In the new edition of my book, The Simulation Hypothesis, released in July, Ive updated my estimate of how likely we are to be in a simulation to approximately 70%, thanks to recent AI developments. This means we are almost certainly inside a virtual reality world like that depicted in The Matrix, the most talked about film of the last year of the twentieth century.
Even young people who werent born in 1999 tend to know the basic plot of this blockbuster: Neo (Keanu Reeves) thinks hes living in the real world, working in a cubicle in a mega software corporation, only to discover, with the help of Morpheus (Laurence Fishburn) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), that hes living inside a computer-generated world.
The AI Factor
What makes me so sure that we are living in a simulation? There are multiple reasons explored in the book, including a new way to explain quantum weirdness, the strange nature of time and space, information theory & digital physics, spiritual/religious arguments, and even an information-based way to explain glitches in the matrix.
However, even while discounting these other possible reasons we may in a simulation, the main reason for my new estimate was because of the rapid advance of AI and virtual reality technology, combined with a statistical argument put forth by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. In the past few years, the rise of generative AI like ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Xs Grok has proceeded rapidly. We now have not just AI which has passed the Turing Test, but we already have rudimentary AI characters living in the virtual world with whom we can interact.
One recent example includes prompt-generated video from Google Veo. Recently, Google has introduced the ability to create realistic-looking videos on demand, complete with virtual actors and landscapes that are completely AI generated, and speak real lines of dialogue, all based on prompts. This has led to prompt theory, a viral phenomenon of AI-generated video of realistic characters exhorting that they were definitely not generated by AI prompts.
Another recent example is the release of AI companions from Grok, which combine LLMs with a virtual avatar, leading to a new level of adoption of the rising wave of AI characters that are already serving as virtual friends, therapists, teachers, and even virtual lovers. The sexy anime girl in particular has led to thousands of memes of obsession with virtual characters. The graphics fidelity and responsiveness of these characters will improveimagine the fidelity of the Google Veo videos combined with a virtual friend/boyfriend/girlfriend/assistant, who can pass what I call, the Metaverse or Virtual Turing Test (described in the new book in detail).
The Simulation Point
All of this means we are getting closer than ever to the simulation point, a term I coined a few years ago as a kind of technological singularity. I define this as a theoretical point at which we can create virtual worlds that are indistinguishable from physical reality, and with AI beings that are indistinguishable from biological beings. In short, when we reach the simulation point, we would be capable of building something like the Matrix ourselves, complete with realistic landscapes, avatars and AI characters.
To understand why our progress in reaching this point might increase the likelihood that we are already in a simulation, we can build on the simulation argument that Bostroms proposed in his 2003 paper, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” Bostrom surmised that for a technological civilization like ours, there were only three possibilities when it came to building highly realistic simulations of their past (which he called ancestor simulations). Each of these simulations would have realistic simulated minds, holding all of the information and computing power a biological brain might hold. We can think of having the capability of building these simulations as approximately similar to my definition of the simulation point.
The first two possibilities, which can be combined for practical purposes, were that no civilization ever reaches the simulation point (i.e. by destroying themselves or because it isnt possible to create simulations), or that all such civilizations who reached this point decided not to build such sophisticated simulations.
The term simulation hypothesis was originally meant by Bostrom to refer to the third possibility, which was that we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. The logic underlying this third scenario was that any such advanced civilization would be able to create entirely new simulated worlds with the click of a button, each of which could have billions (or trillions) of simulated beings indistinguishable from biological beings. Thus, the number of simulated beings would vastly outnumber the tally of biological beings. Statistically, then, if you couldnt tell the difference, then you were (much) more likely to be a simulated being than a real, biological one.
Bostrom himself initially declined to put a percentage on this third option compared to the other two, saying only that it was as one of three possibilities, implying a likelihood of 33.33 % (and later changed his odds for the third possibility to be around 20%). Elon Musk used a variation of Bostroms logic in 2016, when he said the chances of us being in base reality (i.e. not in a simulation) were one in billions. He was implying that there might be billions of simulated worlds, but only one physical world. Thus statistically, we are by far highly likely (99.99%+) in a simulated world.
Others have weighed in on the issue, using variations of the argument, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, who put the percentage likelihood at 50%. Columbia scientist David Kipping, in a paper using Bayesian logic and Bostroms argument, came up with a similar figure, of slightly less than 50-50.
Musk was relying on the improvement in video game technology and projecting it forward. This is what I do in detail in my book where I lay out the 10 stages of getting to the simulation point, including virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), BCIs (Brain Computer Interfaces), AI, and more. It was the progress in these areas over the past few years that gives me the conviction that we are getting closer to the simulation point than ever before.
The Equation
In my new book, I argue that the percentage likelihood we are in a simulation is based almost entirely on whether we can reach the simulation point. If we can never reach this point, then the chances are basically zero that we are in a sim that was already developed by anyone else. If we can reach this point, then the chances of being in a simulation simply boil down to how far from this theoretically point we are, minus some uncertainty factor.
If we have already reached that point, then we can be 99% confident about being in a simulation. Even if we havent reached the simulation point (we havent, at least not yet), then the likelihood of the simlation hypothesis, Psim , basically simplifies down to Psimpoint, the confidence level we have that we can reach this point, minus some small extra uncertainty factor (pu).
Psim Psimpoint pu
If we are 100% confident we can reach the simulation point, and the small factor pu is 1, then the likelihood of being in a simulation jumps up to 99%. Why? Per the earlier argument, if we can reach this point, then it is very likely that another civilization has already reached this point, and that we are inside one of their (many) simulations. pu is likely to be small because we have already built uncertainty into our Psimpoint for any value less than 100%.
So, in the end, it doesnt matter when we reach this point, its a matter of capabilities. And the more we develop our AI, video game, and virtual reality technology, the more likely it is that at some point soon, we will be able to reach the simulation point.
Are we there yet?
So how close are we? In the new book, I go through each of the 10 stages and estimate that we are more than two-thirds of the way there, and I am fairly certain that we will be able to get there eventually. This means that todays AI developments have convinced me we are at least 67% likely to be able to reach the simulation point and possibly more than 70%.
If I add in factors from digital and quantum physics detailed in the book, and if we take the trip reports of mystics of old and todays near-death experiencers and psychonauts (who expand their awareness using DMT, for example) at face value, we can be even more confident that our physical reality is not the ultimate reality. Those who report such trips are like Platos philosopher who not only broke his chains, but also left Platos allegorical cave. If you read Platos full allegory, it ends with the philosopher returning to the cave to describe what he had seen in the world outside to the other residents, who didnt believe him and were content to continue watching shadows on the wall. Because most scientists are loath to accept these reports and are likely to dismiss this evidence, I wont include them in my own percentage estimation, though as I explain in the book, this brings my confidence level that we are in a virtual, rather than a physical reality even higher.
Which brings us back to the inescapable realization that if we will eventually be able to create something like the Matrix, someone has likely already done it. While we can debate what is outside our cave, its our own rapid progress with AI that makes it more likely than ever that we are already inside something virtual like the Matrix.
Lush forests and crisp mountain air have drawn people to New Yorks Adirondack Mountains for centuries. In the late 1800s, these forests were a haven for tuberculosis patients seeking the cool, fresh air. Today, the region is still a sanctuary where families vacation and hikers roam pristine trails.
However, hidden health dangers have been accumulating in these mountains since industrialization began.
Tiny metal particulates released into the air from factories, power plants and vehicles across the Midwest and Canada can travel thousands of miles on the wind and fall with rain. Among them are microscopic pollutants such as lead and cadmium, known for their toxic effects on human health and wildlife.
For decades, factories released this pollution without controls. By the 1960s and 1970s, their pollution was causing acid rain that killed trees in forests across the eastern U.S., while airborne metals were accumulating in even the most remote lakes in the Adirondacks.
In the early 1900s, sanatoriums such as the New York State Hospital at Ray Brook, near Saranac Lake, were built to house tuberculosis patients. The crisp mountain air was believed to help their recovery. [Photo: Detroit Publishing Company Photograph Collection/Library of Congress]
As paleolimnologists, we study the history of the environment using sediment cores from lake bottoms, where layers of mud, leaves, and pollen pile up over time, documenting environmental and chemical changes.
In a recent study, we looked at two big questions: Have lakes in the Northeast U.S. recovered from the era of industrial metal pollution, and did the Clean Air Act, written to help stop the pollution, work?
Digging up time capsules
On multiple summer trips between 2021 and 2024, we hiked into the Adirondacks backcountry with 60-pound inflatable boats, a GPS and piles of long, heavy metal tubes in tow.
We focused on four pondsRat, Challis, Black and Little Hope. In each, we dropped cylindrical tubes that plunge into the darkness of the lake bottom. The tubes suction up the mud in a way that preserves the accumulated layers like a history book.
Back in the lab, we sliced these cores millimeter by millimeter, extracting metals such as lead, zinc and arsenic to analyze the concentrations over time.
An illustration of the authors shows how lake sediment cores capture the history of the region going back thousands of years. [Image: Sky Hooler]
The changes in the levels of metals we found in different layers of the cores paint a dramatic picture of the pristine nature of these lakes before European settlers arrived in the area, and what happened as factories began going up across the country.
A century plagued by contamination
Starting in the early 1900s, coal burning in power plants and factories, smelting and the growing use of leaded gasoline began releasing pollutants that blew into the region. We found that manganese, arsenic, iron, zinc, lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium, copper, and cobalt began to appear in greater concentrations in the lakes and rose rapidly.
At the same time, acid rain, formed from sulfur and nitrogen oxides from coal and gasoline, acted like chemical shovels, freeing more metals naturally held in the bedrock and forest soils.
Acid rain damaged trees in several states over the decades, leaving ghostly patches in forests. [Photo: Will & Deni McIntyre/Getty Images]
The result was a cascade of metal pollution that washed down the slopes with the rain, winding through creeks and seeping into lakes.
All of this is captured in the lake sediment cores.
As extensive logging and massive fires stripped away vegetation and topsoil, the exposed landscapes created express lanes for metals to wash downhill. When acidification met these disturbed lands, the result was extraordinary: Metal levels didnt just increase, they skyrocketed. In some cases, we found that lead levels in the sediment reached 328 parts per million, 109 times higher than natural preindustrial levels. That lead would have first been in the air, where people were exposed, and then in the wildlife and fish that people consume.
These particles are so small that they can enter a persons lungs and bloodstream, infiltrate food webs, and accumulate in ecosystems.
A wind map shows how pollution moves from the Midwest, reaching the Adirondacks. The colors show the average wind speed, in meters per second, and arrows show the wind direction about 3,000 meters above ground from 1948 to 2023. Average calculated using NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data. [Image: Sky Hooler]
Then, suddenly, the increase stopped.
A public outcry over acid rain, which was stripping needles from trees and poisoning fish, led to major environmental legislation, including the initiation of the Clean Air Act in 1963. The law and subsequent amendments in the following decades began reducing sulfur dioxide emissions and other toxic pollutants. To comply, industries installed scrubbers to remove pollutants at the smokestack rather than releasing them into the air. Catalytic converters reduced vehicle exhaust, and lead was removed from gasoline.
The air grew cleaner, the rain became less acidic, and our sediment cores show that the lakes began to heal through natural biogeochemical processes, although slowly.
By 1996, atmospheric lead levels measured at Whiteface Mountain in the Adirondacks had declined by 90%. National levels were down 94%. But in the lakes, lead had decreased only by about half.
Only in the past five years, since about 2020, have we seen metal concentrations within the lakes fall to less than 10% of their levels at the height of pollution in the region.
Our study is the first documented case of a full recovery in Northeast U.S. lakes that reflects the recovery seen in the atmosphere.
Its a powerful success story and proof that environmental policy works.
Looking forward
But the Adirondacks arent entirely in the clear. Legacy pollution lingers in the soils, ready to be remobilized by future disturbances from land development or logging. And there are new concerns. We are now tracking the rise of microplastics and the growing pressures of climate change on lake ecosystems.
Recovery is not a finish line; its an ongoing process. The Clean Air Act and water monitoring are still important for keeping the regions air and water clean.
Though our findings come from just a few lakes, the implications extend across the entire Northeast U.S. Many studies from past decades documented declining metal deposition in lakes, and research has confirmed continued reductions in metal pollutants in both soils and rivers.
In the layers of lake mud, we see not only a record of damage but also a testament to natures resilience, a reminder that with good legislation and timely intervention, recovery is possible.
Sky Hooler is a PhD student in environmental science at the University at Albany, State University of New York.
Aubrey Hillman is an associate professor of environmental sciences at the University at Albany, State University of New York.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Generative AI platforms have sent shock waves through the K-12 education sector since the public release of ChatGPT nearly three years ago.
The technology is taking hold under the belief that students and teachers need to be proficient in these powerful tools, even though many concerns remain around equity, privacy, bias, and degradation of critical thinking among students.
As a professor who teaches future educators and is part of an AI-focused working group, I have observed the potential for artificial intelligence to transform teaching and learning practices in K-12 schools. The trends I am seeingand that I encourageare for K-12 educators to use AI to shift from memorization and rote learning to instead emphasize critical thinking and creativity.
Jumping in the deep end
After the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, some large school districts initially banned the use of AI due to concerns about cheating. Surveys also reflected worries about chatbots fabricating information, such as references for school papers, in addition to concerns about misinformation and biases existing in AI responses to prompts.
Students, on the other hand, tended to jump into the deep end of the AI pool. Common Sense Media, which offers recommendations on childrens media consumption, published a report in 2024 showing that students were using AI-supported search and chatbots for homework and to stave off boredom as well as other personal reasons, including creating content as a joke, planning activities, and seeking health advice. Most of the teachers and parents of the students in the study were unaware that students were using the technology.
In my work at Drexel University teaching graduate students who are aspiring school principals or superintendents, I found that in 2023, K-12 students were afraid of using AI due to the policies implemented in their districts banning it. However, it quickly became apparent that students were able to mask their use of AI by instructing AI to insert some mistakes into their assignments.
Meanwhile, despite teachers initial concerns about AI, approximately 60% of K-12 teachers now admit to using AI to plan lessons, communicate with parents, and assist with grading. Concerns over students cheating still exist, but time-strapped teachers are finding that using AI can save them time while improving their teaching.
A recent Walton Foundation and Gallup study revealed that teachers who used AI tools weekly saved an average of 5.9 hours per week, which they reallocated to providing students more nuanced feedback, creating individualized lessons, writing emails, and getting home to their families in a more reasonable time.
Opening up new ways of teaching
I recommend that my graduate students use AI because I think ignoring emerging trends in education is not wise. I believe the benefits outweigh the negatives if students are taught ethical use of the technology and guardrails are put in place, such as requiring that AI be cited as a source if students use it in coursework.
Advocates say AI is changing teaching for the better, since it forces teachers to identify additional ways for students to demonstrate their understanding of content. Some strategies for students who rely too heavily on AI include oral presentations, project-based learning, and building portfolios of a students best work.
One practice could involve students showing evidence of something they created, implemented, or developed to address a challenge. Evidence could include constructing a small bridge to demonstrate how forces act on structures, pictures, or a video of students using a water sampling device to check for pollution, or students designing and planting a community garden. AI might produce the steps needed to construct the project, but students would actually have to do the work.
Teachers can also use AI to create lessons tailored to students interests, quickly translate text to multiple languages, and recognize speech for students with hearing difficulties. AI can be used as a tutor to individualize instruction, provide immediate feedback and identify gaps in students learning.
When I was a school superintendent, I always asked applicants for teaching positions how they connected their classroom lessons to the real world. Most of them struggled to come up with concrete examples. On the other hand, I have found AI is helpful in this regard, providing answers to students perennial question of why they need to learn what is being taught.
Thought partner
Teachers in K-12 schools are using AI to help students develop their empathetic skills. One example is prompting an AI to redesign the first-day experience for a relocated student entering a new middle school. AI created the action steps and the essential questions necessary for refining students initial solutions.
In my own classroom, Ive used AI to boost my graduate students critical thinking skills. I had my students imagine that they were college presidents facing the loss of essential federal funding unless they implemented policies limiting public criticism of federal agencies on campus. This proposed restriction, framed as a requirement to maintain institutional neutrality, requires students to develop a plan of action based on their knowledge of systems and design thinking. After each team developed their solution, I used AI to create questions and counterpoints to their proposed solution. In this way, AI becomes a critical thought partner to probe intended and unintended outcomes, gaps in students thinking, and potential solutions that might have been overlooked.
AI researcher Ethan Mollick encourages educators to use AI as a springboard, similar to jazz msicians improvising, as a way to unleash new possibilities. Mollick advises people to partner with AI as co-intelligence, be the human in the loop, treat AI as a coworker, albeit one that needs to be prodded for evidence, and to learn to use it well. I concur.
Changing perspectives on AI
Some early studies on the effects of using AI in education have raised concerns that the convenience of generative AI will degrade students learning and erode their critical thinking skills.
I think that further studies are needed, but I have found in my own work and in the work of my graduate students that AI can enhance human-produced work. For example, AI-powered teaching assistants, like Khanmigo or Beghetto Bots, use AI to help students solve problems and come up with innovative solutions without giving away the answers.
My experiences with other educators on the front lines show me that they are beginning to change their perspectives toward students using AI, particularly as teachers realize the benefit of AI in their own work. For example, one of my graduate students said his district is employing a committee of educators, students and outside experts to explore how AI can be used ethically and in a way that wont erode students critical thinking skills.
Educators are starting to realize that AI isnt going away anytime soonand that its better to teach their students how to use it, rather than leave them to their own devices.
Michael G. Kozak is an associate clinical professor of educational administration and leadership at Drexel University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
People become leaders by first becoming effective managers. They create cohesion and consensus among their team. They maintain an atmosphere of predictability so everybody knows what to expect and focus on executing a plan with excellence. Thats how you consistently deliver value to customers, partners, and other stakeholders.
Yet when you are pursuing change, none of those things will help you. When something is new, untried, and untested, you cant expect an immediate consensus to form around it. You cant expect predictability either, but need to embrace uncertainty. Instead of focusing on execution, you need to explore and find new answers through some trial and error.
Thats one of the things that makes transformation so hard for so many leaders. You need to mode shift away from whats made you successful up to this point and do things differently. That requires you not only to change actions, but to adopt new mindsetsfrom persuasion to empowerment, differentiating values to shared values, and from a heros journey to strategic conflict.
1. From persuasion to empowerment
Tony Soprano, the ruthless mafia boss from the iconic TV show, was a master of coercion. Yet sensing that he could benefit by exploring alternative strategies, he often sought the advice of Dr. Jennifer Melfi, who encouraged him to take a more collaborative approach. Tony thought about it for a minute and asked, Then how do I get people to do what I want?
As much as we might not like to admit it, every manager faces some version of this dilemma. We want to motivate employees, to inspire them to actualize their potential and achieve great things. But at the end of the day, we have goals we need to reach, plans to get there, and we really just want the people who work for us to do what we ask them to.
Yet in a transformational initiative, you need to operate in an atmosphere of uncertainty and, almost by definition, you dont really know what the final solution will look like. You have to experiment, try things out, see what works, what doesnt, and iterate your way to designing a new model. There are no hard and fast rules.
So instead of trying to get people to do what you want, identify people who want what you want and empower them to succeed. Work with them to design an initial Keystone Change and, when you find one that works, arm them with resources they can co-opt so that they can empower others, who can bring in others still.
2. From differentiating values to shared values
Everybody is taught in Marketing 101 that the first rule of selling is to differentiate your product with a unique value proposition to cut through the noise. After all, if you are no different than the competition, why would customers choose you? An undifferentiated product is, by definition, a commodity and commodities dont command high margins.
So it makes sense that managers preparing to launch a change initiative want to focus on what differentiates the idea, because thats what makes them passionate about it. They often use adjectives like disruptive, innovative, and revolutionary to create excitement. Yet what might seem exciting to some, might feel threatening to others.
The problem is that large-scale transformation in an organization usually involves collective action, which makes getting traction very different than marketing a product like, say, a car or a bag of chips. Consumers can choose among competing products, but organizational change requires collective buy-inand resistance is inevitable. Differentiating values invite backlash.
Thats why you want to create a sense of safety around the change by focusing on shared values. For example, when people come back to the office after Agile training, they often tout the Agile Manifesto and are surprised to find that they dont get much traction. A much better strategy would be to focus on things everybody already believes in, such as better products, done faster and cheaper.
Focusing on shared values doesnt mean watering down your visionit means framing it in a way that resonates with what people already care about. You have to meet people where they are, not try to force your passions on them.
3. From a heros journey to a strategic conflict
Leaders often see change as if it were a heros journey in which there is some alternative future state. They believe that if they are good enough, do all the right things, and if their cause is righteous, they will eventually get to that place. Much like Luke Skywalker, who had to face himself before he could face Darth Vader, their struggle is largely internal.
Yet just like Star Wars, thats mostly a fantasy. The true story of change is that of strategic conflict between a future vision and the status quo. There are sources of power keeping the status quo in place, and those sources of power have an institutional basis. If you are ever going to bring about genuine transformation, thats what you need to influence.
Once you understand this story, you can begin to build an effective strategy. Power is embedded in institutions, and real change requires mapping out which ones reinforce the status quo, which align with your vision, and which could go either way. Those institutional targets will determine how you develop tactics.
One of the most powerful moments in our Transformation and Change Workshops is when we identify these sources of power and map them on a power matrix. Thats when the leaders we work with can begin to see a path forward and shift from seeing change as an abstract goal to a concrete, strategic processone where power dynamics can be mapped and influenced.
Adopting a changemaker mindset
Leaders are trained to operate with a manager mindset because consensus and predictability are essential to execute complex operations. Everyone needs to know their role to carry out their responsibilities and be able to trust that everyone else will do the same. Thats how you deliver for customers, partners, employees, and other stakeholders.
When you need to change course, however, you need to discard the manager mindset and embrace a changemaker mindset, and that means that the usual best practices wont work. Change isnt predictable, but uncertain. You cant expect a consensus, so you need to identify a coalition thats willing to believe in the change vision and explore possibilities.
What makes that so difficult is that adopting a changemaker mindset requires leaders to abandon what made them successful in the first place. Persuading people that you have the right vision is unlikely to succeed, so you need to identify people who are already enthusiastic about it. Instead of emphasizing how the change is different, you need to focus on values that are already widely shared.
Whats perhaps most challengingand humbling for leaders to understand is that transformation is not a journey in which they get to play the hero, but a strategic conflict with the status quo in their own organization, which is supported by sources of power that have had yearsand sometimes decadesto take hold.
Effective leaders need to master both the manager mindset and the changemaker mindset and learn to effectively switch off between the two. Just because you need to pursue change doesnt mean you can just ignore everyday operations. On the other hand, if you try to pursue change with a manager mindset, you are almost guaranteed to fail.
When I entered the workforce, I remember trying to appear constantly available to my bosses. It was the height of hustle culture, back when phrases like Ill sleep when Im dead actually sounded cool. Prioritizing work above all else felt like a prerequisite for climbing the corporate ladder. It was also a fast-track to burnout.
Now, as the CEO of my own company, I appreciate when employees and candidates are honest about their boundaries. To me, it signals a well-rounded person who is more likely to thrive and stick around. Im more interested in how they think, whether theyre solution-oriented, and what kind of energy they bring to the team.
For a long time, putting in more hours was the unspoken rule for proving your commitment to your job. But thats changing. Todays workplace increasingly values outcomes over hours. The always-on era is giving way to something very different. Employees are prioritizing a holistic sense of well-being, and I think thats a positive shift for individuals and organizations alike. Heres why.
Looking busy doesnt equal productivity
The rocks, pebbles, and sand metaphor is a useful way to rethink how we measure productivity, for ourselves and for our teams. The rocks are the priorities: the high-impact tasks that inspire employees and energize them. For me, the rocks are writing and strategizing how to simplify our users lives through automation. The sand, on the other hand, is the low-value busyworkthose draining tasks that clutter the day without moving the needle. Think: expense reports, invoicing, unnecessary meetings, or chasing status updates.
Its easier than ever to fill our calendars with sand and convince ourselves were being productive. But when our teams are overloaded with the trivialthe sandtheres no room left for meaningful work.
Leaders are tasked with protecting time for the rocks, in our own schedules and across organizations. That means setting an example about clearly and regularly outlining priorities, encouraging employees to streamline or eliminate busywork, and valuing outcomes over hours. Just because someone is still online at 6:30 p.m. doesnt mean theyre being effective. And just because someone has to cut out early doesnt mean they havent had a productive day.
Create a culture that values deep and smart work, and youll see not only better results but also more energized employees.
Focusing on outcomes encourages efficiency
Constraints often spark creativity. Deadlines, for example, force us to figure out the most efficient way to get something done. If youve ever pulled off a last-minute project under the gun and surprised yourself with how quickly you accomplished it, you know the power of time pressure. You might have even thought afterward: If only I could always work with that kind of momentum.
By contrast, when organizations focus on hours worked, with face-time requirements and mandating that employees be on for a certain number of hours each day, tasks tend to expand to fill the time available. Thats the antithesis of true productivity.
Consider law firms, where clients are billed by the hour. Lawyers must track every minute of their day. Those who work quickly and efficiently are often penalized, with fewer hours to bill. Its a system that rewards time spent over value delivered.
When leaders shift the focus to outcomes, employees are naturally motivated to work smarter, not longer. This requires setting clear expectations for what success looks like on a project or task, beyond just the time spent.
As Georgia Dawson, senior partner at global law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, puts it: It would be ideal for the industry if we can start to move toward more of a focus on outputs and the value that is being delivered by lawyers. That supports a drive toward efficiency, a drive toward the use of technology, and it can help to support a better focus on mental health, well-being, and diversity in the profession as well.
The same logic applies beyond law. Outcome-oriented environments lead to smarter work, better tools, and healthier teams.
An output-focused culture resonates with Gen Z
Recent research from Deloitte shows that younger generations, especially Gen Z, highly value flexibility in when, where, and how they work. But many arent experiencing that flexibility in practice. Instead, they report high levels of anxiety about work-life balance, with long hours being a significant contributor to that stress.
Adopting a more outcome-focused approach helps bridge that gap. When employees are trusted to deliver results rather than log hours, they gain the autonomy to structure their schedules around their lives. That flexibility supports higher levels of well-being, stronger performance, and boosted engagement. It creates the kind of work atmosphere that younger employees gravitate toward.
Ive seen firsthand how Gen Z thrives with more flexibility, and it benefits our company too. Theyre tech-savvy and automation-minded. Give them a goal, and theyll often find faster, smarter ways to achieve it. When leaders focus on outcomes instead of hours, they unlock that productivity potential.
AI is gobbling up journalism for many of the same reasons humans do: to develop a concrete understanding of the world; to think critically; to differentiate between what is true and whats not; to become a better writer; and to distill history and context into something accessible. But what happens to AI when our journalistic institutions crumble? Upon what foundation of truth will it answer everyones questions? Write their emails? Do their jobs? Because while the alarm bells have been ringing for journalism for decades, the so-called end of search feels like the potential death knell. What does that mean for AI, and for us as we try to make sense of an increasingly confusing world?
In our rush to integrate generative AI into every corner of our lives, weve ignored a fundamental truth: AI cannot function without a baseline of verified facts. And, at the moment, that baseline is built and maintained by so-called traditional journalism (the kind with fact checkers and editors). As AI threatens to upend search, media monetization, and news consumption behaviors, its also undercutting the very industry that feeds it the facts it depends on. A society cannot function without objective journalism, and neither can AI.
Loss of accuracy
Recent Apple research says that, It doesn’t take much to cause generative AI to fall into ‘complete accuracy collapse. It goes on to show that generative AI models lack strong logical reasoning, unable to function beyond their complexity threshold. I immediately thought of a recent piece from The New Yorker, in which Andrew Marantz weaves together various examples of autocracy, set against thousands of years of history, to (attempt to) make sense of what is happening in America right now. I imagined AI trying to do the same, essentially short-circuiting before being able to form the salient points that make the piece so impactful. When asked to think too hard, the AI breaks.
An even more damning report from the BBC reports that AI cant accurately summarize the news. It asked ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Perplexity to sum up 100 news stories and asked expert journalists to rate each answer. As well as containing factual inaccuracies, the chatbots struggled to differentiate between opinion and fact, editorialised, and often failed to include essential context, says the report. Almost one-fifth of the summaries included false facts and quote distortions19%!
Theres more, of course. This study from MIT Sloan shows that AI tools have a history of fabricating citations and reinforcing gender and racial bias, while this Fast Company article argues that AI-driven journalisms good enough standards are accepted because of the revenue these tools create.
And that, of course, is the less human reason AI is gobbling up journalism: the money. None of that money is going back into funding the journalistic institutions that power this whole experiment. What happens to our society when the core pillar of a true and free press collapses under the weight of the thing that has sloppily consumed it? Our AI lords must place real value on fact-checked reportingright nowto ensure its continued existence.
Josh Rosenberg is CEO and cofounder of Day One Agency.
Life360 has named Lauren Antonoff as its new CEO to succeed cofounder Chris Hulls. The move, which has been in the works since Antonoff joined the company in 2023 as chief operating officer, was announced Monday along with second-quarter earnings results for the San Francisco-based developer of popular family safety apps.
The company reported today another quarter of record subscribers, now totaling approximately 88 million monthly active users, up from nearly 71 million one year ago. As the company explores further growth opportunities ahead, including expanding its reach in international markets and adding new offerings, Hulls will stay on as executive chair of the Life360 board and continue working very closely with Antonoff.
We both have a vision for it becoming a much bigger company, Antonoff tells Fast Company in an exclusive interview. We see ourselves as the family super app, making everyday family life better.
Opportunity for growth
The company is more-than halfway toward reaching one of its long-term strategic goals of 150 million monthly active users, though its not as far along in achieving annual revenue that exceeds $1 billion. In addition to adding new subscribers, and particularly in markets outside the U.S., Life360 wants to serve those customers in new ways, such as expanding its focus on aging parents, Antonoff says.
Our opportunity is really unlimited, she adds. We are still very early in our journey, and we have a ton of value to create.
Founded in 2008, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Life360 offers both a free and paid service that allows users to track the locations of their family and friends in real time via a smartphone app.
It acquired Tile Bluetooth trackers in 2021 and users can now keep tabs on the locations of pets and other valuables, while it has built upon an advertising program last year that includes targeted ads based on the real-world behavior of users.
The company has been making good progress toward these long-term goals, Antonoff says, and stock market investors seem to agree. Since its initial public offering in June 2024, Life360 shares (Nasdaq: LIF) have nearly tripled in value.
What’s for dinner?
Antonoff came to Life360 after rising the ranks at GoDaddy to president of the U.S. small business segment and a nearly 20-year career at Microsoft.
One commonality between her days at Microsoft and Life360, she says, is that the people who are paying for the products may have differing priorities than the users. At Microsoft, that was the IT department, at Life360, thats overwhelmingly moms.
The only way for Life360 to be successful for families is if teenagers also get something out of the experience, Antonoff says. And one testament, she says, is that many children opt to return to the app after turning 18 because they also like to know where their parents are.
You have to make a product everybody feels good about using, otherwise you dont get the adoption, she says.
Even though shes not a big worrier, Antonoff has found more use cases for the apps than she ever would have imaginedit makes something as simple as picking someone up much easier.
Knowing where your people are makes life better in 1,000 ways you didnt expect, Antonoff says. Often, Im just checking when my husband is bringing home dinner.
Family focus
Antonoff has been key to the companys expansionincluding adding tracking pets and things, along with the launch of its ads platform.
Looking ahead to some of the goals for her first year in this new role, she says one thing users can expect is a richer app experience. Following last years integration with Uber, she says Life360 will look for additional integration opportunitiesall in an effort to better serve the needs of everyday family life.
More tech companies are vying to provide location services to its users. Instagram recently debuted a location-sharing Map feature that has raised privacy concerns and prompted many users to turn it off.
Meanwhile, Apple has for years offered a free location app. And yet, people still opt for Life360 because it provides the answers people want, faster, and more reliable and family-oriented.
Despite more competition, users still opt for Life360s services, even as other companies explore location-based services. Theyre not investing in family the way that we are, Antonoff says.
Over a century ago, Henry Fords assembly line helped mass produce the Model T, setting a new standard for how to manufacture vehicles. Now, at its Louisville Assembly Plant, the Ford Motor Company will soon scrap that typical assembly line for a new manufacturing system. Doing so, the automaker says, will allow it to more efficiently build more affordable electric vehiclesstarting with a $30,000 mid-sized electric truck to launch in 2027.The new system, called the Ford Universal EV Platform, came out of a skunkworks team in California that the automaker established back in 2022. Its part of an effort to make Ford more competitive with Chinese EV companies like BYD, which have dominated the global EV space with affordable vehicles. Ford CEO Jim Farley has himself been a fan of Chinese EVs after driving one for months.A new Ford assembly line A typical assembly line follows one straight path. As the path progresses, workers add pieces so that a vehicle is constructed from beginning to end. The Ford Universal EV Platform turns that singular assembly line into a tree system with three branches. Workers will build the vehicle’s front, rear, and structural battery all on separate lines that run in parallel. (The structural battery includes the seats, consoles, and carpeting.) Then, the three branches will come together at the end, where workers will build out the vehicles interior. This system means assembly will be 40% faster than current products on the assembly line. It also reduces strain on workers, with less twisting, turning, bending, and reaching, Without the vehicle traveling down a single assembly line, Ford says workers now wont need to install a seat through a door opening, sit in a vehicle to install parts, or reach as much over a fender during the assembly process. The Universal EV Platform also requires fewer manufacturing parts. With this assembly method, parts are reduced 20% compared to a typical vehicle, including 25% fewer fasteners. There will also be 40% fewer workstations in the plant. For the electrical system, Ford has removed 4,000 feet of wiring, making it 22 pounds lighter and simpler to install. [Animation: Ford]The quest to build affordable EVsThe first vehicle to be built on Fords new Universal EV Platform will be a midsize electric truck with a targeted starting price of $30,000. That vehicle will be built at the Louisville Assembly Plant and will launch in 2027. Ford did not give full details on the vehicle, including EV range or battery charge time. The automaker did say it will be as quick as a Mustang EcoBoost, with more interior space than a Rav 4. It will have room for five seats, as well as a truck bed, frunk, and exportable power. It will offer, for the first time, fast charging. It will have amazing range. It can power your house for six days, Farley said at a live announcement on Monday from the Louisville plant. You don’t need a generator, you just buy this truck. This midsized electric truck is just the first type of vehicle that can be built on the new EV platform. This new manufacturing system will allow Ford to make a family of affordable electric vehicles with multiple body styles, the company says, that will be available both for U.S. and export markets. The prismatic lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries will also be assembled in Americanot imported from China, the company notesat Fords BlueOval Battery Park in Marshall, Michigan. American EV manufacturingFord is investing nearly $2 billion in the Louisville Assembly Plant to implement this new system; it will begin reconfiguring the plant for the new assembly line later this year. That plant will secure 2,200 hourly jobs. Currently, the Louisville Assembly Plant employs 2,800 hourly workers, meaning there will be 600 fewer jobs with this new assembly line. Some of those workers who may be ready to retire will take a buyout offer, and others may transfer to nearby Ford plants. The automaker says there are no plans for layoffs. But there is room to grow, the company adds, as the platform scales up in Louisville. The $2 billion to transform the Louisville plant is part of a $5 billion effort from Ford to overhaul its EV production. That includes $3 billion committed to the BlueOval Battery Park in Michigan, which will secure 1,700 jobs to assemble LFP batteries. Fords new Universal EV Platform is a bet the company is making, Farley says, on the future of EV production and on American manufacturing. There are no guarantees with this project,” he adds. There is risk. Farley called out competitors, saying Ford could have moved this project to South Korea or Japan for cheaper labor costs and access to lower cost suppliers. “But that’s not the way we do things at Ford,” he said.With the American automotive industry at a crossroads and Chinese EV competition getting only more intense, Ford needed a radical new approach. Farley calls this new EV platform a Model T Moment for Ford. Our goal was to put up affordable, unbelievably great product within reach of millions of Americans, built in the U.S. by U.S. workers, and not be imported, Farley says. Why hasnt anyone done that? Because its really, really hard. Shares of Ford Motor Co (NYSE: F) rose in early trading on Monday following the announcement, but were largely flat by midday. The stock is up more than 15% year to date.
Its common knowledge that garlic makes everything betterbut if youre cooking with a garlic press you bought from Ikea, its time to check the model and potentially look into a refund. The company just issued a voluntary recall on thousands of garlic presses due to a laceration or ingestion hazard.
The recall, published on July 31 by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) includes about 43,830 Ikea garlic presses sold in the U.S. and another 10,700 sold in Canada. Heres what to know about the affected products:
Which garlic press is being recalled?
The product in question is the Ikea 365+ VÄRDEFULL garlic press, used to crush garlic cloves.
The garlic press has a black rubber handle and zinc-coated garlic chamber, and affected models were sold for $8 at Ikea stores nationwide and online at IKEA.com from March 2024 through May 2025. According to the CPSC, only models with the Ikea logowhich can be found at the upper part of the handleare subject to the recall.
Whats happened?
Per an Ikea press release, the garlic presses are being recalled Due to a production error, identified after an internal investigation, indicating a risk of small metal pieces detaching during use and subsequently being ingested with food.
Have any incidents been reported so far?
Unfortunately, yes. The CPSC report notes that Ikea has received a total of 10 incident reports globally, including three reports of lacerations and finger splinters. No incidents or injuries have been reported in the U.S. thus far.
What should I do if I own a recalled garlic press?
If you own the Ikea 365+ VÄRDEFULL, stop using it immediately. The product can be returned to any Ikea location for a full refund, even without proof of purchase.
Additionally, IKEA encourages customers to spread the word about this recall, especially if they know that the recalled product was offered, lent or sold to someone else, Ikeas report reads.
For more information, customers are directed to visit IKEA.ca/ProductRecalls or call the company at 1-800-661-9807.
The clock is ticking on tax credits for electric vehiclesand that’s pushing a lot of people who were debating whether or not to get one off of the fence.
Sales are surging at dealerships for EVs, and likely will remain high for the next month and a half. That’s because on September 30, the $7,500 tax credit for new EV purchases (and $4,000 for a used one) will disappear, a move that will add challenges to an industry that already has plenty.
Wait times for a new Tesla are currently hovering between four and six weeks, but over the weekend, the Tesla site was reportedly showing waits of four to six months. (It’s unclear if that was a mistake or glitch on Tesla’s part. Tesla did not reply to Fast Company‘s request for comment on the matter.)
Ford and General Motors, which also make EVs, have not reported extended wait times, but customer interest is growing.
Analysts say that’s to be expected, but once September comes to an end, the party may well be over for EV companies.
The July 4 signing of the Trump budget bill marked the death knell for EV incentives (and also spurred a feud between the White House and Elon Musk). That puts the EV industry at something of a crossroads.
Last month, consumers purchased 130,100 new EVs, the second-highest total on record, according to Cox Automotive. That was a 26.4% jump from June, and roughly 20% higher than last July. Used EV sales came in at 36,700, which was a record high.
Tesla is emphasizing the expiration of the tax credits on its site to encourage potential buyers to commit to a sale. The company has also increased lease rates of the Model Y by as much as 14% and done away with a free upgrade incentive for the Models Y and 3.
But the sales numbers won’t remain that high, experts say.
“Volatility is anticipated, as EV share mix from July-September is expected to advance, followed by much lower take rates in the fourth quarter of 2025,” S&P wrote in a blog post.
A June report from AAA showed flagging consumer interest in EVs. Only 19% of the people surveyed by the organization said they were likely or very likely to purchase one as their next car. The number who were adamantly against buying an EV was up, with 63% saying they were unlikely or very unlikely to buy an EV. Thats the highest number since 2022.
Tesla, meanwhile, reported a 16% drop in vehicle sales in its second quarter earnings. (The company’s stock is down 10% year to date.)
What to know if you’re thinking about buying an EV
If you’re one of the people who was considering an EV purchase, experts say you should figure out which car you want soonand not hesitate on the purchase. Those who do could find themselves at the mercy of the dealers.
“Electric vehicle demand and sales will absolutely spike between now and September 30,” says iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer. “I expect the typical last-minute rush between September 20 and 30, and I expect those buyers will be left with the dregs of the EV market. Dealers will be happy to leverage their advantage if they still have a desirable EV on the lot on September 29 and 30.”
An alternate scenario could see a stand-off between dealers and consumers in the coming weeks. Dealers, who know sales are about to plummet in October, could be willing to come down much further on pricing as September 30 approaches if they still have a surplus of inventory.
(To receive the tax credit, consumers must not only purchase their vehicle before the September 30 deadline, but must also take delivery by that date.)
The good news for potential buyers is that in July, at least, EV prices are still coming down. Kelley Blue Book says the average new EV cost $55,689, down by 2.2% from the June average and 4.2% lower than the year prior. Tesla saw the biggest price drops.
“The urgency created by the administrations decision to sunset government-backed, IRA-era EV incentives was expected to create serious demand for EVs in the short term,” said Stephanie Valdez Streaty, senior analyst, Cox Automotive. “If last month is any measure: Mission Accomplished. . . . At this pace, Q3 will be the best ever and then some, as buyers jump in before the big incentives dry up.”
