into reproducing the copyrighted song, even when the words are swapped out.’”

In August, Round Hill sued Suno and Anthropic, claiming mass copyright infringement. They alleged the AI companies used hundreds of the publisher’s songs to train their AI models without permission. Anthropic was also previously sued by Universal Music Publishing, Abcko, Concord and BMG for similar claims of lyrics being utilized to train Claude, an AI agent.

Rolling Stone reports that the suit is seeking $150,000 per infringed song.

The Hollywood Reporter reached out to Anthropic for comment, but did not hear back.

Anthropic Sued for Using Elvis Presley Music to Train AI Models

It's a poignant moment when we ask young people to choose which passions they might need to forego. Although we present it as a conversation about being practical and keeping options open, it masks a certain sadness. Not long ago, we encouraged kids to explore a myriad of interests, but now they face the reality of selecting subjects in school where science and music vie for their attention.

Different educational systems approach this turning point at varying stages, but one truth remains: children inevitably learn that adulthood often means making tough choices about their interests. As parents, we seek assurance that our kids will one day support themselves, and teachers have curriculum goals and exams to prepare for. Yet, we must question if this narrowing focus is hindering our children in today’s dynamic landscape. Are we asking them to give up too much?

A Broader Perspective

In Robert A. Heinlein's novel *Time Enough for Love*, one character, Lazarus Long, emphasizes that a person's capabilities should extend far beyond a single skillset. He articulates that humans should be adept in various domains, from practical tasks to creative endeavors. While it may not be feasible to incorporate all these skills into the school curriculum, the underlying message resonates: human experience should encompass more than just job proficiency.

Developing expertise requires time and dedication, but this journey should happen alongside the pursuit of diverse interests. A student dedicated to physics can still nurture a profound passion for painting. With the rise of artificial intelligence and robotics, it becomes increasingly essential for young individuals to assess what tasks are meaningful, the problems they are tackling, and the quality of their results. This judgment is grounded in their knowledge and diverse life experiences.

Encouraging independent thinking can start with small steps. When a curious child poses a question, instead of directly providing the answer, guide them in exploring the topic. Allow them to discover that the initial information they encounter might be only part of the whole picture. Stay supportive during challenging moments of their exploration.

I once attended a talk by an educator who advocated for immediate responses to students' questions, arguing that it simplifies matters. While that approach may seem efficient, it risks stunting critical thinking and adaptability. Recently, I learned from university professors that more and more high school students struggle to engage thoughtfully in discussions during interviews, highlighting the need for stronger problem-solving skills.

Convergence of Interests

During the unveiling of the iPad 2, Steve Jobs expressed the synergy between technology and the liberal arts, emphasizing that true innovation comes from their intersection. Traditional school subjects serve as necessary organizational tools, allowing educators to deliver focused instruction. However, outside the classroom, these divisions can be counterproductive.

For example, a child creating a documentary about a nearby river might require knowledge in biology, geography, and writing, along with the ability to coordinate logistics. Such interdisciplinary projects not only foster collaboration but also help students identify gaps in their knowledge and motivate them to tackle challenging topics they may have previously avoided. It is concerning to hear that some schools discourage project-based learning; such a stance benefits no one.

In a past interview, Jobs noted that creativity arises from connecting ideas. When creatives reflect on their processes, they often feel as if their ideas came to them rather serendipitously. This insight suggests a practical starting point: encourage children to observe the world around them and document their thoughts. They might keep a journal, take photos, or maintain a collection of questions. This practice doesn’t have to be another assigned task; it can be a valuable outlet for capturing fleeting ideas.

Embrace Action

A thought-provoking line from entrepreneur Naval Ravikant emphasizes a proactive mindset: “You shouldn't be looking for a job; you should be creating a body of work that attracts the right opportunities to you.” While many young people have time before they need to consider employment seriously, initiating their own projects at any age prepares them for future endeavors.

Perhaps your child has discovered a way to clarify a complex topic for classmates. They could create a brief guide for younger students. A student intrigued by family history might undertake a project to record their grandparent’s stories, resulting in a cherished family keepsake.

Take, for instance, my younger brother, who aspires to work in sports journalism. It puzzles me that his teachers have not encouraged him to dive into hands-on experiences like starting a podcast or interviewing athletes. Instead, they seem to funnel him through a series of courses, which, while beneficial, would be even more impactful if combined with active participation in his field of interest.

Our current landscape allows individuals to take action without seeking approval. If something piques their interest, they can pursue it independently.

As James Clear notes in *Atomic Habits*, "You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems." It’s essential to help our children carve out time to work on their passions. We still need to assist them in navigating course selections and meeting deadlines, but some choices will indeed close certain doors.

However, the absence of a subject from a school syllabus does not mean it must be absent from their lives. If a teenager feels compelled to set aside their artistic pursuits in favor of a "serious" path, we must reassure them that they are free to revisit their passions at any time.

Ready Our Kids for an Unpredictable AI Future

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:Preparing Our Children For A Crazy AI World. No text in image.

Preparing Our Children For A Crazy AI World - Yahoo

- Encouraging teenagers to narrow their interests may limit their potential in a changing world.  
- Combining technical skills with liberal arts fosters creativity and well-rounded human capabilities.  
- Young people should be encouraged to create projects rather than solely focus on courses.  

There is something sad about asking a teenager which of the things they love they're prepared to give up.

We don't word it like that, of course. We talk about keeping their options open, being realistic, choosing subjects that will lead somewhere. These are sensible conversations.

A few years earlier, we encouraged them to be interested in everything. Now there's an options form to complete at school, and apparently science and music are competing for the same box.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

Different education systems bring this moment forward or delay it. Sooner or later, though, plenty of children get the message that growing up means narrowing down.

As parents, we want some reassurance that our children will be able to support themselves. Teachers have courses to teach and examinations to prepare students for. Nobody gets to wave away those responsibilities. But is this mindset limiting our children in this new world? Should we be careful about what we ask children to surrender?

Bigger Than A Career Choice

In his book Time Enough for Love, Robert A. Heinlein had his character Lazarus Long give this expansive view of human capability:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I wouldn't put all of that on the school timetable. But I like the impatience behind it. A human life ought to contain more than competence at one job.

Advertisement Advertisement

Expertise takes years, and our children need to experience the frustration of practicing something they cannot yet do well, and the satisfaction of eventually getting better. Broad interests can sit comfortably alongside that commitment. A student can take physics seriously and still care deeply about painting.

AI gives us another reason to think carefully about this. As more tasks become possible with software, young people will need to make judgments about what is worth doing, whose problem they are solving, and whether the result is any good. Those judgments draw on what they know about the world.

We can start building that independence quite modestly. When a child asks a question, occasionally help them investigate it instead of supplying the answer. Let them discover that the first explanation they find might be incomplete. Stay nearby when the investigation gets difficult.

I once heard a talk from an educator who rallied against the ideas I have just shared, proclaiming, if a student asks a question, "Just tell them". I'm afraid that although that might be the most practical in some situations, it won't help our children if we do that all of the time. Just this week I heard of the frustration of university professors who continue to encounter more and more school children who, at interviews, cannot respond to challenge or iterate on ideas.

Let The Interests Meet

During the launch of the iPad 2, Steve Jobs described the relationship between technical and human understanding like this:

Technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our hearts sing.

School subjects have been useful divisions. Practical ways to arrange a schedule and deploy teachers trained in specialized disciplines. They help schools organize the curriculum and give students the foundations they need. Outside school, those divisions become really unhelpful.

Advertisement Advertisement

A child making a film about a local river might need biology, geography, writing and a decent understanding of sound. They will probably also need to persuade someone to stand in the rain holding a microphone.

Projects like this give different interests somewhere to meet. They also reveal gaps. A child who wants to make something often discovers a reason to learn the difficult part they previously avoided. It's a worry when I hear that some schools disapprove of project work. Who is that serving?

Jobs made a related observation about creativity in a 1996 interview:

Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw something. And they were able to connect experiences they've had and synthesize new things.

That suggests a fairly ordinary place to begin. Help children notice things and keep some record of them. A notebook, photographs, a folder full of questions. It needn't be another assignment. There is value in having somewhere to put a thought before it disappears.

Just Do Things

The following line, from the entrepreneur Naval Ravikant, in the book The Almanack of Naval Ravikant, has taken on a deep relevance to my life and something I share with any teenager I encounter:

You shouldn't be looking for a job; you should be creating a body of work that attracts the right opportunities to you.

Of course, most of our young people have time before they need to worry about attracting employers. But getting started on making something useful is a wise thing to do, from any age.

Advertisement Advertisement

Perhaps our child has worked out how to revise a topic that everyone in their class finds confusing. They could produce a short explanation for younger students. Someone interested in family history could, with permission, record a grandparent's stories and make something the family will treasure.

My youngest brother is exploring a career in sports journalism, and I find it bewildering that none of his teachers have told him just to do it! Start a podcast, go interview football players, write a blog. Instead, they are funnelling him through courses, then more courses. I'm not saying the courses aren't helpful, but coupled with "just doing it" will get him so much further.

We live in a world where you don't need to wait for permission anymore. You can just do things if they interest you.

James Clear's advice, from his book Atomic Habits, is helpful here:

You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems.

Help your child make room for the work. We will still have to help them choose courses and meet deadlines. Some choices will inevitably close doors.

Advertisement Advertisement

But a subject disappearing from a timetable doesn't have to disappear from a life. When a teenager puts the sketchbook away because they think it's time to become serious, we can make sure they know they're allowed to pick it up again.

This article was originally published on Forbes.com

Preparing Our Children For A Crazy AI World

The weekend editor at The Verge, who has extensive experience in covering the tech sector for over 18 years, is well-versed in synthesizers and their impact on the industry.

On Thursday, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro enacted the Artificial Intelligence Deceptive Advertising Act, which mandates transparency in advertisements generated or altered by artificial intelligence. According to this new law, any form of advertisement—be it a still image, video, audio, or text—that has undergone significant modification or is fully created through AI must clearly display a label, matching the ad's format. This requirement spans all types of advertising, from multi-million dollar television commercials to small, cluttered flyers promoting local dining specials.

Pennsylvania is among the pioneering states to implement such disclosure requirements for AI-generated content. Importantly, the law applies to ads regardless of their original state of creation, meaning that commercials scheduled to air in Pennsylvania may incorporate such labels even if produced elsewhere.

However, the legislation does contain several ambiguities. For instance, the term "significantly modified" lacks a clear definition. Additionally, the law exempts content created for "parody, satire, commentary, or criticism," along with anything that is deemed "evidently fictional," though what constitutes "evidently fictional" remains unclear. The law also implies that only content that uses synthetic elements to foster a "false consumer perception" will necessitate a disclosure. This raises further questions about what is classified as "false" and who gets to make that determination.

As of now, the office of State Senator Nick Pisciottano, the individual who sponsored the bill, has not responded to inquiries for clarification.

Pennsylvania to mandate labels for advertisements created by AI.

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:Pennsylvania will require labels on AI-generated ads. No text in image.

Pennsylvania will require labels on AI-generated ads - The Verge

- Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed the Artificial Intelligence Deceptive Advertising Act into law.  
- The law mandates disclosures on AI-generated ads across various formats, including video and text.  
- Loopholes exist regarding definitions of "significantly modified" and "evidently fictional" content.  

is the Verge’s weekend editor. He’s covered the tech industry for over 18 years and knows a thing or two about synths.

Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.

On Thursday, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed the Artificial Intelligence Deceptive Advertising Act into law, requiring disclosures on AI-generated ads. The law requires any ad — whether it’s a still image, video, audio, or text — that “has been significantly modified or generated by artificial intelligence” to include a label in the same format as the ad itself. That applies to TV commercials from multi-billion-dollar companies, as well as restaurants’ ugly, crowded flyers about their wing specials.

Pennsylvania is one of the first states to require disclosures on AI content. And it requires those labels regardless of where an ad was created. So you might see disclosures pop up in commercials in other states if they’re also expected to air in Pennsylvania.

The law leaves many loopholes, though. For one, what constitutes “significantly modified” is subjective. There is also a carve-out for “parody, satire, commentary or criticism,” as well as anything that is “evidently fictional.” Again, what “evidently fictional” means is unclear. The wording also suggests only content that “uses synthetic content in a manner that creates a false consumer perception” about a product or service would require a disclosure. Again, leaving questions about what qualifies as “false” under the law and who makes those decisions.

The office of State Senator Nick Pisciottano, who introduced the bill, did not immediately return a request for comment.

Pennsylvania will require labels on AI-generated ads

The New York Police Department is looking to implement a new artificial intelligence-driven technology designed to function like a mobile cell phone tower, enhancing their ability to quickly locate suspects. However, this development has sparked concerns among critics who fear it may allow for the monitoring of innocent residents.

The proposed system, called FalcoNet, operates as a cell-site simulator that can be installed on police vehicles or drones, and even concealed within a backpack. This technology is developed by Cognyte, an Israeli tech company, with the NYPD on the verge of finalizing a three-year, $750,500 contract for its use.

This portable simulator mimics a traditional cell tower, connecting to nearby cell phones and capturing the unique identification numbers associated with each device. This data can then be traced back to the respective users.

Cognyte has faced scrutiny from human rights organizations for its collaborations with governments known to misuse surveillance technology against political dissidents. The introduction of FalcoNet has elicited further criticism from civil liberties advocates, who are apprehensive about its potential for unconstitutionally surveilling individuals who are not under investigation.

Daniel Schwarz, a senior privacy and technology strategist with the New York Civil Liberties Union, voiced concerns over the NYPD’s commitment to transparency and the protection of residents' privacy rights. He emphasized that cell-site simulators necessitate warrants due to their invasive nature and raised alarms about FalcoNet's additional undisclosed AI features capable of analyzing individual behaviors.

Cognyte did not provide a response when approached for comments on the situation.

Currently, the NYPD uses other cell-site simulators for tracking suspects, as well as locating individuals who are missing or in crisis. A spokesperson remarked that FalcoNet has been assessed as the most effective option available for the department's needs.

Highlighting a specific case, the spokesperson referenced an incident on February 9 when the police successfully rescued a 15-year-old girl who had been abducted from a Queens group home, aided significantly by tracking her distressing text messages.

Should this contract be authorized, the NYPD claims FalcoNet will not be utilized to intercept phone calls or access text messages from individuals who are not part of ongoing investigations, nor will such information be shared with other agencies.

The department enforces a stringent policy governing the use of cell-site simulators, mandating that warrants be secured prior to their deployment in investigations. In urgent situations involving missing persons or those threatening suicide, officers may proceed without a warrant but are required to document the necessity and acquire a warrant within 48 hours of the technology's use.

Only a select group of four personnel from the NYPD's Technical Assistance Response Unit (TARU) will be authorized to operate the FalcoNet system, utilizing laptops that run on a secure, independent network as outlined in departmental guidelines.

Jerome Greco, a supervising attorney with The Legal Aid Society’s Digital Forensics Unit, expressed that concerns over FalcoNet's application are legitimate, recalling a decade-old revelation that the NYPD had deployed cell-site simulators over 1,000 times without formalized policies or warrants.

“The NYPD asserts that this technology won't be used for intercepting content,” Greco noted. “However, there is no way to guarantee that conclusively.”

While the NYPD publishes reports on drone usage, details regarding its cell phone tracking applications are not readily available, and critics argue that this will remain unchanged should the Cognyte contract move forward.

Eleni Manis, research director for the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), pointed out the lack of detail in reporting the individual uses of cell-site simulators, which hampers accountability for targeted individuals.

The city is currently evaluating public feedback regarding the contract before making a final decision on its approval. A spokesperson from City Hall confirmed that the proposed contract is under review.

The NYPD has historically faced challenges with AI technologies, recently announcing a review following revelations that officers improperly accessed the controversial Flock Safety license plate reader network—despite lacking a formal contract with the provider—over 1,700 times.

NYPD in talks to adopt new AI technology to simplify cell phone tracking.

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:NYPD in negotiations to use new AI-driven technology that will make it easier to track cell phones. No text in image.

NYPD in negotiations to use new AI-driven technology that will make it easier to track cell phones - New York Daily News

- The NYPD plans to adopt FalcoNet, an AI-driven cell-site simulator for suspect tracking.  
- Critics warn it could infringe on the privacy of innocent New Yorkers.  
- Concerns persist about NYPD's transparency and historical misuse of surveillance technologies.  

The NYPD wants to adopt a new AI-driven technology that will act like a roving cell phone tower and help investigators quickly find suspects they are searching for — but critics worry it will help police track the whereabouts of innocent New Yorkers.

The new mobile surveillance system, known as FalcoNet, is a cell-site simulator that can be mounted on police vehicles or drones and can even be hidden in a backpack.

It’s run by Cognyte, an Israeli technology firm. The NYPD is poised to sign a three-year, $750,500 sole-source contract with Cognyte to use its tech.

A portable cell-site simulator mimics a real cell tower. As it rolls through a neighborhood, any nearby cell phone links up with the simulator, which captures each phone’s unique identification number, which can then be traced to its user.

Cognyte, which relies heavily on artificial intelligence, has been accused by human rights groups of doing business with oppressive governments that use surveillance technology to target dissidents and political opponents. FalcoNet, meanwhile, has raised the ire of civil liberties groups worried that the technology is used to unconstitutionally track people not being sought by law enforcement.

Daniel Schwarz, senior privacy and technology strategist for the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the Cognyte contract “raises serious concerns about the [Police Department’s] commitment to transparency and to New Yorkers’ privacy rights.”

“Cell-site simulators require warrants because they are highly intrusive, dragnet surveillance,” Schwarz added. “And this new tech goes even further by incorporating undisclosed AI capabilities that analyze people’s behaviors.”

Cognyte did not respond to requests for comment.

The NYPD already uses other cell-site simulators to track down suspects as well as people who are missing or suicidal, but officials say FalcoNet — which will be mounted on department vehicles — is currently the best one available.

“The department explored different cell-site simulators and determined that this device best met the needs of the NYPD,” a spokesperson said.

The benefits of such technology are immeasurable, the spokesperson added, noting a Feb. 9 incident in which police were able to rescue a 15-year-old girl abducted from a group home in Queens and ultimately rescued in Brooklyn as police tracked her frantic text messages.

If the contract is approved, the spokesperson said, police will not use FalcoNet to listen to calls or collect information, such as text messages, from phones not involved in their investigations — or share such data with other agencies.

The department’s strict policy regarding the use of cell-site simulators demands that when the technology is used in investigations, detectives are required to get a warrant for the information first, officials said.

In exigent circumstances — including the search for someone missing or threatening suicide — cops have a green light to use the technology without a warrant, but must document the emergency and obtain the warrant within 48 hours of using the cell-site simulator, they said.

Only four members of TARU, the NYPD’s Technical Assistance Response Unit, will be authorized to use FalcoNet, using “laptops that operate on a closed, stand-alone network,” according to the NYPD’s policy.

Jerome Greco, a supervising attorney with The Legal Aid Society’s Digital Forensics Unit, said concerns about how FalcoNet will be used are not hyperbole, noting the disclosure a decade ago that the NYPD had used cell-site simulator technology more than 1,000 times without having a written policy and without getting a warrant.

“The NYPD says in their policies that this isn’t being used for intercepting content,” Greco said. “But there’s no way for us to absolutely know that.”

The NYPD posts reports on its website regarding its use of drones, but does not indicate the times they use their cell phone tracking technology. It does not appear that this will change if the Cognyte contract is finalized, critics say.

Eleni Manis, research director for the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, or STOP, said that without such disclosures it’s difficult to fully know how the NYPD is using the technology.

“It doesn’t report case-by-case use of cell-site simulators,” Manis said. “So we can’t hold them accountable for whom they target.”

The city is in the process of reviewing comments made by the public regarding the contract. It will then decide whether it should be approved.

“We are reviewing the proposed contract,” a City Hall spokesman said.

The NYPD has had issues in the past with technology that uses AI.

Last month, the department announced that it was reviewing hundreds of instances in which officers used Flock Safety, a controversial nationwide license plate reader network that uses artificial intelligence, after two advocacy groups collected data showing that at least two dozen officers used Flock’s database 1,710 times — even though the department doesn’t have a contract with the company.

NYPD in negotiations to use new AI-driven technology that will make it easier to track cell phones

Dressed in matching black attire, with identical sneakers and hoodies, a distinct group of tech leaders presents an almost cult-like image. They gravitate towards similar literature, particularly within the realm of science fiction, and communicate in a language soaked in a messianic zeal. Their messages resonate with warnings about an impending apocalypse, portraying themselves as humanity’s saviors from the potentially disastrous impacts of the AI they’ve birthed.

Jill Lepore, a historian from Harvard and winner of the 2026 Pulitzer Prize for her book titled *We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution*, likens the behavior of Silicon Valley’s elite to that of a religious cult, with AI elevated to a divine status and these leaders acting as its prophets. In her recent publication, *The Rise and Fall of the Artificial State*, released in August, Lepore contends that Big Tech now holds significant sway over both the United States and the broader global landscape. She asserts that these tech giants utilize their authority to endorse political leaders who align with their interests, consequently undermining democratic values and contributing to the dissemination of misinformation.

In an interview with *Vanity Fair*, Lepore describes the "Artificial State" as a reality where humans are governed—and in many cases replaced—by machines owned by corporate entities. When asked about how imminent this future might be, she emphasizes that the clearest illustration of this phenomenon lies within the public sphere. A functional liberal democracy relies on an environment where open discussions can flourish, allowing citizens to gather trustworthy information and engage in meaningful dialogue. However, the Artificial State actively dismantles this civic engagement and breeds a culture of trolling instead.

According to Lepore, the current communication infrastructure encourages individuals to withdraw from civil engagement rather than participate actively. It fosters alienation from social connections and fellow citizens, driving people towards a toxic cycle of outrage, condemnation, and grievance that ultimately harms the fabric of civil society.

Jill Lepore: Artificial Intelligence Undermines Civil Society

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:Jill Lepore: AI Is Eroding Civil Society. No text in image.

AI Is Eroding Civil Society, Argues Harvard Historian Jill Lepore - Vanity Fair

- Silicon Valley leaders resemble a religious cult, with AI viewed as a deity.  
- Jill Lepore argues Big Tech's influence erodes democracy and controls public discourse.  
- The Artificial State undermines civil society, fostering alienation and outrage among citizens.  

They dress like gurus, all alike in black, with similar sneakers and hoodies. They read the same books, many of them science fiction. They speak in a similar language, with a messianic tone. They send messages warning of a coming apocalypse and present themselves as the only ones capable of saving humanity from the potential disasters caused by the AI that they created.

According to Jill Lepore, a Harvard historian and 2026 Pulitzer Prize winner in history for her book We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution, Silicon Valley leaders behave like a religious cult, with artificial intelligence as God and they as its intermediaries. In her latest book, The Rise and Fall of the Artificial State, published this past August, she argues that today Big Tech controls the United States—and, in turn, the entire planet. They wield their power authoritatively, favoring presidents who best serve their interests, and helping to erode the democratic fabric of nations, one fake news story at a time.

Jill Lepore on October 06, 2026. Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

Vanity Fair: In your book, you define the Artificial State as “a future in which humans are ruled, and many replaced, by machines owned by corporations.” How close is that future?

Jill Lepore: The place where people can most easily see what I’m talking about is with what used to be called the public sphere. A liberal democracy depends on a free and open public discussion of the state of the world where people can get reliable information and exchange ideas and deliberate. The Artificial State doesn’t make citizens, it unmakes citizens; it makes trolls.

What this communications infrastructure asks of you is not to participate in civil society; it is to remove yourself from participating in civil society, to remove yourself from social relations, to alienate yourself from your fellow citizens, and instead to engage in the machinery of outrage and condemnation and grievance that is destructive to civil society.

Jill Lepore: AI Is Eroding Civil Society

Nikki Anderson, a 32-year-old mother from South Carolina, recently found an AI-generated image of her 6-year-old daughter in her backpack. The picture illustrated her daughter as a nurse, a profession the child aspires to pursue. Although the school activity aimed to celebrate her aspirations, Anderson felt a sense of discomfort regarding the incorporation of technology in the classroom.

Anderson took to Instagram to express her feelings, and her post quickly gained traction. She raised concerns about the necessity for schools to utilize AI when children possess the creativity and imagination to envision their own futures. She emphasized that her daughter is at a formative age, bursting with potential, and does not require artificial intelligence to dictate what she could become.

In a conversation on Tuesday, October 20, Anderson recounted her reaction to the imagery. “Am I allowed to be grossed out about this? I am grossed out about this,” she remarked, even though her daughter found the picture appealing due to a different hair texture represented. Anderson also speculated on the process involved in creating the image, asking whether a teacher had uploaded her daughter's photo, given the known concerns surrounding AI technology.

Anderson is advocating for greater transparency regarding the AI tools utilized by schools, particularly in relation to consent and data security. She raised crucial questions, such as the software used, whether it involved an external platform, and what happens to students' images afterward. “Did any of us actually consent to that?” she queried, stressing that these inquiries warrant answers from all parents.

She has approached the school's administration with her concerns and is awaiting a reply. Maintaining a balanced perspective, she expresses trust that the staff has the best interests of the children at heart. Anderson hopes her discussions with school leadership will lead to “meaningful safeguards” regarding the use of AI.

Anderson has also shown her support for teachers, recognizing their limited resources and the complex technological environment they are navigating. "I believe our children deserve protection—not just of their images, but of their minds," she emphasized.

This incident has ignited a lively debate online. Many users aligned with her views on privacy and the risks associated with using AI technology on student data. However, some criticized her for engaging with a national publication about the issue, suggesting that she compromised her privacy concerns by making her situation public. A number of commenters accused her of being contradictory.

In response to the backlash, Anderson clarified her intentions: she aims to inform parents about what transpires in their children's educational settings. While she recognized that the reaction exceeded her expectations, she reiterated that although some may find the AI-generated image charming initially, a more profound examination of the implications of such practices is essential. She does not wish to confront educators but advocates for progress to avert similar incidents in the future.

A mother in South Carolina discovers an AI-created image of her 6-year-old in her backpack, produced by the school, asking, “Did any of us truly agree to that?”

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:A South Carolina mother finds an AI-generated picture of her 6-year-old in her backpack, made by her school: “Did any of us actually consent to that?”. No text in image.

A South Carolina mother finds an AI-generated picture of her 6-year-old in her backpack, made by her school: “Did any of us actually consent to that?” - Yahoo

- Nikki Anderson found an AI-generated image of her daughter in a school backpack.  
- She questions schools’ reliance on AI, advocating for transparency in using student images.  
- The incident sparked mixed online reactions about privacy and AI in education.  

Nikki Anderson, a 32-year-old mother from South Carolina, discovered an AI-generated image of her 6-year-old daughter in the child's backpack last week. The image depicted her daughter dressed as a nurse, which is the career the young girl hopes to pursue. While the school activity was meant to celebrate the child's dreams, it left the mother feeling unsettled about how technology is used in the classroom.

Anderson shared her thoughts on Instagram, where her post went viral. She questioned why schools feel the need to rely on AI when children are already creative and capable of imagining their own futures. She pointed out that her daughter is at an age where the world is full of possibilities, and she does not need a computer to tell her what she could become.

In an interview on Tuesday, October 20, Anderson recalled her initial reaction to the image. She said, "Am I allowed to be grossed out about this? I am grossed out about this," while also noting that her daughter actually liked the picture because it gave her a different hair texture. The mother then wondered about the process behind the image. She asked herself, "Did a teacher really upload my daughter's photo somewhere to make this, knowing what we know about AI?"

Anderson wants transparency about what AI tools schools use

This leads to the bigger issue of consent and data security. Anderson is pushing for schools to be transparent about what software they use and whether they have permission to process images of students. She noted, "What software was used? Was it an outside platform? What happens to those pictures after? Did any of us actually consent to that?" She believes these are questions every parent needs answers to.

The mother has taken her concerns to the school's administration and is waiting for a response. She maintains a measured view, stating that she wants to believe the staff wants what is best for the children. She hopes her conversations with the principal and board members lead to "meaningful safeguards" regarding AI.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

She also defended teachers, acknowledging that they have limited resources and are navigating a new tech landscape. "I think our children deserve protection, not only of their image but of their minds," she said.

The issue drew mixed views from the internet

The situation has sparked a heated debate online. Some people supported her stance on privacy and the potential risks of uploading student data into AI programs. Others criticized her for discussing the incident with a national magazine, arguing that she undermined her own privacy concerns by sharing the story publicly. Some commenters labeled her actions as contradictory.

Anderson addressed the backlash by explaining that she wanted to ensure parents are informed about what happens at their children's schools. She acknowledged that the response was much bigger than she anticipated. While she understands why some might initially think the AI image is cute, she continues to advocate for a deeper look at the implications of these activities. She does not want to attack educators, but she does want to see a step forward to prevent similar situations in the future.

A South Carolina mother finds an AI-generated picture of her 6-year-old in her backpack, made by her school: “Did any of us actually consent to that?”

Although significant funds have been funneled into artificial intelligence and there has been substantial excitement surrounding it, the reality is that this technology has yet to provide any tangible financial returns for companies outside the tech sector. The leading tech giants, often referred to as the "Mag 7," are witnessing an increase in revenue per employee, while the broader S&P 493 sees stagnant figures in this area. Similarly, profit margins are on the rise for the Mag 7 but remain unchanged for the S&P 493. Furthermore, there are no indications that AI is enhancing productivity growth, as highlighted by recent data.

As a result of the lack of financial impact, many traditional corporations are reevaluating their investments in AI, considering them more as burdensome costs rather than catalysts for growth. In contrast, firms backed by venture capital are ramping up their spending on AI technologies. However, mainstream businesses are hesitant to invest in the latest AI models, demonstrating reluctance to allocate funds for something they perceive as unnecessary.

As long as the adoption of advanced AI technologies remains limited to a select segment of the economy, the broader economic implications will be minimal. A critical question for the future will be whether these emerging, more affordable AI solutions can drive greater revenue and profit margins for standard corporations. Achieving this might prove to be more difficult than anticipated, as the effectiveness of AI largely revolves around interpretation and context, which are inherently human aspects. Decision-making in business involves a level of judgment that varies significantly depending on the human perspective or specific model used.

Moreover, AI lacks an understanding of essential elements like accountability, trust, culture, unspoken norms, ethical decisions, and fairness—factors that significantly influence a company’s reputation and ultimately affect its financial success. It is essential to recognize that the trajectory of AI's impact will largely depend on the performance of companies within the S&P 493, rather than solely on the thriving tech sector. To date, there is scant evidence suggesting that revenue growth or profit margins are improving in industries outside of technology.

No Indications of AI Benefits Beyond the Technology Industry

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:No Signs of AI Payoff Outside the Tech Sector. No text in image.

No Signs of AI Payoff Outside the Tech Sector - Apollo Global Management

- AI investments yield no financial returns for corporate America outside the tech sector.  
- Revenue and profit margins remain flat for the S&P 493 compared to the Mag 7.  
- Mainstream companies struggle to leverage AI for growth due to lack of accountability.

Despite massive investments and widespread hype around artificial intelligence, the technology has delivered zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech. Revenue per worker is rising for the Mag 7 but is flat for the S&P 493, see the first chart below. Profit margins are rising for the Mag 7 but are flat for the S&P 493, see the second chart below. And there are still no signs of AI boosting productivity growth, see the third chart below. With no impact on the bottom line, mainstream corporate America is pulling back and starting to view token spending not as a source of growth but as a cost center that weighs on margins.

VC-backed companies are spending more and more on tokens, but mainstream corporate America does not need the latest model and is unwilling to pay for it. As long as agentic AI and token spending are confined to a small part of the economy, the macroeconomic effects of AI will be very limited, see the fourth and fifth charts below.

The question looking ahead is whether, even as models become commoditized, mainstream corporate America can turn increasingly cheap intelligence into higher revenue growth and higher profit margins. That may be harder than it sounds. AI may be a great calculator, but in business, intelligence is mostly judgment. Judgment depends on context, and the answer varies with which human or which model you ask. Perhaps most importantly, AI does not understand accountability, trust, culture, unwritten rules, ethical trade-offs or fairness, all of which shape reputational risk and ultimately drive revenue growth and profit margins.

The bottom line is that the AI story will be decided in the S&P 493, not the Mag 7, and so far, there is no evidence that revenue growth or margins are improving outside the tech sector.

No Signs of AI Payoff Outside the Tech Sector

President Donald Trump has emphasized the urgency of the United States' artificial intelligence competition with China, framing it as a national security issue that requires accelerated technology development and the expansion of necessary infrastructure, such as data centers. However, a recent CNBC All-America Economic Survey highlights a significant political dilemma beneath this agenda: while Republican voters largely endorse the advancement of AI, many resist the establishment of the extensive infrastructure needed to support it in their localities.

The survey shows that nearly 55% of MAGA supporters advocate for ongoing AI development as Congress formulates regulations, contrasted with 27% who prefer a halt. Yet, only 29% would approve of a data center being located within 10 miles of their homes, with 40% firmly opposing it. This reluctance extends to all Republican and Republican-leaning voters, where only 24% express support for nearby data centers. On a broader scale, 63% of voters overall disfavor having a data center close to their residences, with only 13% in favor. Opposition is most pronounced among Democrats, with a striking 80% against local facilities.

This growing opposition is prompting Trump and GOP leaders, who previously supported the idea of data centers, to reassess their positions as they navigate a challenging midterm election landscape. Brad Carson, a former Oklahoma congressman and co-founder of Public First Action PAC, an organization advocating for stronger regulations in the AI sector, noted that public frustration with data centers is significant. He stressed the public's demand for sound regulations surrounding AI, indicating that this sentiment could pose challenges for politicians.

The CNBC survey, which included 1,000 registered voters from October 14 to 18 and carries a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, reveals that concerns about data centers and AI oversight are rising. Eighteen percent of respondents mentioned inadequate regulation of AI and data centers as a primary concern under a Republican-controlled Congress. This concern ranks just behind ongoing military involvement in Iran and surpasses other issues like healthcare subsidies cuts and tariffs.

GOP strategists have taken this backlash seriously. The National Republican Senatorial Committee alerted AI companies in August about the potential adverse effects of data center opposition on Senator Jon Husted's reelection campaign in Ohio, identifying it as a critical midterm issue. Previously, Husted had promoted a significant $10 billion expansion by Amazon Web Services as vital for the nation's economic advancement, but now he is pushing legislation to require data centers to bear the costs associated with their energy consumption.

Texas provides another example of this evolving stance. Governor Greg Abbott, who once touted the state as a hub for AI development, has recently paused data center permits to evaluate their impacts on the power grid and water supply, also calling for the cancellation of state tax incentives associated with these projects. Trump appears to feel the political pressure as well; he recently suggested on Truth Social that data center developers should provide financial dividends to local communities and generate their own energy, positing that such initiatives could improve public perception of these projects.

Currently, voters lean slightly toward Democrats regarding the management of data center expansion, with 32% expressing trust in their ability to handle the issue compared to 24% for Republicans. Moreover, 27% believe neither party will effectively address the challenge.

Trump advocates for a significant AI expansion, but his supporters are cautious about its implications.

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:Trump is pushing a massive AI buildout. His own voters are wary of what comes with it. No text in image.

Trump is pushing a massive AI buildout. His own voters are wary of what comes with it - CNBC

- Trump emphasizes AI development as a national-security priority, despite local infrastructure resistance.  
- 63% of voters oppose nearby AI data centers, with strong opposition from Democrats.  
- GOP faces backlash over data centers, influencing strategies ahead of the midterm elections.  

watch now

President Donald Trump has cast America's artificial intelligence race with China as a national-security imperative, pushing faster development of the technology and an immense buildout of the data centers and power infrastructure needed to fuel it. But the new CNBC All-America Economic Survey reveals a growing political tension beneath that agenda: Republican voters broadly support the push for AI development, but many oppose building the sprawling infrastructure needed to power it in their own backyards. Nearly 55% of MAGA supporters want companies to keep developing advanced AI while Congress works on regulations, versus 27% who favor a pause. But only 29% would support a data center within 10 miles of their home, while 40% oppose one. Among all Republicans and Republican-leaning voters — not just those who identify themselves with the MAGA movement — those who say they would support a data center near their home falls to 24%. Across the electorate, 63% don't want a nearby AI data center and just 13% support one. Democrats lead the opposition: 80% oppose nearby facilities while just 4% support them.

That resistance is increasingly forcing Trump and vulnerable Republicans who once championed data centers to recalibrate as they head into a bleak midterm election environment for the party. "Many people are annoyed by these data centers," said Brad Carson, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma and co-founder of Public First Action PAC, an AI-industry-backed political group pushing for stronger regulation and safeguards. "People are also strongly insistent upon reasonable guardrails of AI, and that's going to be hard to beat." The CNBC survey of 1,000 registered voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 14-18 by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The data-center proximity question was asked of a half-sample of roughly 500 voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.38 percentage points. Read the full survey results here. The politics have shifted from the early AI boom, when Washington and Silicon Valley sold the technology as an avenue for investment, growth and American dominance. But as the buildout accelerates, its physical costs are becoming harder to ignore. Communities are fighting data centers over spiking electric bills, soaring electricity and water demand, noise, land use and taxpayer subsidies. Coupled with job-displacement fears from AI, opponents now point to the facilities as a physical symbol of who benefits from the boom and who gets stuck with the bill. The industry rejects that framing. “The data center industry provides significant, tangible benefits,” said Dan Diorio of the Data Center Coalition, pointing to jobs, investment and tax revenue while adding that operators are committed to “paying for the energy we use." But when asked their top concerns if Republicans retain Congress, 18% of voters in the survey cited a failure to regulate AI and data centers. That tied continued military efforts in Iran and outranked continued Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportations at 15%, cuts to health insurance subsidies at 10% and an extension of Trump's tariffs at 5%. Even among voters who want Republicans to retain control, 17% cited weak AI and data center oversight — second only to a failure to bring down prices. GOP strategists have taken note.

In August, the National Republican Senatorial Committee warned AI companies that data center backlash was threatening Sen. Jon Husted's reelection in Ohio, calling the issue a midterm "sleeper" that could sour politicians nationwide on future projects, Axios reported. As Ohio lieutenant governor in 2024, Husted helped announce a $10 billion Amazon Web Services expansion, calling AI facilities "crucial to America's economic superiority." Now, in a tight Senate race against Democrat Sherrod Brown, who has made data-center opposition a campaign issue, Husted is promoting stalled legislation to make large facilities cover their own grid and generation costs rather than pass them on to residential ratepayers. Texas tells a similar story. Less than a year after Gov. Greg Abbott hailed the state as an "epicenter of AI development," he halted data center permits pending grid- and water-impact reviews and called for ending state tax incentives. Trump himself is showing signs of the political pressure. In a Truth Social post Wednesday, he said data center developers should pay host communities a financial "dividend" and generate their own power, arguing that local payouts can turn unpopular projects into popular ones. For now, Democrats hold a modest edge on managing the issue: 32% of voters trust them to handle data center expansion, versus 24% for the Republicans. But 27% said neither party would do a better job than the other.

Trump is pushing a massive AI buildout. His own voters are wary of what comes with it

In a recent discussion, Mihirkant Upadhyaya, a 42-year-old Intel employee residing in Oregon, shared his unique educational and career journey, demonstrating how continuous learning is crucial in the ever-evolving technology sector. This insight has been edited for brevity and clarity, and his employment and educational background has been confirmed by Business Insider.

Upadhyaya began his academic journey with a bachelor's degree in computer engineering but later shifted his focus to physics. After earning two master's degrees and a Ph.D. in nanoscale science and engineering, he secured his dream role in the semiconductor industry at Intel in 2015.

As his career progressed, he recognized the need for a Master of Business Administration (MBA) to enhance his professional skills. His doctoral studies, which emphasized EUV lithography technology, equipped him with a solid foundation in semiconductor manufacturing. Joining Intel felt like a natural fit, as the company excels in both chip design and production, allowing him to fully appreciate the complexities of chip-making.

While a Ph.D. isn't a prerequisite for roles in the semiconductor field—where opportunities exist in areas like finance and legal—Upadhyaya found that his advanced education bolstered his readiness to engage with the workforce. The discipline and resilience gained during his studies empowered him to take ownership of his projects and embrace challenges.

Despite moments of self-doubt during his Ph.D., particularly when comparing himself to peers who advanced more quickly in their careers, he recognized that the experience ultimately refined his character, fostering patience and resilience.

After five years in research and development at Intel, Upadhyaya transitioned to supply chain management, where he had to navigate contract negotiations and relational dynamics. He soon realized he needed additional skills for effective communication at an executive level, particularly in financial contexts.

To address these gaps, in September 2025, he embarked on a two-year hybrid MBA program while maintaining his full-time role. This opportunity to return to a classroom setting at age 41 felt invigorating. The program includes a week of in-person sessions each quarter, with online classes three days a week, partially funded by his employer, which is beneficial considering the high expenses associated with an MBA.

Upadhyaya estimates that he will have invested around $100,000 in his post-graduate education, factoring in scholarships and tuition waivers. He emphasizes that his pursuit of higher education isn’t about accumulating degrees but about continually evolving in his career. The MBA is specifically targeting the skills gap he's identified through his industry experience.

As the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) grows, Upadhyaya has reassessed his contributions to his field. Recognizing that many routine tasks could be automated, he focused on enhancing his capacity in areas where AI lacks—such as nuanced judgment and relational skills developed through hands-on experience.

In his previous position at Intel, he found AI inadequate when addressing specific troubleshooting scenarios tied to unique equipment, illustrating the limitations of technology. Currently, while AI might assist with generating financial models, it cannot replicate the human capacity for contextual understanding or interpersonal rapport. His MBA course emphasizes collaborative activities, fostering valuable interactions that AI struggle to emulate.

Upadhyaya believes that in this AI-driven era, cultivating a passion for a particular field, along with expert status and a commitment to ongoing education, will enhance one's value in the workforce. Intel opted not to comment on this discussion when approached by Business Insider.

Why a 41-Year-Old Ph.D. Graduate is Pursuing an MBA in the Era of AI

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:Why This Ph.D. Grad Is Doing an MBA at 41 in the Age of AI. No text in image.

A Ph.D. led me to my dream job. Here's why I'm doing an MBA at 41 to level up in the age of AI. - Business Insider

- Mihirkant Upadhyaya transitioned from computer engineering to physics, earning a Ph.D. in nanoscale science.  
- He is pursuing an MBA to address skills gaps and enhance his role at Intel.  
- Upadhyaya believes specialized expertise and continuous learning help remain irreplaceable in the AI era.  

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Mihirkant Upadhyaya, 42, who works at Intel and lives in Oregon. The following has been edited for length and clarity. Business Insider has verified his employment and education.

After studying computer engineering for my bachelor's, I pivoted into physics.

Two master's degrees and a Ph.D. in nanoscale science and engineering later, I got my dream job in the semiconductor industry at Intel in 2015.

As my career evolved, I realized I also wanted to do an MBA to step up my game.

My Ph.D. gave me relevant skills to take on the workforce

During my Ph.D., I focused on a semiconductor manufacturing technology called EUV lithography. I was excited to work at Intel because it does both chip design and manufacturing, so I knew I'd get a good overview of the chip-making process.

Related video Marketing leader Jonathan Adashek shares how IBM is communicating its AI tools to both employees and clients

You don't need a Ph.D. to work in semiconductors, as there are so many areas outside the lab you can work in, like finance and legal.

Have you "degree-stacked" your career and have a story to share about what you gained from it, or what you regret about it? Get in touch with this reporter: ccheong@businessinsisder.com.

On a personal level, though, having a Ph.D. helped me feel prepared to step into the workforce. It gave me discipline and the ability to be comfortable with ambiguity. My research mindset and technical background gave me the confidence to take ownership of outcomes and tasks.

There were definitely moments where I had self-doubt doing a Ph.D. You watch your peers go on to earn big bucks after their bachelor's and master's while you live on a modest stipend. However, the experience shaped me into who I am. I'd say I'm more patient, sharper, and more resilient.

I reached a stage where I felt I needed more education to thrive in my job

After about five years in research and development at Intel, I moved into supply chain roles, which have involved managing relationships and negotiating contracts. At this point, I realized I was missing certain skills.

My current role has a greater emphasis on executive communication and financial analysis. When I presented to an executive team, my manager had to step in on a number of occasions to get the room to respond, making what I was saying more high-level using business-driven terms. I also didn't quite understand certain things when I worked with the finance teams on contract negotiations.

To step up my game, I started a two-year hybrid MBA course in September 2025, alongside my full-time job. It was energizing to get back to the classroom at age 41.

Let BI find your next job Create a BI Job Scout and get opportunities matched to your goals. Create your agent Role Location Matches Business Insider has Games! Want more Business Insider in your news feed? Add BI in Google so our reporting is easier to find when you’re searching for what matters. Add to Preferred Sources

I take one week off a quarter to do in-person sessions, and the rest of the time I'm doing online learning three days a week. My company is partly funding this, which is useful since MBAs can carry a $100,000 price tag.

Upadhyaya estimates that he's invested $100,000 into his post-graduate education. Courtesy of Mihirkant Upadhyaya

By the time I've finished my MBA, I'll have done nine years of postgraduate study, investing an estimated $100,000 into that education, aside from scholarships and tuition waivers. Without question, it's been worth it. I haven't pursued the degrees to accumulate credentials, but to serve my career at various stages of my life. The MBA is addressing a concrete skills gap I identified after years in my industry.

I believe higher education is helping me become more irreplaceable in the age of AI

The AI boom made me take a hard look at what I bring to the table. I saw that some of what I did could eventually be automated. That realization was humbling.

Instead of trying to compete with what AI is already good at, I wanted to strengthen the areas where I knew it fell short. AI is great at processing and analyzing information. It has scale and speed, but it lacks the truly insightful judgment that a person can gain from years of learning a skill.

Upadhyaya said he's encountered limits to AI's capabilities. Courtesy of Mihirkant Upadhyaya

In my previous role at Intel, I found that AI couldn't tell me how to troubleshoot issues involving new or custom-made equipment because the context was so unique to my situation.

Meanwhile, in my current role, while AI could probably help me generate financial models, it can't read the room, build relationships, or have synergy with another person. My MBA course benefits me in this regard because we do lots of group activities, even online through Zoom, where we can interact with each other.

I think that in the age of AI, finding a field you really care about, becoming an expert in it, and staying curious to keep learning can help you become irreplaceable.

Intel declined to comment in response to a request from Business Insider.

Why This Ph.D. Grad Is Doing an MBA at 41 in the Age of AI

Canva is making strides in the competition for artificial intelligence-generated imagery. On Thursday, the design platform introduced Canva Craft, its inaugural AI image generation model, aimed at competing with offerings from major players like Google, Meta, and OpenAI. 

Craft can be accessed via Canva’s Dream Lab, even by users with free accounts, although it comes with certain usage restrictions concerning AI. Users must log in to their Canva accounts to begin using the tool.

In its launch announcement, Canva revealed that the model takes into account a design’s layout, proportions, and text before generating an image. This strategy is intended to produce text that is clearer and more detailed than offerings from other platforms.

The training data for this model consisted of templates originally created by humans on Canva, which include various designs such as posters, menus, and presentations, rather than relying heavily on photographic images.

Business Insider decided to assess Canva Craft's performance by creating three image generation prompts that progressively increased in complexity—from a straightforward greeting card to a highly realistic image generated entirely from scratch.

The first task involved creating a birthday card. The prompt asked for a cartoon-style "Happy Birthday" card designed for a friend named Jessica, who has distinctive pink hair and brown eyes, is fond of paisley patterns, and will turn 28 in November.

In this instance, Canva's rendering of the birthday card did not quite meet expectations, suffering from a mismatch in font choices and the cartoon character's oversized head, and it notably omitted the paisley detail altogether. In contrast, both ChatGPT and Muse managed to capture the essence of the request, with ChatGPT suggesting pink as a possible favorite color for Jessica and Muse incorporating warm, autumnal details into the design.

In the second test, the goal was to edit an original image featuring the author holding a necklace pendant. The task required the AI models to remove the red garnet pendant from the model's hand and position it as if it were displayed in a jewelry showcase. Canva successfully identified the pendant and generated a creative backdrop, but both it and Gemini created physically improbable scenarios, such as depicting the pendant as floating or awkwardly balanced on a pole. ChatGPT and Muse excelled in this task as well, with ChatGPT standing out for maintaining realism, despite Muse’s unrequested alterations to the pendant.

The third and final prompt asked for the creation of a photorealistic image of a long-haired orange tabby cat in a Halloween costume, complete with bat wings, sitting atop a gothic castle beneath a full moon and a starless sky. Although Canva’s depiction exhibited some exaggerated elements, like overly striking fur detail, it largely met the task's requirements and matched the quality of images produced by Muse and Gemini. However, ChatGPT emerged as the clear favorite due to its lifelike portrayal of the cat and well-executed lighting that enhanced the scene's realism.

In summary, while Canva is taking initial steps into AI-driven image generation, it still has significant improvement to make when compared to established models. For the time being, users may find it more effective to engage in hands-on manipulation for their design needs.

Comparison of AI Image Generators: Canva Craft Against ChatGPT, Gemini, and Meta Muse

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:AI Image Generator Test: Canva Craft Vs. ChatGPT, Gemini, Meta Muse. No text in image.

I put Canva's new AI image generator through its paces. The results were a mixed bag. - Business Insider

- Canva launched Canva Craft, its first AI image generation model, competing with major players.  
- Users can access Canva Craft via Dream Lab, but face AI usage limits on free accounts.  
- Testing revealed Canva's performance lagged behind ChatGPT and Muse in various image tasks.  

Canva wants a shot at winning the AI image generation race.

The design platform launched Canva Craft on Thursday, its first image-generation model, similar to those from Google, Meta, and OpenAI.

Users can access Craft through Canva’s Dream Lab, including with free accounts, though it is subject to AI usage limits. You’ll need to sign in to a Canva account to get started.

In the release announcement, Canva said the tool plans a design’s layout, proportions, and text before generating an image, an approach that aims to help it produce legible lettering and accurate details.

The company also said that the model was trained on human-designed Canva templates, including posters, menus, and presentations, rather than photographs.

To test how Canva performs, Business Insider created three image generation prompts with escalating difficulty levels — from designing a simple greeting card to creating a photorealistic image from scratch.

Here is how Canva's brand-new image generation tool stacked up against three of the most powerful models.

Canva did not respond to a request for comment.

Starting off with an illustration

Canva's response to a greeting card prompt (left), compared to ChatGPT (middle) and Gemini (right). Business Insider

We started off simple with a prompt for a birthday card.

Business Insider has Games! Want more Business Insider in your news feed? Add BI in Google so our reporting is easier to find when you’re searching for what matters. Add to Preferred Sources

Create a cartoon "Happy Birthday" greeting card for a friend named Jessica who has pink hair, brown eyes, likes to wear paisley, and is turning 28 years old in November.

Surprisingly, Canva, the design platform, fell short in its design of the birthday card, from the awkward font to the outsize head of the cartoon character. It didn't even bother to include any paisley.

By comparison, ChatGPT and Muse understood the assignment.

ChatGPT guessed that the recipient's favorite color might be pink, while Muse thoughtfully wove in cozy fall elements for the November birthday girl.

Muse wove in cozy fall elements for the November birthday girl. Screenshot/Business Insider

Meanwhile, Gemini took the request literally and produced an image of an actual card. Extra points!

Winner: Muse

Editing an image

The request and original image (left). Canva's results (right). Screenshot/Business Insider

For the second task, I tested the AI models' ability to identify an element and place it in a brand-new setting.

Edit this image of me holding a necklace pendant. Take the red garnet pendant off my hand and make it look as if it is displayed in a vitrine in a jewelry showroom.

Canva did a great job of identifying the pendant and creating an atmospheric setting, but, like Gemini, it depicted the jewelry in a way that defied physics and common sense. It would be unrealistic for a pendant to float in the air or sit propped on a metal pole.

ChatGPT (left), Muse (middle), and Gemini (right). Business Insider

ChatGPT and Muse once again outperformed other models in understanding how things typically look in reality. Muse, however, made some alterations to the pendant, which I didn't ask for.

Winner: ChatGPT

Creating a photorealistic image from scratch

Canva's depiction of a cat perched atop a gothic castle. Made with Canva/Business Insider

With Halloween approaching, I asked for a realistic depiction of my favorite animal.

Generate a photorealistic image of a long-haired orange tabby cat in a Halloween costume with bat wings, perched on the edge of a gothic medieval castle under the full moon and a starless night sky.

Though the cat's fur looks a little too strandy and high-contrast in Canva's creation, no components are missing or malformed, and the image composition pretty much matches the quality of Muse and Gemini.

The clear winner for me in this round, however, would be ChatGPT.

Gemini (left), ChatGPT (middle), and Muse (right). Business Insider

Not only is the cat's posture majestic, but the soft glow on his left side is extremely realistic, and the white balance is well done. There are also clouds softly cradling the moon, which could be a response to my request for a starless sky.

Winner: ChatGPT

Overall, it's evident that Canva still has a lot of room to grow compared to other models, especially if graphic design is its focus. For now, I'll stick to moving components around by hand.

AI Image Generator Test: Canva Craft Vs. ChatGPT, Gemini, Meta Muse

In the lead-up to the November elections, there has been a notable surge in the use of AI-generated advertisements in the U.S. midterm campaigns. These ads are not only sponsored by external political organizations but are also being directly produced by candidates involved in critical races.

BBC Verify has conducted an analysis, monitoring numerous AI advertisements, to understand their role and deployment within these campaigns, as detailed by Jake Horton. The findings suggest that AI technology is becoming an integral part of political strategies, reflecting a shift in how candidates engage with voters. 

The research highlights the innovative approaches being adopted in campaign advertising, utilizing cutting-edge technology to enhance outreach and influence public perception. Produced by Krystal Campos, with graphics contributed by Sally Nicholls and Henry Esterson, the investigation offers a comprehensive view of this evolving landscape in political communication.

US midterms: The emergence of AI-generated campaign ads in the US midterm elections

Generate a cinematic news thumbnail for title:US midterms: The rise of AI election ads in US midterms campaign. No text in image.

The rise of AI election ads in US midterms campaign - BBC

- AI-generated advertisements are increasingly prevalent in the US midterms campaign.  
- Some ads are funded by outside groups, while others come from candidates directly.  
- BBC Verify has tracked numerous AI ads to evaluate their campaign effectiveness.

Researchers say AI ads are being used more than ever in the US midterms campaign ahead of the elections in November.

Some of the ads are being funded by outside political groups but they have also come directly from candidates in some key races.

BBC Verify has tracked dozens of AI ads to assess how they are being used by campaigns - as Jake Horton explains.

Produced by Krystal Campos. Graphics by Sally Nicholls and Henry Esterson.

Anthropic Faces Lawsuit for Utilizing Elvis Presley Music in AI Model Training

More from AI

Ready Our Kids for an Unpredictable AI Future

Pennsylvania to mandate labels for advertisements created by AI.

NYPD in talks to adopt new AI technology to simplify cell phone tracking.

Jill Lepore: Artificial Intelligence Undermines Civil Society