Xorte logo

News Markets Groups

USA | Europe | Asia | World| Stocks | Commodities



Add a new RSS channel

 
 


Keywords

2025-07-23 10:00:00| Fast Company

When Microsoft announced that it would start evaluating employees on their AI usage, it sent a clear message: AI fluency is now part of the job. Business Insider recently reported that Microsoft was asking managers to track employee engagement with internal AI tools like Copilot and consider that usage in performance reviews. This signals that AI skills are becoming as measurable as teamwork or communication. AI is no longer optional in white-collar jobs. It now ranks alongside email, video calls, and spreadsheets as a workplace essential. However, unlike those tools, AI continues to occupy uncharted territory. Theres no standard for how to use it, no shared definition of what good looks like, and no clear line between acceptable and risky behavior. The technology is also evolving faster than most companies can keep up with. Many employers are encouraging or requiring the use of AI without offering the training or oversight to match. That mismatch is creating more than confusion. Its leading to misuse, uneven evaluations, and pressure on employees to guess their way through a system that doesnt even exist yet. Microsofts decision carries weight. When one of the worlds most powerful tech companies sets a precedent, others are likely to follow. But if companies adopt similar policies without fixing the missing guardrails, it can lead to misalignment and dysfunction. The consequences of throwing employees into the AI deep end Pushing AI adoption is smart, but leaving employees to figure it out alone isnt. Companies are asking workers to operate fast-changing, complex tools with little support. The results are messy. Many Gen Z professionals are already improvising in the absence of clear guidance. In a recent Resume Genius survey, 39% of Gen Z workers said theyve automated tasks without their managers approval. Another 28% admitted to submitting AI-generated work without disclosure. Nearly a third used AI in ways that might violate company policy, and 23% reported that using AI at work negatively affected their mental health. That pattern isnt just limited to Gen Z. A 2025 KPMG study of 48,000 workers across 47 countries found that 57% are hiding their AI use from managers. Most havent received formal training. Two-thirds dont verify AI outputs for accuracy, and more than half have already made AI-related mistakes on the job. Together, these findings point to workplaces where AI use is rising fast. But employees are making up the rules as they go, often under pressure and without a clear sense of whats safe, ethical, or expected. This kind of uncertainty isnt sustainable, especially as job expectations involve the use of AI. Requiring AI without structure is like handing out calculators in math class without ever teaching equations. Sure, the tools are powerful, but if you want good outcomes out of those tools, you need to teach people how to use them properly. Productivity is improving, but at what cost? AI can boost performance. That much is clear. A 2025 Harvard Business Review study found that generative AI improves both productivity and creativity. But it also uncovered a troubling side effect: employees felt less motivated and more disengaged when they used AI to complete tasks they once took pride in doing themselves. And burnout is rising. According to a July 2025 Upwork survey, employees who report the highest productivity gains from AI are also the most burned out. 88% of top AI users say theyre experiencing burnout, and theyre twice as likely to consider quitting compared to less productive peers. Many also feel disconnected from their companys AI strategy, with 62% reporting that they dont understand how their use of AI aligns with broader goals. It seems that the more AI increases productivity, the more it drains the people who use it. What happens when the rules are missing Right now, AI use at work is both essential and undefined. This creates three major risks for companies: Compliance breakdowns: Without clear policies, employees may expose sensitive data, rely on flawed outputs, or use AI in ways that open the door to legal risks. Subjective reviews: When using AI effectively becomes part of evaluations, but no standards exist, employees may be graded on personal bias instead of actual performance. Erosion of trust: Workers are left wondering whats okay and what isnt. Managers dont always know either. This results in second-guessing on all sides, which isnt ideal for anyone. What businesses need to do when it comes to AI The companies that thrive in this new era wont be the ones that push AI the fastest. Theyll be the ones that do three things well: Set clear policies: Define what responsible AI use looks like in your workplace. Spell out what your companies encourage, what you restrict, and where to ask for help. Offer practical, task-based training: Skip the generic webinars. Teach employees how to apply AI to their actual work, whether thats drafting policy language, summarizing customer feedback, or automating reports. Build real-time feedback loops: Hold regular check-ins to ask: Whats working? Whats unclear? What needs to evolve? AI is moving fast. Policies need to move with it. If AI is now part of the job, it needs its own set of guidelines. The companies that succeed wont be the ones who adopt it fastest, but the ones who build the right foundation and teach people how to use it well. Microsoft started the conversation. Now the rest of us need to define what responsible AI adoption looks like and put it into practice.


Category: E-Commerce

 

LATEST NEWS

2025-07-23 09:00:00| Fast Company

I recently saw James Gunns new Superman movie, and as I sat there in the dark theater, I couldnt help but think that Nicholas Hoult based his Lex Luthor on Elon Musk. Something about that smirk he kept flashing throughout the movie reminded me so much of the Tesla CEO’s. But Hoults mannerisms werent the only thing. His Luthor had several other characteristics that I, and many others, see in Musk, most notably a savior complex and a need to be adored. Thats in addition to the fact that in this film, Luthor is a tech billionaire with significant contracts with, and influence over, the government. The thing is, during a lie detector test conducted somewhat in jest by Vanity Fair, Hoult told Superman star David Corenswet that he did not base his Lex Luthor portrayal on Elon Musk. Corenswet noted that Hoult had previously said he wanted to make his Luthor as alpha as possible, and asked whether there were any alpha male podcasts Hoult listened to to prep for the role. Hoult replied that he hadnt listened to any podcasts, but he did listen to the audiobook of Elon Musk’s book, even though I didn’t base the character on Elon at all. But I just thought it’d be interesting. [Note: Hoult did not clarify if he was talking about Musk’s official biography, written by Walter Isaacson in 2023, or Ashlee Vance’s unofficial Musk biography, from 2015.] Still, its hard not to spot the similarities between the controversial Musk and Supermans greatest foe. And Superman isnt the first movie with such similarities, intended or not. In recent years, Musk and other tech billionaires have seemed to have served as direct inspiration for movie villains. Yet things haven’t always been this way. [Photo: Marvel Studios] Elon Musk inspired the most iconic superhero of the 21st century Before Robert Downey Jr. starred as Tony Stark in 2008s Iron Man, few people outside of the comic book world could tell you who Iron Man was. Yet, thanks largely to Downey Jr.s portrayal, Iron Man became a household nameand kick-started the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has allowed now-owner Disney to rake in tens of billions of dollars in box office receipts over the past 17 years. In the script, Downey Jr.s Stark was charming, intelligent, and slightly arrogant. He leveraged his extreme wealth and technological prowess to make the world a better place. This take on the characterwho had existed in comic book form since 1963was heavily based on Elon Musk. In a 2022 interview with New York Magazine, Iron Man screenwriter Mark Fergus made it clear that the Tesla billionaire was an inspiration for Stark. Fergus said that Stark had historically been a Howard Hughes-style figure, but 2008s Iron Man needed a more contemporary inspiration. Fergus and his colleagues decided that the contemporary Stark was somewhat of a trinity figure, a mixture of three people. The first two were Donald Trump and maybe a little Steve Jobs. But it was Elon Musk who was the guy who grabbed the torch [from Howard Hughes]an industrialist who also would appear in the gossip pages. Trump was fun before he became presidenthe was actually kind of a goofy celebrity. Steve Jobs was always serious and angry; he never quite had that gift of the bullshit . . . Fergus explained. Musk took the brilliance of Jobs with the showmanship of Trump. He was the only one who had the fun factor and the celebrity vibe and actual business substance. Marvel didnt shy away from this comparison, either. After the first film became a smash hit in 2008, the studio quickly greenlit a sequel, Iron Man 2, which came out in 2010. In that film, Downey Jr.s Stark actually meets the real Elon Musk at a party in Monaco and compliments the real-world billionaire on SpaceX’s Merlin engines. Yet, the late 2000s are a long time ago now, especially in terms of politics, culture, and Musks public persona. Musk and tech billionaires are now movie villains Ive previously opined about how the world will likely never have another Steve Jobsa tech leader beloved by the general public. There are many reasons for this. The primary one is that Big Tech companies were generally seen as wondrous institutions improving our lives on a nearly monthly basis in the early 2000s. Since then, their integration with our lives and influence over it have dramatically expandedand not for the better. Tech companies are now largely viewed as self-interested entities that prioritize their profits over the greater good. E-commerce giants destroy small businesses, social media companies engagement algorithms reward bad behavior and poison public discourse, and artificial intelligence firms are so entwined with government and power that one cant help but be concerned about where it will all lead. And because of this shift in public sentiment towards tech companies, a shift has also occurred in the publics perception of the billionaire CEOs who lead them. This is perhaps nowhere more true than with Musk, who has publicly involved himself in governmental affairs of nations like no other CEO before him. All these changes have led, rightfully, to more distrust of the tech industry and those who lead the companies that power it. Suddenly, those same leaders have become the role models for fictional movie villains. It’s hard to watch the 2017 film The Circle and not see parallels between Tom Hankss evil ocial media CEO and Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg. And two films in 2022Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery and Jurassic World Dominion seem to have patterned their villains after Musk and Apples Tim Cook, respectively. The thing is, no director or actor in these movies has confirmed that any real-life tech CEO is the direct inspiration for these characters. In Glass Onions case, director Rian Johnson denied that the antagonist, Miles Bron, played by Edward Norton, was based on Musk, despite many observers seeing similarities between the two. Thats just sort of a horrible, horrible accident, Johnson told Wired. But he also noted that Theres a lot of general stuff about that sort of species of tech billionaire that went directly into [the movie], adding, But obviously, it has almost a weird relevance in exactly the current moment. That weird relevance has lasted years now. And, as Superman shows, it’s easier than ever for audiences to accept tech CEOs as modern-day villains, whether or not that villain is directly inspired by any singular individual. Societys ongoing tendency to now view tech leaders as the bad guys likely means that we can expect more in the future. At least until they own all the movie studios.


Category: E-Commerce

 

2025-07-23 09:00:00| Fast Company

Just like the dodo and passenger pigeon before it, the affordable new car is about to go extinct as a species. The last new Mitsubishi Mirage model is expected to be sold by the end of this summerand after that, there will be no new cars available for sale in the U.S. for less than $20,000. The Mirage is a fuel-efficient compact hatchback, and until it sells out, it is the cheapest new car on the market. In June it sold for an average transaction price of $18,484. [Photo: Mitsubishi] The Mirage was able to stay so cheap by offering the bare minimum. It’s tiny. And while it has now-standard features like a touchscreen and rearview camera system, it doesn’t have much else. In Car and Drivers review of the final 2024 Mitsubishi Mirage G4, the publication gave the car a 3/10 rating, noting that it was cheap to buy but cheaply made, with a puny engine and drab driving demeanor. “Cheap? Yes. Cheerful? Not so much,” it said. This is a car that gets you from point A to point B. If you want to get there quickly, that’s extra. You get what you pay for. [Photo: Mitsubishi] Mitsubishi said last year that it was ending production of the Mirage, and now there are only some 1,700 left, according to data from the car-services firm Cox Automotive. Based on the current sales pace, the firm predicts the last Mirage will be sold by summer’s end. Buyers looking for the cheapest new car will then have to turn to the 2025 Nissan Versa S ($20,130) or 2025 Hyundai Venue SE ($21,695), per Cars.com. Inflation since the pandemic has hit the automotive industry especially hard, with the average transaction price for a new vehicle rising from about $40,000 in 2020 to nearly $49,000 in 2025, per Kelley Blue Book data. Tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have led to increased production costs, and while major automakers have yet to announce consumer-side price increases in response to new import duties, Doug Ostermann, CFO of Stellantis, said during a call on July 21 that he believes we’re coming to the end of that period.” While the Mirage is no-frills, it offered buyers an ultracheap option for when cost was the most important decision-making factor. Without it, the average price of new cars will only continue to climb.


Category: E-Commerce

 

Latest from this category

23.07Tesla reports steepest decline in quarterly revenue in over a decade
23.07Taxpayer-funded vaccines meant to aid Africa are at risk of expiring
23.07Stocks rise to more records after U.S. strikes trade deal with Japan
23.07Tokenization is gaining ground in the crypto world. Heres what to know
23.07Your favorite candy just got pricier, and its not because of tariffs
23.07Meme stock Krispy Kreme will give away free donuts just for wearing this popular shoeheres when and why
23.07Trump cuts tariffs in deals with Japan and others, but Asia braces for economic fallout
23.07A popular student loan forgiveness plan was just paused, with no word on when it will start up again
E-Commerce »

All news

23.07Bull Radar
23.07Bear Radar
23.07Stocks Surging into Final Hour on US-Global Trade Deal Optimism, Trump Admin AI/Grid Focus, Short-Covering, Tech/Pharma Sector Strength
23.07Mid-Day Market Internals
23.07Tomorrow's Earnings/Economic Releases of Note; Market Movers
23.07Graduate wins award for self-made food bank
23.07Hershey and other chocolate makers hike prices as cocoa remains near record highs
23.07What Makes This Trade Great: IOVAs Double Setup
More »
Privacy policy . Copyright . Contact form .