One of my Bentley University students put it plainly the other day: AI taking entry-level jobs is a when, not an if. But in venture capital, 70% of the decision is reading the founder and teamand thats something AI cant do.
That simple breakdown , 70% people, 30% productflips the usual narrative about finance. For decades, finance was defined by numbers. Analysts lived and died by the spreadsheets. Today, AI can run discounted cash flows, parse a term sheet, and size a market faster than any junior associate. But if you talk to people in venture capital, theyll tell you the math has never been the most important part. The numbers matter, of course, but the difference between betting on a future unicorn and losing it all is whether you can read the humans across the table.
AIs takeover of the crunching jobs
Students see whats coming. The entry-level finance roles that once trained armies of analysts are increasingly exposed to automation. AI models can scan thousands of comparable companies in seconds, build slide decks, even flag anomalies that a first-year hire would have spent a weekend catching. In fact, McKinsey estimates that nearly half of finance tasks could already be automated by existing AI tools. What was once seen as a rite of passagethe long hours bent over Excelmay soon look as outdated as typewriters in an accounting office.
Thats why many students I teach dont just worry about if AI will change their jobs. They assume it already has. The conversation now is how to build careers in finance when machines are better, faster, and cheaper at the very tasks that used to get you in the door.
The venture capital exception
Venture capital, especially at the earliest stages, offers a counterintuitive lesson. The math can only take you so far. Market sizing, revenue projections, even technical due diligenceall of it is valuable, but none of it predicts success the way the founder does. Investors Ive spoken with put it bluntly: youre betting on people, not just products.
Thats the essence of the 70/30 rule my student repeated: 70% of the investment decision is about the team. Only 30% is about the idea. Surveys of venture investors back this up. First Round Capital, for example, has consistently found that founder quality outranks product or market sizing in early-stage decisions. You want founders with resilience, persuasion, and the grit to pivot when the idea inevitably changes. AI can tell you the addressable market. It cannot tell you if this particular founder has the charisma to convince skeptical investors, the judgment to hire the right people, or the sheer stubbornness to keep going after three failed prototypes.
As one early-stage investor told me recently, AI can show me a founders track record in five seconds, but it cant tell me whether they can read a room or take a punch. Thats still my job.
Why Gen Z gets it
What strikes me is how quickly students are internalizing this. Rather than seeing their careers in finance as doomed, they are recalibrating. They want to be the people who can build relationships, persuade others, and trust their instincts. Theyre preparing not to be number crunchers, but decision-makers.
In class discussions, they talk about internships where AI already plays a role in screening deals. Their takeaway isnt despairits clarity. They see that the irreplaceable part of the job is not working the models but reading the room. They know AI may one day suggest which startup should succeed, but it wont sit across the table from a founder at 11 p.m., hear the quiver in their voice, and know whether thats nerves or conviction.
Gen Z, often criticized for being too soft, may be better positioned than we think. Theyve grown up digital. They understand the strengths of machines, but they also see the limits. Theyre comfortable letting AI do the heavy lifting if it means their human skills rise in value.
Lessons for the future of work
This shift should force us to rethink not only finance, but the future of work itself. If venture capital is a case study, the lesson is that industries once defined by quantitative rigor may end up placing even greater value on qualitative judgment. Harvard Business Review has made a similar point, noting that as AI scales technical analysis, soft skills are fast becoming the hardest skills to replace.
The irony is rich: the most number-driven fields may be the ones where numbers matter least. And if thats true, Gen Z might just be the generation that restores humanity to the financial worldnot by rejecting technology, but by mastering what machines cant.
Back to the 70/30 rule
That brings me back to my student. Their comment wasnt just about venture capital. It was about what comes next in finance, and perhaps beyond. If AI eats the numbers, the real work will be reading people.
AI owns the math. But the gutthe judgment, empathy, and intuition that turn data into decisionsstill belongs to us.
In the end, the algorithms will get faster, but the best investors will always pause, look across the table, and trust what no machine can calculate: the human pulse of possibility.
Hello again, and thank you, as always, for spending time with Fast Companys Plugged In.
Apple is legendary for figuring out what people want before they realize they want it. But since 2021, its MacBook Pro hasn’t been like that at all. Instead, this venerable laptop’s recent design has reflected Apple’s willingness to trust its customers’ judgmenteven when it’s been at odds with the company’s own instincts.
In part, that’s because of a 2016 reimagining of the MacBook Pro that didn’t stick. Atypically, Apple then went on to reverse many of the changes it had made. The fancy function-key replacement known as the Touch Bar went bye-bye. And several mundane-but-useful features Apple had axed came back, including the MagSafe power connector, HDMI port, and SD Card slot.
The result was a computer that was noticeably chunkier than the MacBook Air. But it was also particularly well tailored to the needs of people who prize sheer usefulness above all else. It was a workhorseyou know, professional.
The newest 14-inch MacBook Pro, which I’ve been using for a little less than a week (the company provided a unit for review), retains that vision. Actually, it retains everything about its immediate predecessor except the chip. A classic example of a “speed bump” upgrade, the machine is now powered by Apple’s next-generation M5 processor. So are updated versions of the iPad Pro and Vision Proan unusual example of disparate Apple products shipping with the same new chip all at once.
In another break from recent years, Apple isn’t immediately rolling out the new MacBook Pro in multiple variants: fast, faster, and fastest. Only the entry-level 14-inch model is getting a new chip. Higher-end Pros (including the 16-inch version) are still equipped with last year’s M4 Pro and M4 Max chips, leaving the MacBook Pro lineup in transition.
For now, the M5 MacBook Pro, with a starting price of $1,599, occupies a middle ground among Apple laptops. Many people will be delighted with the cheaper, lighter, thinner MacBook Air, an exemplary laptop in its own right. Others whose jobs involve particularly computationally intensive work, such as heavy-duty video editing, might opt for the M4 Pro or M4 Max versions of the MacBook Pro, or wait for M5 Pro and M5 Max ones. Apple itself described the M5 chip as suitable for “college students, business users, and aspiring creators,” a pretty concise way of encompassing the M5 MacBook Pro’s sweet spot.
Still, even though I’m a happy owner of a 15-inch MacBook Air, spending time with the new MacBook Pro made clear to me why some people would gladly pay a premium for it.
For starters, there are several fundamental ways in which the MacBook Pro is enough better than the MacBook Air to matter. That starts with the screen, which has brighter Mini-LED lighting and, thanks to ProMotion technology, smoother scrolling. The $150 Nano-texture display option, which Apple included on my review unit, does the job when it comes to the promised glare reduction: I felt more like I was reading off paper than a shiny LCD.
The Pro’s six-speaker audio system, with a subwoofer, is a significant upgrade over the Air’s. Its claimed battery life is longerup to 24 hours of video streaming versus 18 for the Air. Yes, that’s an upgrade from impressively long to remarkably long, but anything that reduces a portable computer’s reliance on chargers and AC outlets is a blessing.
Buy a MacBook Pro, and you may also be able to avoid dealing with the dreaded, easy-to-misplace adapters known as dongles. It has three USB-C ports versus the Air’s two, and they’re divvied between the left and right sides, letting you plug in cables any which way without having to snake them around. As for the built-in HDMI and SD Card slot, their survival in 2025 is miraculous given that Apple tried to eliminate them almost a decade agobut I, for one, would use the SD slot all the time to transfer photos and videos from my Fujifilm camera.
Okay, how about that new M5 chip? Apple emphasizes its improved performance in AI-intensive tasks such as applying filters to video and running local LLMs. Jason Snell of Six Colors benchmarked the new MacBook Pro and found it substantially quicker than the MacBook Air. His charts also show MacBook Pro models with M4 Pro and M4 Max chips remaining faster still, because they have more CPU and GPU cores than the M5.
In my informal experiments with tasks such as editing images in Photoshop and outputting video projects from DaVinci Resolve, the M5 MacBook Pro was a rocket. But with the exception of epoch-shifting moments such as Apple’s 2020 transition from Intel chips to ones it designed itself, the launch of a new processor is rarely a reason to rush out and buy a new computer. Instead, most people should hold off on springing for a new machine until their current one is showing its agea buying strategy Apple tacitly acknowledges in its marketing for the M5 MacBook Pro by comparing its performance to its M1 ancestor, which dates to 2020.
The best reason to get a new computer is as an insurance plan against future obsolescence. The M5 MacBook Pro is just a faster version of a familiar laptop. But it’s well positioned to stay useful even as AI becomes a more pervasive element of MacOS and Mac apps.
Apple certainly won’t leave the MacBook Pro feeling so familiar forever. Last week, Bloombergs Mark Gurman reported that the company is currently working on a thinner, lighter version with an M6 chipand the Mac line’s first-ever touchscreen. Here’s hoping that no matter how much the MacBook Pro evolves, it retains the quiet emphasis on straightforward, well-appointed productivity that defines it.
Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on FastCompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at
Meta is working to make its apps better for boomers. This week the company announced new UX features designed to deter scammers and make Meta’s apps safer for older adults.
Scammers today use all kinds of tricks to part people from their money, like soliciting personal information under the guise of fake government benefits, brazenly pretending to be customer service support, and chatting up unwitting people in the comments section of a real businesss social media page to lure them to another page.
[Image: Meta]
New features for older users
Meta says its new in-app warnings are meant to combat that type of behavior, and will be triggered by suspicious activity.
On the chat app WhatsApp, users who attempt to share their screen with an unknown contact during a video call will get a warning that says “Only share your screen with people you trust.” The pop-up notes that sharing your screen lets those you share it with “see anything you display on your screen, including sensitive details like your banking info.”
On Messenger, Meta says it’s testing more advanced scam detection in chats. The company says that when scam detection is enabled, suspicious chats will trigger a warning that prompts users to request an AI review, which will explain why the message was flagged, plus provide tips for staying safe online. The feature can be toggled off or on by going to privacy and safety settings and tapping scam detection.
[Image: Meta]
An example AI review Meta shared of a flagged suspicious message notes common scam signs such as job offers promising fast cash or the ability to work from home for a job that cant be done remotely. The AI review goes on to suggest the recipient of the message ignore job offers that seem too good to be true and never agree to send gift cards, a wire transfer, or other forms of payment to a stranger. That includes strangers who are famous.
Scamming is on the rise
Scammers have faked the likenesses of public figures such as Taylor Swift to make it appear as if the pop star is promoting a cookware set giveaway, and actors like Helen Mirren and Jamie Lee Curtis have in recent months warned fans about scammers using their likeness on Instagram.
Meta, which was hit this month with a class-action lawsuit that alleges it profits off of impersonation scam ads, announced it’s investing in cracking down on celebrity scams in the EU, U.K., and South Korea by using facial ID technology and AI.
[Image: Meta]
Online scams are a real problem for Meta and other companies. Meta says since the start of year, it’s disrupted nearly 8 million Facebook and Instagram accounts associated with criminal scam centers, and these and other scams have proven costly for victims.
According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Report, in 2024 people ages 60 and older lost a total of $4.8 billion to fraudmore than any other group. That’s up from more than $3 billion in 2023.
Best practice for designing digital products for an aging population often calls for features like bigger fonts and intuitive design, but it also means making it safe from scammers and fraudsters who target older individuals.
As Meta attempts to shore up online safety for young people by launching teen accounts with heightened parental controls, it’s clear the company also has work to do for its users at the other end of the age spectrum.
It used to be that artificial intelligence would leave behind helpful clues that an image it produced was not, in fact, real. Previous generations of the technology might give a person an extra finger or even an additional limb. Teeth could look odd and out of place, and skin could render overly blushed, like something out of Pixar. Multiple dimensions could befuddle our models, which struggled to represent the physical world in a sensical way: Ask for an image of salmon swimming in a river, and AI might show you a medium-rare salmon steak floating along a rapturous current.
Sure, we were in the uncanny valley. But at least we knew we were there.
Thats no longer the case. While there are still some analog ways to detect that the content we see was created with the help of AI, the implicit visual tip-offs are, increasingly, disappearing. The limited release of Sora 2, OpenAIs latest video-generation model, has only hastened this development, experts at multiple AI detection companies tell Fast Companymeaning we may soon come to be entirely dependent on digital and other technical tools to wade through AI slop. That has ramifications not only for everyday internet users but also for any institution with an interest in protecting its likeness or identity from theft and misappropriation.
Even [for] analysts like me who saw the evolution of this industry, it’s really hard, especially on images, Francesco Cavalli, cofounder of one of those firms, Sensity AI, tells Fast Company. The shapes, the colors, and the humans are perfect. So without the help of a tool now, it’s almost impossible for the average internet user to understand whether an image or a video or a piece of audio is AI-generated or not.
Visual clues are fading
The good news is that at least for now there are still some telltale visual signs that content was generated via artificial intelligence. Researchers are also hunting for more. While extra fingers appear less common, AI image generation models can still struggle to produce sensible text, explains Sofia Rubinson, a senior editor at Reality Check, a publication run by the information reliability company NewsGuard.
Remember that surveillance video of bunnies jumping on a trampoline that turned out to be AI-produced? You might just have to consider whether rabbits actually do that, Rubinson says. We really want to encourage people to think a little bit more critically about what they’re seeing online as these visuals are going away, she adds.
Rubinson says its possible to search for whether a portion of a video has been blurred out, which might suggest that a Sora 2 watermark used to be there. We can also check who shared it. Toggling to an accounts page sometimes reveals a trove of similar videosan almost-certain giveaway that youre being served AI slop.
On the flip side, usernames wont necessarily help us discern who really produced content: As Fast Company previously reported, its somewhat easy, though not always possible, to grab a Sora 2 username associated with a famous person, despite OpenAIs rules on using other peoples likenesses.
Ultimately, we may need to become fluent in a models individual style and tendencies, argues Siwei Lyu, a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who studies deepfakes. For instance, Sora 2-generated speech can appear a little too fast. (Some have dubbed this an AI accent.) Still, Lyu warns that these indications are subtle and can often be missed when viewing casually.
And the technology will improve, which means its unlikely such hints will be around forever. Indeed, researchers say the visible residue that AI was involved in creating a piece of content already seems to be fading.
The tips that we used to give in terms of visual inconsistencies are disappearing, model after model, says Emmanuelle Saliba, a former journalist who now leads investigations at GetReal Labs, a cybersecurity firm working on detecting and studying AI-generated and manipulated content.
While incoherent physical movement used to indicate AIs use in the creation of an image, Sora 2 has improved significantly on mimicking the real world, she says.
At Reality Defender, also a deepfake detection firm, every one of the companys researchershalf of whom have doctorateshave now been fooled by content produced by newer generations of AI. Since the launch of Sora, every single one of them has mislabeled a deepfake as real or vice versa, Ben Colman, cofounder and CEO of Reality Defender, tells Fast Company. If people who’ve been working on this for 5 to 25 years cannot differentiate real from fake, how can average users or those using manual detection?
Labels wont save us, either. While companies have touted watermarking as a way to identify AI-generated content, simple workarounds appear to foil these tools.
For instance, videos from OpenAIs Sora come with a visual watermarkbut online tools can remove them. OpenAI, like other companies, has committed to the C2PA standard created by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity. That specification is supposed to encode the provenance, or source, of a piece of content into its metadata. Yet the watermark can be removed by screenshotting an image created by OpenAI technology. Even dragging and dropping that image, in some cases, can remove the watermark, Fast Companys tests with the tool show.
OpenAI concedes this flaw, but a spokesperson said they werent able to reproduce the drag-and-drop issue. When Fast Company posed questions about this vulnerability to Adobe, which operates the C2PA verification tool, the company said the issue was on OpenAIs end.
Updating methodologies
Of course, the companies Fast Company spoke to are interested in selling various products designed to save us from the deepfake deluge. Some envision that AI content detection might go the way of virus scanning and become integrated into myriad online and workplace tools. Others suggest that their platforms will be necessary because the rise of tools like Sora 2 will make video call-based verification obsolete. Some executives believe their products will play a role in protecting brands from embarrassing AI-generated content.
In response to the release of the Sora app, a few of these firms do say theyre seeing growing interest. Still, like humans, even these companies need to update their methodologies when new models are released.
Even if the human cannot spot anything from the tech point of view, there’s always something to investigate, Sensitys Cavalli says. This often requires a mixed-methods approach, one that takes into account a range of factors, including studying a files metadata and discrepancies in background noise. Sensitys detection models are also retrained and refined when new models come online, Cavalli adds.
But even this isnt always perfect. Lyu from SUNYBuffalo says that while the detection systems his team has developed still work on videos produced with Sora 2, they have lower accuracy compared to their performance on generative AI models. And thats after some fine-tuning.
Hany Farid, a UC Berkeley professor who cofounded Reality Defender and serves as its chief science officer, says the companys forensic and data techniques have seen better but not perfect generalization in the latest models. In the case of Sora 2, some of the companys video techniques have remained effective, while others have required fine-tuning, he says, adding that the audio detection models still work robustly.
Thats a change from earlier eras of generative AI, when forensic techniques had to be continuously updated to apply to the latest models. For our digital-forensic techniques, this required understanding specific artifacts introduced by the AI models and then building techniques to detect these artifacts. For our more data-based techniques, this required generating content from the latest model and retraining our models.
Whether these deepfake detection methods will continue to hold up is unclear. In the meantime, it seems that were increasingly heading toward a world flooded by AI but still building its seawalls.
It used to be that artificial intelligence would leave behind helpful clues that an image it produced was not, in fact, real. Previous generations of the technology might give a person an extra finger or even an additional limb. Teeth could look odd and out of place, and skin could render overly blushed, like something out of Pixar. Multiple dimensions could befuddle our models, which struggled to represent the physical world in a sensical way: Ask for an image of salmon swimming in a river, and AI might show you a medium-rare salmon steak floating along a rapturous current.
Sure, we were in the uncanny valley. But at least we knew we were there.
Thats no longer the case. While there are still some analog ways to detect that the content we see was created with the help of AI, the implicit visual tip-offs are, increasingly, disappearing. The limited release of Sora 2, OpenAIs latest video-generation model, has only hastened this development, experts at multiple AI detection companies tell Fast Companymeaning we may soon come to be entirely dependent on digital and other technical tools to wade through AI slop. That has ramifications not only for everyday internet users but also for any institution with an interest in protecting its likeness or identity from theft and misappropriation.
Even [for] analysts like me who saw the evolution of this industry, it’s really hard, especially on images, Francesco Cavalli, cofounder of one of those firms, Sensity AI, tells Fast Company. The shapes, the colors, and the humans are perfect. So without the help of a tool now, it’s almost impossible for the average internet user to understand whether an image or a video or a piece of audio is AI-generated or not.
Visual clues are fading
The good news is that at least for now there are still some telltale visual signs that content was generated via artificial intelligence. Researchers are also hunting for more. While extra fingers appear less common, AI image generation models can still struggle to produce sensible text, explains Sofia Rubinson, a senior editor at Reality Check, a publication run by the information reliability company NewsGuard.
Remember that surveillance video of bunnies jumping on a trampoline that turned out to be AI-produced? You might just have to consider whether rabbits actually do that, Rubinson says. We really want to encourage people to think a little bit more critically about what they’re seeing online as these visuals are going away, she adds.
Rubinson says its possible to search for whether a portion of a video has been blurred out, which might suggest that a Sora 2 watermark used to be there. We can also check who shared it. Toggling to an accounts page sometimes reveals a trove of similar videosan almost-certain giveaway that youre being served AI slop.
On the flip side, usernames wont necessarily help us discern who really produced content: As Fast Company previously reported, its somewhat easy, though not always possible, to grab a Sora 2 username associated with a famous person, despite OpenAIs rules on using other peoples likenesses.
Ultimately, we may need to become fluent in a models individual style and tendencies, argues Siwei Lyu, a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who studies deepfakes. For instance, Sora 2-generated speech can appear a little too fast. (Some have dubbed this an AI accent.) Still, Lyu warns that these indications are subtle and can often be missed when viewing casually.
And the technology will improve, which means its unlikely such hints will be around forever. Indeed, researchers say the visible residue that AI was involved in creating a piece of content already seems to be fading.
The tips that we used to give in terms of visual inconsistencies are disappearing, model after model, says Emmanuelle Saliba, a former journalist who now leads investigations at GetReal Security, a cybersecurity firm working on detecting and studying AI-generated and manipulated content.
While incoherent physical movement used to indicate AIs use in the creation of an image, Sora 2 has improved significantly on mimicking the real world, she says.
At Reality Defender, also a deepfake detection firm, every one of the companys researchershalf of whom have doctorateshave now been fooled by content produced by newer generations of AI. Since the launch of Sora, every single one of them has mislabeled a deepfake as real or vice versa, Ben Colman, cofounder and CEO of Reality Defender, tells Fast Company. If people who’ve been working on this for 5 to 25 years cannot differentiate real from fake, how can average users or those using manual detection?
Labels wont save us, either. While companies have touted watermarking as a way to identify AI-generated content, simple workarounds appear to foil these tools.
For instance, videos from OpenAIs Sora come with a visual watermarkbut online tools can remove them. OpenAI, like other companies, has committed to the C2PA standard created by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity. That specification is supposed to encode the provenance, or source, of a piece of content into its metadata. Yet the watermark can be removed by screenshotting an image created by OpenAI technology. Even dragging and dropping that image, in some cases, can remove the watermark, Fast Companys tests with the tool show.
OpenAI concedes this flaw, but a spokesperson said they werent able to reproduce the drag-and-drop issue. When Fast Company posed questions about this vulnerability to Adobe, which operates the C2PA verification tool, the company said the issue was on OpenAIs end.
Updating methodologies
Of course, the companies Fast Company spoke to are interested in selling various products designed to save us from the deepfake deluge. Some envision that AI content detection might go the way of virus scanning and become integrated into myriad online and workplace tools. Others suggest that their platforms will be necessary because the rise of tools like Sora 2 will make video call-based verification obsolete. Some executives believe their products will play a role in protecting brands from embarrassing AI-generated content.
In response to the release of the Sora app, a few of these firms do say theyre seeing growing interest. Still, like humans, even these companies need to update their methodologies when new models are released.
Even if the human cannot spot anything from the tech point of view, there’s always something to investigate, Sensitys Cavalli says. This often requires a mixed-methods approach, one that takes into account a range of factors, including studying a files metadata and discrepancies in background noise. Sensitys detection models are also retrained and refined when new models come online, Cavalli adds.
ut even this isnt always perfect. Lyu from SUNY Buffalo says that while the detection systems his team has developed still work on videos produced with Sora 2, they have lower accuracy compared to their performance on generative AI models. And thats after some fine-tuning.
Hany Farid, a UC Berkeley professor who cofounded GetReal Security and serves as its chief science officer, says the companys forensic and data techniques have seen better but not perfect generalization in the latest models. In the case of Sora 2, some of the companys video techniques have remained effective, while others have required fine-tuning, he says, adding that the audio detection models still work robustly.
Thats a change from earlier eras of generative AI, when forensic techniques had to be continuously updated to apply to the latest models. For our digital-forensic techniques, this required understanding specific artifacts introduced by the AI models and then building techniques to detect these artifacts. For our more data-based techniques, this required generating content from the latest model and retraining our models.
Whether these deepfake detection methods will continue to hold up is unclear. In the meantime, it seems that were increasingly heading toward a world flooded by AI but still building its seawalls. The name of GetReal Security has been updated.
Those AI tools are being trained on our trade secrets. Well lose all of our customers if they find out our teams use AI. Our employees will no longer be able to think critically because of the brain rot caused by overreliance on AI. These are not irrational fears. As AI continues to dominate the headlines, questions about data privacy and security, intellectual property, and work quality are legitimate and important.
So, what do we do now? The temptation to just say No is strong. It feels straightforward and safe. However, this safe route is actually the riskiest of all. An outright ban on AI is a losing strategy that creates more problems than it solves. It fosters secrecy, increases security risks, and puts you at a massive competitive disadvantage.
Im the founder of two tech agencies and a big proponent of AI. As a business, we also deal with customer data, often from industries like government, healthcare, and education. However, I believe theres a much better way to address the threats posed by AI. In this article, Ill share the dangers of flat-out AI bans and what companies can do instead.
Curiosity crisis
You can ban tools, but you cant ban curiosity, especially among developers and product managers who are paid to be innovative. Theyre not living in a vacuum. Theyve heard they can do this and that in a fraction of the time, and they simply want to try it out.
Additionally, employees may feel that not using AI daily puts them at a disadvantage compared to their peers working at other companies where AI is allowed.
When you forbid the use of AI tools, you dont stop it. Multiple studies confirm that you simply drive it underground. A Cisco survey revealed that 60% of respondents (including security and privacy professionals from various countries) entered information about company internal processes into genAI tools; 46% entered employee names or information, and 31% entered customer names or information.
This creates Shadow ITthe unsanctioned use of technology within an organization. In recent years, a new term has also emerged: Bring Your Own AI, or BYOI.
Another study by Anagram paints even a more shocking picture: 58% of the surveyed employees across the U.S. admit to pasting sensitive data into large language models. Moreover, 40% were willing to knowingly violate company policy to complete a task faster. I guess the forbidden fruit is indeed the sweetest.
As a consequence, you have zero visibility. You dont know what tools are being used, what data is being input, or what risks are being taken. The irony is real: the problem you wanted to control is now completely out of your control.
Security paradox
The primary reason for a ban is to protect sensitive data. However, the ban makes a leak more likely, not less.
Employees may create personal accounts and use free or cheaper plans, which often default to using your data for model training. They lack robust security features, audit logs, and data processing agreements (DPAs).
On the contrary, enterprise plans, such as ChatGPT Business or Enterprise, often come with assurances that your data will not be used for training purposes. They may offer SSO, data encryption, access controls, and administrative oversight.
Your sensitive data, which you feared would be leaked through an official channel, gets leaked through dozens of untraceable personal accounts. You could have secured it with an enterprise plan, but instead, you pushed it into the wild.
Driving in the slow lane
While you’re debating, your competitors are executing. With only 19% of C-level executives reporting a more than 5% increase in revenue attributed to AI, it may be too early to talk about the ROI. Also, the reason for a relatively small ROI may not be in the AI itself, but in the way we use it. More and more businesses are now considering applying AI to central business operations rather than peripheral processes.
AI use cases in a business setting are manifold. I know firsthand that the productivity gains from AI are not marginal. At Redwerk, we do not shy away from AI-assisted development, and were teaching our clients how they can set up such workflows. We dont view AI as a threat stealing developers lunch; we view it as a tool, allowing us to do more in-depth work faster.
One practical use case for developers is generating boilerplate code or documenting APIs in seconds, rather than hours. With AI, our product managers can analyze user feedback at scale, brainstorm feature ideas, and conduct market research far more quickly.
At QAwerk, we use a range of AI testing tools to generate test cases, identify obscure edge cases, and even perform initial security vulnerability scans.
AI is here to stay
Its not a fad, and its not going anywhere. More and more apps are developing AI features, keeping pace with the competition. AI will continue changing the anatomy of work. Workplace productivity tools like Slack, Zoom, and Asana (which are all now enhanced with AI) have become ingrained in the daily operations of tech-forward businesses. Major cloud and database providers are now offering agentic AI for enterprises.
Investors are pouring billions into OpenAI, despite the company operating at a loss, because they recognize that AI is the future. All these facts clearly signal one thing: AI is here to stay.
How to adopt AI responsibly
Throughout my entrepreneurial journey, Ive quickly learned that being proactive is a more effective strategy than being reactive. And that pertains to everything, including AI. When questions like Are you using AI? are asked to support employees rather than reprimand them, youre on the right track. You dont need to overcomplicate things; just start.
Step 1: Guide, dont forbid
Create a simple Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) with dos and donts. Please, no 40-page PDFs no one has ever touched (besides the person creating it). Clearly define what is and is not acceptable. For example, AI tools are approved for brainstorming, learning, and working with nonsensitive ode. Do not input any client data, PII, or company IP into public AI models.
Step 2: Equip your team
Invest in a secure, enterprise-level AI tool. The cost is minimal compared to the productivity gains and the risk of unmanaged use. Before you do that, survey the team for their preferences. They probably have a ton of prompts that maybe work better in Gemini rather than Claude or ChatGPT, or vice versa. You need to gather all major use cases and conduct research on the tool that can address them best. This provides your team with a secure, approved sandbox to work in.
Step 3: Educate and empower
Did you know that millennials are even bigger advocates for AI than Gen Zers? 62% of millennials self-reported high expertise with AI. In many organizations, millennials occupy managerial positions, and they can become true champions of change. So, their enthusiasm should be nurtured rather than stifled.
Run workshops. Share best practices for prompt engineering. Create a dedicated Slack/Teams channel for people to share cool use cases and discoveries. Turn it into a positive, collaborative exploration.
Step 4: Listen and iterate
Dont let the policy be a stone tablet. Let your team explore, get their feedback, and then formulate more detailed policies grounded in their practical, real-world experience. Youll learn what actually works and where the real risks lie.
Final thoughts
Things are moving extremely fast in the AI space. So fast, its challenging to keep up even without any bans. If you cant avoid the inevitable, embrace it. Yes, data privacy and security are no joke, but banning AI is not how you ensure its integrity. Let your team experiment and innovate within the guardrails you both find reasonable and agree on. Allow industry-compliant tools, provide training, and use them to your advantage.
What if the women leaders who were long overlooked are the ones we cant afford to ignore today. The proverbial career ladder has long been the dominant metaphor for success. For many, it works: a clear, linear climb, one predictable rung at a time. For others, it doesnt, because the ladder was never built to hold the weight of multiple roles and ambitions.
Women, in particular, have mastered a multi-hyphenate model of leadership out of necessity: mother and manager, founder and caregiver, mentor and innovator. What looked nonlinear was simply a different kind of training ground, one that creates resilience, adaptability, and perspective.
Todays multi-hyphenates are entrepreneurs-executives-authors, CEOs-board members-storytellers, and founders-volunteers-mentors. Theyve pivoted across industries, re-entered the workforce after pauses, and taken lateral moves to gain new skills or flexibility. Those shifts and gaps arent liabilities, theyre evidence of courage, perspective, and the kind of agility various lived experiences produce.
Lattice, not ladder
Instead of advancing only upward, these women have built careers in multiple directions. A lattice (or jungle gym) career is about growing wider, deeper, and smarter, not just higher. For generations, womens professional ambition has been constrained and conditional: dont pause, dont deviate, dont improvise. Today, women are rejecting those outdated rules and designing careers on their own terms.
A multi-hyphenate career isnt about abandoning ambition, its about redefining it. Success is measured not just by titles or tenure, but by influence, impact, and the ability to bring others along. In fact, when women come together, through mentorship, collaboration, and shared experience, they create a multiplier effect that accelerates learning, leadership, and impact across organizations.Thats not to say the traditional ladder is irrelevant. For many leaders, it remains a powerful and valid route to the top. It just cant be the only one.
What the modern workplace needs
Even in corporate roles, this era of constant disruption is testing every leaders ability to make high-stakes decisions and rally teams through uncertainty and upheaval. Employee expectations are shifting: new generations demand empathy, flexibility, and cultural fluency. These are existential challenges that require resilience and the ability to hold multiple perspectives at once. In that context, the women leaders who have crossed sectors, scaled startups, and taken a career pause are uniquely positioned for what the modern workplace needs right now.
No matter where they sit, multi-hyphenates carry the very skills once dismissed as soft but now recognized as indispensable: empathy, emotional intelligence, adaptability, and the ability to build trust across divides. Innovation thrives at intersections, and these women leaders know how to bridge industries, cultures, and generations.
Good for the bottom line
The business case is undeniable. Companies with women executives outperform competitors by 30% and women founders deliver higher ROI when funded. From our vantage pointsone leading chief, the worlds largest network for women executivesand one who is CEO and cofounder of a leading AI driven, and the fastest-growing executive search firm in the U.S.we both hear directly from thousands of women navigating this reality. Together, they represent not just a large share of todays workforce, but the very talent pipeline companies will depend on for the C-suite of tomorrow. The pattern is unmistakable: nonlinear careers are producing leaders uniquely equipped for todays complexity.
Yet, too many companies still cling to neatly sequenced résumés over pivots, pauses, or plurality. And they overlook a critical truth that leadership today is rarely developed in isolation. Women, in particular, are adept at building support networks that foster growth and create opportunities for many in their orbit. This collective strength can amplify influence far beyond what one individual could achieve alone. After all, leadership is a team sport.
Systemic change
Unlocking this potential requires change across the system. Boards should prize crisis navigation and cross-functionality. Recruiters must weigh adaptability and emotional intelligence alongside tenure. HR leaders should create returnships and project-based roles. And women themselves must stop apologizing for nonlinear journeys and claim their value.
Were not looking to replace the corporate ladder. For some, it still works, and thats fine. But clinging to it as the only credible path is a mistake. Nonlinear, multi-hyphenate careersonce dismissed as messy, flawed, or unfocusedare proving to be a highly effective model for leadership. Women have been beta-testing this blueprint for decades. It works. And its time for companies to embrace it.
Welcome to the future!
David Arena, head of global corporate real estate for JPMorganChase, is standing on a sweeping staircase in a soaring travertine-clad lobby addressing a crowd. Hes there to welcome visitors to the ribbon cutting of 270 Park Ave., the banking behemoth’s new global headquarters in Manhattan.
Behind him, an American flag hitched to a fluted bronze mast flies vigorously (its propelled by an artificial breeze that required a remarkable amount of fine-tuning). Standing next to him are the people who helped design and build the $3 billion, 2.5 million-square-foot supertall: JPMC CEO Jamie Dimon, British architect Norman Foster, developer Rob Speyer, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and New Age author Deepak Chopra.
For the leaders at JPMC, 270 Park is a big bet on the idea that working from an office is a competitive advantage in a business landscape that is rapidly changing. New technology, a shifting regulatory landscape, and geopolitical change are all coming to bear on the future of the financial services industry. A world-class office building, they believe, will provide an anchor in a tumultuous moment, and for many years to come.
Ask the team behind 270 Park and theyll tell you that the new HQ is meant to be a joyful, productive space. The goal is to make workers healthier in mind, body, and spiritand therefore equipped to do their best work efficiently and effectively. Its a vessel where abundance flows naturally, Chopra proclaimed when he took the podium after Arena.
[Photo: Nigel Young, courtesy of Foster + Partners]
The office of the future, built for today
JPMC began plotting its headquarters seven years ago. While it remained steadfast in its vision for the future of the office, the nature of work has transformed substantially since then. The pandemic forced many people into remote work due to health and safety concerns, and once the Slack and Zoom growing pains subsided, many folks realized that they actually had better work-life balance, saved money on commuting, and just generally felt happier and healthier while working from homeall while still getting the job done.
For many, the drawbacks of remote work, like less access to equipment and feeling disconnected from company culture and team members, could be solved with a hybrid arrangement. Of the people who are able to perform their duties remotely, 52% prefer hybrid work, according to a recent Gallup poll, with just 26% preferring exclusively remote work and 22% desiring fully on-site work.
These shifts provoke a question many office workers ask: If an office isnt technically required in order to do the job, then what is the office for? As with all headquarters, particularly on Park Avenue, the citys glass-and-steel canyon of corporate skyscrapers, they are symbols. JPMCs new building is a symbol not only of corporate ambition but also civic aspiration.
Occupying a full city block, 270 Park Ave. is the first major office building to be constructed since the COVID-19 pandemic. Its the centerpiece of a JPMC microdistrict Dimon has assembled in the heart of Midtown Manhattan. Symbolically, and practically, it depicts a vision for the future of the financial sector in New Yorkone that is as brawny and commanding as Foster + Partners formidable skyscraper, which is held aloft by a massive bronze-clad base whose columns taper into six fan-shaped forms.
According to a report in The New Yorker, the base alone required more steel to build than the 52-story building that was on the site before, the elegantly proportioned and assuringly reposed Union Carbide tower by SOM architect Natalie de Blois. Arena described the building as a beacon of American strength.
[Photo: Nigel Young, courtesy of Foster + Partners]
An office youll never want to leave
Dimon has been one of the most vocal supporters of returning to the office five days a week. His employees, however, have not always agreed. They have signed petitions asking for more flexibility, and unionization efforts are underway in response to the policy. But pushback doesnt seem to be making a difference. According to a recording obtained by Reuters of a JPMC town hall in Columbus, Ohio, Dimon responded to an employee asking about the petition: Dont give me the sh*t that work from home Friday works. Later he told CNBC that employees should respect that the company is going to decide whats good for the clients, the company, etc., not an individual. . . . And so they can get a joband Im not being meanthey can get a job elsewhere.
At the press conference, Hochul praised Dimon for sticking with his cmmitment to build 270 Park during the pandemic, at a time when doom-forecasting pundits spelled crisis for Manhattans future amid a sluggish return to office and the ripple effects from less foot traffic in business districts. He said come back to the office, Ill give you a place youll never want to leave! she crowed.
I wondered if she may have been alluding to the business and its relationship to the city. Her official statement said the building reaffirms New York as the worlds financial capital. Over the past few years, the financial sector, which is responsible for a quarter of the citys economy, has been shifting investment from New York and California to Sunbelt states. JPMC now employs more people in Texas than New York.
Still, the bank has emphasized its commitment to New York. The opening of our new global headquarters is not only a significant investment in New York, but also a testament to our commitment to our clients and employees worldwide, Dimons statement about the opening reads. We are strengthening our ability to serve our clients and communitieslocally and globallyfor generations to come.
Theres ample symbolism of this sentiment in the architecture. In his remarks, Foster described how the building is anchored into the bedrock below and that its formwhich in the skyline resembles either a slender tower or an elongated, bulky ziggurat depending on your vantage pointis derived from the urban fabric and zoning code. Ive always admired the grid, and it is inseparable from the grid, Foster remarked. Theres no computer wizardry. It is four square and rooted in tradition.
In fact, 270 Park Ave. is the first project to result from the East Midtown Rezoning, a Bloomberg-era idea finalized in 2017 to attract and maintain business in the area. It also created a funding mechanism to improve the neighborhoods public realm and mandated indoor or outdoor public space for new development. At the new headquarters, this element takes the form of a leafy public plaza on Madison Avenue furnished with concrete benches, movable jet-black Bertoia chairs and Saarinen tables, and an installation by Maya Lin composed of tessellated slate-gray stone that apparently references Central Park schist.
Along Park Avenue, there are long cascading steps into the building that give the illusion of a plaza but nudge passersby to keep it moving; the steps are far too shallow to sit on, unlike at the Seagram Building a couple of blocks north. Arena described 270 Parks open space and public art as our gift to the city, as though it were benevolence and not part of the deal NYC struck with JPMC to allow the company to build to an astounding 1,388 feet. Taller than the Empire State and Chrysler buildings, and with a scintillating LED light installation by the artist Leo Villareal at its crown, 270 Park is certainly making the presence of those gifts known.
[Photo: Nigel Young, courtesy of Foster + Partners]
The quantified workplace
This idealistic vision of both JPMC and Midtownthe hive of abundance within the prosperous cityhinges on a critical element: people. The building is a recruitment and retention tool that plays into the elements that have been scientifically proven to increase quality of experience, like ample natural light and clean air, as well as amenities designed to bring individual fulfillment to employees. To that end the interiors are designed to promote social, functional, and restorative activities among all teams that will use the building, which will encompass 10,000 employees.
Really you’re solving for people, Stefanie Shunk, a design director at Gensler, told me after the ribbon cutting. The firm was responsible for 1.7 million square feet of workspace spread across 30 floors of 270 Park Ave., which includes conference floors, amenity spaces, health and wellness floors, and executive suites; the firm SOM designed the buildings eight trading floors. Were all high-performing individuals now, Shunk continues. And with an Oura ring, or different devices, we’re measuring ourselves as well. So what does that mean? Mindsets have shifted to how we think about what optimizes our day.
Shunk and her team conceived of the work floors from a perspective of experience density so that employees would never feel like theyre in a vast expanse or too far from amenities. The elevators on each work floor open to a double-height communal space, which resembles a café. Lactation and well-being rooms (including prayer rooms with foot baths) are located off the communal spaces. Providing sensory varietyfrom a dead-silent recharge room to an energetic shared space and everything betweenalso guided the strategy.
The workspaces are flexible, built with the assumption that the business and its teams will change. Theyre constructed on raised floors, arranged on a modular grid, and the walls are demountable. We wanted this space to live over time, Shunk says. It wasn’t about a 10- or 20-year lease; this is a 100-year-plus building.
While the workstations are all open, Gensler devised seating arrangements and interior details that help each individual feel like they have more personal space. Along the windows, designers dispensed with private offices so that more daylight can permeate the space. Instead, they clustered workstations in groups of two and four, reducing the number of middle seats as much as they could. People like to feel like they’re in their own space, Shunk says. We just didnt want to see a run of 8, 10, 12 desks. For people with workstations near high-traffic areas, custom glass partitions are installed so their backs are protected.
The primary detail that changed dueto the pandemic was the addition of video chat rooms designed for one to two people; before, the smallest conference rooms were huddle spaces intended for four to five people. Gensler designed the video chat rooms to include virtual desktops to ease moving from their workstation to the room, and tables that are contoured to give each person in a meeting a more equitable experience on-screen. Part of the value of more of these rooms is to protect the acoustical environment in the open areas. The reality of work today is that even if you are in the office, youre likely working with someone who is not there and so video calls are now routine.
What really changed from the pandemic is we care so much more about the individual and designing to the outer edges of what people need, Shunk says. It used to be Design for the 80%, and now its Lets solve for the majority.
[Photo: Nigel Young, courtesy of Foster + Partners]
A one-stop-shop for everyone
Foster describes the building as a city within a city where presumably every activity someone might need to do throughout the day can happen within 270 Parks walls. One space that JPMC is particularly proud of is The Exchange, a three-story community hub Foster + Partners designed. It includes an expansive space for parties and corporate gatherings, plus a Danny Meyer-curated food hall with 19 restaurants and cafés (one is in an Airstream and another is in what looks like a classic green NYC newsstand). Foster + Partners designed a lavish client center at the very top of the building, with 360-degree views of the city.
As I watched the video fly-through of the buildings interior that played during the ribbon-cutting ceremony, I was wowed by the wealth of spaces and the lengths the real estate team took to make the office come off as hospitable. I would very much like to work from a plant-filled office, with daylight and views of the metropolis. (Although I could do without the mandatory biometric scanning employees will need to do to enter the building; instead of badges, JPMC will use their palm or fingerprint.)
The concentration of amenities and activities within the building reminded me of another architect who frequently spoke of his developments as a city within a city: John Portman, who constructed epically scaled hotels in beleaguered downtowns to spark economic development. But Midtown Manhattan now is not Atlanta in 1985. This August, pedestrian activity in the city topped pre-pandemic levels. One of the great pleasures of being in New York City is experiencing everything it offers in its entirety, not merely a microcosm designed in its image to keep people in a single location.
According to Chopra, achieving an abundance mindset involves reframing your thoughts to focus on everything you currently have instead of obsessing over what you lack. In the case of JPMC, thats likely the freedom to work remotely. Employees are steadily moving into 270 Park, with full occupancy expected by the end of the year. As they adjust to their new office, they will determine whether perks like imported taps that pour a perfect pint of Guiness, an app that enables them to order lunch to their desks, a signature scent piped into the air, and lighting that adjusts with circadian rhythms are the acts of corporate generosity or hallmarks of a gilded cage.
I slip on a pair of Nike running shoes. I clip a chunk of metal to the heel, which wraps around my lower leg like a shin guard. The battery goes on last, hugging it all like a high ankle bracelet.
In all of 30 seconds, Ive turned my legs into robots. I’m wearing Nikes new exoskeleton footwear, dubbed Project Amplify.
My legs feel heavier for sure. But with each step, theres a little kick in my heel. Like a cherry bomb exploding underfoot. And when it launches next year under a new name for an undisclosed price, Project Amplify will power runs up to 10 kilometers long on a single charge, increasing your energy output by 15% to 20% along the way.
Think of it as an ebike for your feet, says Michael Donaghu, a VP at Nike who leads the Project Amplify team.
[Photo: Nike]
The long road toward amplification
Exoskeletons offer the possibility to completely reimagine human movement, so it might not be surprising to learn that Nike has been pursuing the possibilities of exoskeletons for 14 years.
As Donaghu explains, he began at Nike decades ago working for the cofounder mad scientist running coach Bill Bowerman himself, who had a penchant for saying that an ounce on your foot was worth a pound on your back. As such, much of Nike innovation is about subtractioneliminating weight to ensure the product doesnt get in the way of your body.
Nikes marathon-busting Vaporfly shoes offered some rebuttal to this idea, as Nike studied the possibilities of energy return, developing carbon plates and foams that could give back an extra 4% of your stride. What if, instead of playing subtraction, we could give you more? Donaghu muses. And exoskeleton research was right along these lines, albeit taken to the extreme.
The problem a decade ago, however, was that the components needed for robotic assistance never quite added up. The technology was too heavy, or not powerful enough, Donaghu says. The theory just didn’t play out in practice.
Rather than dissuading Nike, Donaghu says it kept the company focused on the longer gameand every once in a while, a new PhD would walk through the doors and reignite interest in the idea, just to keep the coals burning. I think you can have a lot of shared intuition as a group of designers and researchers, and sometimes technology just isn’t ready to do it, or you’re not smart enough to figure it out, he says.
By 2021, the team opted to try again in earnest, dedicating full-time researchers to the project longer term. Quite a few developments helped. Algorithms, sensors, and microprocessors had all matured. But most of all, Donaghu credits the drone industry, fueled by a new wave of lightweight, high-RPM motors, with providing one of the most fundamental components of Project Amplify.
That mass adoption made smaller, more energy-dense motors of the size that you would want to put on a body, he says.
[Photo: Nike]
Designing the first consumer-friendly exoskeleton
The design of Project Amplify is inspired by the human body. Developed in partnership with Dephy, it’s essentially a robotic version of your Achilles tendonthe connection between your calf muscles and heel that powers running and jumping. As you walk, onboard sensors track your gait and attempt to power your step at just the right moment. Donaghu likens the challenge to pushing someone on a swing. Too early, it feels weird. Too late, and its pointless. The task requires accuracy in the milliseconds, while accommodating for the fact that everyones gait is a little different.
[Photo: Nike]
Nike hasnt mastered this work yet. As I take my first jog in Project Amplify, I find myself fighting the machine. I dont feel puppeted, as I have with larger exoskeletons in the past, but I dont feel like a super version of myself, either. Instead, theres a bit too much pressure on my shin, and my heel slips slightly out of the shoe. Allow me to admit, its a bit infantilizing to find yourself struggling to run at Nike HQ, and Im admittedly despondent when another tester trying Amplify for the first time flies by me effortlessly.
Tweaking the level of support and response time (simple buttons and sliders in an app) does help. And while Im still a bit awkward, and the footwear never feels weightless, they also got my ass up a 500-foot training hill, leaving me reasonably but not devastatingly winded.
For me, an elite running shoe feels like Im running on flubber, and an e-bike can straight-up feel like driving a motorcycle. I wanted one sensation or the other in a way that wasnt quite there yet in Project Amplify.
But taking it off? A dream! All you do is pull a tab on the heel, and the robot ulatches. Im reminded of the handful of people necessary for me to don an exoskeleton pant made with Arcteryx. Meanwhile, Nike really has developed something that I believe most people could slip on with relative ease.
[Photo: Nike]
Polishing Amplify for launch
Despite the fact that hundreds of people have taken more than 2.4 million steps with Project Amplify, Donaghu knows the product isnt fully cooked yet, and hes even a bit self-conscious as the team shares a platform theyve yet to perfect with journalists such as myself.
Could we already be in the market right now? Yeah, we actually are getting really good functional testing results and feedback from most people. It just doesn’t meet the threshold of, like, is it swoosh-worthy yet? he says. I just think we have a responsibility to make sure that this thing ends up being really aspirational. Like, it really disappears visually. Functionally, it’s just something that’s there helping you. And if we can’t get to that threshold, then for some of us, it’s not going to be good enough.
For now, Nike reaching that threshold means continuing to tweak the algorithms so that people like me dont face a learning curve when using the product. He also suggests that the team still has levers to pull to lighten the technology while increasing its power output. And, of course, it has to look fire on your foot.
To this aim, the design team has developed a mockup of Project Amplify thats more svelt, graceful, and all-around Nike-vibing than the chunkier prototypes theyve built thus far. Now its just up to the poor engineering team to bring that vision to life.
As for where Project Amplify fits in the market, its too much power for competitive sport, but perfect for recreation. Longer term, Nikes own CEO isnt making any bold predictions about revenue potential or market size, but the writing is on the wall that the age of exoskeletons is coming. That’s especially for those aging with lower mobilitythese technologies will revolutionize quality of life.
There are so many ways that it doesn’t fit perfectly into our business model. It’s a bigger swing, says Donaghu, who a few beats later admits that it feels wonderful to be making such a swing, to launch a product on the true edge of the companys capabilities. That’s Nike at its best, when we’re just being a little more bold to say we’re responsible for trying to change this industry and just help people move by and large. What are all the things that we’re not releasing that would do that?
NASA just handed Elon Musk a very public reality checkand virtually threw its own moon plans into the trashcan, although the U.S. space agency wont be admitting that. SpaceX isn’t necessarily the shoo-in to land the first Americans on the moon since the Apollo 17 mission 52 years ago. Instead, NASA is opening the contract to other companies, like Jeff Bezoss Blue Origin and Lockheed Martin.
While this doesnt mean that SpaceX wont get it, its the agencys way of slamming SpaceX for its delays and lack of focus on the lunar program. Reopening the marquee Artemis crewed landing contract to competition is an admission that the Starship wont be ready on time. Americas return to the lunar surface needs a plan B. Its a big shift that weakens SpaceXs grip, yes, but also rattles Artemis, andcruciallytilts the new space race toward China.
Im in the process of opening that contract up, NASAs acting chief Sean Duffy said on Fox & Friends, pointing squarely to Starships mounting schedule slips. He added that he expects companies like Blue Origin and possibly others to bid, putting Jeff Bezoss Blue Moon lander back in contention two years before the alleged scheduled landing date. NASA also told SpaceX and Blue Origin to deliver accelerated landing plans by October 29, and it will solicit proposals from the wider industry to increase the cadence of moon missions, a NASA spokesperson said. Blue Origin is widely expected to compete; Lockheed Martin has already convened an industry team to respond.
As expected, Musk is enraged. He didnt need to convene anything to respond on X: The person responsible for Americas space program cant have a 2 digit IQ, he said in response to Duffy.
Delays everywhere
To recap: The Artemis program is a multi-contractor, multibillion-dollar campaign to restore a sustained U.S. presence on the moon. Artemis III is the mission that, if it doesnt get cancelled, will put American boots back on the surface of the moon. It is a critical step for America to remain ahead of the new space race with China, which aims to colonize the solar system in this century. Whoever gets to the moon first and establishes the first base in its south polewhere water is abundant for life and, more importantly, the cooking of new rocket fuel to launch ships to Mars and beyondwill have the advantage for the next few decades.
Artemis III was planned for 2027 with SpaceXs Starship as the human landing system (HLS). This is how it works: Boeings Space Launch System (SLS) rocket launches four astronauts in Lockheed Martins Orion to lunar orbit; SpaceXs Starship HLS then docks with Orion and ferries astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface and back.
That last piecethe lunar Starshipis the fulcrum. NASAs own advisers now say that the 2027 date could slip years due to SpaceXs competing priorities. The agency has grown uneasy with SpaceXs lack of progress on lunar-lander-specific milestones. Internally and publicly, Musk insists the company is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry. But lightning alone doesnt meet Artemiss deadlines. Of course, nobody else in the program, including Boeings SLS and Lockheed Martins Orion, is meeting the deadlines either, but lets discuss that later.
SpaceXs broader Starship campaignrapid, testtofailure flights to mature a super heavylift systemmatters for Starlink and Mars. The lunar variant is a tougher ask. As NASA program veterans point out, the HLS Starship needs to be markedly different from the prototypes flying today, then cleared for astronaut operationsa stretch for any organization on tight timelines. Meanwhile, the White House wants the moon landing done before January 2029, adding political pressure to an already complex schedule. Artemis IIthe 10day crewed loop around the moon that sets up Artemis IIIremains on track for April and could even get moved to February, NASA officials have said.
Duffy seems to imply that Artemis IIIs landing hinges on HLS being ready, but blaming Musk alone ignores the larger truth: The program is struggling on multiple fronts. The SLS core rocket is expendable and costs more than $4 billion per launchan eyewatering figure that undermines longterm cadence like he says NASA needs.
Lockheed Martins Orion capsule suffered significant heat shield erosion on Artemis Is reentry. Not even the lunar suits are ready. NASAs Inspector General reports tally roughly $4.3 billion in SLS overages and about three years of delays. And the programs architecturemany contractors, many interfaces, shifting prioritiesis a recipe for disaster. Even former NASA administrator Mike Griffin called the Artemis program excessively complex with an unrealistic price tag.
Advantage China
While the U.S. wrangles contracts, hardware, and schedules, Beijing is seemingly executing to plan. China has already completed a full landing-and-ascent test of its crewed lunar lander, Lanyue (embrace the moon), a vehicle that is closer to Apollos lunar module than NASAs own program.
While Apollos lunar module had two sectionsthe main engine to land on the moon and its cockpit, with a propulsion system to take off from the moon once the mission is doneLanyue is one single spaceship. Like Apollo, it is designed to carry two Chinese astronauts between lunar orbit and the surface, supporting life support, power, and data for the surface stay. It is not as ambitious as Blue Moon or Starship HLS, but Beijing has taken the practical, less problematic route.
The Long March 10 heavylift rocketthe equivalent to NASAs Saturn V or its SLSis advancing according to officials, who insist that the overall development of crewed lunar missions is progressing smoothly. Chinas target is to put astronauts on the moon before 2030, which is actually earlier than its original projections.
The CNSAChinese National Space Administrationis going further and faster than NASAs plans at this point. One shocking example: It has already deployed multiple satellites in lunar orbit to support its manned missions and its future base in the moons South Pole, which Beijing says will be operating in 2035. By 2050, the South China Morning Post reports, the CNSA expects to have bases in the South Pole, the lunar equator, and the far side of the moon.
And thas worrying for the United States and its flagging space supremacy. This isn’t flagplanting theater like in the 1960s. The South Poles permanently shadowed craters harbor large deposits of water ice. Ice means drinkable water, breathable oxygen, and rocket propellanteverything you need for permanent basing and a new space economy that will make trillions of dollars.
The first nation to stand up reliable access to polar ice writes the rules of that economy. Any country that wants to establish mining and manufacturing on the moon or in asteroids on Earths orbit, will need a strategic permanent base on our satellite. From there, you could theoretically take over the entire solar system with an ease that you would not have from Earth. This is because launching a spacecraft from the moon takes a lot fewer resources than launching from our planet, where you have to counter 10 times the gravity force.
Its a race the U.S. cant afford to lose and yet, each Artemis delay shifts the space race eastward. While NASAs decision to open the Artemis III landing contract is a necessary one, it is also an admission that the current plan wont land on schedule. In fact, Duffy himself said that it wont fly until 2028, which NASA confirmed.
You can say that a 2028 launch still gives the U.S. two years before China’s mission but, since Artemis’s history can be measured in schedule setbacks, at this point its very hard to believe that the calendar-wreaking havoc is over. We are going to need a series of miracles for that to work out and we just cant rush astronaut safety.
But the biggest problem for NASA is that, today, China is marching on with a centralized, fully state-backed, long-term program to put taikonauts on the moon before the end of the decade, like Apollo once did. While NASA’s decision was a necessary one, if the U.S. wants to lead in the moontoMars-and-beyond era, it must lock an operational lander as soon as possible, fix existing and future hardware issues in record time, and increase mission cadence. Right nownot some time later in the decade. Otherwise, the first footprints of this centurys lunar age will belong to Beijing.
