Here are two high-level truths essential to understanding the present and future of robotics. First, we want robots to work for us. Second, when it comes to work, humans have three historical blueprints for recruiting labor: animals, through the process of domestication; other humans, through employment, but also subjugation and outright enslavement; and machines, through the development of physical systems for performing actions.
Why does this matter to understanding the present and future of robotics? While weve created an astonishing diversity of machines in the broadest sense, those first two blueprints for recruited laboranimals and other humanshave so far dominated our conception of robots. Today our most celebrated robots, all of them marvels of design and engineering, are machine evolutions of animals and other humans. You can see the echoes of those same dogs and draft animals we recruited as labor thousands of years ago in this dog and this dog, another dog, and this mule. And you can see our adoration of humanoid robots in Agility Robotics Digit, Boston Dynamics Atlas, Teslas Optimus, and Unitrees G1.There are straightforward reasons for this. First, as a species weve done a lot of work designing the world for us and our animal helpers, so it makes sense to design robots resembling ourselves and those animals for work in those spaces. As an example, this humanoid robot from Under Control Robotics is designed to work alongside humans in human workplaces such as warehouses and construction sites, a machine enhancement of human-like capabilities. Second, we have an innate tendency in our psychology toward anthropomorphism. Our brains are hardwired through evolutionary adaptation to discern complex social signals. A major reverberation of this adaptation is that we tend to anthropomorphize the stuff around us, affixing human characteristics to non-human things. Its why we have trains with faces in Thomas & Friends and why Star Wars C-3POa machineis anxious and chatty. Its also why many people name their cars and Roomba vacuum cleaners.
The pivot
Heres the pivot ahead, though: there are important spaces in our future that arent designed for us. Anthropomorphized animal- and human-like robots are designed to replicate human and animal capabilities, but those capabilities are based on physiologies that dont have the same advantages for work in outer space, in oceans, on the blades of wind turbines, or inside volcanoes. While nature certainly has many highly specialized adaptations, the physiologies of humans and animals are simply not made for maneuvering inside gas and water pipes; they cant be dropped from aircraft without parachutes or thrown into battlefields; they arent well-suited for fighting lithium battery fires inside a landfill. Humanoid and animal-inspired robots also tend to be complex, power-hungry, and expensiveunhelpful traits for the scale of work well need them to do. For these kinds of work, our future needs weird robots. This means radically self-reliant robots with unconventional form factors designed to work in extreme environments.Here are three speculative, weird robots well need in the near future.Space BallMultiple companies are currently building low-Earth orbit space stations that will continue human presence in space beyond the International Space Stations planned decommissioning in 2030. A big promise of these commercial endeavors is the opportunity to conduct science experiments in space for industries developing advanced materials, medicine, and other technologies. Tending to these experiments where theres no air or atmosphere will require robotic form factors capable of maneuvering in zero gravity and operating in temperatures that fluctuate between negative 85° Fahrenheit and 257° Fahrenheit. What might that look like? A spherical robot, applying electrostatic forces to affix itself to surfaces, with a dexterous array of pivoting grippers, sensors, and cameras that emerge when its not rolling from one spot to another.Here on earth, this same kind of robot might someday help search and rescue teams conduct reconnaissance by rolling across steep and rugged terrain in any kind of weather and at nightconditions in which its not safe for human and canine teams to work. Seabed SeederSeagrass meadows, which are highly effective blue carbon sinks, also play outsized roles in protecting coastlines from storm surges, improving water quality, and nurturing commercial fish stocks. Those roles will only grow in importance as we work to mitigate the effects of climate change. Globally, weve already lost nearly 30% of seagrass meadows and were currently losing about 7% each year. Reversing that through restoration will require planting roughly two football fields of seagrass every hour. Planting native seagrass, while also removing invasive seagrass species, will require robots capable of working across underwater terrain in dynamic currents for long periods of time. What might that look like? An aquatic planter with independently sensing legs, topped with a helix-like underwater turbine to self-generate power from the currents. This same kind of robot might eventually patrol urban waterways, removing trash and plastic waste before it can reach our oceans. Bridge BlobThere are more than 600,000 bridges in the United States and approximately a third of them are designated structurally deficient as of 2024. Those bridges are crossed by 168.5 million motorists every day. At the present rate of repair, itll take more than 50 years to fix these bridges, so were going to need a lot of help. While the bulk of research into particle-armored liquid robots is focused on biomedical applications, their unique propertiescapable of navigating tiny fissures in concrete and other materials, enduring harsh conditions, and yet deformablemeans they could eventually be used with bridges to inspect, apply coatings, and remove contaminants. What might that look like? Thousands of tiny armored blobs working mostly unseen to hel bridges and other big infrastructure self-heal.Farther into the future, this same kind of robot might continuously clean your homes roof, windows, and siding, working year-round to remove moss, algae, and dirtno ladders required.
Despite being one of the most celebrated and influential architects of all time, Frank Lloyd Wright has never had what may be one of the top indicators of cultural importance: a Hollywood biopic. That may soon change, as the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation has recently struck a licensing deal with Hollywood production company Galisteo Media to bring Wright’s story to the big screen as a movie.
“He was the greatest American architect. He was incredibly ambitious and headstrong and visionary. He also was a flawed person, and his life was filled with triumph and tragedy,” says Rob Rosenheck, cofounder of Galisteo Media. “This is a big gap in American popular culture that we don’t have a feature film about Frank Lloyd Wright.”
Galisteo’s deal focuses on the 1920s, a period in Wright’s life when he relocated to Los Angeles and embarked on a series of innovative residential designs. Designed using novel textured concrete blocks, these homes came to be known as Mayan revival architecture and launched a nationwide trend throughout the ’20s and ’30s.
This was also a turning point in the life of Wright, who died in 1959 at the age of 91. Wright had gone West in his early 50s in the wake of the devastating 1914 tragedy in which his mistress and six other people were murdered in Wright’s Wisconsin home, Taliesin.
“The murders at Taliesin are a critical moment in Wright’s path,” says Rosenheck. “They’re an essential part of the story, and they are the inciting incident that propels him toward coming to Los Angeles.”
Wright’s time in L.A. was transformative, leading to a reinvention of his approach to architecture that resulted in some of his most famous work, from the Mayan revival homes to the Guggenheim Museum and Fallingwater.
Rosenheck and Gailsteo Media cofounder Cindy Capobianco are intimately familiar with Wright’s works from this era. Since 2019, they’ve owned and lived in the Ennis House, a Wright-designed private residence from 1924 located in the Loz Feliz area of Los Angeles. Known for its appearance in the film Blade Runner, it was one of the four textile block homes Wright built in the Los Angeles area during this period.
When Rosenheck and Capobianco bought the house from billionaire Ron Burkle for $18 million, it was the highest price ever paid for a Wright-designed residence. And the house had some baggage. Its concrete block construction method, while innovative in the early 1920s, was prone to structural decay, especially after sustaining significant damage in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Rosenheck and Capobianco, founders of Lord Jones, an early cannabis company that helped establish the market for cannabis and CBD-infused health and wellness products, had the means to keep the historic house in good shape.
The couple also has experience in the film industry. Their production company was behind Lover of Men, a 2024 documentary film exploring Abraham Lincoln’s romantic relationships with men. Living in a Wright house and learning more about his life and work, they were surprised to realize there had never been a feature film about him. “It just was natural for us to think about producing a film about the life and work of Frank Lloyd Wright,” says Rosenheck.
As stewards of the Ennis House, Rosenheck and Capobianco have an ongoing relationship with the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. They began talks about a potential licensing deal last year. In July, the two groups announced that they’d reached a deal for Galisteo to have exclusive rights to produce content about Wright’s life, focusing on the period of his life in Los Angeles. Galisteo declined to share details on the financial terms of the deal.
“Engaging in new media is not only beneficial in terms of shining a light and making people aware of Wright and his significance, and really ongoing contributions to architecture and the built environment. But it’s also resonant with Wright himself. He was a person that engaged robustly with media,” says Joseph Specter, CEO and president of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation.
That ethos is behind other partnerships the foundation has made in recent years. The organization has made a varied range of licensing deals celebrating and expanding the work of Wright, collaborating with brands including Airstream, Steelcase, and New Balance. Specter says this is the first licensing deal focused specifically on storytelling. “The similarities between those licensing deals and a project like this are about creating awareness, excitement, and deeper understanding about who he was, and how his work even affects our lives today,” says Specter.
A former professional opera singer who ran the Arizona Opera for a decade before joining the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation earlier this year, Specter says he is not nervous about handing Wright’s life story to filmmakers. “What I found most exciting about that work was to empower people who were creators, directors, designers, choreographers, and ultimately performers to do their best work,” he says.
Rosenheck says Galisteo has developed a treatment for a feature film about Wright and he has been meeting with writers, directors, and actors to try to find the right collaborators for a project. He’s optimistic a film could be in the works soon, as well as other projects, from TV series to podcasts.
“Everyone’s aware of Frank Lloyd Wright. Everyone’s aware that this story has not yet been told, and it’s been on people’s wish lists,” he says. “Every time we talk to an actor or a director or a writer, everybody has a vision for it, everybody has passion for it. And everybody understands the stakes that are involved in getting the story right.”
Experience sharpens judgment, boosts productivity, and teaches lessons that only come from years on the job. Yet, despite its value, companies continue to undervalue those with the most experience to offer.
Employers have spent the past decade championing inclusivity. Yet, our latest survey of 1,000 Americans over 50 by DateMyAge found that 73% of over-50s feel treated as if their best years are already behind them, and 62% believe that employers have written them off professionally.
Ageism isnt just a workplace issue. Its a cultural one. We wanted to explore it more deeply to challenge the idea that life and ambition have an expiration date.
Age bias, sometimes subtle but often not, presents a stubborn barrier for those in midlife. Companies ask questions about retirement plans rather than career goals, neglect to provide learning and training opportunities, and quietly exclude them from office social events. It’s no wonder loneliness, depression, and low self-worth are rampant among older workers.
Bias is discouraging, but you cannot let it bring your career to a sudden halt. Talent doesnt have an expiration date. If you want to prove it, you need to maintain business as usual. That means growing, contributing, and delivering value. You need to show that age is just a number.
Maintain your worth
The older you get, the more people assume youve fallen behind. The best way to challenge this assumption is to be the person who knows everything. That means anticipating competitor moves, industry trends, and regulatory changes before they hit the headlines.
And dont let your title confine you. Job descriptions dont stay static, and neither should you. Look at whats leading change in your industrywhether thats artificial intelligence, sustainability, geopolitics, or something elseand identify the skills and knowledge that will deliver the most value to your employer. Not only does this keep you relevant, but it also rebrands you as someone who adapts, innovates, and grows, regardless of age.
Interestingly, a study published in Experimental Aging Research shows that while the workplace is rife with implicit age bias, explicit bias is far less common. This suggests that these attitudes are unconscious, and those who display unconscious bias are often far more open to working on it.
When you demonstrate that your knowledge is sharper than ever (and that youre committed to evolving your skills), you leave little room for the assumption that youre past your prime. You will likely find that your colleagues perceptions will shift quickly.
Deliver business-critical value
The reality is, nearly all older workers have their professional development stunted by ageism. And, sadly, Ive seen too many senior professionals fall into the trap of setting learning aside and accepting their time is near, which only fuels the belief that theyre coasting towards retirement.
But instead of accepting ageism as fate, you should use it as motivation. Be the one pushing for training opportunities, designing new processes, piloting new technology, and calling for collaboration across departments. When youre visibly driving progress, youre making an impact thats hard to discredit, especially when it delivers business-critical value.
Whether its growing revenue, cutting costs, or increasing market share, focus on delivering measurable impact. Even a modest process improvement could save your employer millions, and value speaks louder than stereotypes. If the numbers are positive, nobody will question how old you are. Theyll be asking what more you can deliver.
Shape your companys future
Getting involved in projects that will shape the company over the next decade isnt just a way to stay busy; its a way to stay relevant. Whether thats market expansions, transformation initiatives, or sustainability programs, these are high-impact areas where your experience can make a measurable difference. And when youre actively involved in building the future, nobody can question whether youre stuck in the past.
Mentorship is another way to provide value that only employees with years of experience can offer. In exchange, by connecting with colleagues across generations, you gain insight into emerging trends, evolving tools, and fresh perspectives, which creates an opportunity for everyone to learn and grow.
And with a clear view of the up-and-coming talent, you can take ownership of planning for your exit. Retirement is inevitable, but it should be on your own terms.
Rather than waiting for management to make the call about your future, be proactive in guiding and developing your eventual replacement. Doing so demonstrates that you dont intend on sticking around past your time, but that your mind is still firmly focused on fulfilling your duties, rather than planning for your future away from the workplace.
Overcoming age bias requires hard work
In an ideal world, age bias would have no place in the office. Unfortunately, that isnt reality, but you cannot let bias dictate your path. If you slow down, step aside, and stop trying, youre unfortunately only confirming the assumptions others have made about you.
The best approach is to pull up your socks, show your resilience, and get to work. Every time you take on a high-value project, teach a younger colleague something new, and contribute positively to the balance sheet, youre sending a clear message: Age is no measure of ability.
The real AI story in most organizations isnt about algorithms; its about habits. New tools arrive with impressive demonstrations and confident promises, yet the day-to-day routines that decide what gets attention, who can take a risk, and what counts as a good job tend to remain the same. Leaders set up special units, roll out training, or look for quick savings, only to find that the old culture quietly resets the terms. When that happens, early gains fade, adoption stalls, and cynicism grows.
This article draws on our forthcoming book to look at three recurring myths that help prop up existing cultures and prevent the deep transformations that are needed to support successful AI implementations. Transforming a business to make the most of AI means moving past these comfortable stories and changing the conditions under which the whole organization works.
Myth 1: ‘Innovation Units Will Save Us’
After five years of operation, the U.K.s Government Digital Service (GDS) seemed untouchable. Created in 2011, the GDS revolutionized Britains digital services. With the goal of reenvisioning government as a platform, it consolidated hundreds of websites into a single, easy-to-use portal, cut waste by forcing departments to unify their platforms, and showed that, with the right attitude, even government agencies could move with the speed of a startup. In 2016, the U.K.s digital services were ranked the best in the world. Yet by 2020, the GDS had disappeared as a force within the U.K. government.
This pattern repeats regularly across corporate innovation labs: create an elite unit, give it special rules, celebrate early wins, watch it die. An innovation unit can deliver extraordinary results so long as it has senior leadership protection, free-flowing resources, and an internal culture that attracts exceptional talent. But the model also contains the seeds of its own demise. The outsider status that enables breakthrough innovation makes large-scale sustainability nearly impossible. When executive sponsors move on, the shield drops, and organizational antibodies start reasserting cultural norms.
This predictable lifecycle applies to AI-focused teams as much as those driving any other type of technological change. Leadership transitions are inevitable. New executives question special rules. The innovation unit that draws its power from being outside the system gets pulled back in again, and the flow of novel ideas slows to a trickle.
The lesson to take from this isnt that we should abandon innovation unitsits that we should use them strategically and follow up on the gains they make. Innovation units should be seen as catalysts, not permanent solutions. While these teams are forging ahead with quick wins and proving new approaches, organizations also need to transform their broader culture in parallel. The goal shouldnt be protecting the innovation unit indefinitely but aligning organizational culture with the innovative approaches it pioneers. If innovation units are sparks, culture is the oxygen. You need bothat the same timeor the flame dies.
Myth 2: “Our People Just Need Training”
Companies spend millions teaching employees to use AI tools, then wonder why transformation never happens. The reason is that the underlying problem isnt just about skillsits about the imagination needed to use them effectively. You can train your workforce to operate the new technology, but you cant train them to be excited about it or to care where it will take the business. That requires change at the cultural level.
When it comes to AI, the real gap is conceptual, not technical. Employees need to shift from seeing AI as a better calculator to understanding the role it can play as a thought partner. This requires more than tutorials. It means showcasing how AI can transform workflows and then rewarding its creative use. Show a sales team how AI can predict client needs before calls, not just transcribe them afterward. Demonstrate how legal teams can shift from document review to strategic counseling.
When organizations tell employees to use the tools but dont change the social norms around using them, people can be punished for doing exactly what leadership asked. A recent experiment with 1,026 software engineers found that when reviewers believed code was produced with AI assistance, they rated the authors competence lower by about 9% even though the work was identical. Even more concerning was that the penalty was larger for women and older engineers, groups who tended to be treated negatively in assessments already. In a companion survey of 919 engineers, many reported hesitating to use AI for fear that adoption would be read as a lack of skillillustrating why access and training dont translate into uptake when the culture signals that visible AI use will harm credibility.
Myth 3: “AI Makes It Easy to Slim Down the Workforce”
Theres a seductive promise being sold to companies right now. The way to realize AIs value is simply to replace as many workers as you can. Fire half your staff, pocket the savings, let machines handle the rest. Simple arithmetic for simple minds.
The messy truth is that AI can and will replace many human jobs, but it wont do it cleanly and it wont do it easily. In most cases, the idea that you can simply swap out the human component and replace it with a machine just doesnt work. Humans work together as parts of multilayered social structures that have evolved as ecosystems. Its often the case that if you change one part, there will be major consequences for another. If we rush into automation too quickly, we risk pulling away the pillars that hold the whole structure up.
Think about the tedious hours that junior analysts spend cleaning data, checking figures, and building models from scratch. Or the work a newly appointed manager will do overseeing performance and filling in paperwork. We call it grunt work, but its actually how humans develop the skills they will need in more senior roles. Take away the entry-level jobs and you lose the career path that delivers the highly skilled senior leaders you need. Allow AI-powered deskilling to take place and you lose the human judgment and oversight that institutions rely on.
Klarnas trajectory shows both sides of this equation. In early 2024, its AI assistant handled two-thirds of customer chats, delivering resolution times under two minutes and a 25% drop in repeat inquiries. By 2025, Klarnas leadership was publicly acknowledging the limits of an AI-only approach and began reopening human roles and emphasizing the customer experience alongside automation.
The real question isnt how many people you can eliminate. For effective AI implementation, you need to understand that humans make essential contributions that dont appear in their job descriptions.
The Culture Transformation Playbook: Fixng the Myths
Culture change depends on habits, incentives, and expectations, not just adding new tools. The playbook that follows presents concrete steps that leaders can take now to avoid the pitfalls many companies are running into.
Run Parallel Transformations (Fixes Myth 1). The innovation unit delivers quick wins while a separate initiative transforms broader culture. These must happen simultaneously, not sequentially. Use the innovation units protected status and early victories to create organizational belief in change but invest equally in preparing the mainline culture for whats coming. Without parallel tracks, the innovation unit becomes an isolated island of excellence that will eventually be washed away.
Transform the Middle Layer (Fixes Myth 2). Middle managers are the real gatekeepers of culture change. Stop wasting energy trying to convert skeptics. Instead, identify the curious and give them authority to experiment, budget to fail, and cover from meeting traditional metrics. Try giving selected managers a micro-charter to implement change in their team, along with a weekly show-the-work session (what AI was used, what was accepted or overruled, and why) to share what theyve learned with peers.
Build Alternative Learning Paths (Fixes Myth 3). If AI eliminates the experiences that build judgment, you must consciously re-create them. High-fidelity simulations, rotation programs, and human days working without AI become existential necessities. Explicitly preserve activities that develop pattern recognition and business instinct. The investment might seem wasteful until you realize the alternative is a workforce that can operate tools but cant respond when something breaks.
The Choice
Culture transformation is harder than technology implementation. Its messier, slower, and impossible to fully control. Most companies will choose the easy path: buy the AI, train on the tools, create an innovation lab, and hope for the best.
The few who choose the hard pathparallel transformation, cultural evolution, preserved learning experienceswill gain powerful competitive advantages. Theyll have workforces that dont just use AI but think with it, cultures that dont just tolerate change but expect it, and organizations that dont just survive disruption but drive it.
There has been a lot of chatter about A24s takeover of the Cherry Lane Theatre. What might seem a quirky side project for the independent studio known for Lady Bird, Uncut Gems, and Hereditary is in reality a sharp, shrewd move in an industry facing disruption and streaming fatigue. Live performance is one of the few cultural experiences that cant be automated, replicated, or played on demand. By stepping into theater, A24 is hedging against an AI-saturated future while also deepening its cultural footprint.When the deal was first announced in late 2023, the scuttlebutt was rooted in practicalities. Its all about creative synergies, was one refrain. Theyre diversifying their revenue streams to help offset the volatility of the film business. Theatre is more predictable than film. They can test out new stories in a low-risk environment. These were all valid comments, sure, but then a close friend and accomplished film industry executive said something that really piqued my interest. I wonder if they are further differentiating themselves in the market by building a futureproof brand. Aha! Now we were getting somewhere.
[Photo: Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images]
A powerful brand
Coming from the branding world, I may be biased. Or perhaps just acutely aware when I sense a company doing something out of the norm. A24 certainly fits the bill. To start, the story its looking to tell, its role in the industry, and how it wishes to be perceived are markedly different from the other studios. As a result, it has a growing community of acolytes who identify with it and love it for that. These are trademarks of a powerful brand.
Michelle Yeoh in Everything Everywhere All at Once, 2022. [Photo: David Bornfriend/courtesy A24]
Most studios understand that their franchises are brands that they can build around, but when it comes to themselves, there is little to no attention given to an overarching narrative about what they stand for. To a branding person, this is perplexing. There is only one other industry that comes to mind that acts like this: Big Pharma. The drug companies seem to care that their patients know their drugs by name (think Lipitor, Prilosec, Viagra, Prozac) but less about how they themselves are perceived.
Adam Sander in Uncut Gems, 2019. [Photo: Julieta Cervantes/courtesy A24]
A24 is different. It is one of the very few in Hollywood that seems to be building a truly beloved brand. Do this simple test at home. When A24 flashes up on the screen at the start of a movie, does it mean something to you? Does it affect your perception of what is to come? Like me, do you even get warm and giddy inside?
Florence Pugh in Midsommar, 2019. [Photo: Gabor Kotschy/courtesy A24]
Perhaps deep down, we all understand that A24 is all about exceptional, original, creative content. The questions one might ask are: How is it going about building a world-class brand? And why does that matter?
A$AP Rocky and Rose Byrne in If I Had Legs I’d Kick You, 2025. [Photo: Logan White/courtesy A24]
Content is still king
One simple idea prevails in our fast-evolving world: Creativity wins. And increasingly so. The adae content is king has been floated around the entertainment industry over the years. And yet, for whatever reason, it seems to get forgotten with every new business cycle. In its place, Im hearing things like, “We’re leveraging AI-driven audience analytics and predictive modeling algorithms to revolutionize content creation through real-time sentiment optimization and it’s a complete paradigm shift that democratizes storytelling via data-driven narrative matrices.”
Paul Rudd and Jenna Ortega in Death of a Unicorn, 2025. [Photo: courtesy A24]
Its becoming readily apparent that the general public doesnt want an AI-generated model in their Guess ads, or a machine-generated song that Nirvana could have written. Audiences want to be surprised and delighted with new, fresh, exciting content. A24s brand is synonymous with creativity, and younger movie lovers inherently understand this.The brands that matter most today are those that are daring. Anyone who has seen Ons Zone Dreamer campaign with Zendaya floating around in outer space knows what I mean. The Big Five studios are publicly traded, and so by nature forced to drive revenue for shareholders and to mitigate risk (the yin to darings yang). Ironically though, the greatest historical payoffs in Hollywood, either on a % basis or through expansion into other verticals, are those that have taken calculated risks. A24 exemplifies that spirit today, with the Cherry Lane acquisition its latest proof point.
Dwayne Johnson in The Smashing Machine, 2025. [Photo: courtesy A24]
Daring creativity
Another key tenet to building a strong studio brand has to do with the same advice as I give to all the companies and institutions we work with: Do what the robots cant. At its core, this is a euphemism for fostering human interaction. That matters especially now. The U.S. surgeon general recently declared a loneliness epidemic. In this context, A24 isnt just buying a building, its investing in the kind of in-person experiences people are craving.
Whether actively or intuitively, A24 is building an increasingly powerful brand that stands for daring creativity. Believed and beloved, it has established a cultlike following that subscribes to this world its creating, a world that gives it license to expand into any line of business that stands for the same. The Cherry Lane is a fascinating early move that insulates the company from a future saturated with AI.
The question is whether others will follow suit. Will studios also see an opportunity to congregate people, perhaps by incorporating next-generation movie theater experiences into their businesses? Could they blend hospitality and entertainment through partnerships that deliver immersive venues? The door is open . . . and A24 is first through it.
With more than 30 years in digital transformation, Ive seen technology cycles come and go. And the latest wave Im seeing is AI-powered automation. It promises sweeping gains in productivity, but without ethical guardrails, it risks undermining the trust leaders depend on to grow.
Thats why leaders can no longer treat ethics as an afterthought. Automation isnt just a technical upgrade. It is a human, cultural, and reputational challenge. The choices that leaders make today will determine whether automation drives sustainable progress or fuels mistrust and inequity.
The promise and the peril
Automation has a lot of benefits. It can free workers from repetitive tasks, improve customer service, and open new possibilities for innovation. In manufacturing, robots can boost safety by removing people from hazardous environments. When it comes to finance, AI can spot fraud faster than any analyst. And in healthcare, hospitals are using automation to speed up patient admissions (though there are privacy and consent issues).
But every gain carries a shadow. Bias in algorithms can lock in discrimination. Displaced workers may find no clear pathways to re-skill. Opaque decision-making can leave customers and regulators in the dark. And what looks like a cost saving in year one can become a reputational crisis by year three.
Lessons from the field
Global surveys show that leaders remain uncertain about the value and risks of AI adoption. McKinsey reports that while nearly 70% of businesses have adopted at least one AI capability, fewer than one in three have embedded AI into core strategies with measurable returns. The World Economic Forums 2025 Future of Jobs report projects that by 2030, automation and other global shifts will create about 170 million jobs, while displacing around 92 million, for a net gain of 78 million roles. This makes equity, transparency, and upskilling urgent priorities for leaders.
The Back on Track Foundation, a not-for-profit case study, illustrates both the potential and the pitfalls. By introducing AI tools to support case management, they improved efficiency but faced immediate questions about data privacy and oversight. Their experience is a reminder that automation is never just about efficiency. Its also about accountability, transparency, and public trust.
And it doesnt just impact nonprofits. Manufacturers rolling out automated quality control or banks deploying AI in credit decisions face the same ethical crossroads. How do we balance efficiency and productivity gains with fairness, transparency, and responsibility?
Why leaders cannot wait for regulation
Unlike the European Union, many countries have not yet built comprehensive legal frameworks for AI. Existing laws around privacy, consumer protection, and workplace rights still apply, but theres no dedicated safety net.
That means every board, CEO, and executive team needs to lead with their own ethical compass. Transparency is nonnegotiable. Customers, staff, and stakeholders deserve to know when automation is involved, what guardrails exist, and how to handle recourse if (or when) things go wrong.
In my own work with clients, I use AI tools for research, analyzing reports, and preparing strategy briefs. The responsibility and decisions remain mine, but using these tools has reinforced how transparency builds trust. Leaders need to hold themselves to the same standard and be open about where and how they use automation.
Equity and the human-first lens
Equity is the ethical line thats most at risk. Without deliberate design, automation can deepen divides: between city and region, skilled and unskilled, and insiders and outsiders. PwC estimates that up to 30% of jobs in OECD countries are at potential risk of automation by the mid-2030s, with lower-skilled roles most exposed.
A factory that automates its production line might save millions, but what happens to the workforce whose jobs disappear overnight? If you dont reinvest savings into re-skilling or transition, inequity widens. This is the human-first lens. Technology can (and should) amplify the roles of the people in the organization. What it should never do is replace their dignity or the critical and creative lens humans bring. Ethical automation aligns with company values and extends them into every workflow and algorithm.
Ethical AI adoption
Leaders who are looking to adopt AI in an ethical way should consider taking the following steps
Audit your automation footprint. Map where automation already touches your business, who it impacts, and what risks are in play.
Create governance frameworks. Decide who is accountable, how they will explain decisions, and what ethical standards apply.
Invest in literacy. When it comes to training, you need to go beyond technical staff. Boards, executives, and frontline teams all need a baseline understanding of automation. Googles AI Works 2025 report found that organizations investing in AI training achieved productivity gains of up to tenfold.
Measure more than ROI. Track trust, transparency, equity, and social impact alongside efficiency metrics.
Be transparent. If automation influences a customer outcome or an employee process, disclose it. Trust grows in the open.
Automation is inevitable. Ethical leadership is optional, but only in the short term. Regulation will eventually catch up, and those who embed human-first, transparent practices now will be far ahead of the curve.
Ethical automation isnt just about managing risks. It is a competitive advantage. Organizations that lead with equity and transparency will be the ones attracting talent, investors, and customers in the years ahead.
Every year, 12.5 million travelers pass through South Station, Boston’s 126-year-old transportation hub, to hop on Greyhound buses, Amtrak trains, and the commuter rail. But the station hadn’t been renovated in 30 years, and looked worn, industrial, and dated.
For decades, the city of Boston has been working on an ambitious urban infrastructure redevelopment project to reimagine the city’s downtown. It recently unveiled a stunning transformation of South Station that includes a redesigned transportation hub as well as a 51-story tower that will house luxury condos, offices, a rooftop garden, and a high-end restaurant.
[Photo: Jason O’Rear/courtesy Pelli Clarke & Partners]
For the hundreds of thousands commuters who pass through South Station every day, the most obvious change is the new vaulted concourse, called the Great Space, that will usher them to their trains. It features 10 concrete arches that reach 60 feet into the air.
The archways open to the street, bus stops, and train lines. The structure supports three enormous domes that have a ring of spotlights at the center of them to brighten the interior. While the previous concourse felt industrial and functional, with concrete ceilings and metal railings, it now feels opulent and open.
[Photo: Jason O’Rear/courtesy Pelli Clarke & Partners]
The design of the space was conceptualized by Pelli Clarke & Partners, an architectural practice based in New Haven, Connecticut founded in 1977 by Yale Professor Cesar Pelli. The firm is known for taking ambitious projects in cities around the world, including the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Tokyo’s Mori JP Tower, which is now the tallest skyscraper in Japan; and the Natural History Museum in Chengdu, China.
The project was a private-public partnership, backed by the developer Hines. Amtrak, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and Boston Planning and Development Agency were also involved in the process.
[Photo: Jason O’Rear/courtesy Pelli Clarke & Partners]
While part of the goal of the project was urban renewal, the architects were also tasked with modernizing the transportation hub to increase capacity and improve efficiency. There is now 50% more capacity in the bus terminal, and 70% increased rail capacity.
“As Boston’s population grows, so is the demand for transportation,” says Graham Banks, a partner at Pelli Clarke, who worked on this project. “But rebuilding South Station without disrupting any of the transportation service was an enormous challenge. Work took place slowly.”
Banks says work began on this project in early 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic delayed construction, and then afterwards, workers were only able to work in the brief stretches when trains and buses weren’t running. “Workers would be sitting around waiting for Amtrak to give them the signal that they could get going,” he recalls. “Orchestrating the logistics of construction took a lot of work.”
[Photo: Jason O’Rear/courtesy Pelli Clarke & Partners]
The original South Station structure was unveiled in 1899 during the late Gilded Age, when railway tracks expanded rapidly across the country. Five different railroads served Boston, and initially, each had their own terminal. South Station, which was designed by architects Shepley, Rutan, and Coolidge, was meant to consolidate these different lines. By 1913, it had become the busiest station in New England, helping to boost Boston’s status as a city.
The station in the late 19th century. [Photo: GHI/Universal Images Group/Getty Images]
Pelli Clarke wanted to preserve the original South Station building, while also modernizing it. They have kept the South Station’s facade, but they also built a glass tower on top of it, adding another skyscraper to Boston’s skyline. On lower levels, there is office space. Banks says that there is already interest from local firms to move in. “These offices are designed to have all the amenities and ambiance of a hotel,” says Banks. “Companies realize that they have to entice workers to come into the office.”
[Photo: Jason O’Rear/courtesy Pelli Clarke & Partners]
Starting at the 36th floor and going to the top, there are luxury Ritz-Carlton apartments, that cost between $1.3 million for a 683-square-foot one-bedroom and $14.5 million for a duplex penthouse. Residents will have access to an outdoor pool that overlooks Back Bay, as well as a 1-acre rooftop park that features gardens, a dog run, an outdoor movie theater, and a dining terrace. Residents have their own private entrances, both from the street and from a private parking garage.
The idea of introducing luxury apartments to South Station is fairly radical. For years, the station and the area around it were crime ridden. The neighboring financial district emptied out at night, as workers went home. But building high-end condos is likely to make the area livelier and spur restaurants, grocers, and shops to come back to the area. It’s a similar transformation to what has happened in New York’s financial district, which is now bursting with luxury apartments, office buildings, and glittering shopping centers. “This part of the city will now be alive 24/7,” Banks says.
[Photo: Jason O’Rear/courtesy Pelli Clarke & Partners]
South Station’s redevelopment is part of a broader revitalization of downtown Boston. Boston’s Planning and Development Agency, in partnership with WS Development, transformed the Seaport District from an industrial wasteland, covered in parking lots and vacant wharves, into one of its hottest neighborhoods. In 2014, it unveiled the new mixed-use development, which features high-end condos, buzzy restaurants, and hip retailers like Warby Parker and Mejuri. It quickly became the fastest-growing part of Boston, and is now an economic engine for the city.
There’s some concern that these luxury apartments and offices will alienate Boston’s lower and moderate income residents. And it could further exacerbate the city’s affordability crisis, much like the one New York City has experienced in recent years. But at the same time, the revitalization of this transportation hub also benefits everyday Bostonian who pass through it on their daily commutes and who rely on buses and trains to get in and out of the city.
We’ll have to wait and see how the new South Station Tower transforms the neighborhood. But in the meanwhile, hopping off a bus or train upon your arrival to Boston is already a more pleasant experience.
Climate tech isnt a thing. It has shifted in recent years from a category to define clean energy companies to an umbrella phrase that loses meaning the more we use it.
Granted, the term is everywhere: inserted into VC pitch decks, plastered on billboards along highways from San Francisco to Austin to Boston, wedged into government policy papers, and featured prominently on conference agendas. Media properties from CNBC to GreenBiz rely on it as a traffic-driving category.
And theres a reason why. A changing climate is the most complex and vast challenge and opportunity confronting our society today. That also means we cant afford ambiguity. We need accountability. We need progress. We need to reengineer infrastructure with advanced tech that future-proofs as it solves urgent and complex problems. Now.
Which means we need precision. And we need to acknowledge that infrastructure and markets that have served us for so long are failingand in need of rebuilding to anticipate and meet future challenges.
Our world is in desperate need of solutions tied to specific applications and impact across energy tech, waste tech, food tech, and carbon tech. We need solutions that advance specific areas of deeply specialized work with distinct metrics and challenges like energy storage, batteries, food security, and sustainable fuel development. And, we need talent trained and sharpened to tackle these specific problems.
Ambiguity is the enemy of progress
Progress requires clarity. Energy technology is a distinct thing. Waste technology is a distinct thing. Transportation technology, energy storage, agriculture and food sustainability, carbon removalthese are specific categories with definable challenges and measurable outcomes. Each is firmly tied to infrastructure and requires dedicated engineering, specialized expertise, and different pools of capital.
For example, grid storage is not a climate tech problemits a specific energy challenge with concrete metrics: cost per kilowatt-hour, storage capacity, duration, and efficiency. Grid storage is about optimizing supply and demand, the outcome of which is a financial, political, and engineering goal, not a moral imperative.
We must connect the promise and hype of AI-powered software solutions to their physical applications in the real world. Why? Because solving these big, specific problems requires more than computation behind a screen. Realizing the promise of AI to transform and improve is only possible if it enters the physical realm and changes the mechanics of existing ways of doing things. Calling the solutions to these problems climate tech is a disservice to the work because it no longer adequately captures the scale and range of what’s required.
Breaking climate tech down to drive breakthroughs
We need to build and invest in technologies that are better, faster, cheaper than what came before and solve real problemsrather than loaded words that offer environmental promise and not much else.
The trajectory of biotech offers a solid framework. Rather than lumping everything under a term like health tech, industry pioneers stood up clearly defined categories, including: immunotherapy, CRISPR, mRNA vaccine development, oncology, longevity, and so on. Each domain pursued a specific set of problems and attracted talent and capital to solve them. The result? Breakthroughs.
Whether we realize it or not, software also focused in recent years, which has helped to accelerate progress. Information technology gave way to specific technical disciplines like cybersecurity, cloud computing, and enterprise tools. Category focus allowed companies to gain market share and differentiate with customer experience and accountability front-and-center.
Its time that climate tech undergoes the same level of rigorous redefinition. And its not just because were approaching critical climate tipping points (which we are). Its because the economic opportunity cost of not acting is too great. The future of American communities and industries from agriculture to manufacturing rests on our ability to effectively seize the opportunities in front of us and reengineer them.
Everything needs to be built for the future with engineering precision and a specific problem in mind to solve. We need infrastructure and hardware solutions to solve focused problems like recycling plastic for manufacturing, rendering cement carbon-neutral, electrifying freight transport, rethinking protein production, and removing carbon at scale. We cannot grow the economy in the future without approaching all tech as climate tech.
For example, the investment firm I cofounded, Incite, invested in Monarch, a startup with a fleet of AI-powered electric vehicles and tech solutions that work for agricultural clients ranging from dairy farmers to municipalities to winemakers. Monarch recently shipped MonarchOne, an end-to-end physical AI platform for OEMs to more efficiently manage work and use data to influence operations across environments. Monarch isnt a climate tech company. Its an AI and robotics company with clear environmental benefits.
Working toward a post-climate tech world
Climate tech served its purpose as an initial rallying cry. It placed an urgent crisis squarely on the map of capital markets, boardrooms, and policy agendas. It made innovation to help us take care of our planet inevitable. Totally unsurprisingly, however, grouping a product or tech into the vague category enables more greenwashing and ambiguity when what we need is progress, focus, and accountability.
In order to scale up the grid, add resilience to infrastructure, and prevent the housing market from insurance collapse, we need to retire not just the language but the entire categorization of climate tech completely. We must dismantle the umbrella term into specific, infrastructure-centered areas in need of urgent work.
Lets refine our language. Words matter.
Tech is crucial to curbing negative environmental impacts. But the utility of climate tech is running on fumes. Lets stop pretending its still a thingand seize the opportunity to build and invest in the physical infrastructure, software, apps, and technologies that will power economic opportunities and enrich life around the world.
A new type of window on the verge of mass production in the United States will provide a new vision for architects and builders seeking to marry design with energy efficiency.
This window, made from millimeter-thin glass panels, can achieve exceptional energy efficiency scores and make a significant difference in global emissions. Buildings account for about 30% of global energy consumption, and about half of the energy use in residential and commercial buildings is used for heating and cooling.
Corning, the firm that developed Gorilla glass in 2007 for Apple iPhones, helped refine the mass-manufacturing process based on material discoveries made at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. In the late 1980s, researchers at the lab began looking into window efficiency in the aftermath of the energy crisis of the 70s. It led them to develop a new kind of glass that was thinner, yet stronger and more efficient.
In short, by creating these ultra-thin layers of glass, more layers and air gaps can be arranged inside a standard window frame, which multiplies a windows ability to insulate. Typical double-pane windows utilize two sheets of glass three or four millimeters thick; this new thin glass can be a half-a-millimeter thick.
Corning developed a modified manufacturing process based on the lab’s research that can create glass sheets at scale, as thin as a credit card. It can be cut and modified to suit standard window frames, as well as for more unique designs for custom buildings designed by architects. Corning calls this new, larger commercial glass Enlighten.
The Kenzi Apartments at Bartlett Station, Boston-area [Photo: courtesy Alpen]
A more efficient window
Stephen Selkowitz, a research scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who theorized this process in the 80s, before it was commercially possible to produce, says that windows lose 10 to 20 times more energy per square foot than a well-insulated wall. Within a standard home or business, windows and glass represent the most porous area for heat exchange, letting in cold weather in the winter and heat in the summer.
By cutting down this energy transfer, this new glasswhich contains layers of inert gas between thin panes, increasing its insulating propertiescan slash the costs of heating and cooling a single-family home or office building.
Andrew Zech, the CEO of Alpen, a company that has collaborated with Corning on commercializing this technology for the last six years, says this new glass can achieve five times the energy efficiency of standard windows. The material also boasts a special coating that inhibits solar gain, or the heating effect of bright sunlight on a room.
As Ronald Verkleeren, Cornings senior vice president for the Emerging Innovations Group, sees it, energy efficiency codes have in effect provided a limiting factor for glass. Increasingly strict building standards require a more balanced approach to material choices and window sizes to limit energy use. This development, in effect, frees up the industry to use and buy more windows, and will help manufacturers utilizing this process gain market share in the large, lucrative, architectural glass market. Corning has reached out to architects to encourage them to create case studies and new designs utilizing this glass.
All of a sudden you can show up with a window that comes as close to matching what’s possible from a wall, in terms of energy efficiency, and that gives a lot of degrees of design freedom to be able to meet the code, Verkleeren says. That’s the game changer.
Ramping up production
Alpen was the first domestic firm to manufacture this glass, and will ramp up facilities in Pennsylvania and Colorado later this fall. According to news from Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, which helped develop the breakthroughs that made this process possible, a number of larger producers will begin making these kinds of windows. Manufacturers include Andersen, the world’s biggest window manufacturer, which plans to open a plant in Georgia in October specifically geared towards this product, as well as PGT, which makes hurricane-resistent windows.
The rate of window replacement is rather slow, says Zech, just about 1.4% of the national stock gets updated every year, and the number of windows sold each year is generally split in half between new projects and replacement. As Zech sees it, these new thin glasses can be used for any shape or profilethey can be as boring as you need them to be.
This new wave of thin glass production in the United Statescoming during a time of heightened tariffs and a loosening of environmental regulationscan help U.S. developers and builders utilize more glass on projects in a way that can not just cut emissions but help architects rethink how theyre designing buildings.
The end of architectural trade-offs
Alpens factory utilizes a number of robotics and advanced manufacturing technologies in the production process, says Zech. A vacuum system holds onto the panes as they roll down a conveyor belta stiff wind could blow them offand a series of superfine bristles wash the glass, akin to a microscopic glass carwash.
Alpens Zech says the companys working theory was that they would sell tons of these new windows in cold climates like Alaska or Minnesota. But theyre also selling a lot in hotter climates and temperate areas like San Francisco, as a way to open up walls and facades with glass without creating additional heating burdens through substantial solar gain. Selkowitz believes this tech offers so many commercial opportunities where this technology helps meet real world needs, such as building offices with more daylighting.
In fact, Zech says the trend in recent years has been adding fewer windows to new construction, as energy efficiency standards have demanded builders figure out how to meet more strict insulation goals. He believes this new thin glass will eliminate the need for these kinds of design trade-offs, and allow for larger windows and showier facades.
There is an energy savings story here, and it’s really potent, Zech says. But probably the bigger story is actually, people just want to have massive windows in their homes and businesses, they want walls of glass.
In part three of How YouTube Ate TV, Fast Companys oral history of YouTube, new parent Google confronts the messy issues standing in the way of the video streamer’s long-term viability. As Viacom sues over YouTube users unauthorized uploading of intellectual property, Google and YouTube engineers simultaneously build technology that will save the business. Called ContentID, it lets copyright holders remove their workor, better yet, leave it up and benefit from its monetization.
YouTube also sets viewership goals that are even more wildly audacious than the ones its already achieved. First, though, Google has to convince even its own employees that buying the video-sharing service hadnt been a horrible mistake.
Comments have been edited for length and clarity.
Read more ‘How YouTube Ate TV’
Part one: YouTube failed as a dating site. This one change altered its fortunes forever
Part two: Pit bulls, rats, and 2 circling sharks: The inside story of Google buying YouTube
Shishir Mehrotra, YouTube chief product officer/CTO (20082014): The general perception inside Google was that [buying YouTube] was Googles first mistake. Every previous acquisition had worked out so well: Android and Google Maps, and even Google Docs was off to a reasonable start. But this one didnt seem like it was going anywhere.Matthew Darby, YouTube director of product management (2008present): I remember giving a talk to my team about, like, How the hell is YouTube going to make any money for Google? There was this odd thing going on in San Bruno and it was costing a great deal of money, because video is an expensive thing to serve.
Mehrotra: About a month after I joined, we went to see Patrick Pichette, who was the CFO at the time. He had these three charts. The first said, here’s how much money YouTube is losing. It was hundreds of millions of dollars. The second said, here’s how much money YouTube loses per view. It was just under a penny. And the third chart showed viewership. It wasn’t just up and to the right, it was a straight line. He said, This is the worst business on the planet. Thankfully, [then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt] was in the room. He kind of laughed and said, No, no, nodon’t listen to Patrick. You guys have time. Go figure it out. But it was very clear that we were on a clock.
Outside Google, media companies and marketers alike remained skeptical about partnering with YouTube. Viewers also werent wild about the prospect of marketing intruding on the experience.
Michael Fricklas, general counsel, Viacom (20002017): Googles a big, responsible company, and the thought that it would be acquiring a site that we viewed as a pirate site was considered, at best, bad form. We thought big, responsible companies would behave in responsible ways.Chris Maxcy, YouTube VP of business development (20052013): [Media] companies that had been collaborative with us shifted and said, Now we cant [acquire] you, so were going to try to shut you down. Or Now you have a really, really large parent with lots of money. Its time for us to extract some.Amy Singer, YouTube development, partnerships, strategy executive (2010present): [Media companies] wanted to manage their distribution ecosystem, and so there wasnt a lot of reception to working with YouTube.
Ian Hecox, cocreator (with Anthony Padilla) of the comedy duo Smosh: The Logitech deal [in 2009] was probably our first big brand deal. The audience hated that we did sponsored videos back then.
Suzie Reider, YouTube CMO (20062013): There were marketers who saw it as such a creative marketing platform. I remember the first million-dollar program that we sold was a battle of the bands. We had a wireless company sponsor it.
Some marketers were willing not only to use YouTube, but to embrace its spirit, such as the ones responsible for promoting the 2007 film Hairspray.
Russell Schwartz, New Line Cinema president of theatrical marketing (2001-2007): When Nikki Blonsky was awarded the role of [Tracy Turnblad], she was working at a Baskin-Robbins on Long Island. We brought in a camera crew and told her, in front of all her peers, You’ve got the role. It was the most emotional thing I’d experienced. What better content do you need for YouTube than that? Once we realized the response to the piece we put up, we said, Well, this is a place we have to be.
Reider: And then there were a lot of folks who were resistant to it.Tara Walpert Levy, Google ads director (20112021); VP, Americas at YouTube (2021present): It was my job to bridge Madison Avenue and Silicon Valley, to explain this new platform that looked and sounded like TV but had a lot of differences from TV. That was a hard pitch.Reider: Procter & Gamble and Unilever were saying, Were not touching it until you have the right brand safety mechanisms and control in place.
How YouTube Shaped CultureGangnam Style, July 2012 In an early example of K-pops international appeal, rapper Psys music video both silly and hypnoticsurges right off YouTube to become an unavoidable cultural phenomenon.
In March 2007, YouTube faced its greatest legal threat when media giant Viacom (now Paramount) sued it for $1 billion for copyright infringement by its users. But YouTube prevailed in 2013, establishing protections for itself and other online services yet to come.
Zahavah Levine, YouTube general counsel, chief counsel (20062011): Viacom argued that YouTube was responsible for all of the copyright infringement of its users, who, it alleged, uploaded over 150,000 clips of Viacom-owned programming without authorization, which had collectively been viewed 1.5 billion times. This was itthe existential lawsuit we all knew was coming.Fricklas: We sent this notice saying, Take down our stuff. And [Google general counsel Kent Walker] sent a letter that said they had no responsibility. We decided we really had no choice but to bring litigation.
Levine: It got worse. Shortly after Viacom sued, at least two class actions were filed against Google. One class represented sports leagues and music publishers, and the other represented all copyright holders in the world.
Even as YouTub battled Viacom, it was developing Content ID, a fingerprinting technology designed to identify copyrighted material and allow owners to decide what to do with it.
Robert Kyncl, YouTube chief business officer (20102022): During one of our first meetings, Eric Schmidt said, Can you figure out how to stop them from sending us paper? Meaning lawsuits. And instead, we send them paper. Meaning money.Levine: With Googles substantial resources and top talent, we developed the copyright management system that YouTube has in place today.Kyncl: The first step was getting [media companies] to embrace Content ID and use it to block content [from appearing on YouTube]. And then, Now that youve got the hang of this, how about tracking it, so you see whats happening with your IP? And then, This IP is doing well. How about turning on monetization? Many did and started to make money.Lyor Cohen, Warner Music Group CEO of recorded music (20042012); YouTube and Google global head of music (2016present): Content ID is the unsung hero of YouTube. It was absolutely the most brilliant and critical decision that our leadership has made.
How YouTube Shaped CultureHot Ones, March 2015Rapper Tony Yayo chats with host Sean Evans while eating increasingly spicy wings, launching a show that will eventually host more than 300 guests, including Questlove, Conan OBrien, Billie Eilish, and Donald Duck.
Fricklas: It’s a tough case to win in court that once they had Content ID in place, that [YouTube] was generating a lot of copyright damages. They could say, At least they’re not willful. So we narrowed our lawsuit to focus only on what happened up until Content ID.
Mehrotra: The reason we won the case was that it turned out there were a bunch of Viacom marketing people uploading clips. They had figured out that it was a good way to drive attention to [Daily Show host] Jon Stewart.Levine: This just underscored that there is no way for YouTube to know who uploaded each video and whether they are authorized to do so. Viacom appealed, and the appeals court overturned a small part of the district courts decision, but affirmed most of it. The case was sent back to the district court, which again ruled in YouTubes favor, and the parties eventually settled.Fricklas: We needed to operate in the world of YouTube. Google was selling our adsthey had bought DoubleClick. They were buying movies from us for distribution on their devices. They were just so big we needed to normalize our relationship with them.
How YouTube Shaped CultureBaby Shark Dance, June 2016Cartoon sharks, two live-action kids, and an earworm of a song add up to the mostwatched YouTube video of all time, at 16,524,112,698 views and counting.
As YouTubes legal woes receded into the past, it could concentrate on building out its advertising-based business model.
Reider: When were in the original offices with Chad and Steve, there was a lot of discussion about how we were never going to run pre-roll ads.
Kyncl: Shishir did many things, but I would credit him with the most important thing, which was skippable ads.
Mehrotra: I had written a paper. During the Super Bowl, the commercials are actually quite good. And you pause and you rewind and you watch them again. And I said, what if every commercial was good enough to pause and rewind and watch again? Why don’t you put a skip button on ads, and then when people don’t watch, don’t charge the advertiser and create an incentive to create better and better ads?
Kyncl: Everybody was like, That’s stupid. Everybody will skip the ads. And he was like, No, not if you think of them as information, not an intrusion. And if you think of them as information. It means they have to be well targeted and you have to have a lot of them, different versions. It was a big moment.
The focus on advertising led to goals that were on a whole new level of ambition.
Kyncl: If you want to serve more ads, you need more impressions and more content. It was tied together.
Mehrotra: By 2011, 2012, we didn’t have any competition anymore. Nobody quite knew why we were doing what we were doing. And somebody told this story, which I think is folklore, about a famous Coca-Cola board meeting where somebody said, Hey, are we just going to go back and forth with Pepsi at 60% share and 55% share, or is there something bigger were aiming for? Someone else said, How about we measure progress by percentage of the stomachthe liquid you drink that comes from our company?
Darby: We had this goal that Shishir came up with. Mehrotra: At the end of the day it was my decision, but a group of us came up with it. We were doing a hundred million hours a day of watch time. It turned out television was about five and a half billion hours a day. We said, If we get to a billion hours a day, not only is it five times what Facebook is today, but its 10 times bigger than we are today. But its only 20% of television.John Harding, Google software engineer (20052007); YouTube engineering manager, director, VP (2007present): We did the math of, okay, if we were to serve a billion hours of YouTube every day, here is what that would look like in terms of network consumption. And then we had another graph: Heres what the internets total network capacity looks like over time. And at a certain point, those lines crossed, and we would be serving more traffic than the entire internet capacity was projected to be. And so, we had to go and say, Well, what do we need to build?
Jake McGuire, YouTube software engineer (2006present): We knew that a lot of other teams at YouTubethe people making the features, the people getting the partnerswere going to have to do their part. I don’t think that we doubted it would happen. We just weren’t sure when.Mehrotra: When I left, in 2014, we had crossed the 400-million-hour line, but we were nowhere near a billion. I got a really nice call from the team when they hit it [in 2017].
Additional reporting by María José Gutiérrez Chávez, Yasmin Gagne, and Steven Melendez.
