Even tech giant Apple couldn’t prevent its artificial intelligence from making things up. Last month, the company suspended its AI-powered news alert feature after it falsely claimed a murder suspect had shot himself, one of several fabricated headlines that appeared under trusted news organizations’ logos. The embarrassing pullback came despite Apple’s vast resources and technical expertise.
Most users probably weren’t fooled by the more obvious errors, but the incident highlights a growing challenge. Companies are racing to integrate AI into everything from medical advice to legal documents to financial services, often prioritizing speed over safety. Many of these applications push the technology beyond its current capabilities, creating risks that aren’t always obvious to users.
“The models are not failing,” says Maria De-Arteaga, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin McCombs School of Business. “We’re deploying the models for things that they’re not fit for purpose.
As the technology becomes more embedded in daily life, researchers and educators face two distinct hurdles: teaching people to use these tools responsibly rather than over-relying on them while also convincing AI skeptics to learn enough about the technology to be informed citizens, even if they choose not to use it.
The goal isn’t simply to try to “fix” the AI, but to learn its shortcomings and develop the skills to use it wisely. It’s reminiscent of how early internet users had to learn to navigate online information, eventually understanding that while Wikipedia might be a good starting point for research, it shouldn’t be cited as a primary source. Just as digital literacy became essential for participating in modern democracy, AI literacy is becoming fundamental to understanding and shaping our future.
At the heart of these AI mishaps are the hallucinations and distortions that lead AI models to generate false information with seeming confidence. The problem is pervasive: In one 2024 study, chatbots got basic academic citations wrong between 30% and 90% of the time, mangling paper titles, author names, and publication dates.
While tech companies promise these hallucinations can be tamed through better engineering, De-Arteaga says researchers are finding that they may be fundamental to how the technology works. She points to a paper from OpenAIthe same company that partnered with Apple for news summarizationwhich concluded that well-calibrated language models must hallucinate as part of their creative process. If they were constrained to only produce factual information, they would cease to function effectively.
“From a mathematical and technical standpoint, this is what the models are designed to do,” De-Arteaga says.
Teaching literacy
As researchers acknowledge that AI hallucinations are inevitable and humans naturally tend to put too much trust in machines, educators and employers are stepping in to teach people how to use these tools responsibly. California recently passed a law requiring AI literacy to be incorporated into K-12 curricula starting this fall. And the European Unions AI Act, which went into effect on February 5, requires organizations that use AI in their products to implement AI literacy programs.
“AI literacy is incredibly important right now, especially as we’re trying to figure out what are the policies, what are the boundaries, what do we want to accept as the new normal,” says Victor Lee, an associate professor in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. “Right now, people who know more speak really confidently and are able to direct things, and there needs to be more societal consensus.”
Lee sees parallels to how society adapted to previous technologies. “Think about calculatorsto this day, there are still divides about when to use a calculator in K-12, how much you should know versus how much the calculator should be the source of things,” he says. “With AI, we’re having that same conversation often with writing as the example.”
Under California’s new law, AI literacy education must include understanding how AI systems are developed and trained, their potential impacts on privacy and security, and the social and ethical implications of AI use. The EU goes further, requiring companies that produce AI products to train applicable staff to have the “skills, knowledge and understanding that allow providers, deployers and affected persons . . . to make an informed deployment of AI systems, as well as to gain awareness about the opportunities and risks of AI and possible harm it can cause. Both frameworks emphasize that AI literacy isn’t just technical knowledge but about developing critical thinking skills to evaluate AI’s appropriate use in different contexts.
Amid a marketing onslaught by Big Tech companies, the challenge facing educators is complex. Recent research published in the Journal of Marketing shows that people with less understanding of AI are actually more likely to embrace the technology, viewing it as almost magical. The researchers say this lower literacy-higher receptivity link suggests that companies may benefit from shifting their marketing efforts and product development towards consumers with lower AI literacy.
The goal isn’t to dampen openness to new technology, educators say, but to combine it with critical thinking skills that help people understand both AI’s potential and its limitations. Thats especially important for people who tend to lack access to the technology, or who are simply skeptical or fearful about AI.
For Lee, successful AI literacy requires seeing through the magic. “The anxiety and uncertainty feeds a lot of the skepticism and doubt or non-willingness to even try AI,” he says. “Seeing that AI is actually a bunch of different things, and not a sentient, talking computer, and that it’s not even really talking, but just spitting out patterns that are appropriate, is part of what AI literacy would help to instill.”
At the City University of New York, Luke Waltzer, director of the Teaching and Learning Center at the schools Graduate Center, is leading a project to help faculty develop approaches for teaching AI literacy within their disciplines.
“Nothing about their adoption or their integration into our ways of thinking is inevitable,” Waltzer says. “Students need to understand that these tools have a material basisthey’re made by men and women, they have labor implications, they have an ecological impact.”
The project, backed by a $1 million grant from Google, will work with 75 professors over three years to develop teaching methods that examine AI’s implications across different fields. Materials and tools developed through the project will be distributed publicly so other educators can benefit from CUNYs work.
“We’ve seen the hype cycles around massively open online courses that were going to transform education,” Waltzer says. “Generative AI is distinct from some of those trends, but there’s definitely a lot o hype. Three years lets things settle. We will be able to see the future more clearly.”
Such initiatives are spreading rapidly across higher education. The University of Florida aims to integrate AI into every undergraduate major and graduate program. Barnard College has created a “pyramid” approach that gradually builds students’ AI literacy from basic understanding to advanced applications. At Colby College, a private liberal arts college in Maine, students are beefing up their literacy with the use of a custom portal that lets them test and compare different chatbots. Around 100 universities and community colleges have launched AI credentials, according to research from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, with degree conferrals in AI-related fields increasing 120% since 2011.
Beyond the classroom
For most people, learning to navigate AI means sorting through corporate marketing claims with little guidance. Unlike students who will soon have formal AI education, adults must figure out on their own when to trust these increasingly prevalent toolsand when they’re being oversold by companies eager to recoup massive AI investments. This self-directed learning is happening quickly: LinkedIn found that workers are adding AI literacy skills such as prompt engineering and proficiencies with tools like ChatGPT at nearly five times the rate of other professional skills.
As universities and lawmakers try to keep up, tech companies are offering their own classes and certifications. Nvidia recently announced a partnership with California to train 100,000 students, educators, and workers in AI, while companies like Google and Amazon Web Services offer their own AI certification programs. Intel aims to train 30 million people in AI skills by 2030. In addition to free online AI skills courses offered by institutions like Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania, people can also learn AI basics from companies like IBM, Microsoft, and Google.
“AI literacy is like digital literacyit’s a thing,” De-Arteaga says. “But who should teach it? Meta and Google would love to be teaching you their view of AI.”
Instead of relying on companies with a vested interest in selling you on AIs utility, Hare suggests starting with AI tools in areas where you have expertise, so you can recognize both their utility and limitations. A programmer might use AI to help write code more efficiently while being able to spot bugs and security issues that a novice would miss. The key is combining hands-on experience with guidance from trusted third parties who can provide unbiased information about AI’s capabilities, particularly in high-stakes areas like healthcare, finance, and defense.
“AI literacy isn’t just about how a model works or how to create a dataset,” she says. “It’s about understanding where AI fits in society. Everyonefrom kids to retireeshas a stake in this conversation, and we need to capture all those perspectives.
In his last semester at college, in between studying labor law and environmental impact assessment, Alex Elderbroom took a class on something very different: how to build a tiny house.
In the class, at Paul Smith’s College in upstate New Yorka school that mixes traditional academics with more practical coursesa small group of students spent three months last fall going through each step of the construction process, from planning and purchasing materials to building basic furniture for the finished 8-by-10-foot space.
Elderbroom, who just graduated, happens to already rent a tiny cabin. He was interested in learning how to build one of the homes himself. It seems like a good set of skills to have, he says. And I feel like its a type of living thats more rewarding than having a big house.
[Photo: courtesy Paul Smith’s College]
He had some construction experience, but others started from scratch. Sometimes, it wasn’t apparent that some of them had even held a hammer before, says associate professor Deb Naybor, who teaches the class. So we started a very basic support safety training, just showing them techniques.
“It’s a life skill,” says Derek Grant, a senior majoring in natural resources management. “Anybody would benefit from learning it.”
It’s not the only college with a tiny house class. Laney College, in California, also has a tiny house program. But Naybor now plans to take the idea a step farther. In a future version of the class, students will have the opportunity to buy materials so they can each build a tiny house on wheels of their ownand take it with them when they graduate.
I always joke with the parents that if things don’t work out and [the students] don’t get a job right away, they can move the tiny house into their parents’ driveway and live there until they find a good job, she says.
Even in the school’s remote location in the Adirondack Mountains, rents in the nearest town can be hard for students to afford, says Elderbroom. Nationally, rent is unaffordable for around half of all tenants, according to a Harvard report from January. For recent graduates who may not immediately land a lucrative job, the challenge is even greater.
[Photo: courtesy Paul Smith’s College]
The basic structure that students built last semester cost only around $2,800 in materials, though it didn’t include a kitchen and a bathroom. A fully livable home could potentially cost between $5,000 and $6,000, Naybor says, if students do the labor themselves. (She also notes that the cost of tiny houses varies hugely: something with luxury finishes in an expensive Bay Area city might cost as much as $300,000.)
Though the houses can be cheap to build, zoning is a challenge. Some states and cities have embraced accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as part of a solution to the housing crisis. Other locations still haven’t, and only a handful of cities allow tiny houses on wheels. Finding land for a tiny house is another challenge, assuming that a recent graduate’s new job doesn’t happen to be near a relative with extra backyard space.
Naybor advocates both for tiny houses as ADUs and for tiny-house villages that can host multiple homes. She also argues that more people should rethink their conception of what a home should look like, and how expensive it has to be. “The average American house is $420,000 right now,” she says. “Young people would have to be making $100,000 a year to get a 30-year mortgage, never mind coming up with the down payment . . . you could live in a tiny house and pay it off in 10 years.”
She lives in a $50,000 tiny house herself, and takes her classes to visit it. “I say, ‘This could be a choice for you, rather than feeling like you have to grow into the same house you grew up with,'” she says.
YouTube isnt just a website anymore. And computers and smartphones arent even the primary ways that people watch YouTube content, either.
YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, in his annual letter to the YouTube community yesterday, wrote, TV has surpassed mobile and is now the primary device for YouTube viewing in the U.S.
At the same time, he said, creators have moved from filming grainy videos of themselves on desktop computers to building studios and producing popular talk shows and feature-length films.
Ahead of posting his letter, Mohan spoke with Fast Company about how YouTubewhich is celebrating its 20th yearis responding to changing viewer habits and giving creators on the platform the tools they need to be the new Hollywood.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What do you think is innovative about YouTubes transition to the living room?
When people turn on the TV, they’re turning on YouTubeespecially young people. So television really is YouTube these days. That’s an overnight success that’s been many years in the making. We’ve been investing heavily in the viewer and consumer experience of YouTube on living room screens.
Then, for creators: Creators really are the new Hollywood. They’re the new forms of entertainment. They’re building creator-led studios. In some ways they’re the new startup economy in Hollywood. They’re hiring people, they’re providing jobs to lots of people, and they really are about this new form of entertainment.
Has YouTube fundamentally changed as a result?
YouTube really is kind of its own thing. We’re not a social media platform. People don’t go there to connect with their friends. They come to watch their favorite type of content, whether it’s a podcast, a creator, traditional media, live sports. We’re also not a traditional broadcaster. We’re something that’s in its own lane. You come to YouTube if you want to watch a 15-second YouTube Short, a 15-minute long-form video from your favorite creator, or a 15-hour livestream.
One of the big sort of stories this year has been about the growth of podcasters on YouTube, particularly video podcasters. And interestingly, one of the places where we all consume those podcasts is on television screens.
There’s over a billion hours of YouTube consumed on television screens globally every single day. The living room is our fastest-growing screen. Of the top creators on YouTube, the number who get the majority of their watch time from the living room has grown 400% year on year. And the number of creators who earn the most revenue through their living room consumption has grown 30% year on year.
What have you heard from creators about what they need to succeed on traditional TV sets, and how have you responded?
We’ve invested heavily in bringing the interactivity that we all, as viewers, love about YouTube to the living room screen, whether through more prominent abilities to subscribe, so that creators can grow their subscription counts, [or] through linking, so links that creators have in their videos are more seamless through QR codes on screens.
It’s also about having a second-screen experience by linking your phone to the television set. You may have noticed that when you go to a creator’s channel page on YouTube, you get this cinematic experience of their content. [YouTube allows] creators to organize their videos in terms of episodes and seasons.
And then finally, AI plays a big role in terms of empowering creators and human creativity. For example, allowing creators to auto-dub their videos in multiple languages seamlessly and automatically when they upload a video, or helping creators solve the blank-screen problem, working with Gemini integrated directly into YouTube Studio so that you can cowrite with Gemini and produce a script for your video.
Is it a challenge to move to the living room screen, or is that viewing experience just the same thing, only bigger and further from the keyboard?
The living room screen was our fastest-growing screen before the pandemicback all the way to 2019through the pandemic, and obviously since then. So it’s been a very big area of investment for us. We have worked closely with our device manufacturer partnerspeople who make connected TVsto create a world-class living room experience.
What is exciting from my perspective is that I think we’re just getting started. The opportunity before us, especially around the world, is enormous.
What comes next?
Our job is to build the world’s best stage. All of our technological investment, all of our product innovation, is about building that stage. One of the fastest-growing sort of sleeper-success products on the living room is actually YouTube Shorts, which you think of as like a mobile-only type of a product. But lots and lots of Shorts consumption viewership happens in the living room. And [were going to continue] to double down our investments in AI to really empower human creativity. So those are two areas that you should expect to see more from us in 2025.
You’re still pretty new to this role. How would you describe your personal touch at YouTube? What’s the Neal imprint?
I’ve been at YouTube for a very long time, almost a decade. And my relationship with YouTube actually goes back to before either I or YouTube were part of Google, so almost 17, 18 years. As I’ve been in the CEO role now for the last couple of years, I would say my focus is to continue to do a lot of those things that I’ve done: first, really focusing on technology and product innovation. I’m a technologist at heart, but I also love media.
The AI landscape is rapidly evolving, with America’s $500 billion Stargate Project signaling massive infrastructure investment while China’s DeepSeek emerges as a formidable competitor. DeepSeek’s advanced AI models, rivaling Western capabilities at lower costs, raise significant concerns about potential cybersecurity threats, data mining, and intelligence gathering on a global scale. This development highlights the urgent need for robust AI regulation and security measures in the U.S.
As the AI race intensifies, the gap between technological advancement and governance widens. The U.S. faces the critical challenge of not only accelerating its AI capabilities through projects like Stargate but also developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks to protect its digital assets and national security interests. With DeepSeek’s potential to overcome export controls and conduct sophisticated cyber operations, the U.S. must act swiftly to ensure its AI innovations remain secure and competitive in this rapidly changing technological landscape.
We have already seen the first wave of AI-powered dangers. Deepfakes, bot accounts, and algorithmic manipulation on social media have all helped undermine social cohesion while contributing to the creation of political echo chambers. But these dangers are childs play compared to the risks that will emerge in the next five to ten years.
During the pandemic, we saw the unparalleled speed with which new vaccines could be developed with the help of AI. As Mustafa Suleyman, founder of DeepMind and now CEO of Microsoft AI, has argued, it will not be long before AI can design new bioweapons with equal speed. And these capabilities will not be confined to state actors. Just as modern drone technology has recently democratized access to capabilities that were once the sole province of the military, any individual with even a rudimentary knowledge of coding will soon be able to weaponize AI from their bedroom at home.
The fact that U.S. senators were publicly advocating the shooting down of unmanned aircraft systems, despite the lack of any legal basis for doing so, is a clear sign of a systemic failure of control. This failure is even more concerning than the drone sightings themselves. When confidence in the governments ability to handle such unexpected events collapses, the result is fear, confusion, and conspiratorial thought. But there is much worse to come if we fail to find new ways to regulate novel technologies. If you think the systemic breakdown in response to drone sightings is worrying, imagine how things will look when AI starts causing problems.
Seven years spent helping the departments of Defense and Homeland Security with innovation and transformation (both organizational and digital) has shaped my thinking about the very real geopolitical risks that AI and digital technologies bring with them. But these dangers do not come only from outside our country. The past decade has seen an increasing tolerance among many U.S. citizens for the idea of political violence, a phenomenon that has been cast into particularly vivid relief in the wake of the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. As automation replaces increasing numbers of jobs, it is entirely possible that a wave of mass unemployment will lead to severe unrest, multiplying the risk that AI will be used as a weapon to lash out at society at large.
These dangers will be on our doorsteps soon. But even more concerning are the unknown unknowns. AI is developing at lightning speed, and even those responsible for that development have no idea exactly where we will end up. Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called Godfather of AI, has said there is a significant chance that artificial intelligence will wipe out humanity within just 30 years. Others suggest that the time horizon is much narrower. The simple fact that there is so much uncertainty about the direction of travel should concern us all deeply. Anyone who is not at least worried has simply not thought hard enough about the dangers.
The regimented regulation has to be risk-based
We cannot afford to treat AI regulation in the same haphazard fashion that has been applied to drone technology. We need an adaptable, far-reaching and future-oriented approach to regulation that is designed to protect us from whatever might emerge as we push back the frontiers of machine intelligence.
During a recent interview with Senator Richard Blumenthal, I discussed the question of how we can effectively regulate a technology that we do not yet fully understand. Blumenthal is the co-author with Senator Josh Hawley of the Bipartisan Framework for U.S. AI Act, also known as the Blumenthal-Hawley Framework.
Blumenthal proposes a relatively light-touch approach, suggesting that the way the U.S. government regulates the pharmaceutical industry can serve as a model for our approach to AI. This approach, he argues, provides for strict licensing and oversight of potentially dangerous emerging technologies without placing undue restrictions on the ability of American companies to remain world leaders in the field. “We don’t want to stifle innovation,” Blumenthal says. “That’s why the regimented regulation has to be risk-based. If it doesn’t pose a risk, we don’t need a regulator.”
This approach offers a valuable starting point for discussion, but I believe we need to go further. While a pharmaceutical model may be sufficient for regulating corporate AI development, we also need a framework that will limit the risks posed by individuals. The manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceuticals requires significant infrastructure, but computer code is an entirely different beast that can be replicated endlessly and transmitted anywhere on the planet in a fraction of a second. The possibility of problematic AI being created and leaking out into the wild is simply much higher than is the case for new and dangerous drugs.
Given the potential for AI to generate extinction-level outcomes, it is not too far-reaching to say that the regulatory frameworks surrounding nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are more appropriate for this technology than those that apply in the drug industry.
The announcement of the Stargate Project adds particular urgency to this discussion. While massive private-sector investment in AI infrastructure is crucial for maintaining American technological leadership, it also accelerates the timeline for developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks. We cannot afford to have our regulatory responses lag years behind technological developments when those developments are being measured in hundreds of billions of dollars.
However we choose to balance the risks and rewards of AI research, we need to act soon. As we saw with the drone sightings that took place before Christmas, the lack of a comprehensive and cohesive framework for managing the threats from new technologies can leave government agencies paralyzed. And with risks that take in anything up to and including the extinction of humanity, we cannot afford this kind of inertia and confusion. We need a comprehensive regulatory framework that balances innovation with safety, one that recognizes both AI’s ransformative potential and its existential dangers.
That means:
Promoting responsible innovation. Encouraging the development and deployment of AI technologies in critical sectors in a safe and ethical manner.
Establishing robust regulations. Public trust in AI systems requires both clear and enforceable regulatory frameworks and transparent systems of accountability.
Strengthening national security. Policymakers must leverage AI to modernize military capabilities, deploying AI solutions that predict, detect, and counter cyber threats while ensuring ethical use of autonomous systems.
Investing in workforce development. As a nation, we must establish comprehensive training programs that upskill workers for AI-driven industries while enhancing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education to build foundational AI expertise among students and professionals.
Leading in global AI standards. The U.S. must spearhead efforts to establish global norms for AI use by partnering with allies to define ethical standards and to safeguard intellectual property.
Addressing public concerns. Securing public trust in AI requires increasing transparency about the objectives and applications of AI initiatives while also developing strategies to mitigate job displacement and ensure equitable economic benefits.
The Stargate investment represents both the promise and the challenge of AI development. While it demonstrates America’s potential to lead the next technological revolution, it also highlights the urgent need for regulatory frameworks that can match the pace and scale of innovation. With investments of this magnitude reshaping our technological landscape, we cannot afford to get this wrong. We may not get a second chance.
Global sustainability models are failing. Theyve been designed to showcase ethical trade and environmental responsibility, but they fundamentally misunderstand how global supply chains operateespecially the critical, unseen work at the beginning of essential value chains such as critical minerals.
For decades, these models have burdened African merchants, miners, and farmersthe backbone of global industries from cocoa to lithiumwhile corporations further along the chain claim the benefits. The systems celebrate end products, like sleek electric vehicles (EVs) or iPhones, while ignoring the heavy lifting at the start of the work, where its most difficult.
This imbalance in sustainability frameworks doesnt just sideline African businesses. It undermines the entire premise of accountability that we want to engender amongst commercial supply chain stakeholders.
The unfair burden on the start of the supply chain
The reality of global supply chains is simple: The earliest stages, where raw materials are extracted and processed, require the most effort. African farmers, miners, and merchants are at the very heart of these early stages. Theyre the ones putting in the hardest workextracting resources, growing crops, and preparing raw materials that fuel industries around the world. But despite their essential role, theyre stuck carrying the heaviest burden. Strict regulations and sustainability requirements often hit them the hardest, even though they have the fewest resources to meet these demands.
Take cocoa farmers in Africa, for instance. Many are already working on tight margins, struggling to make enough to feed their families. Then along comes the European Unions Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which demands proof that their cocoa isnt linked to deforestation. While the goal is noble, the execution has left these farmers scrambling to provide documentation theyve never needed before. For many, the cost of compliance is just too high, and failing to meet the standards means losing access to international buyers.
Its not just farmers. In the mining sector, lithiumthe critical ingredient for EV batteriesis dug up under tough, often dangerous conditions. The raw material is shipped overseas for refining and manufacturing, where the final product becomes a celebrated symbol of sustainability. But little thought is given to the people who made that product possible in the first place.
But instead of recognizing the environmental and social costs borne by African miners, global narratives around green batteries conveniently ignore this reality. The hard work is erased, and the end producta shiny new electric vehiclebecomes the hero of the story.
Why these models dont work
The deeper issue is that global sustainability models were never designed with supply chain realities in mind. They were built to make sense on paper, not in practice. Heres why they fail:
They ignore the realities of extraction The first stages of the supply chainextraction and initial processingare treated as a liability, not a foundation. These stages are overregulated, under-supported, and painted as inherently dirty, while the later stages enjoy the benefits of cleaner reputations and fewer demands.
They push costs downstream Compliance costs are overwhelmingly placed on the smallest and least resourced players. Farmers, artisanal miners, and small merchants are expected to shoulder the expense of meeting global benchmarks, while corporations further up the chain avoid their fair share of responsibility.
They celebrate the end, not the beginning By the time raw materials are turned into recognizable productslike the chocolate bars we enjoy or the batteries that power electric vehiclestheyre celebrated as symbols of innovation and progress. But the reality behind those products is far less glamorous. The hard work, long hours, and sacrifices made at the start of the supply chain are often ignored. At best, theyre reduced to a footnote; at worst, theyre treated as inconvenient details in the story of sustainability.
Rebalance the equation
If sustainability is going to workfor people and the planetwe need to rethink these frameworks entirely. That means starting from the ground up, ensuring fairness across every step of the supply chain. Heres where the change needs to happen:
Stop pushing the costs on producers Sustainability cant come at the expense of the people doing the hardest work. Corporations that depend on African resources need to take responsibility for compliance costs. For example, chocolate companies that rely on African cocoa should be actively investing in the farmers and cooperatives that keep their supply chains running. Its not just a moral obligationits a business necessity.
Put money into local solutions The earliest stages of the supply chain need better support. This means governments, corporations, and international institutions must work together to invest in systems that help producers succeed. From building cooperatives for artisanal miners to funding training programs for sustainable farming, these investments would ease the pressure on producers while ensuring global standards can actually be met.
Measure what really matters Current sustainability metrics focus too much on quick wins and shiny results. But real progress happens when we focus on achievable, incremental improvements. Instead of setting impossible benchmarks, we need to create standards that reflect the realities of resource extraction and reward meaningful change.
Work together to share the load No single entity can fix this alone. Public-private partnerships are key to amplifying sustainability efforts without placing all the costs on producers. Companies that actively work with merchants to address issues like traceability and compliance have already shown that fair, sustainable practices are possibleespecially when governments step in to support these efforts.
A fairer vision for sustainability
Sustainability should not mean shifting the burden onto the communities that sustain the worlds supply chains. African merchants, farmers, and miners are not just resource providersthey are the backbone of industries that drive global progress. They deserve recognition, support, and a fair share of the benefits.
Global sustainability models need to changeurgently. If they dont, theyll keep fueling inequality while claiming to promote progress.
Its time to stop pretending that these systems are working, because theyre not. We need to build frameworks that reflect the real-world challenges of supply chains, ones that are fair, practical, and genuinely sustainablefor everyone involved.
Anu Adedoyin Adasolum is CEO of Sabi.
Super Bowl LIX had a clear winner on the field, but victory for brands was more hard-won. Many aimed for impact, but did they deliver? Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder offers hot takes on this years hits and misses from the big games ads. She joins host Bob Safian to break down what makes an NBDB (never been done before) moment, why so many brands adopted a safe approach, and what trends business leaders should note going forward.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode.
Last year, we talked about whether you would buy a 30-second spot for Autodesk. When you were watching this year, did you think, Oh, maybe I should have; that would have been a good way to spend $8 million?
No, when I was watching the game, I was like, I am very glad with our strategy of not buying an ad in the Super Bowl. Look, I think sometimes it makes sense for your business. And I think you really have to understand: What are we trying to accomplish? What are the objectives? And will this help us make that happen?
I think that not enough brands who showed up this year did that calculation, I have to say. So, I think we did the right math by deciding to let our customers take center stage.
When a game is not close, is that good from a marketer’s point of viewlike people are going to spend more time paying attention to the ad? Or is it bad because people aren’t as intensely focused on the screen?
It’s not good. It’s not good because people are getting up and people are leaving. Consumers start to get distracted and go back to their lives when it’s not as competitive until the very end.
You’re making a bet when you decide where you’re going to buy your ad, where in the show, right? Like in some ways it’s better to be at the end because people will remember you more, but only if the game is close.
Only if the game is close. So, youve got to think about the calculus for what you’re trying to do. I always think that going early and in the middle is safe. Again, it comes down to calculated risk, a clear-eyed risk. You gather as much data as you can, you strip away uncertainty, and then you make a decision with conviction. Going late is a risk that you should only take if you are sure that even if consumers get up and walk away, that placement still makes sense for your brand. But if you’re not sure about that, going early or going in the middle is probably a good way to make sure that you gather as many eyeballs as needed.
If you’re a brand like Autodesk and you haven’t bought a Super Bowl spot, how do you participate in the moment around the Super Bowl?
If you have an authentic reason to participate in the conversation, hey, it’s as good a time as any to do that. So for us at Autodesk, our software is used to design and make anything, whether it is literally the Caesar Superdome stadium in NOLA that housed it all, or stages like Kendrick’s, or ads like the Michelob Ultra ad. Our software is used to design and make anything. So for us, being a part of the conversation makes sense in terms of celebrating our customers who are playing a role in the game.
Now you’ve used this expression, NBDB (never been done before). There wasn’t a whole lot of that this year.
We like a good NBDB. And I thought a brand that actually did that was Rocket. So Rocket had that wonderful ad that really talked about owning the dream, owning the American dream, and owning the home.
They took the time to tell the story in a way that was so powerful. I was watching it live, and everybody from my father-in-law to my daughter was like, “Oh, we like this one.” And every American can remember that song. I mean, Bob, I’m sure in a bar somewhere at 1 a.m. at some point or the other, you were singing about country roads taking you home.
There’s no video of that.
You’re neither going to confirm nor deny, but I thought that ad was great. But what was especially awesome was to see that connected with the live experience of Country Roads playing in the stands and having the fans in the stadium. That was marketing magic, right?
Because the ad, the extension was so real, so powerful, so wonderful. So that was an NBDB. I don’t think I’ve seen any ads do that before where they connect what is happening on the screen to what is happening physically in the stadium in such a powerful integrated way. I thought Rocket did that.
They certainly owned that NBDB category with that first-of-its-kind integration.
So not the skin cowboy hat from Tubi. I didn’t get on with that.
I mean, that was when everyone was like, “I’m going to go get some chips.”
Nobody wants to watch that, right?
I thought that ad was pushing creative direction. That’s what I meant. Because people were staying away from relevance, sometimes they turned up the dial on ownability or memorability in a way that didn’t always work.
And I think for that Tubi ad, they turned up the memorability dial a little too much, and it didn’t quite work.
I want to ask you about the Nike So Win ad with top female athletes like Caitlin Clark and Jordan Chiles. In some ways, it was like a throwback to some of the ads wed seen from Nike before. So it wasnt really never been done before, but at the same time, I thought it was pretty darn effective.
I think Nike was the winner of the night, and I’ll tell you why. They did an amazing job of being ownable. It was like you said: It was an ownable Nike spot. You saw that spot, and you immediately knew it was Nike because of the athletes presence, the visual aesthetic, the black-and-white aesthetic, and the message. It showed the power of purpose and performance, and I have to give Nike a lot of credit for this spot because in a year where a lot of brands were staying away from saying anything, Nike said something.
They said something important. They said something that matters. And they said something that needed to be said, right? And that was the power of women in sports. And the importance of gender equity in sports. And I thought they said it really well. It wasn#8217;t preachy. It was powerful. And, so talk about being memorable and being relevant.
And many of us can remember what was happening in the Olympics when Sha’Carri [Richardson] was running: She was ahead, and she looked to her left, and she looked to her right. And that moment was a part of the narrative, right? Many of us remember the journeys that these women athletes have had. And to see them standing on business, standing on power, standing on strength, it was saying, “Look, come what may, women’s sports is here to stay,” and I love that. Just watching my daughter watch that spot and her face light up, it was a powerful moment. So I think Nike did that, and they were really the only brand that made a statement, right?
A lot of brands talked about unity and nostalgia, which I thought was a little bit overdone, to be honest, and not actually reflective of the state of the country, so it felt a little forced. But I thought Nike did a really good job of saying, “Hey, we’re standing on business. We’re standing on purpose.” We’re not cause-led, so we’re not jumping into a political conversation. But we’re standing on what makes sense for our business. Our values remain unchanged.
Small dwelling units are booming as solutions for affordable housing, camping, and glamping. But of most interest, at present, is the opportunity this category provides as a source of transitional housing during times of climate crisis and regional disasters such as the L.A. fires.
California already had increasingly positive regulation toward accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and tiny homes prior to the January 2025 Los Angeles fires. In the wake of the current disaster, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass issued an emergency executive order: Return and Rebuild. This new mandate eliminates the significant regulatory hurdles of rebuilding to organize efforts with a theme of urgency, common sense, and compassion.
We applaud this effort, which includes allowing the use of park models, RVs, and other structures as needed to allow owners of the 12,000-plus homes affected to recover and rebuild as quickly as possible. This is an area where the industry for sustainable and high-quality park models will shine.
Beyond California, recovery efforts from other disasters are shining a floodlight on the need and benefit of affordable and weather-resistant small homes for many thousands of additional people throughout the U.S. and beyond.
I recently interviewed Dan Fitzpatrick, the president of the Tiny Home Industry Association about these needs. Dan has 49 years experience in both public and private roles. Hes had a front-row view of the need and the power of public/private partnerships to accomplish projects such as the Rio Mesa master-planned community of 15,000 on the north side of Fresno, California, as well as Tesoro Vieja, a 400-acre planned lake community in the states Central Valley.
What L.A. can learn from recent hurricane disasters in the southeast
Dan and I have observed the damage across Florida and North Carolina from three catastrophic hurricanes in 2024: Debby, Helene, and Milton. FEMA responded to those disasters with approval for more than $2.1 billion in aid, including $931.7 million for housing repairs and personal property replacement, along with more than $1.18 billion to support local and state governments in recovery efforts including debris removal and emergency protective measures.
These situations caused the demand for tiny homes as transitional housing to skyrocket. The units are proving to be especially beneficial in allowing homeowners continual proximity to manage and monitor the rebuilds and can serve as permanent and property-enhancing studios and accessory dwellings after the rebuilds are complete.
California is following suit
In addition to the emergency order by Mayor Bass, the January 2025 executive order by California Governor Gavin Newsom is expediting the rapid rebuilding efforts now required in L.A. This new order suspends key permitting and review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act, to facilitate faster property restoration.
As a response to natural disasters, we can anticipate the demand for tiny homes to surge well beyond the already aggressive predictions for growth. The prefabricated home sector is on track to grow by more than $30 billion over the coming few years, Dan told me. Tiny homes hold the potential to be the ideal answer to increase our countrys resilience to natural disasters. However, he also notes that while the importance of this category is increasingly obvious, there are critical nuances involved.
Speed is our friend– but also our enemy.
While Mayor Basss and Governor Newsoms order are vital steps toward removing the bureaucratic hurdles to expedite rebuilding, we must strike the right balance between rapid reconstruction and adherence to environmental safeguards. The quality and nature of tiny homes is critical to avoid the prospect of having quickly erected small home communities turn into poorly constructed and badly located shanty townsa worry large enough to lead some regions to enact regulation against them.
NPR has also noted vast ranges in quality among tiny home shelters, ranging from cabins with a cot to miniature houses with kitchens and bathrooms.In my own companys case, our Los Angeles, California facility, in operation since 2022, has more than tripled its capacity in 2024 to 24/7 operation to meet the rising demand. We are 3D printing homes from recycled polymers and fiberglass to create units that are energy efficient and sustainable as well weather resilient.
Clearly the need and the demand for high quality, sustainable and weather resistant tiny homes has never been higher. It is an industry that will impact all areas of the U.S. and the regions beyond in 2025 and in the years and seasons to come.
Gene Eidelman is the cofounder of Azure Printed Homes.
My mother was always the last parent to pick me up from gymnastics practice. While other moms arrived in jeans, she’d sweep in wearing a power suit, fresh from her role as a senior marketing executive at a major software company. At the time, it was a bit embarrassing. Looking back, I realize I was witnessing someone who refused to accept artificial limitations on what she could achieve.
Years later, as a CMO, I’ve come to appreciate how those early lessons shaped my understanding of professional possibilities. As a CMO in the 80s, my mother was a trailblazerit was not typical for a woman to have a seat at the board table. But I’ve also learned that even with strong role models, we can still construct invisible barriers that limit our potential.
These self-imposed ceilings manifest in unexpected waysnot just in career aspirations, but in how we think about work itself. Years before remote work became mainstream, I questioned another artificial boundary: the assumption that effective leadership required a physical office. The answers about where and how we could work seemed predetermined by longstanding corporate norms, until I proved otherwise.
Wheres your artificial ceiling?
The pattern of self-limitation is pervasive in the business world, especially in how we perceive career progression. I have personally experienced how these artificial barriers affect leaders, restricting our potential for further growth and advancement despite our knowledge of customers, market dynamics, and business strategy. Nevertheless, numerous skilled marketing leaders, including myself until recently, hesitate to pursue a trajectory beyond CMO. This is not due to a lack of capability, but rather because we have internalized certain assumptions about our career path direction and the roles that align with our expertise.
The same can be said for other professions. Regardless of your department or title, where do you see yourself topping out? Whats the limit? And why is that the limit? Ask yourself those questions. And then make sure the ceiling you envision genuinely where you want your ceiling to be. (Of course, not everyone aspires to be a CEO; Im talking about aligning your perceived ceiling with your desired ceiling.)
Break through the ceiling
My own process of breaking through these limitations began with redefining success on my terms. That meant moving beyond traditional career metrics to focus on creating lasting impact. To me, this meant developing the next generation of diverse business professionals, building high-performance teams rooted in different perspectives, and pursuing roles challenging conventional wisdom about career progression.
Breaking through artificial ceilings is about more than career paths. Its about how we work. Long before the recent global shift to remote work, I chose to lead my teams from a distance. This was in an era when many questioned whether remote leadership could truly work. But I’ve built and led high-performing teams across distances for years, proving that physical presence doesn’t define leadership impact. Today, my long-term success as a remote executive serves as evidence that meaningful mentorship, team development, and career growth don’t require shared office space.
My professional goals have evolved beyond the CMO rolea goal that once seemed beyond my scope but now forms the core of my professional vision. The interesting thing is that breaking through the limitations was never just about moving up the ladder; its more that I realized that the metrics that matter to me, and the impact I want to have are beyond the CMO role. My perceived ceiling now aligns with my desired ceiling.
Elevate others along the way
The process of dismantling these self-imposed barriers isn’t just personal; it’s about creating ripple effects throughout organizations as well as our families, social circles, communities, and more. In my role mentoring emerging business professionals, I’ve seen how one person breaking through their perceived limitations can inspire others to do the same. (Really!)
Its so much easier to recognize and dismantle artificial ceilings when youre doing so in an environment that actively encourages it. Again, this doesnt require physical proximity. When we challenge assumptions about where and how work gets done, we open new possibilities for talent, collaboration, and achievement. My teams have consistently demonstrated that leadership excellence transcends physical location. Thats why, for your sake and for the sake of the people around you, I strongly encourage you to take the lead in creating that environmentwherever you are. Empowering employees to challenge self-imposed boundaries requires intentional action:
Actively questioning assumptions about traditional career trajectories
Building support systems that encourage ambitious professional moves
Developing teams that celebrate diverse perspectives and approaches
Combining specialist expertise with broader leadership skills
Creating opportunities for others to expand their perceived limitations
Can you imagine the collective power of everyone redefining success, questioning assumptions, dismantling boundaries, and striving for their full potential? The potential impact on their individual success and career satisfaction is pretty amazing. Plus, you can combine that with the impact on the overall organization as people become more intentional about excellence and achievement.
Even if youre not in a position to spearhead a cultural change within your own organization, you can still lead by example. Create a new pathway for others to follow.
Turn uncertainties into possibilities
For those questioning their own artificial ceilings, start by examining your automatic responses to career opportunities. Do you immediately rule out certain roles? Do you assume some positions are out of reach? Challenge these assumptions. Consider whether you’re limiting yourself based on outdated notions of what’s possible.
Its okay to be uncertain; thats natural when youre in a new scenario and pushing through barriers. But that means youre getting somewhere. It means youre turning uncertainties into possibilities.
I started my career stuffing envelopes. To get to the C-suite, there had to be a lot of new scenarios, and a lot of barriers to push through. And Im still working on it. The key is recognizing these self-imposed barriers for what they are: artificial constructs that can be dismantled with intention and support.
The next time you encounter an opportunity that seems just beyond your reach, pause and ask yourself: Is this a real ceiling, or one I’ve built myself? The answer might reveal possibilities you never considered achievableand the first step toward breaking through to your full potential.
Melissa Puls is chief marketing officer and SVP of customer success at Ivanti.
The White Houses recent decision to grant press credentials to independent journalists, podcasters, and social media influencers marks a defining moment in the evolution of modern media. It acknowledges a reality that has been unfolding for years: How people consume information has fundamentally changed.
For years, traditional media outlets have been the primary gatekeepers of news and information. Today, the landscape is fragmented, dynamic, and decentralized. Millions of people now turn to independent content creators, newsletters, and podcastsoften in place of mainstream news sources. This shift raises essential opportunities and challenges for companies and executives navigating todays complex media environment. Its no longer enough to focus solely on securing a headline in The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. Brands must now consider a broader media strategy that embraces both traditional outlets and the increasingly influential world of digital-first journalism.
But with this new ecosystem comes a critical question: What does credibility look like in a fractured media landscape?
The new credibility equation
For decades, legacy news organizations have been built on a foundation of editorial rigor, fact-checking, and accountability. Their reputations were shaped by rigorous journalistic standards and the trust they cultivated over time. Meanwhile, digital-native journalists and independent voices have built influence through transparency, authenticity, and direct engagement with their audiences.
These two worldstraditional journalism and the creator-driven media ecosystemare now colliding. The rise of Substack writers with niche but highly engaged followings, YouTubers who command audiences in the millions, and podcasters shaping public discourse means companies must rethink their media approach.
This shift makes it more critical than ever to scrutinize who is shaping the narrative and how companies engage with them. The days of assuming that credibility is tied only to newsroom mastheads are over. Today, credibility is about trustand trust is built differently across different platforms.
Traditional media still mattersbut its not enough
Despite the rapid changes in how people consume information, traditional media remains criticaland for good reason. Legacy outlets’ journalistic rigor, editorial accountability, and broad reach continue to make them essential players in shaping public perception.
However, traditional media is under immense pressure. Shrinking newsrooms, declining ad revenue, and increased financial strain have led to fewer reporters covering more topics with less time. Many once-dominant outlets have had to pivot toward subscription models or lean into digital strategies just to survive. This means fewer opportunities for companies to secure high-impact, in-depth coverage from traditional newsrooms.
In this environment, relying solely on traditional media is no longer viable. Companies must balance traditional earned media with owned content and engagement with non-traditional outlets. Those who do will be in the strongest position to shape and control their narratives.
What this means for strategic communications
As strategic communicators, our role is not just to secure media coverageits to ensure the right message reaches the right audience through the right medium and with the right voices. This means taking a more nuanced approach in a world where influence is distributed across a diverse range of platforms.
Heres how companies should be thinking about media strategy in this new era:
1. Expand your definition of media
The traditional definition of earned media has changed. Companies must now balance legacy media’s historical rigor with independent voices’ growing influence. That means evaluating a broader range of outlets, from traditional newspapers to influential newsletters, YouTube channels, and LinkedIn thought leaders.
Reaching audiences effectively requires meeting them where they are. For younger generations, that might mean TikTok explainers or long-form podcasts rather than a story in a top-tier news outlet. To reach more specific B2B audiences, it could mean a niche Substack written by an insider rather than a mainstream business publication.
Companies that fail to expand their media strategy risk missing out on key audiences who no longer consume information in traditional ways.
2. Prioritize journalistic integrityvetting matters
While the range of credible media voices has expanded, the core principles of credibility remain the same. Companies must vet every media opportunitywhether its an interview with a top-tier publication, a widely followed YouTuber, or an independent podcaster.
The key questions to ask:
What is their reputation for accuracy and fairness?
How do they engage with their audience?
Do they have a history of sensationalism or misinformation?
Credibility should not be sacrificed for reach. While a viral podcast might attract an attractive audience, if it lacks journalistic integrity, the long-term reputational risks outweigh the short-term exposure.
3. Own your narrative through direct storytelling
With more voices shaping the public conversation, companies must take greater control of their messaging. That means investing in owned media channelsblogs, newsletters, corporate podcasts, and executive platformsto provide direct, unfiltered context.
A strong owned media strategy allows companies to:
Reinforce key messages consistently
Provide additional context to paint the whole picture
Build direct relationships with key audiences
Executives who consistently engage on LinkedIn, for examplesharing insights, reactions to news, and original analysisare positioning themselves as trusted sources in their industries. In doing so, theyre not just relying on traditional media to tell their storytheyre actively shaping it.
The future of media engagement
The evolution of media is exciting and complex. In the years ahead, the companies that embrace this shift rather than resist it will shape the narrative. This new landscape offers unprecedented opportunities to connect with audiences more directly and meaningfully. However, it also demands a new level of discernment, strategic thinking, and adaptability.
Companies must now balance the credibility and rigor of traditional media with the authenticity and engagement of independent voices while strengthening their channels for direct storytelling. Those who can do this effectively will not only navigate the new media world but also help define it.
Tyler Perry is co-CEO of Mission North.
