 |
|
|
|||||
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.
Category:
E-Commerce
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.
Category:
E-Commerce
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.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||