In Nashville, Tennessee, Professor Vasileios Maroulas from the University of Tennessee is at the forefront of an artificial intelligence initiative known as AI Tennessee. His focus is on equipping students with the skills needed to navigate the forthcoming shifts in the job market.

According to a report by FOX17 News' Johnny Maffei, District Attorney offices throughout Tennessee are increasingly adopting AI technologies to enhance their operational efficiency, particularly in light of staff shortages. However, the impact of AI is twofold; while it improves workflow, many employers are also expressing concerns about potential job losses. Notably, Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter—now rebranded as X—has recently announced plans to reduce his workforce by almost 50%, citing AI as a significant factor in this decision.

Maroulas emphasizes the importance of viewing AI not as a disruptive force but as a transition in the workforce. He believes that if society is apprehensive about AI, it may indeed create a shock. "Technology has historically led to the creation of numerous new opportunities," he notes, pointing out that a staggering 80% of jobs classified as ‘White Collar’ emerged in the period following World War II. Maroulas urges a proactive rather than reactive approach to integrating AI into the workforce.

Tennessee professor discusses workforce changes, saying treating AI as a shock will create a real shock.

A dimly lit university lecture hall at dusk, warm natural light spilling in through tall windows onto a lone professor’s back as he sketches a jagged lightning bolt of glowing AI circuitry across a chalkboard labeled “Workforce Evolution.” Below the bolt, silhouetted human figures and industrial robots recoil in shock. A Tennessee state flag hangs prominently beside the board, adding regional context to this moody, dramatic scene.

'If we treat AI as a shock, its gonna be a shock:' Tennessee prof. talks workforce changes - WZTV

- Professor Vasileios Maroulas leads AI Tennessee to prepare students for workforce changes.  
- District Attorney offices utilize AI for efficiency amid staff shortages across the state.  
- Jack Dorsey announces layoffs at Block, citing AI as impacting job availability.  

Nashville, Tenn. (WZTV) -- University of Tennessee Professor Vasileios Maroulas leads the artificial intelligence initiative, AI Tennessee, and tries to make sure students are ready for the changes coming to the workforce.

FOX17 News' Johnny Maffei reported District Attorney offices across the state are using AI to streamline work due to some staff shortages. But it's not just for efficiency, employers say its taking jobs, too. Jack Dorsey, who founded Twitter, now known as X, has since started Block and recently announced he's laying off nearly half of his staff due to artificial intelligence.

Maroulas says "if we treat AI as a shock, its gonna be a shock." He adds the humans need to treat it like a workforce transition, not a takeover. "Technology always generated more, an exponential number of further opportunities. For example, 80% of what we call ‘White Collar Jobs,’ they were introduced after the second World War," Maroulas tells Maffei.

'If we treat AI as a shock, its gonna be a shock:' Tennessee prof. talks workforce changes

When engaging with our websites and applications, we utilize cookies to enhance your experience. 

Your options regarding privacy are as follows:

By selecting 'Accept all', you allow us and our partners, including 246 affiliates under the IAB Transparency & Consent Framework, to store and access information on your device. This includes browsing and search data, which we use for analytics, tailored advertising and content, measurement of advertising effectiveness, audience analysis, and the development of services. Additionally, we may gather precise geolocation data and other personal information for these purposes.

If you prefer not to have us and our partners use cookies and personal information for these specific uses, select 'Reject all'.

For those interested in personalizing their preferences, you can click on 'Manage privacy settings'.

You have the ability to revoke your consent or modify your choices at any point by accessing the 'Privacy and Cookie settings' or 'Privacy dashboard' links available on our sites and applications. For further details on how we handle your personal information, please refer to our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

Your options for privacy

A bright home office bathed in warm natural sunlight, where a professional’s hand reaches toward a large transparent floating panel titled “Privacy Settings.” The panel displays toggles for Location, Cookies, and Data Sharing alongside softly glowing icons of a padlock, fingerprint, and network. Golden rays cast clean shadows across the desk, highlighting the moment of choosing between “On” and “Off.”

AI actor Tilly Norwood's world is expanding with the 'Tillyverse' - Yahoo

- Users can accept cookies for analytics, advertising, and audience research purposes.  
- Options are available to reject cookies or customize privacy settings.  
- Consent can be withdrawn anytime via privacy settings on sites and apps.  

When you use our sites and apps, we use cookies to:

Your privacy choices

Accept all', we and technical identifiers and browsing and search data, for analytics, personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, and audience research and services development. If you click '', we and our partners , including 246 who are part of the IAB Transparency & Consent Framework, will also store and / or access information on a device (in other words, use cookies) and use precise geolocation data and other personal data such asand browsing and search data, for analytics, personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, and audience research and services development.

If you do not want us and our partners to use cookies and personal data for these additional purposes, click 'Reject all'.

If you would like to customise your choices, click 'Manage privacy settings'.

You can withdraw your consent or change your choices at any time by clicking on the 'Privacy and Cookie settings' or 'Privacy dashboard' links on our sites and apps. Find out more about how we use your personal data in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

Your privacy choices

Sarah Hannafin, representing the National Association of Head Teachers union, remarked that the results indicate that certain children possess a genuine awareness and understanding of both the advantages and the dangers associated with the use of AI and smartphones.

References to AI and screen time in BBC 500 Word articles rise.

A bright, sunlit British newsroom scene: on a polished wood desk lie several open “500 WORDS” story booklets with the words “AI” and little smartphone and tablet icons springing up from the pages like lively thought bubbles. A digital counter on a nearby monitor reads “AI Mentions +42%” and “Screen Time +58%.” Behind the desk, a large, crisp BBC logo is mounted on the wall. A sleek laptop and a vintage quill pen sit side by side, symbolizing the blend of traditional storytelling and modern tech.

Mentions of AI and screen-time in BBC 500 Word stories increases - BBC

- Sarah Hannafin noted children's awareness of AI and phone risks in recent findings.  
- The National Association of Head Teachers highlights benefits of technology usage among children.  
- The findings reveal children's insight into balancing technology's risks and advantages.  

Sarah Hannafin, from the National Association of Head Teachers union, said the findings "suggest some children have real self-awareness and insight about some of the risks as well as benefits of AI and phone use".

Mentions of AI and screen-time in BBC 500 Word stories increases

In San Antonio, a man who has overcome porn addiction is now sharing his experiences to guide other men grappling with similar struggles, particularly in an era where artificial intelligence intensifies the accessibility of explicit content. He emphasizes the significance of his journey to sobriety, especially as he watches his teenage daughter navigate the complexities of the online world.

Research from safefamilies.org reveals a troubling trend: many individuals who develop a pornography addiction later in life often first encountered such material between the ages of 10 and 13, with the addiction taking hold rapidly. Disturbingly, teens aged 12 to 17 comprise the largest demographic of internet pornography viewers in the United States, highlighting a serious issue that can stem from innocent curiosity.

The man, who prefers to remain anonymous for privacy reasons, underlines the urgency of sharing his story. “I was captivated by that content; it became a way to escape my reality,” he explained. “But it distanced me from my wife, daughter, and even from myself, pulling me into a cycle of shame.”

Growing up in an environment steeped in masculine ideals, the man recalls how easy access to explicit materials influenced his perceptions of women. “My father’s workplace was filled with adult magazines, and there were no boundaries. I stayed up late watching films without anyone guiding me about what was inappropriate. I was surrounded by male relatives who spoke about women in a hypersexualized manner.”

This early exposure, combined with his porn consumption, distorted his view of relationships. “I started to see women not as individuals but as objects, which made it impossible for me to connect with them on a personal level,” he confessed. 

With the rise of technology, particularly smartphones, he noted how his addiction escalated. “Once smartphones became prevalent, there were practically no limits. I could spend hours glued to my phone, continually searching for content. It terrifies me how effortless it is to access such material now.”

His struggles with porn eventually led him to develop an addiction to substances like drugs and alcohol. “Living under the weight of shame was devastating, and it consumed everything in my life,” he shared. “I became addicted to that shame, similar to how a person who tries to abstain from alcohol often ends up drinking. The same cycle occurred with porn: a single click could lead to an avalanche of harmful content.”

Fortunately, he has now been sober from pornography for six years. “I made the conscious decision to delete apps like Instagram and Facebook, recognizing they posed a risk,” he said.

As a father, he underscores the importance of open dialogue with children about these pressing issues. “While I wish I could shield my daughter from these influences, my best approach is to support her and engage in meaningful conversations,” he noted. He remains vigilant for any signs of distress, such as withdrawal or secrecy—indicators he wishes had been recognized during his own youth.

Reflecting on his past, he expressed a desire for deeper connections with his parents. “I longed for more attention and understanding. If they had been more present and loving, I might not have sought validation elsewhere,” he shared.

He encourages young people to speak up about their questions and concerns. “It’s essential to discuss these topics openly,” he advised. “If you feel uncomfortable talking to your parents, seek guidance from trusted individuals, whether that's a counselor or another adult. Exploring such issues alone can lead to harmful outcomes, so it’s crucial to understand where genuine support lies.”

Crime Stoppers of Houston is actively engaging with students statewide to raise awareness about the dangers of explicit content online, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence. CEO Rania Mankarious emphasized the need for adaptation to the evolving landscape of these challenges. “Children today face new forms of risks, which is why we’ve created an online safe space where they can interact through videos and chat services,” she explained. “Each year, we reach thousands of students, urging them not to share inappropriate images, as they can become tools for blackmail or extortion.”

Mankarious highlighted emerging threats posed by AI, where images can be manipulated to misrepresent someone, leading to unwanted consequences. “With AI, someone can take a photo and alter it to imply you were involved in something that you were not,” she cautioned, pointing out the necessity for both parents and children to understand how to navigate these risks.

She stressed the importance of taking immediate action against any threatening material, suggesting methods like blocking, taking screenshots, and reporting content to authorities. “Our goal is to prevent children from engaging with harmful materials. We are equipping schools with free resources to initiate these vital conversations,” she said. 

Schools across various districts are making significant efforts to provide vital information to both students and parents. For those interested in exploring these resources further, they can find additional details through relevant channels.

Former porn addict advocates for family discussions on safeguarding against explicit AI material.

A sunlit, cozy living room at mid-afternoon: a man and woman—leaning forward in earnest conversation—sit across a rustic wooden coffee table. Warm golden light filters through gauzy curtains, illuminating a laptop whose screen shows a friendly shield icon labeled “AI Content Filter.” On the table lie pamphlets titled “Family Chat Guide.” No children are present, but an empty chair hints at their place. The scene conveys hope and protection against explicit AI content.

Recovering porn addict urges conversation among families to protect against explicit AI content - KSAT

- A recovering pornography addict shares his journey to sobriety to help others.  
- Most pornography addictions begin in adolescence, often stemming from early exposure.  
- Crime Stoppers educates students about the dangers of explicit online content and AI.

SAN ANTONIO – A recovering pornography addict, who now speaks to men battling the addiction, is sharing his journey to sobriety to encourage staying on the right path when dealing with exploitative material in the age of artificial intelligence.

According to safefamilies.org, most people struggling with pornography addiction later in life were first exposed when they were 10-13 years of age, and the addiction set in quickly.

Those aged 12-17 years old are the largest group of internet pornography viewers in America, the organization said. An alarming statistic that could have started with a simple click of curiosity.

The man said that sharing his story is even more important now that he has a teen daughter navigating today’s internet. KSAT is not identifying the man due to privacy concerns.

“I was hooked with that stuff, but it was an escape from everything,” he said. “It takes me away from my wife and my daughter and myself because it puts me in a shame spiral.”

He said he grew up in a sexualized, male-dominated household.

“At my dad’s business, he had a drawer full of Playboys,” he said. “There were no rules. I could stay up late and do whatever. It started with watching movies late. I didn’t know what I was doing, but no one was telling me what to do or not do or showed me anything about that. I grew up with a bunch of uncles and a dad who always talked masculine about women and checking them out.”

That seed, coupled with watching porn, made it hard for him to have a relationship with anyone.

“I sexualized women so much, making them into things and not into people,” he said. “I was always thinking about bad things. I just couldn’t get close to them.”

He admitted that his addiction got worse as technology advanced.

“Once it started getting into phones, the sky was (the) limit,” he said. “It was a crappy limit, but anything was on the phone. I could watch videos of all kinds for hours at a time. When I am sick like that, that phone is never going to let me down. I am just a couple of clicks away. It does scare me with just how easy it is. It is all over the place now.”

Being addicted to porn developed an addiction for drugs and alcohol for him.

“When you are living a life of shame, it costs you everything,” he said. “I am addicted to shame. Even though I hated it, I was going to do it. Nothing was going to stop me because that was my addiction. It’s like buying a bottle of vodka. I know I am going to tell myself do no drink it, but I end up drinking it. It is the same with porn. You’re online and see a simple video of slightly scantily clad women, but then that snowballs and the next thing you know, you are down a rabbit hole.”

Fortunately, it has been six years since he’s sober from his addiction to porn.

“I deleted Instagram, Facebook and all of that because I know for me that is still a hook,” he said.

Now, as a father of a teen daughter, he encourages having productive conversations between parents and their children.

“I can’t safeguard my daughter from any of this stuff as much as I want to protect her,” he said. “All I can do is be there for her. Have those conversations with her. Also, I look for any red flags. If she is shutting down, hiding, being isolated. Signs that I wish people realized of me when I was (a) boy.”

When asked if he could go back to speak with his parents growing up, to help avoid the dark path he ended up on, he said he would have loved to have been seen.

“I would ask for more attention and hearing me and seeing me and learning what is really going on with me,” he said. “Being more present. Giving more love on the front end because when that love is really shown and If I felt heard and seen, there would have been no reason for me to try to get heard and seen somewhere else.”

He recommends kids ask questions.

“You have to talk about it,” he said. “Ask questions to your parents what certain things mean and if you don’t feel like you can talk to your parents, talk to a trusted person in your life. Maybe a counselor or something. You can’t go exploring all over the place by yourself because that could lead to a dark dark path. You have to learn the right way where your love really is. The more we are quiet, the more it kills us.”

Crime Stoppers of Houston is working closely with thousands of students across the state to educate them about the dangers of explicit online content, especially in the context of artificial intelligence (AI).

“The world has changed, and the issues that children are dealing with have changed,” said Rania Mankarious, the CEO of Crime Stoppers of Houston. “That is why we have a safe space for students online where kids can go to see interactive videos from other teens and can talk through a chat service. We talk to thousands of kids every year, and the message is to tell kids not to send inappropriate photos whatsoever to anyone because they could be used as blackmail or extortion.”

Now the conversation has shifted to people manipulating images using AI against a victim’s will.

“Through the world of AI, someone can put a pic out there, and it (can) be manipulated to make it look like you were doing something that you never engaged in,” she said. “They can even snap a photo of you at the grocery store or at a game and do something threatening with it for the internet. We want parents and children to know there is always a way out of that kind of trouble.”

She emphasized the importance of blocking, screenshotting, and reporting any threatening content such as this.

“The reality is that we don’t want children to engage with any of this,” she said. “That is why we are providing schools with free resources to start those conversations with digital tools and assets. Several school districts are doing a lot to get information in front of students and parents.”

If you are interested in learning more about these resources, click here.

Recovering porn addict urges conversation among families to protect against explicit AI content

On Friday night, in the wake of tensions between the Department of Defense and Anthropic, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, revealed that his company had reached a new agreement with the Pentagon. This development comes after the U.S. government opted to blacklist Anthropic for refusing to compromise on crucial ethical principles regarding military applications: specifically, a rejection of mass surveillance on American citizens and the use of lethal autonomous weapons that operate without human oversight. Altman suggested that OpenAI had managed to secure similar protections within its own contractual terms.

“Our commitment to safety includes strong prohibitions against domestic mass surveillance and ensuring human accountability for any use of force, even with autonomous weapons,” Altman stated. He noted that the Defense Department aligns with these principles, which are embedded in their contract. He referred to the Department of Defense using its former name, the Department of War, a nod to the administration's language preferences.

However, many in the AI and tech communities quickly raised questions about Altman's assertions. They were puzzled as to why the Pentagon would concede on these critical issues, particularly when it had previously asserted it would continue to collect data on Americans without hesitation.

Sources close to the Pentagon informed The Verge that, contrary to Altman's claims, the Defense Department did not alter its stance. Instead, OpenAI agreed to adhere to longstanding laws that have historically allowed for mass surveillance, insisting that it would still maintain its ethical boundaries.

An insider familiar with the negotiations mentioned that OpenAI's contract is significantly more permissive than what Anthropic had proposed, primarily due to a crucial phrase: "any lawful use." According to this individual, the Pentagon was unwavering in its ambition to gather and analyze extensive data on Americans. A meticulous examination of OpenAI's contract reveals that it ultimately allows for the use of OpenAI’s technology to facilitate any actions deemed technically legal by the U.S. military, which has often utilized a broad interpretation of "legality" to justify extensive surveillance programs.

Miles Brundage, a former head of policy research at OpenAI, suggested on social media that, given insights from legal experts and Pentagon officials, OpenAI employees might conclude that the company had compromised its principles while portraying the situation as maintaining its boundaries, consequently undermining Anthropic's position.

A spokesperson for OpenAI, Kate Waters, countered that the Pentagon had not sought mass surveillance capabilities and asserted that the agreement does not allow for breaches of privacy. “The system is not to be used for bulk, open-ended, or generalized data collection on Americans,” Waters emphasized.

The capabilities of AI systems could enable military or other government departments to conduct surveillance with unprecedented precision. AI excels in pattern recognition, meaning it could integrate a multitude of data points about individuals — from location data, online activity, and personal finance information to public records and CCTV footage. As Amodei from Anthropic pointed out, leveraging such technologies for extensive domestic surveillance contradicts the values of a democracy, as powerful AI could compile extensive personal profiles with ease.

While Anthropic has been adamant about prohibiting mass surveillance in its contracts, OpenAI's agreement appears firmly rooted in existing legal frameworks. The company claims its contract asserts that any intel activities involving private data must comply with numerous legal provisions, including the Fourth Amendment and various acts regulating national security and surveillance.

Nevertheless, skepticism abounds. The post-9/11 era saw intelligence agencies initiate surveillance systems that purportedly adhered to legal standards, which were later exposed as highly invasive. Notable revelations by Edward Snowden in 2013 underscored the scale of domestic spying, encompassing practices like the daily collection of Verizon customer data and bulk data gathering from major tech firms through secret programs such as PRISM. Despite commitments to reform, tangible restrictions on these practices have been minimal. Mike Masnick from Techdirt remarked that OpenAI’s agreement indeed permits domestic surveillance, branding EO 12333 as the legal means by which the NSA conceals its domestic operations.

Waters reiterated that the Pentagon had not requested permission for such data collection and that OpenAI’s agreement prohibits broad monitoring of U.S. residents’ private information, insisting that intelligence operations must adhere strictly to U.S. laws.

Amodei has expressed publicly that current laws have not evolved sufficiently to address the surveillance capabilities that AI can deliver. Altman stressed that OpenAI’s contract “incorporates our principles into existing laws and policies,” emphasizing that adherence to the present legal framework is paramount, even as laws evolve.

The ambiguity in the language used by OpenAI has raised concerns among experts. Sarah Shoker, a senior research scholar at UC Berkeley, pointed out that the wording in OpenAI’s responses lacks clarity on what specific actions are restricted. Terms like "unconstrained," "generalized," and "open-ended" suggest flexibility that could allow leadership to adapt to situations without a clear prohibition.

Given the current terms, it appears that OpenAI’s technology could be utilized by the Pentagon for extensive intelligence operations against Americans, including large-scale data mining and profiling based on public records and purchased data.

OpenAI's stance on lethal autonomous weapons has also drawn scrutiny. The company claims its Pentagon contract aligns with existing Department of Defense regulations, which require human oversight in the use of such weaponry. However, critics note that this does not prohibit the use of autonomous weapons overall; it merely delineates circumstances under which human control is mandatory, leaving ambiguity in the practical application of the technology.

Significantly, the majority of the terms in OpenAI’s agreement are not novel; they reflect deals made previously by other AI firms working with the Pentagon. The technical safeguards outlined by OpenAI are not unique and their effectiveness remains questionable.

Altman argued that OpenAI was introducing measures to ensure compliance with its red lines, including providing security clearances to some employees and implementing classifiers to monitor AI systems. However, detractors argue that these safeguards have limited effectiveness and will not guarantee adherence to human oversight protocols during critical decisions.

Even as OpenAI maintains it has set boundaries on its technology's use, the flexibility of the Pentagon's interpretation of what constitutes "legal" may erode these safeguards. Historical patterns demonstrate that intelligence practices can evolve to circumvent initial restrictions.

OpenAI has urged the Pentagon to extend similar contractual terms to all AI companies, suggesting that compliance with these agreements should be the standard across the industry.

In their discussions, figures such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and former President Trump condemned any potential for a tech company's influence over military operations, affirming that such decisions must reside solely with the military leadership and elected officials.

The contrast in approaches between OpenAI and Anthropic is stark, with the latter rejecting the terms presented by the Pentagon, resulting in severe sanctions that include being designated as a "supply chain risk.” Despite the repercussions, support for Anthropic has surged within the tech community, as many employees rally behind the company's principled stance. Notably, Anthropic has recently gained traction on app platforms, surpassing OpenAI's offerings in downloads, reflecting the public's response to its commitment.

While Amodei has been portrayed as a champion for ethical AI, his stance on lethal autonomous weapons indicates openness to their future use, contingent upon advancements in their reliability. He has suggested that developing more dependable autonomous systems is essential for national defense capabilities, highlighting a complex landscape where the ethical considerations of AI in warfare are continually evolving.

OpenAI's decision to yield to the Pentagon regarding AI surveillance

A moody nighttime scene: the silhouette of the Pentagon looms under harsh searchlights, a small U.S. flag fluttering by its steps. In the foreground, a sleek corporate office façade bears “OpenAI” in plain white text—no logo—its windows reflecting rows of hovering surveillance drones. A lone, shadowy military officer stands just behind the building, arms crossed, as beams of light sweep across the sky. Muted olive and slate tones, deep shadows, cinematic tension.

How OpenAI caved to the Pentagon on AI surveillance - The Verge

- OpenAI negotiated terms with the Pentagon, maintaining limits on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.  
- Critics argue OpenAI's agreement allows for mass surveillance under existing legal definitions.  
- Anthropic rejected similar terms, resulting in the Pentagon blacklisting the company as a risk.

is The Verge’s senior AI reporter. An AI beat reporter for more than five years, her work has also appeared in CNBC, MIT Technology Review, Wired UK, and other outlets.

On Friday evening, amidst fallout from a standoff between the Department of Defense and Anthropic, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced that his own company had successfully negotiated new terms with the Pentagon. The US government had just moved to blacklist Anthropic for standing firm on two red lines for military use: no mass surveillance of Americans and no lethal autonomous weapons (or AI systems with the power to kill targets without human oversight). Altman, however, implied that he’d found a unique way to keep those same limits in OpenAI’s contract.

“Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems,” Altman wrote. “The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement,” he added, using the Trump Administration’s preferred name for the Defense Department, the Department of War.

Across social media and the AI industry, people immediately began to challenge Altman’s claim. Why, they asked, would the Pentagon suddenly agree to these red lines when it had said — in no uncertain terms — that it would never do so?

The answer, sources told The Verge, is that the Pentagon didn’t budge. OpenAI agreed to follow laws that have allowed for mass surveillance in the past, while insisting they protect its red lines.

One source familiar with the Pentagon’s negotiations with AI companies confirmed that OpenAI’s deal is much softer than the one Anthropic was pushing for, thanks largely to three words: “any lawful use.” In negotiations, the person said, the Pentagon wouldn’t back down on its desire to collect and analyze bulk data on Americans. If you look line-by-line at the OpenAI terms, the source said, every aspect of it boils down to: If it’s technically legal, then the US military can use OpenAI’s technology to carry it out. And over the past decades, the US government has stretched the definition of “technically legal” to cover sweeping mass surveillance programs — and more.

OpenAI’s former head of policy research, Miles Brundage, said on X that “in light of what external lawyers and the Pentagon are saying, OpenAI employees’ default assumption here should unfortunately be that OpenAI caved + framed it as not caving, and screwed Anthropic while framing it as helping them.”

In a statement to The Verge, OpenAI spokesperson Kate Waters said the Pentagon had not asked for mass surveillance powers and denied that the agreement allowed for the crossing of certain lines. “The system cannot be used to collect or analyze Americans’ data in a bulk, open-ended, or generalized way,” Waters said.

AI systems could help the military (or other departments) conduct widespread surveillance operations with unprecedented levels of detail. AI’s best talent is finding patterns, and human behavior is nothing if not a set of patterns — imagine an AI system layering, for any one individual, geolocation data, web browsing information, personal financial data, CCTV footage, voter registration records, and more — some publicly available, some purchased from data brokers. “Using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values,” Amodei wrote in a statement. “Powerful AI makes it possible to assemble this scattered, individually innocuous data into a comprehensive picture of any person’s life—automatically and at massive scale.”

While Anthropic says it pushed for a contract that specifically proscribes the practice, OpenAI appears to rely heavily on existing legal limits. It said its Pentagon agreement states that “for intelligence activities, any handling of private information will comply with the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978, Executive Order 12333, and applicable DoD directives requiring a defined foreign intelligence purpose.”

“OpenAI employees’ default assumption here should unfortunately be that OpenAI caved + framed it as not caving.”

But this isn’t reassuring. In the years after 9/11, US intelligence agencies ramped up a surveillance system that they determined fell within the legal limits OpenAI cites, including multiple mass domestic spying operations (along with apparently highly invasive international ones). In 2013, National Security Agency intelligence contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of some of these programs, such as reportedly collecting telephone records of Verizon customers on an “ongoing, daily” basis, and gathering bulk data on individuals from tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple via a secretive program called PRISM. Despite promises of reform from intelligence agencies and attempts at legal changes, few significant limits to these powers were enacted. Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt, said online that OpenAI’s deal “absolutely does allow for domestic surveillance. EO 12333 is how the NSA hides its domestic surveillance by capturing communications by tapping into lines *outside the US* even if it contains info from/on US persons.”

“The intelligence law section of this is very persuasive if you don’t realize that every bad intelligence scandal in the last 30 years had a legal memo saying it complied with those authorities,” Palisade Research’s Dave Kasten wrote of OpenAI’s agreement.

The Pentagon “has not asked us to support that type of collection or analysis, and our agreement does not permit it,” Waters said. “Our agreement does not permit uses of our models for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information, and all intelligence activities must comply with existing US law. In practical terms, this means the system cannot be used to collect or analyze Americans’ data in a bulk, open-ended, or generalized way.”

Anthropic’s Amodei has publicly said that the law had not yet caught up with AI’s ability to conduct surveillance on a massive scale. And Altman takes pains in his statement to say that OpenAI’s contract “reflects [its red lines] in law and policy,” meaning that it’s simply abiding by existing laws and existing Pentagon policies, the latter of which can change at any time. (OpenAI attempts to address the latter issue in a Q&A, where it says the contract “explicitly references the surveillance and autonomous weapons laws and policies as they exist today, so that even if those laws or policies change in the future, use of our systems must still remain aligned with the current standards reflected in the agreement.”)

Do you work for an AI company with military contracts? Contact me via Signal at haydenfield.11 on a non-work device with tips.

Sarah Shoker, a senior research scholar at the University of California, Berkeley and former lead of OpenAI’s geopolitics team, told The Verge that “I think there are a lot of modifying words that are in the sentences that the [OpenAI] spokesperson gave.” Shoker added that the vagueness of the language doesn’t make it clear what exactly is prohibited here. “The use of the word ‘unconstrained,’ the use of the word ‘generalized,’ ‘open-ended’ manner — that’s not a complete prohibition. That is language that’s designed to allow optionality for the leadership… It allows leaders also not to lie to their employees in the event that the Pentagon does use the LLM in a legal manner without OpenAI leadership’s knowledge.”

Based on what we’ve seen of OpenAI’s existing contract and according to the Pentagon’s current legal constraints, it could legally use OpenAI’s technology to search foreign intelligence databases for information on Americans on a large scale. The Pentagon could also buy bulk location data from data brokers and use OpenAI’s tech to map out Americans’ typical patterns, or to quickly and seamlessly build profiles of many American citizens from publicly available data, including surveillance footage, social media posts, online news, voter registration records, and more, potentially layered onto other data it had purchased already.

OpenAI’s “red line” on lethal autonomous weapons is similarly weak. The company’s contract with the Pentagon, which the company released excerpts from on Saturday, states that OpenAI’s technology “will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control.” That would put it in compliance with a 2023 Department of Defense directive. There appear to be no additional contractually obligated bans or restrictions — which is ostensibly why it was able to sign an agreement with the Pentagon. Anthropic, meanwhile, sought a ban for unsupervised lethal autonomous weapons, at least until it deemed the technology ready.

The source said that the majority of OpenAI’s agreement was nothing new, and it wasn’t anything that other AI companies involved in Pentagon deals hadn’t seen before, whether due to elements floated in negotiations or things that AI companies involved with the Pentagon had already been doing.

OpenAI’s technical safeguards aren’t new — and their power is limited

After a Trump administration official confirmed that OpenAI’s agreement “flows from the touchstone of ‘all lawful use,’” Altman cited other parts of the agreement to make the case that OpenAI was maintaining its red lines. He said some OpenAI employees would receive security clearances to check in on the systems, for example, and that OpenAI would introduce classifiers (or small models that can monitor and tag large models, potentially blocking them from performing certain actions). In OpenAI’s blog post about the agreement, the company writes that its deployment architecture “will enable us to independently verify that these red lines are not crossed, including running and updating classifiers.”

But that’s not necessarily true, he said. The source said AI companies involved with the Pentagon already use these safeguards, and their impact is limited. Classifiers, for instance, wouldn’t be able to confirm whether a human reviewed an AI system’s decision to attack a target before the kill strike, the source said. Nor, the source added, could it tell if a query to summarize an American’s social media posts is a one-off request or part of a mass surveillance program. And if the government determines an action is legal, then OpenAI’s classifiers wouldn’t be allowed to prohibit the technology from carrying it out, the source said.

Altman said OpenAI’s deal includes “human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems.” That’s different from Anthropic’s demand: not deploying these systems “without proper [human] oversight.” Though it’s tough when the specific contracts’ definitions of these terms aren’t explicitly available, human responsibility could easily denote someone being responsible for these systems’ decisions after the fact, while Anthropic’s request for oversight would have required humans in the loop before and/or during an AI system’s decisions to kill targets.

As with mass surveillance, OpenAI argues technical safeguards would help maintain its red line for killer robots. The company wrote that it was “not providing the DoW with ‘guardrails off’ or non-safety trained models,” and its technology would be deployed only in the cloud, not on edge devices (or devices that process data locally, such as a military drone) — where it said “there could be a possibility of usage for autonomous lethal weapons.”

But the source said that deploying OpenAI’s technology only in the cloud means little for either of OpenAI’s stated limits. Mass domestic surveillance, the source said, requires such a large volume of data that it’s virtually impossible not to carry it out using the cloud. And even if most kill decisions are carried out on a local machine, most of the decisions leading up to that — the “autonomous kill chain” — involve running powerful algorithms in the cloud first, the source said. Even if OpenAI’s tech isn’t directly involved in pulling the trigger, it could very well be powering everything leading up to that point, with no guarantee a human oversees the final step.

And, again: OpenAI’s agreement says it will allow anything the US government determines is legal. Even its assurances that it will only follow current laws and policies, not ones that are changed or reissued, may not offer meaningful safeguards. In the past, agencies have reinterpreted existing laws in ways that effectively allow them new powers. And the Trump administration has claimed laws like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act justify unprecedented presidential powers like imposing global tariffs. These powers have, in fact, sometimes been declared illegal — but only after months of legal battles, during which OpenAI would have to either follow the administration’s orders or make an independent judgment call about the law. Altman has publicly stated that, unlike Anthropic, OpenAI is “generally quite comfortable with the laws of the US.”

OpenAI says it’s asked the Pentagon to “offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump, in a barrage of social media posts, crowed that they would never allow a private tech company to influence how the US military utilized technology for war. “The Commander-in-Chief and the American people alone will determine the destiny of our armed forces, not unelected tech executives,” Hegseth wrote, and “America’s warfighters will never be held hostage by the ideological whims of Big Tech.”

Even Jeremy Lewin, an undersecretary in the Trump administration, said that the Pentagon’s deal with OpenAI (and another agreement with xAI) was a “compromise that Anthropic was offered, and rejected” — meaning that the terms did not align with Anthropic’s own red lines. Lewin said the deals included certain mutually agreed-upon safety mechanisms, plausibly the technical safeguards Altman mentioned.

In Altman’s Friday announcement, he said OpenAI had asked the Pentagon to “offer these same terms to all AI companies, which in our opinion we think everyone should be willing to accept.” It seemed to be a dig at Anthropic, since the OpenAI rival had not accepted such an agreement so far and had, according to Lewin, already been offered the same deal and refused it.

Refusing that “compromise” has had major consequences for Anthropic. On Friday, after negotiations broke down between it and the Pentagon, the latter announced Anthropic would be labeled a supply-chain risk, a classification usually reserved for foreign companies with cybersecurity concerns and virtually never made public or applied to an American company. Anthropic said it was willing to challenge the designation in court. Trump ordered federal agencies to drop Anthropic’s AI, and it wasn’t immediately clear to what extent the Pentagon would potentially blacklist companies that use Claude for services unrelated to national security.

Tech workers across the industry have supported Anthropic for its decision to stand firm and wondered why their own companies weren’t aligning with Anthropic’s own red lines and standing together. The company’s decision has been lauded online, and on Saturday it surpassed ChatGPT to become the most-downloaded app on Apple’s App Store. Public figures, celebrities, and AI leaders expressing their support — including pop star Katy Perry signing up for a Claude Pro subscription.

It’s worth repeating, however, that despite Amodei’s being largely painted as a hero here, he is not at all against lethal autonomous weapons sometime in the future — it’s something Anthropic has made clear that it’s fully ready to support. In his public statements, Amodei has even offered to partner with the DoD on “R&D to improve the reliability of these systems” so that the military’s use of lethal autonomous weapons, under Anthropic’s terms, could be sped up. All Amodei has said is that the technology is not reliable enough “today” to kill human targets unsupervised.

“Fully autonomous weapons (those that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets) may prove critical for our national defense,” Amodei said. “But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power [them].”

How OpenAI caved to the Pentagon on AI surveillance

The impact of artificial intelligence on workplace relationships is a topic of growing concern, particularly as technology continues to integrate into daily business operations. While AI can streamline processes and enhance productivity, it also has the potential to create rifts among team members.

One of the primary ways AI disrupts work relationships is through reduced human interaction. As automation takes over routine tasks, employees may find themselves communicating less face-to-face, leading to a decrease in collaboration and camaraderie. This lack of interpersonal engagement can foster feelings of isolation and dissatisfaction among team members.

Moreover, reliance on AI systems for decision-making can result in a diminished sense of agency. When employees feel that machines dictate their work environment, it can lead to frustration and resentment. This dynamic not only impacts morale but could also undermine creativity, as individuals may hesitate to contribute ideas or innovations when they feel overshadowed by technology.

However, it's important to recognize that AI can also play a beneficial role in fostering positive workplace relationships. For example, when used thoughtfully, AI can assist with task management, allowing employees to focus on higher-level, collaborative projects. This approach can encourage team bonding as workers come together to tackle challenges that require varied expertise and problem-solving skills.

Additionally, AI tools can help facilitate communication among team members, especially in remote or hybrid work settings. By streamlining information sharing and ensuring that everyone is on the same page, technology can bridge the gaps that might otherwise emerge among colleagues.

In conclusion, while AI poses certain risks to workplace relationships through diminished interaction and decision-making authority, it also offers significant opportunities for enhancing collaboration and communication. Striking a balance between leveraging AI's capabilities and maintaining human connections is essential for fostering a healthy, productive work environment.

The Impact of AI on Workplace Relationships: The Harm It Causes and Its Potential Benefits

A split‐scene in a contemporary office corridor: on the left, under a cool shadow, two colleagues stand back‐to‐back with a jagged, floating cloud of glitchy data shards drifting between them, their expressions tense and distant; on the right, bathed in warm natural light pouring through large windows, a small team gathers around a sleek transparent tablet displaying clear AI-generated annotations, smiling as they point and collaborate; subtle streams of digital code weave from the dark side toward the bright side, hinting at AI’s dual power to divide and to unite.

How AI Damages Work Relationships—and Where It Can Actually Help - Harvard Business Review

- AI can create misunderstandings and reduce personal interactions among colleagues at work.  
- Employees may fear job displacement due to AI, leading to decreased morale and trust.  
- However, AI can assist in tasks, improving efficiency and freeing time for collaboration.

|

How AI Damages Work Relationships—and Where It Can Actually Help

How AI Damages Work Relationships—and Where It Can Actually Help

Piper Sandler has identified a significant growth opportunity for CrowdStrike in the realm of artificial intelligence, viewing it as a benefit rather than a threat. The investment firm has raised its rating on the cybersecurity company's stock from neutral to overweight, while analyst Rob Owens has set a robust price target of $520, suggesting a potential upside of 40% based on Friday's closing price. 

Despite experiencing a 21% decline this year, attributed to investor concerns that AI could diminish market shares for software companies, Owens believes this downturn presents a buying opportunity. He expressed that the fears surrounding AI-driven market dynamics have overly influenced sentiments about CrowdStrike, a company known for its top-tier security solutions and a solid record of innovation and performance.

Owens acknowledged that while CrowdStrike's valuation is relatively high compared to its competitors, its future prospects and ability to execute strategically justify this valuation. He commented, "It should concurrently foster the next multi-billion dollar security opportunity as businesses aim to protect new attack surfaces," indicating a positive outlook for industry leaders like CrowdStrike to leverage this situation in the coming years.

The analyst further highlighted the ongoing consolidation in the fragmented security market, which he sees as a favorable trend for CrowdStrike. He anticipates that the company will continue to capture market share, enhancing both its sustainable growth and operational efficiency. According to Owens, "CrowdStrike's knack for broadening its platform without compromising product excellence places it strongly within this trend."

Additionally, Owens commended the strategic acquisitions CrowdStrike has executed over the past year, which focus on enhancing protective measures, advancing next-gen AI solutions, and bolstering its identity security capabilities. He noted that the substantial investment of $1.4 billion in these strategic moves positions CrowdStrike to harness the burgeoning identity security market, a potential that he believes investors have yet to fully recognize.

This cybersecurity stock has suffered due to concerns over AI. Here's why one analyst views it as a chance.

A moody, dimly lit trading floor dominated by large screens showing a crimson, plunging stock chart. Dark, circuit-patterned AI “tentacles” coil around the displays as if threatening the data. In the foreground, a sharply dressed analyst—seen from the back—raises a laser pointer toward a small, bright green arrow breaking upward from the tumble, hinting at hidden opportunity in the chaos.

This cybersecurity stock has taken a beating on AI worries. Why one analyst sees an opportunity - CNBC

- Piper Sandler upgrades CrowdStrike to overweight, citing AI as a growth opportunity.  
- Analyst Rob Owens sets a price target of $520, suggesting 40% upside potential.  
- CrowdStrike's recent acquisitions bolster its market position and growth prospects in security.  

Piper Sandler believes that artificial intelligence represents a major growth opportunity for CrowdStrike rather than a disruption risk. The investment firm upgraded the cybersecurity stock to overweight from neutral. Analyst Rob Owens also set a price target of $520, which implies 40% upside from Friday's close. CrowdStrike has tumbled 21% this year, as investors dumped software stocks on fears AI would take away market share from these companies. However, Owens thinks it's time to buy the dip. CRWD YTD mountain CRWD YTD chart "Shares have slid -21% YTD given AI-driven bear cases that have subsumed the narrative in security, a move we see as well overdone for a best-in-class security platform with a durable track record of innovation and execution," Owens wrote. Although CrowdStrike has been swept up in the broad sell-off hitting software stocks this year, Owens thinks that AI presents an opportunity for the company rather than a replacement threat. The analyst noted that while CrowdStrike's valuation still remains elevated versus peers, the opportunity ahead and the company's ability to execute warrants its valuation. "It should simultaneously create the next multi-billion security opportunity as enterprises look to secure a new attack surface," he wrote. "We think leaders like CRWD are well positioned to capture this opportunity over coming years." Owens also views the consolidation of the currently highly fragmented security market as a major tailwind for CrowdStrike. He expects the company will continue to take shares across the space, boosting its durable growth and operating leverage. "CRWD's ability to consistently expand platform breadth without sacrificing product quality positions it well to be one of the main beneficiaries of this trend," he wrote. Owens also applauded the strategic acquisitions CrowdStrike has made over the past 12 months aimed at agentic protection, augmenting next-generation AI and strengthening its identity security offerings, he wrote. Owens said that the aggregate $1.4 billion spent on these kinds of transactions sets up CrowdStrike to take advantage of the emerging identity opportunity, something that investors are not yet appreciating.

This cybersecurity stock has taken a beating on AI worries. Why one analyst sees an opportunity

A recent report highlights a notable use of artificial intelligence (A.I.) designed to support workers, specifically through a tool called the Electrician’s Assistant (EA) developed by Schneider Electric, a multinational firm hailing from France. This innovative assistant empowers electricians by allowing them to input data and images when they encounter difficult problems. The A.I. then analyzes the information, providing iterative diagnoses and tailored recommendations for troubleshooting. Additionally, EA facilitates the filing of maintenance reports, reportedly cutting the time required for this task by half. The report suggests that similar tools could potentially benefit various trades and professions, including plumbing, construction, and healthcare.

While this is a positive development, the report questions how widely such initiatives can be applied. For every beneficial A.I. example like the EA, there are instances where technology is seen as a reason for workforce reductions. Recently, Block, a financial services platform, announced plans to lay off 4,000 employees, asserting that their roles could be replaced by A.I. Furthermore, even companies that have integrated A.I. without substantial job cuts often do so in ways that surveil and pressure employees. Amazon, for instance, employs an Associate Development and Performance Tracker in its warehouses and uses constant video monitoring in its delivery vehicles. Similarly, Burger King is experimenting with A.I.-powered headsets to monitor customer service interactions for politeness.

Economists from M.I.T. stress the significant obstacles that lie ahead. According to Acemoglu, one of the economists involved, major corporations are not investing adequately in developing A.I. tools that benefit workers. To shift this trend, the researchers propose various policy changes, including adjustments to tax regulations, enhancing competition within the A.I. sector, and granting workers greater ownership stakes in A.I. advancements. A key recommendation is for the government to leverage its financial clout—both as a funder of research and a buyer of technological systems—to encourage the creation of A.I. that empowers the workforce. In sectors like healthcare and education, which represent about 25% of the nation’s GDP, government procurement could be a powerful tool to advocate for A.I. solutions that enhance worker capabilities. Autor emphasized this potential, noting that A.I. could assist nurses with complex tasks and enable teachers to provide personalized support to students. He mentioned the responsibility of taxpayers, stating, “We pay for this stuff, we use it, the welfare of our children and grandchildren depends on it.”

The report also discusses how the tax system could be leveraged to influence A.I. developers and users. Businesses often face a choice between investing in automation—like chatbots—or hiring and retraining staff. The current tax structure, favoring capital investment over labor, incentivizes the former. Autor suggested adjusting the tax code to raise capital taxes while lowering taxes on labor, thereby creating a more equitable structure. Another, albeit more radical approach, could involve taxing consumption instead of labor.

Of particular interest in the report is the section addressing “Discouraging expertise theft.” It outlines the current practices of A.I. companies that utilize online content—from websites and social media to newspapers and blogs—without compensating the creators, treating this material as training data. This practice is likened to historical land enclosure, where landlords benefitted while small farmers lost their livelihoods. Autor warned that this trend leads to the appropriation of creative work and a significant reallocation of property rights. Furthermore, when companies utilize employee insights to develop A.I. models, it raises ethical concerns, as few workers would willingly contribute their expertise to train systems that could ultimately replace them.

Is A.I. Capable of Supporting Workers?

A sunlit modern workshop where a diverse group of adult workers – engineers, factory technicians, office staff – collaborate at their stations, bathed in warm natural daylight. At the center stands a sleek touchscreen console displaying a softly glowing abstract “AI” icon in neutral tones. Gentle data streams flow from the icon to each worker’s station, represented by rising charts and checkmarks, symbolizing AI-powered support for better pay, safer workflows, and skill-building. The scene feels optimistic and human-centered, with no harsh blue tones, only the soft glow of the console enhancing the friendly atmosphere.

Can A.I. Be Pro-Worker? - The New Yorker

- Schneider Electric's Electrician's Assistant demonstrates A.I. aiding skilled workers without displacing jobs.  
- A.I. implementation often leads to job loss, surveillance, and coercion in workplaces.  
- Economists propose policy changes to promote A.I. development that enhances worker capabilities and rights.

As an example of how A.I. could be used in a pro-worker fashion, the report points to an Electrician’s Assistant (EA), developed by Schneider Electric, a French-based multinational company. When confronted by a tricky problem, the electrician feeds information and pictures into an assistant, which is a large language A.I. model. The assistant conducts a diagnosis and issues recommendations, in an iterative fashion, for how to fix the problem. It also helps the electrician file maintenance reports, and the paper cites evidence that the time spent on this task has been halved. “Tools akin to EA could be readily built to support many additional trade and modern craft workers, such as plumbers, building contractors, and health-care workers,” the report says.

This is an encouraging story, but how representative is it? For every example like the Electrician’s Assistant, there is one in which A.I. is already displacing jobs, or, at least, it’s being used as an excuse for big layoffs. Last week, Block, a financial-services platform, announced that it was getting rid of four thousand workers, out of ten thousand in total, on the ground that A.I. could do their jobs. Even in cases where companies have employed A.I. programs without engaging in mass layoffs, they have often been used to surveil and coerce workers rather than empower them. Amazon has an Associate Development and Performance Tracker program that it employs in its warehouses and always-on cameras that it deploys in its delivery vehicles, which are two notorious instances. Last week, Burger King said that it’s testing new A.I.-powered headsets, which can be used, among other things, to check whether its customer-service employees say “please” and “thank you.”

The three M.I.T. economists don’t underestimate the scale of the challenge. “None of the big companies are pouring even a small fraction of their investment into developing A.I. as a pro-human, pro-worker tool,” Acemoglu said in his interview. To reorient things, he and his colleagues make a series of policy recommendations, including changing the tax laws, fostering competition in the A.I. sector, and giving workers a direct stake in A.I. One key proposal is for the government to use its financial power—both as a provider of research grants, and as a buyer and user of technology systems—to push the development of A.I. in a pro-worker direction. In the health and education sectors, for example, which together make up about twenty-five per cent of the nation’s G.D.P., government (at the federal and local level) is a major purchaser of tech products—a position it could use to demand the development of A.I. assistants that enhance workers’ capabilities. When I called up Autor last week, to ask him about the report, he cited the opportunity for A.I. assistants to help nurses carry out more demanding medical tasks, and to help teachers offer their students personalized support. “We pay for this stuff, we use it, the welfare of our children and grandchildren depends on it,” Autor said, referring to taxpayers. “I’m not saying the government should take over A.I., but it should use its power to shape its development.”

In theory, the tax code could also be used to reshape the incentives of A.I. developers and users. When firms make investment decisions, they often have a choice of buying new labor-saving equipment, such as a chatbot, or hiring new workers and retraining existing ones. The current tax code, with its low rates on capital income and accelerated depreciation schedules, pushes businesses in the first direction. It “favors capital to an enormous extent, while it is very burdensome toward workers,” Autor pointed out. One way to change this would be to raise taxes on capital and reduce taxes on labor: that would make the code more neutral. A more drastic and more politically challenging option, which Autor said is worth considering, would be to tax consumption rather than working.

Part of the report that particularly caught my eye is a section titled “Discouraging expertise theft.” Right now, A.I. companies “freely scrape content from websites, social media, YouTube, newspapers, Wikipedia, and blogs, then statistically recombine this material and sell access to the results,” the report notes. “Authors, journalists, visual artists, musicians, translators, and countless other creators find their work appropriated as training data, with no compensation or control.” A recently published book, “The Means of Prediction,” by an Oxford economist, Maximilian Kasy, likens this grab to the enclosure of common land by landlords during medieval times—a development which greatly benefitted the landlords but destroyed the livelihoods of many small farmers. “A lot of the internet is being enclosed and resold to us as private property,” Autor said. “This is a huge reallocation of property rights.” With some firms using the performance of their own employees as data to train A.I. models, the report argues that the appropriation issue goes well beyond the internet: “Few employees would willingly train an apprentice designed to replace them, and yet this is precisely what happens when companies use worker expertise to build automation systems.”

Can A.I. Be Pro-Worker?

Xicoia, recognized as the world's pioneering AI talent studio and creator of the AI performer Tilly Norwood, has appointed former Amazon Prime Video executive Mark Whelan as its new head of strategy and operations.

In this role, Whelan will collaborate closely with CEO and creative founder Eline van der Velden of Particle6. Last year, van der Velden provided insights to The Hollywood Reporter regarding her vision for dominating the entertainment industry. Whelan's focus will be on advancing the studio's ambitious plans, starting with the rapid growth of AI character Tilly Norwood and the introduction of the Tillyverse. This vibrant, ever-evolving digital space will serve as a home for Tilly and a new cohort of AI characters, allowing them to interact, collaborate, and cultivate their careers. The launch of the Tillyverse is anticipated later this year.

Whelan comes to Xicoia after spending six years at Amazon, where he played a key role in expanding its social media presence across various regions and crafting EU-wide social strategies for high-profile projects like The Grand Tour and Clarkson’s Farm.

Expressing her enthusiasm, van der Velden remarked, “Mark is an exceptional storyteller with a unique set of skills, and I'm thrilled to have him on board at Xicoia. His deep understanding of comedy, character development, audience engagement, and digital trends is exactly what Tilly and our broader venture require at this pivotal moment.”

She emphasized, “We are on the brink of creating something entirely innovative. Tilly Norwood transcends being merely an AI character — she embodies a full-fledged personality, brand, and potential global icon with a captivating narrative. Mark's expertise will be vital in shaping every aspect of her existence, from her humor and daily activities to her interactions with fans on various platforms. The experience is bound to be bold, playful, and irresistibly engaging.”

Whelan described his new position as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

“With AI advancing at remarkable speeds, the ability to fuse cutting-edge technology with groundbreaking creative ideas means we’re not just adhering to established industry norms at Xicoia; we are defining them,” he stated. “Tilly has already gained traction, an audience, and a cultural resonance. We are in the process of crafting her story and building her universe. It's a significant responsibility that brings a thrilling challenge, and I believe audiences will thoroughly enjoy what unfolds next.”

In addition to driving Tilly Norwood’s development, Whelan will also oversee the creation of new proprietary AI characters for Xicoia and Particle6, and lead initiatives to develop customized AI talent for external clients.

Tilly Norwood AI Studio Brings on Ex-Amazon Executive Amid "Rapid Growth" and Prepares to Launch Multi-Character "Tillyverse"

A bright, sunlit AI studio interior with floor-to-ceiling windows flooding the space with warm natural light. On the main wall, a bold “Tilly Norwood AI Studio” logo anchors the scene. A sharply dressed executive, carrying a portfolio subtly stamped with the Amazon smile logo, shakes hands with a creative director. Behind them, a wide digital display bursts with dozens of vibrant character designs under a marquee titled “Tillyverse.” Scattered concept art boards and colorful sketches lie on sleek tables, hinting at rapid expansion and a universe of new stories.

Tilly Norwood AI Studio Hires Former Amazon Exec in “Rapid Expansion” and Sets Launch of Multi-Character “Tillyverse” - The Hollywood Reporter

- Xicoia hired former Amazon Prime Video Mark Whelan as head of strategy and operations.  
- Whelan will expand AI performer Tilly Norwood and launch the dynamic Tillyverse.  
- His role includes developing new AI characters and overseeing bespoke AI talent creation.  

Xicoia, the world’s first AI talent studio and creator of AI performer Tilly Norwood, has hired former Amazon Prime Video Mark Whelan as head of strategy and operations.

Whelan will work directly with CEO and creative lead founder Eline van der Velden of Particle6 — who talked in depth with The Hollywood Reporter about her plans for Hollywood domination last year — to “scale the studio’s ambitious vision,” said the studio, “beginning with the rapid expansion of AI actor Tilly Norwood and the launch of the Tillyverse, a dynamic, constantly evolving digital universe where Tilly and a new generation of AI characters will live, collaborate and build careers.” The Tillyverse, they added, is set to launch later this year.

Whelan joins from Amazon, where he led its social expansion across numerous territories and spent six years shaping EU-wide social strategy for major brands including The Grand Tour and Clarkson’s Farm.

Van der Velden said: “Mark is a brilliant storyteller with a rare skillset, and I couldn’t be more excited to have him join Xicoia. He understands comedy, character-building, AI, audience behaviour and digital culture, which is exactly what Tilly — and the wider business — needs at this stage.

“Together, we’re building something entirely new. Tilly Norwood isn’t just an AI character — she’s a personality, a brand, and a future global superstar with a compelling narrative arc,” van der Velden added. “Mark will help us craft and shape every layer of her world, from her humour, daily life and career choices to how she interacts with fans across various platforms. It all promises to be bold, playful, a little chaotic — and impossible to ignore.”

Mark Whelan added that the role is a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

“AI is evolving at breathtaking speed, and combining cutting-edge tech with ambitious creative thinking means we’re not following an industry playbook at Xicoia, we are writing it,” he said. “Tilly already has the momentum, an audience and the cultural spark. Now we’re writing her story and building her universe. It’s a huge responsibility, but an incredibly exciting one. I think the world is going to have a lot of fun watching what happens next.”

Alongside spearheading Tilly Norwood’s growth, Whelan will lead the team in the development of new proprietary AI characters for use by Xicoia and Particle6, as well as oversee the creation of bespoke AI talent commissioned by third parties.

Tilly Norwood AI Studio Hires Former Amazon Exec in “Rapid Expansion” and Sets Launch of Multi-Character “Tillyverse”

In a significant move following a widely shared essay warning of impending economic turmoil due to artificial intelligence (AI), payment processing firm Block announced it would be reducing its workforce by nearly 50%. The parent company of Square and Cash App directly attributed these layoffs to the implementation of AI technologies, which they claim have fundamentally transformed operational processes within the company.

This reduction in staff is notably severe, even for an industry that has been experiencing widespread job losses in the wake of pandemic-driven expansion. Unlike many other companies, which have been adjusting their workforce in anticipation of future efficiencies gained from AI, Block’s leadership stated that the integration of AI tools has made many positions redundant.

The stock value of Block surged by over 15% following this announcement.

At first glance, this situation echoed the alarming predictions made in a recent 7,000-word analysis from Citrini Research, which suggested that advancements in AI could potentially trigger a cycle that displaces white-collar jobs, as automated systems replace human workers. This could lead to mass layoffs, increased profit margins, and subsequently, more investment in AI technologies, culminating in further job losses.

However, it’s important not to let the recent hype lead to an overly pessimistic outlook.

Certain roles, particularly entry-level coding positions, may indeed be feeling the impact as AI tools become capable of producing software that resembles human work. This presents a genuine dilemma, especially for those who have historically mocked such jobs on social media.

That said, this is not a signal of an impending widespread recession. While the future is uncertain, historical trends indicate that even the most groundbreaking technological disruptions typically do not lead to economic contraction. Instead, advancements in technology have historically enhanced productivity, granting people greater financial resources and stimulating growth, which ultimately results in job creation.

For instance, during the latter decades of the 20th century, automation in banking replaced some accountant positions and diminished the need for bank tellers due to ATMs. Nevertheless, as JPMorgan observed, these innovations led to the establishment of more branches, thereby generating more employment opportunities overall.

The advent of the internet similarly catalyzed a productivity increase; in the 1980s, it took eight employees to generate $1 million in revenue, whereas by the 2000s, that number dropped to six.

Currently, while the job market shows signs of cooling, layoffs remain at levels that economists view as historically manageable. The unemployment rate in January stood at 4.3%, only slightly higher than the figures before the generative AI boom took off in late 2023.

AI will, no doubt, lead to the replacement of some positions, but the phenomenon of automation displacing jobs is not new. Historical evidence suggests that automation has not caused the kind of systemic collapse that some are warning about today. It’s also noteworthy that alarmist predictions often come from executives looking to profit by promoting the very AI solutions they claim will disrupt the labor market.

The long essay from Citrini initially aimed to differentiate itself from typical "AI doomsday" narratives. However, it largely mirrored such themes, creating a speculative outlook where AI's success would shrink economic growth and increase unemployment in the U.S. to over 10% by 2028. This narrative circulated widely, akin to another recent essay that expressed concerns about the underappreciated ramifications of AI on the job market, likening it to the uncertainty experienced at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response, Frank Flight from Citadel Securities published a strong critique of the Citrini report, asserting that existing data fails to support the idea of a rapid displacement of workers due to AI adoption. He emphasized that for a substantial negative impact to occur, a series of unlikely events would need to transpire simultaneously: AI deployment would have to accelerate dramatically, displaced workers would need to remain unemployable in other sectors, and governments would have to refrain from intervening.

Flight further stated, “History shows that technological advancements over the last century haven’t led to uncontrolled growth, nor have they made the workforce obsolete.”

Numerous analysts have dismissed Citrini’s hypothetical scenario as unrealistic. Jim Reid from Deutsche Bank commented that the report relies on narrative and emotional appeal rather than solid evidence, acknowledging that while it’s not necessarily incorrect, the proportion of compelling narrative to factual substantiation is considerably high.

AI isn't leading to a job apocalypse. At least, not at this time.

A sunlit, modern office scene: a diverse group of adult professionals in business casual gathers around a large digital wall display charting steady employment figures, with a subtle, glowing AI icon in the corner of the screen. Warm natural light streams through floor-to-ceiling windows, casting soft shadows on relieved, hopeful faces.

Don’t freak out: AI isn’t causing a jobs-pocalypse. At least, not yet - CNN

- Block announced layoffs affecting nearly half its staff due to AI implementation.  
- Critics argue AI won't cause an economic downturn; tech generally boosts productivity.  
- The Citrini Research essay predicting widespread job losses is deemed speculative and unfounded.  

New York —

As if on cue, days after a viral essay warned of an artificial intelligence-fueled economic catastrophe, payments company Block said it was laying off nearly half its staff. The company, which owns Square and Cash App, explicitly linked the cuts to AI tools that have “changed what it means to build and run a company.”

That is a deep cut, even for the tech industry, which bulked up during the pandemic and has been shedding thousands of jobs in recent months. And unlike most of other industry cuts, executives at Block weren’t “right-sizing” or “reducing headcount in anticipation of future AI efficience” — the company adopted AI tools, and as a direct result, it says it no longer needs as many workers.

Block’s shares surged more than 15% Friday.

On the surface, the news looked exactly like what a viral, market-sinking blog post from Citrini Research speculated about earlier this week: Increasingly sophisticated AI is about to create a doom loop for white-collar workers, as “agents” replace office workers, leading companies to shed jobs and fatten their profit margins, leading to more investment in AI, leading to more layoffs.

But don’t let recency bias drag you into a pit of despair.

Some jobs, especially low-level coding, do seem to be under pressure as AI bots get better at mimicking human-generated software. And that is a real conundrum, especially for those who weaponized the words “learn to code” to taunt their fellow man on Twitter in the 2010s.

But is this an economy-wide phenomenon bound to plunge the world into a recession? No. Not yet, anyway.

While no one has a crystal ball to say for sure, we do have a lot of recorded history to look back on to say authoritatively that tech — even the most disruptive — doesn’t shrink an economy. Quite the opposite: Tech tends to increase productivity, which gives people more time and money, which fuels growth and, yes, jobs.

Banks in the latter half of the 20th century were able to automate some of the tasks performed by accountants and bookkeepers, and the rise of the ATM initially reduced the number of bank tellers. But, as JPMorgan notes, those innovations allowed banks to open more branches, increasing employment overall.

The internet, famously, also ushered in a productivity spike. In the 1980s, it took eight employees to generate $1 million in revenues; by the 2000s, it took only six.

The labor market has been cooling, though layoffs remain at levels economists consider historically manageable. The unemployment rate in January was at 4.3%, about half a percentage point higher than it was in late 2023, when the generative-AI boom began.

Which isn’t to say AI won’t replace some jobs. But automation has been buffeting the labor market for decades, and it hasn’t led to the kind of universal structural collapse some are currently forecasting. It’s also worth noting that the most dire forecasts often come from the very executives who stand to profit the most from selling the AI products they claim are transformative.

The 7,000-word essay from Citrini claimed at the outset to be different from the “AI doomer fan-fiction” that’s become popular. But it was, in fact, mostly AI doomer fan-fiction — a dystopian thought experiment imagining a scenario in which AI is so successful it contracts economic growth and drives the US unemployment rate to more than 10% by 2028. It went viral in a similar way as Matt Shumer’s similarly long-winded “Something Big Is Happening” blog post earlier this month, which argued that the world was underestimating the looming impact of AI on the labor market, and compared the current moment to the early days of Covid-19, before the scale of the economic impact could be measured.

Citadel Securities’ Frank Flight wrote a forceful rebuttal Tuesday of the Citrini report, arguing that current data simply doesn’t show AI adoption happening fast enough to meaningfully displace workers. Flight also suggests the report fundamentally misunderstands macroeconomic fundamentals.

For a situation in which AI produces “a sustained negative demand shock,” a lot of improbable things would need to happen all at once, he argues. AI adoption, which is currently slow and expensive, would have to accelerate significantly; none of the folks who lose their jobs to AI would be employable elsewhere; and, perhaps least likely, governments and central banks around the world would have to sit on their hands and let it all crumble.

He adds: “It is also worth recalling that over the past century, successive waves of technological change have not produced runaway exponential growth, nor have they rendered labor obsolete.”

Many other analysts have cast the Citrini hypothetical as far-fetched.

“The argument leans heavily on narrative and emotion rather than hard evidence,” wrote Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid of the Citrini report. “That doesn’t mean it will ultimately be wrong,” he added, but “the vibes-to-substance ratio is undeniably high.”

AI isn’t causing a jobs-pocalypse. At least, not yet

Mario Aguilar reports on the intersection of technology and health care, focusing on innovations such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, wearable tech, telehealth, and digital therapeutics. His articles delve into the transformative impact of technology on healthcare practices and the associated business and policy hurdles that must be addressed to unlock its full potential. He also co-authors the free, bi-weekly STAT Health Tech newsletter. You can connect with Mario through Signal at mariojoze.13.

In December, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sought input on increasing the integration of artificial intelligence in clinical settings. Health technology firms have been eager to respond, providing highly specific recommendations aimed at enhancing their operations.

This call for feedback is part of a broader initiative by the Department to follow President Trump’s directives promoting the adoption of AI while reducing regulatory burdens. The administration is actively working to relax certain transparency requirements for AI integrated within electronic health record systems and to ease oversight from the Food and Drug Administration regarding AI tools that assist clinicians in decision-making. During Trump’s tenure, the Medicare innovation center initiated initiatives designed to advance AI-driven patient care and to explore AI’s potential in reducing unnecessary expenditures.

As of now, only a small portion of the 7,000 responses submitted to the health department has been made publicly available. However, these initial entries provide a detailed industry wishlist for AI implementation, which includes suggestions for amendments to health data privacy regulations to accommodate AI training, as well as demands for dependable reimbursement for AI technologies.

How can HHS promote the use of clinical AI? The industry's preferences are beginning to emerge.

A bright conference room bathed in warm morning light, a big wall chart titled “Clinical AI Adoption Roadmap” displaying colorful network nodes, data flow arrows, and stethoscope‐circuit motifs. In front of it, diverse doctors in white coats and health-tech experts lean in, pointing and discussing. On one side stands the U.S. flag; on the other, the HHS seal prominently mounted on the wall. The scene feels collaborative and optimistic about clinical AI’s future.

How can HHS drive clinical AI adoption? The industry wish list is starting to take shape - statnews.com

- Federal health department seeks feedback on promoting AI use in clinical care.  
- Health tech companies suggest specific proposals benefiting their business interests.  
- Industry comments push for reforms in health data privacy and reliable AI reimbursement.

Mario Aguilar covers technology in health care, including artificial intelligence, virtual reality, wearable devices, telehealth, and digital therapeutics. His stories explore how tech is changing the practice of health care and the business and policy challenges to realizing tech’s promise. He’s also the co-author of the free, twice weekly STAT Health Tech newsletter . You can reach Mario on Signal at mariojoze.13.

In December, the federal health department asked for feedback on how to boost the use of artificial intelligence for clinical care. Health tech companies were not shy about suggesting extremely specific proposals that would benefit their businesses.

The request for information is part of the Department of Health and Human Services’ effort to implement President Trump’s directives encouraging greater adoption of AI and lighter regulation of the technology. The administration has already moved to scale back transparency requirements for AI built into electronic health record software and to lessen Food and Drug Administration regulation of AI tools that help doctors make clinical decisions. Under Trump, the Medicare innovation center has pushed forward an experiment intended to promote AI-based care and another aimed at using AI to curb wasteful spending.

Advertisement

At the time of publication, just a fraction of the 7,000 comments submitted to the health department have been posted to the docket. Still, they offer a comprehensive industry wishlist for AI, including reforms to health data privacy rules to account for AI training and calls for reliable AI reimbursement.

Tennessee professor discusses workforce changes, saying treating AI as a shock will create a real shock.

More from AI

Your options for privacy

References to AI and screen time in BBC 500 Word articles rise.

Former porn addict advocates for family discussions on safeguarding against explicit AI material.

OpenAI's decision to yield to the Pentagon regarding AI surveillance