The Super Bowl LX ad blitz was a big budget highwire actfrom Anthropic’s shot at OpenAI to Lady Gaga’s homage to Mr. Rogers and Dunkin’s nostalgia-fueled celeb fest. Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder breaks down what worked, what didnt, and what the ads reveal about where marketing is headed next. Treseder also unpacks the business impact of Bad Bunnys halftime show, and what it signals for the NFL and Apple.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode.
I have to say that the on-field game wasn’t much of a contest, kind of a blowout, but plenty of trick plays and Hail Marys in the ad battle. The cost for a 30-second ad this year was somewhere between $8 [million] and $10 million to place. You talk about ROMIreturn on marketing investmentwhat’s worthwhile, what breaks through. Just quick off the bat, any big winners or losers that jumped out at you?
There were some big winners. I think Anthropic was a big winner this year. Rocket and Pepsi were big winners this year. So we can go into details, but off the bat, I would say those were some of the big winners this year.
I saw a lot of mentions in the other lists of the Dunkin ad, the “Good Will Dunkin” spot fronted by Ben Affleck. Does it fit on all of the criteria that you’re looking at?
So I thought that that ad was sincere. You saw a lot of insincere use of celebrity. The only winners this year from a celebrity standpoint were the celebrities who got paid. Okay? A lot of brands used celebrities in ways that they really did not need to do that. Over $250 million was spent on celebrity placements for these Super Bowl ads. That’s a quarter of a billion dollars.
Wow.
And the ROI was really not there. In fact, 60% of the Super Bowl ads this year used celebrities, and many did not use them intentionally or use them well. I think “Good Will Dunkin” was where celebrity use made sense. We all know one thing is true about Ben Affleck. He does like a Jennifer, and he does like Dunkin’ Donuts.
And like some of the more artsy highbrow ads, like Emma Stone for Squarespace or Adrien Brody’s TurboTaxsort of purposely overacting. That was effective or sort of modest?
I think it was modest. I don’t think it quite cut through as well. I would say that the Squarespace one was simple. Get a domain name using Squarespace. Many people might have thought about Squarespace to design their website, but not necessarily like, “I’m not even ready to design yet, but have I gotten my domain name yet?” That “If emmastone.com is unavailable, girl, what you sitting on? Go get your domain name right now”that cut through. I even had my kid say, “Mommy, should I get my domain name?” I was, like, “Wow, this is cutting through all generations right now.” We’ve got an 8-year-old wanting to figure out if he needs to get his domain name or not.
He better. Otherwise, someone else is going to get it.
He better.
Right. In some ways, one of the simplest ads to me that sort of cut through was the Levi’s ad, which just focused on rear ends.
It worked. It worked. My son was, like, “Are we looking at butts? What’s going on here?” But you know what? It showed that: “Look, every human body is original. And whoever you are, we’ve got jeans for you.”
The other ad that you mentioned and was also a bold shot was Anthropic’s jab at OpenAI. Definitely came in hard with their Claude spots. Did they win even before the Super Bowl ad ran?
They won.
Because people were talking about it.
Well, before the Super Bowl ad ran, they were talking about it. Very few times my husband sends me a text about an ad. It grabbed a lot of people. The ads were incredibly well done. When you also think about the 360 strategy of, “Hey, we are going to maximize conversation and ROI,” they absolutely did that. When you take a shot at another company, and the CEO and the CMO of that company start to comment, you know you’ve won because you struck a nerve. Now I think that the proof will be in the pudding. Because now, if they start to bring ads to their platform, the internet will not forgive.
Yes. It’s a strategic business decision to play that up. It’s not just a tagline. You got to live with it.
You got to live with that. You absolutely have to live with that.
There were a lot of AI-related ads. Something like one in four of the ads I was tracking were AI. One of my producers really liked OpenAI’s ad for Codex. Another one hated the Genspark ad, the one with Matthew Broderick, for being tone-deaf about people’s fear of AI. All of these ads around AI. Is it like it was a couple of years ago, where suddenly every ad seemed like it was from a crypto company? Is this a bubble? What does all that mean?
I think the big picture was AI is here to stay. That was the big picture. The ads were not as spot-on or bull’s-eye as they could have been. So there wasn’t a single AI ad that I would say, other than the Anthropic ad, that we talked about. It almost felt like Anthropic was over here, and everybody else was over here. So there was a huge gap. So the AI winner was Anthropic, and everybody else was either meh or even in the loser category. But in general, the AI ads, they were overdone this year.
I would say the overarching theme this year was disappointment. I think a lot of the ads were not that great. There were a few standout ads, and we’ve talked about them. And, I think, a few honorable mentions, and we’ve talked about a few of them as well. But the majority of the ads were a little meh. It’s like, when your agency comes to you and suggests Bowen Yang, Jon Hamm, and Scarlett Johansson in a spot, your question should be: “Why?” And if it’s not clear, maybe don’t do that.
They were just trying to reach every demographic.
It doesn’t work. When you try to speak to everyone, you speak to no one.
In many ways, the biggest statement of the Super Bowl was the halftime show. Bad Bunny, singing in Spanish. At the Super Bowl party that I was at, some folks loved it. Some honestly were put off. “I donÙt understand what he’s saying.” What was the larger impact, do you think?
The best ad of the day, of the night, was Bad Bunny for Bad Bunny. I thought he did an incredible job. And at my Super Bowl party, I was up. I was dancing. I had a great time. Now, there were also people at my Super Bowl that were, like, they were not up, they were not dancing. And I think that was reflective. I think your Super Bowl party and my Super Bowl party were reflective of what’s going on in the world today. The people who didn’t want Bad Bunny there, there was nothing he could have done to have pleased them. So to have tried to please them would have been a failure.
I thought he was a tremendous success because he spoke to the people who he needed to speak to, and he did it in a way that was incredibly authentic to them. From a real life couple getting married, to Lady Gaga performing, to just the joy. The overwhelming thing was joy and unity. He said, “God bless America.” And he said it in English, so everybody could understand that. He had the football that said, “Together, we are America.”
But the America he referred to then wasn’t just the United States of America, right? He referred to all of the countries in the Americaswhich again, turned some people off. There’s risk in that.
I thought what he was sayingand this might be my own little interpretationbut I thought he was talking about all of these people come to America, and then they are American. And that very much resonated with me as an immigrant.
I’ll go a step further and say I thought it was a win for Apple. I thought it was a win for the NFL because they are trying to be global. These are global brands. And guess what? Who is global? Bad Bunny is global. A lot of people all over the world love Bad Bunny. The NFL is trying to go global. You saw that they were even showing the watch parties. Here are people watching the NFL in London. And they’re trying to be more global as an institution.
On a sidewalk, an unassuming junction box sits strapped to a fence. Inside, dozens of keychains, stickers, mini figurines, and other novelties wait to be discovered by eagle-eyed passersby or trinket traders who have traveled across the city to exchange their treasure.
Trinket trading has taken off on social media in recent weeks. The trend first originated in Philadelphia, where Phillys Trinket Trove began documenting the contents of a repurposed junction box on TikTok in September of last year.
@phillytrinkettrove We’ve rebranded and made some upgrades! After a small identity crisis, we’re back as @phillytrinkettrove. Same little box full of joy with a new name and some minor upgrades for use-ability! Come visit and leave some trinkets or take some trinkets. Find a little sunshine in this crazy world! trinket #trinkets #sidewalkjoy #philly #phillypublicart #visitphilly original sound – Philly Trinket Trove
It has since spread nationwide, with communities from New York to San Francisco setting up their own boxes of assorted knick-knacks for anyone to stop by and trade. The only rule: Give a trinket, take a trinket.
@onefinedaynyc The cutest little trinket boxes around NYC! Ive been seeing quite a few of these around West Village and Chelsea and had to share Commerce Street & Bedford Street W12th St & W4th St W23rd St & 10th Ave W20th St & 8th Ave . . . #westvillage #trinkets #ducklibrarynyc Walking Around – Instrumental Version – Eldar Kedem
TikTok creators across the platform have jumped on the trend with enthusiasm, documenting what they find and what they leave behind in vlog-style videos. Others are announcing new trinket box locations, inviting neighbors and fellow social media users to spread the word and join the fun.
@bevvvvs Update! WE MADE IT! It was everything I ever hoped for @sunset.trinket.trade thank you for bringing community together through a shared love of trinkets! #trinkettrade #sfbayarea #sanfrancisco #sunsettrinkettrade #thingstodoinsf show me how – <3
While the trinket boxes are primarily aimed at children, trinkets themselves are having a moment globally. Since hitting the market in 2019, Labubus have become a global phenomenon, sparking a viral craze for the palm-sized monster dolls in 2025. Smiskis and Sonny Angels, both cutesy figurines, have also had their own viral moments as blind boxes continue to populate social feeds. Even Michaels and Walmart have begun carrying their own mystery boxes to capitalize on the trend.
@itsalexissimone Replying to @2amores UMMM DID YOU KNOW @Walmart HAD THESE LABUBU BEAUTY STYLE BLUND BOXES?! Im obsessed actually #walmartfinds #walmartblindbags #beautybublindbox #newatwalmart2025 #blindboxopening original sound – ItsAlexisSimone
In much the same way, the trinket box trend offers a wholesome moment of surprise. Instead of encouraging people to purchase something new, it promotes the more sustainable idea that one persons trash is another persons treasure.
Like little free libraries or geocaches before them, trinket boxes lean into whimsy and analog activities, two trends forecasted for 2026 as antidotes to brainrot and digital fatigue.
Across social media, one of the biggest trends right now is being offline. Analog bags, snail mail and grandma hobbies have all been trending in recent months. The hashtag #AnalogLife is up 330% this year, according to TikTok data shared with Axios, and analog wellness was named a top trend for 2025 by the Global Wellness Summit.
Parents have long expressed concern about the iPad generation and the impact of growing up glued to screens and reliant on technology for perpetual distraction. Here, something as simple as a trinket could offer a small moment of respite in an increasingly saturated technological world. Just make sure to leave something behind for the next person.
Target CEO Michael Fiddelke is reshuffling his leadership team and making other changes shortly after stepping into the top job at the retailer that has struggled operationally.
Rick Gomez, the 13-year Target veteran who oversees the chain’s vast inventory of merchandise, will leave the company. And Jill Sando, the chief merchandising officer overseeing a handful of categories like apparel and home and who has been with the company since 1997, will retire.
Lisa Roath, who oversaw food, essentials, and cosmetics, will take Fiddelke’s previous job as chief operating officer, the company said Tuesday. Cara Sylvester, who had been chief guest experience officer, will become the company’s chief merchandising officer.
The changes will allow Target to move with greater speed, Fiddelke said.
Its the start of a new chapter for Target, and were moving quickly to take action against our priorities that will drive growth within our business, Fiddelke said in a release.
Gomez and Sando will remain with the company for a short time to help with the transition, but the changes become effective Sunday.
Also on Tuesday, the company reiterated its profit guidance. It is also increasing investment in store staffing at stores while eliminating about 500 jobs at distribution centers and regional offices, according to a memo sent to employees that Target shared with The Associated Press. The cuts make up just a tiny fraction of Target’s overall employee count of more than 400,000.
It is the first substantial change under Fiddelke, a 20-year company veteran who took over for Brian Cornell this month. The company’s decision to choose an insider surprised many industry analysts who believe the company needs new ideas as it tries to revive sales.
Target has struggled to find its footing as many Americans have cut back on spending. Customers have also complained of disheveled stores that are missing the budget-priced niche that long ago earned the retailer the nickname Tarzhay.
The company has also been buffeted by consumer boycotts and backlash after it scaled back its corporate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
It has also faced protests for what some critics see as an insufficient response to President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics in Minneapolis, its hometown, where two U.S. citizens where fatally shot last month by federal agents.
Target has not commented publicly after federal agents detaining two of its employees this month although Fiddelke sent a video message to the companys 400,000 workers calling recent violence incredibly painful.”
Fiddelke was one of 60 CEOs of Minnesota-based companies who signed an open letter in January calling for state, local, and federal officials to find a solution after the fatal shootings.
Anne D’Innocenzio, AP retail writer
Paramount is again sweetening its hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, while again extending the deadline for its tender offer as it scrambles for more shareholder support.
On Tuesday, the Skydance-owned company said it would pay Warner shareholders an added ticking fee if its deal doesn’t go through by the end of the year amounting to 25 cents per share, or a total of $650 million, for every quarter after Dec. 31. Paramount also pledged to fund Warner’s proposed $2.8 billion breakup payout to Netflix under its studio and streaming merger agreement.
The value of Paramount’s offer otherwise remains unchanged. The company is offering to pay $30 per share in cash to Warner’s stakeholders, who now have until March 2 to tender their shares.
In a statement, Paramount CEO David Ellison said that the additional benefits announced Tuesday clearly underscore our strong and unwavering commitment to delivering the full value WBD shareholders deserve for their investment.
Paramount wants to buy Warner’s entire company for $77.9 billion, with a total enterprise value of $108 billion including debt. Beyond studio and streaming operations, that includes Warner’s networks like CNN and Discovery.
But it has a long way to go in terms of getting shareholder support which, according to recent company disclosures, has appeared to decline over the last month. As of Monday, Paramount said that more than 42.3 million Warner shares had been validly tendered and not withdrawn from its bid, down from over 168.5 million Warner shares on Jan. 21.
Warner has about 2.48 billion shares outstanding in series A common stock today. Paramount would need more than 50% to effectively gain control of the company.
Netflix and Warner did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
The new March 2 deadline marks the third time Paramount has pushed back the expiration of its tender offer, which it may keep extending. Paramount has also promised a proxy fight. Last month, the company begun soliciting proxies to challenge Warner’s agreement with Netflix.
Warner’s leadership has consistently backed the deal it struck with Netflix. In December, Netflix agreed to buy Warners studio and streaming business for $72 billion now in an all-cash transaction that the companies have said will speed up the path to a shareholder vote by April. Including debt, the enterprise value of the deal is about $83 billion, or $27.75 per share.
Netflix and Warner have maintained that their agreement is better Paramount’s bid. But Paramount argues that its offer is superior and on Tuesday pointed to a sliding scale value of the Netflix merger, which could range from $21.23 to $27.75 per share, depending on debt spanning from Warner’s previously announced spinoff of its networks business.
Unlike Paramount, Netflix doesn’t want to acquire Warner networks like CNN and Discovery. Under Netflix-Warner’ agreement, Discovery Global would become its own separate public company before their merger is closed.
The prospect of a Warner sale to either company has raised tremendous antitrust concerns from lawmakers worldwide. The U.S. Department of Justice has initiated reviews of both Warner’s agreement with Netflix and Paramount’s hostile bid with all three companies disclosing that they’ve been in contact with the DOJ over requests for more information.
The companies have argued their proposed deals will be good news for consumers and the wider entertainment industry, claiming that merging will give streaming customers more content through bigger libraries. But unions and other trade groups have warned that further consolidation in the industry could result in job losses and less diversity in content with particularly negative consequences for filmmaking.
Wyatte Grantham-Philips, AP business writer
Under questioning from Democrats Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that he had met with Jeffrey Epstein twice after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a child, reversing Lutnick’s previous claim that he had cut ties with the late financier after 2005.
Lutnick again downplayed his relationship with the disgraced financier who was once his neighbor in New York City as he was questioned by Democrats during a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He described their contact as a handful of emails and a pair of meetings that were years apart.
I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with him, Lutnick told lawmakers.
But Lutnick is facing growing scrutiny, including calls for his resignation, from lawmakers after the release of case files on Epstein contradicted Lutnick’s claims on a podcast last year that he had decided to never be in the room with Epstein again after a 2005 tour of Epstein’s home that disturbed Lutnick and his wife.
The commerce secretary told senators Tuesday that he and his family actually had lunch with Epstein on his private island in 2012 and he had another hour-long engagement at Epstein’s home in 2011. Lutnick, a member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, is the highest-profile U.S. official to face bipartisan calls for his resignation amid revelations of his ties to Epstein. His acknowledgement comes as lawmakers are grasping for what accountability looks like amid the revelations contained in what’s known as the Epstein files.
In countries like the United Kingdom, the Epstein files have triggered resignations and the stripping of royal privileges, but so far, U.S. officials have not met the same level of retribution.
Senators want to dig into Lutnick’s ties to Epstein
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the Democrat who questioned Lutnick, told him, “There’s not an indication that you yourself engaged in any wrongdoing with Jeffrey Epstein. It’s the fact that you believe that you misled the country and the Congress based on your earlier statements.”
Van Hollen, D-Md., stopped short of calling for Lutnick’s resignation on Monday, but requested documentation from Lutnick on any of his ties to Epstein.
It’s absolutely essential that he provide Congress with those documents, given the misrepresentations he’s made, and then we’ll go from there, he said.
Lutnick during the Senate hearing said he would give that request some thought, adding, I have nothing to hide.
However, several Senate Republicans were also questioning Lutnick’s relationship with Epstein. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said the visit to Epstein’s private island would raise questions. And Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters, It’s something I’m concerned with.
Tillis stayed away from calling for Lutnick to leave his post, but added that he would do himself a service by just laying exactly what and what did not happen over the course of what seems to be an interesting relationship that included business entanglements.
A pair of House members call for resignation
Meanwhile, House members who initiated the legislative effort to force the release of the files are calling for Lutnick to resign. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky called for that over the weekend after emails were released that alluded to the meetings between Lutnick and Epstein.
Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, joined Massie in pressuring Lutnick out of office on Monday.
Based on the evidence, he should be out of the Cabinet, Khanna said.
He added, It’s not about any particular person. In this country, we have to make a decision. Are we going to allow the rich and powerful people who are friends and (had) no problem doing business and showing up with a pedophile who is raping underage girls, are we just going to allow them to skate?
Stephen Groves, Associated Press
Dont feel bad splurging on that $7 latte the next time youre in a mid-afternoon attention slump.
A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this week provides some strong evidence that drinking coffee and tea is linked to a lower risk of developing dementia. The longitudinal research followed a group of around 130,000 people for more than 40 years, collecting behavioral and health information over the course of their lifetimes.
The results paint a clear picture: People with a habit of drinking two to three cups of coffee or one to two cups of tea on a daily basis demonstrated a lower risk of dementia compared to their less caffeinated peers. People who drank up to five cups of coffee had around 20 percent less risk of dementia, while those who drank one or more cups of tea showed 15 percent less of developing the neurodegenerative condition.
Decaf coffee wasnt linked to the same benefits, according to the new research. Caffeine is the key ingredient that appears to be providing some protection from cognitive decline for coffee and tea drinkers, possibly through its ability to reduce inflammation in the brain. The molecule we rely on to wake us up in the morning has also shown promise in reducing insulin sensitivity and lowering the risk of type 2 diabetes a big risk factor for age-related cognitive decline.
While caffeine appears to be the magic ingredient, other substances in coffee and tea have also been shown to positively impact health. Beyond caffeine, coffee and tea contain bioactive compounds like polyphenols, chlorogenic acid, and catechins, which offer antioxidant and vascular benefits by reducing oxidative stress and improving cerebrovascular function, the researchers wrote. Furthermore, tea components such as epigallocatechin-3-gallate and L-theanine may provide additional benefits by enhancing relaxation and neuroprotection.
Coffee and tea show promise but questions remain
With such a massive sample size and so many years of data, the new research on dementia and caffeine is about as robust as an Italian dark roast. Still, the studys design asking people about their behavior and tracking their diagnoses doesnt lend itself to causal explanations. While the evidence that caffeine provides some neuroprotective effects against one one of the most devastating age-related conditions is exciting, scientists still cant definitively say what causes the decreased risk, only that coffee and tea intake is correlated with less risk.
In the analysis, the researchs authors did control for participants genetic risk of developing dementia along with an array of other potential confounding factors, including education, socioeconomic status, smoking, exercise habits and medication use.
In spite of its scale and depth, the NIH-funded study still has a few notable limitations beyond the observational nature of its design. The study exclusively relied on large, gender-divided data sets collected from people who work in health-related jobs, drawing on the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and the Nurses Health Study. It also did not collect granular data about the kind of tea the participants consumed, so its not clear if green and black tea are created equal or if only caffeinated tea showed promise for keeping people sharp as they age.
While the link between coffee and reduced dementia risk is promising, more coffee also doesnt necessarily mean less risk. Researchers found that the positive impact tapered off after two or three cups of coffee and one to two cups of tea, so dont go ordering that quad shot or black eye hoping to squeeze even more benefit out of your caffeine intake. Caffeine raises your heart rate and can raise blood pressure too, so keeping your bodys full health picture in mind is important.
Oil and gas exports have sustained Russia’s finances throughout its war against Ukraine. But as the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion approaches, those cash flows have suddenly dwindled to lows not seen in years.
It’s the result of new punitive measures from the U.S. and the European Union, U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff pressure against India, and a tightening crackdown on the fleet of sanctions-dodging tankers carrying Russian oil.
The drop in revenue is pushing President Vladimir Putin to borrow from Russian banks and raise taxes, keeping state finances on an even keel for now.
But those measures only increase strains in a war economy now plagued by slowing growth and stubborn inflation.
In January, Russian state revenues from taxing the oil and gas industries fell to 393 billion rubles ($5.1 billion). Thats down from 587 billion ($7.6 billion) in December and from 1.12 trillion ($14.5 billion) in January 2025. That’s the lowest since the COVID-19 pandemic, says Janis Kluge, an expert on the Russian economy at German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
A new approach to sanctions
To pressure the Kremlin to halt fighting in Ukraine, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Russias two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, from Nov. 21. That means anyone buying or shipping their oil runs the risk of being cut off from the U.S banking system a serious concern for any multinational business.
On top of that, on Jan. 21 the EU began banning fuel made from Russia crude meaning it could no longer be refined somewhere else and shipped to Europe in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel.
The head of the EU’s executive commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Friday proposed a full ban on shipping services for Russian oil, saying sanctions offered leverage to push Russia to halt the fighting. We must be clear-eyed: Russia will only come to the table with genuine intent if it is pressured to do so,” she said.
The latest sanctions are a step beyond the oil price cap imposed by the Group of Seven democracies under the Biden administration. The $60 per barrel cap, enforced through insurers and shippers based in G-7 countries, was aimed at reducing Russias profits, not banning imports, out of concern over higher energy prices.
The cap did reduce government oil revenues temporarily, especially after an EU ban on most Russian seaborne oil forced Russia to shift sales to China and India. But Russia built a shadow fleet of aging tankers operating beyond the reach of the cap, and revenues rose again.
Pressure on India to stop Russian oil imports
Trump on Feb. 3 agreed to lower tariffs to 18% from 25%, saying Indian President Narendra Modi agreed to halt Russian crude imports, and on Friday removed an additional 25% tariff imposed over continued imports of Russian oil.
Modi hasnt commented. Foreign affairs spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said India’s strategy was diversifying our energy sourcing in keeping with objective market conditions. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that Moscow was monitoring the statements and remains committed to our advanced strategic partnership with New Delhi.
In any case, Russian oil shipments to India have declined in recent weeks, from 2 million barrels per day in October to 1.3 million per day in December, according to figures from the Kyiv School of Economics and the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Data firm Kpler says India is unlikely to fully disengage in the near term” from cheap Russian energy.
Ukraine’s allies increasingly have sanctioned individual shadow tankers to deter customers from taking their oil raising the number to 640 among the U.S., U.K., and EU. U.S. forces have seized vessels linked to sanctioned Venezuelan oil, including one sailing under a Russian flag, while France briefly intercepted a suspected shadow fleet vessel. Ukrainian strikes have hit Russian refineries, pipelines, export terminals, and tankers.
Russian oil is trading at a steep discount
Buyers are now demanding bigger discounts on Russian oil to compensate for the risk of running afoul of U.S. sanctions and the hassle of finding payment workarounds that skirt banks reluctant to touch the transactions. The discount widened to about $25 per barrel in December, as Russia’s primary crude export, Urals blend, fell below $38 per barrel, compared with about $62.50 per barrel for international benchmark Brent crude.
Since Russias taxes on oil production are based on the price of oil, that cuts into state revenues.
“Its a cascading or domino effect, said Mark Esposito, a senior analyst focused on seaborne crude at S&P Global Energy. Including diesel and gasoline created a really a dynamic sanctions package, a one-two punch that are impacting not only the crude flow, but the refined product flow off of those barrels. … A universal way of saying, if its coming from Russian crude, its out.
Reluctance to take delivery has meant an inordinate amount about 125 million barrels has built up in tankers at sea. That has driven up costs for scarce capacity, with rates for very large oil tankers reaching $125,000 per day and thats directly correlated with the ramifications of the sanctions, said Esposito.
Slowing growth strains Russia’s budget
On top of that, economic growth has stalled as the boost from war-related spending reaches its limits and as labor shortages put a cap on potential business expansion. And lower growth means less tax revenue. Gross domestic product increased only 0.1% in the third quarter. Forecasts for this year range between 0.6% and 0.9%, down from over 4% in 2023 and 2024.
I think the Kremlin is worried about the overall balance of the budget, because it coincides with the economic downturn, said Kluge. And at the same time the costs of the war are not decreasing.
The Kremlin responds by raising taxes and borrowing
The Kremlin has resorted to higher taxes and borrowing to fill the gap left by dwindling oil revenues and by slower economic growth. The Kremlin-controlled parliament, the Duma, raised value-added tax paid on consumer purchases at the cash register to 22% from 20% and increased levies on car imports, cigarettes, and alcohol. The government has increased its borrowing from compliant domestic banks. And a national wealth fund still has reserves to patch budget holes.
So the Kremlin has money for now. But raising taxes can slow growth even more. And borrowing risks worsening inflation, brought down to 5.6% through interest rates of 16% from the central bank, down from a peak of 21%.
“Give it six months or a year, and it could also affect their thinking about the war, said Kluge. I dont think they will seek a peace deal because of this, but they might want to lower the intensity of the fighting, focus on certain areas of the front and slow the war down. This would be the response if its getting too expensive.
David McHugh, Associated Press
Were still in the earliest days of artificial intelligence. It was just November 2022 when OpenAI released ChatGPT, and the world changed. However, enough time has passed for us to have a sufficient perspective to categorize AI and autonomous agents into three distinct eras.
Introduction2024: In the initial shockwave, there was more novelty and hype than practicality around the possibilities of AI. Businesses and leaders understandably struggled to understand what was barreling toward them.
Evaluation2025: There was a reality check for organizations as they began testing, experimenting with, and piloting AI projects in their search for use cases that created value. For various reasons, businesses often failed to achieve the results they expected or sometimes even saw their efforts completely stall.
Production2026: The coming year is when we begin to see a real payoff from business investments as innovative organizations take what theyve learned and seriously embrace AI, embedding agents throughout their operations to realize value.
Its an absolute certainty that AI activation will become the story of business. Were witnessing a profound shift from pilots to production agents embedded in real business processes, and its going to explode exponentially as AI adoption enters the mainstream enterprise and delivers measurable ROI. And the stakes will be incredibly high for businesses to get it right.
TIME TO SEPARATE HYPE AND ACTIVATION
Two things can be true at the same time. We can observe heightened speculation about AI alongside the on-the-ground emergence of agentic capabilities in real-world environments.
The massive investments in power generation, data centers, and chip innovation are unlike anything weve ever witnessed. The market cap of hyperscalers is reaching vertigo-inducing heights. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, frequently references this as a picks-and-shovels moment in a modern gold rush because its the infrastructure that will enable the innovation that comes next.
Much of the conversation today focuses on whether were in an AI bubble. That speculation will likely continue, but the real story is what comes next. Were not spending enough time imagining the world that will emerge on the other side of this period of intense innovation, whatever form that transition takes.
From a historical perspective, there have been many boom-and-bust cycles that, over the long run, proved beneficial. Ive been in the software industry for nearly three decades, which means I know bubbles firsthand. I began my business career in the 1990s, at the dawn of the Internet era, and experienced the dot-com boom and the subsequent crash. The market disruption was profound and painful.
Fast forward to today. Can anyone imagine if we couldnt order a sandwich on our phones and have it delivered in 15 minutes or less? There was an incredible payoff, but that only became apparent over time. Many of the innovations and infrastructure built in that era laid the groundwork for the world we live in today. We need to focus on the long game because AI will improve our lives immeasurably.
In moments of rapid technological change, the broader environment typically undergoes significant shifts as innovation accelerates. Whats unmistakable, however, is that the future belongs to companies that view AI not simply as a tool, but as a game-changing intelligence thats omnipresent in everything they do as they deliver for their customers.
Its why I remain so optimistic about the impact AI will have on all of us.
PREDICTIONS FOR 2026
This will be the most productive year in history, as concerns about AI replacing humans fade and the technology instead augments people, enabling them to perform their jobs more effectively and improving their lives.
Trust in AI. The level of confidence businesses place in AI to help them run their organizations will increase as they adopt measures that emphasize greater governance and data accuracy.
AI translates to ROI. This relates directly to trust. Weve already begun to see it, but the growth in real business value (substance, not hype) will happen as we move beyond simplistic AI co-pilots to agentic solutions that become integral to making businesses and people more productive. As more agents enter production, it will inevitably lead to sprawl. A mindset shift toward agent governance will be crucial to delivering the greatest return.
Race toward AGI. We will reach peak intensity in the development of artificial general intelligence. I expect well see announcements and investments that advance ambitious research initiatives across the field.
Flood of mergers and acquisitions. As the pressure to adopt AI intensifies, companies that havent kept pace with innovation will be forced to explore new ways to advance their technology roadmaps. We can expect to see more organizations pursuing partnerships and selective acquisitions to strengthen their AI position.
Its going to be a busy year.
WHAT WILL DEFINE 2026
Weve reached the long-heralded moment of divergence between the AI natives and the AI nots. There will be a gap. It will be wide. And it will become painfully clear which category businesses fall into this year.
The pressure will grow on CEOs and the board of directors to make AI activation their top technology investment priority. That means stopping experimentation and expecting production results. Businesses cant afford to fall so far behind that they cant catch up.
The question for you in 2026 is this: What kind of foundation are you building in your business so that AI becomes a competitive advantage?
Steve Lucas is the chairman and CEO at Boomi.
In 2023, the science fiction literary magazine Clarkesworld stopped accepting new submissions because so many were generated by artificial intelligence. Near as the editors could tell, many submitters pasted the magazines detailed story guidelines into an AI and sent in the results. And they werent alone. Other fiction magazines have also reported a high number of AI-generated submissions.
This is only one example of a ubiquitous trend. A legacy system relied on the difficulty of writing and cognition to limit volume. Generative AI overwhelms the system because the humans on the receiving end cant keep up.
This is happening everywhere. Newspapers are being inundated by AI-generated letters to the editor, as are academic journals. Lawmakers are inundated with AI-generated constituent comments. Courts around the world are flooded with AI-generated filings, particularly by people representing themselves. AI conferences are flooded with AI-generated research papers. Social media is flooded with AI posts. In music, open source software, education, investigative journalism, and hiring, its the same story.
Like Clarkesworlds initial response, some of these institutions shut down their submissions processes. Others have met the offensive of AI inputs with some defensive response, often involving a counteracting use of AI. Academic peer reviewers increasingly use AI to evaluate papers that may have been generated by AI. Social media platforms turn to AI moderators. Court systems use AI to triage and process litigation volumes supercharged by AI. Employers turn to AI tools to review candidate applications. Educators use AI not just to grade papers and administer exams, but as a feedback tool for students.
These are all arms races: rapid, adversarial iteration to apply a common technology to opposing purposes. Many of these arms races have clearly deleterious effects. Society suffers if the courts are clogged with frivolous, AI-manufactured cases. There is also harm if the established measures of academic performancepublications and citationsaccrue to those researchers most willing to fraudulently submit AI-written letters and papers rather than to those whose ideas have the most impact. The fear is that, in the end, fraudulent behavior enabled by AI will undermine systems and institutions that society relies on.
Upsides of AI
Yet some of these AI arms races have surprising hidden upsides, and the hope is that at least some institutions will be able to change in ways that make them stronger.
Science seems likely to become stronger thanks to AI, yet it faces a problem when the AI makes mistakes. Consider the example of nonsensical, AI-generated phrasing filtering into scientific papers.
A scientist using an AI to assist in writing an academic paper can be a good thing, if used carefully and with disclosure. AI is increasingly a primary tool in scientific research: for reviewing literature, programming, and for coding and analyzing data. And for many, it has become a crucial support for expression and scientific communication. Pre-AI, better-funded researchers could hire humans to help them write their academic papers. For many authors whose primary language is not English, hiring this kind of assistance has been an expensive necessity. AI provides it to everyone.
In fiction, fraudulently submitted AI-generated works cause harm, both to the human authors now subject to increased competition and to those readers who may feel defrauded after unknowingly reading the work of a machine. But some outlets may welcome AI-assisted submissions with appropriate disclosure and under particular guidelines, and leverage AI to evaluate them against criteria like originality, fit, and quality.
Others may refuse AI-generated work, but this will come at a cost. Its unlikely that any human editor or technology can sustain an ability to differentiate human from machine writing. Instead, outlets that wish to exclusively publish humans will need to limit submissions to a set of authors they trust to not use AI. If these policies are transparent, readers can pick the format they prefer and read happily from either or both types of outlets.
We also dont see any problem if a job seeker uses AI to polish their resumes or write better cover letters: The wealthy and privileged have long had access to human assistance for those things. But it crosses the line when AIs are used to lie about identity and experience, or to cheat on job interviews.
Similarly, a democracy requires that its citizens be able to express their opinions to their representatives, or to each other through a medium like the newspaper. The rich and powerful have long been able to hire writers to turn their ideas into persuasive prose, and AIs providing that assistance to more people is a good thing, in our view. Here, AI mistakes and bias can be harmful. Citizens may be using AI for more than just a time-saving shortcut; it may be augmening their knowledge and capabilities, generating statements about historical, legal, or policy factors they cant reasonably be expected to independently check.
Todays commercial AI text detectors are far from foolproof.
Fraud booster
What we dont want is for lobbyists to use AIs in astroturf campaigns, writing multiple letters and passing them off as individual opinions. This, too, is an older problem that AIs are making worse.
What differentiates the positive from the negative here is not any inherent aspect of the technology; its the power dynamic. The same technology that reduces the effort required for a citizen to share their lived experience with their legislator also enables corporate interests to misrepresent the public at scale. The former is a power-equalizing application of AI that enhances participatory democracy; the latter is a power-concentrating application that threatens it.
In general, we believe writing and cognitive assistance, long available to the rich and powerful, should be available to everyone. +The problem comes when AIs make fraud easier. Any response needs to balance embracing that newfound democratization of access with preventing fraud.
Theres no way to turn this technology off. Highly capable AIs are widely available and can run on a laptop. Ethical guidelines and clear professional boundaries can helpfor those acting in good faith. But there wont ever be a way to totally stop academic writers, job seekers, or citizens from using these tools, either as legitimate assistance or to commit fraud. This means more comments, more letters, more applications, more submissions.
The problem is that whoever is on the receiving end of this AI-fueled deluge cant deal with the increased volume. What can help is developing assistive AI tools that benefit institutions and society, while also limiting fraud. And that may mean embracing the use of AI assistance in these adversarial systems, even though the defensive AI will never achieve supremacy.
Balancing harms with benefits
The science fiction community has been wrestling with AI since 2023. Clarkesworld eventually reopened submissions, claiming that it has an adequate way of separating human- and AI-written stories. No one knows how long, or how well, that will continue to work.
The arms race continues. There is no simple way to tell whether the potential benefits of AI will outweigh the harms, now or in the future. But as a society, we can influence the balance of harms it wreaks and opportunities it presents as we muddle our way through the changing technological landscape.
Bruce Schneier is an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard Kennedy School.
Nathan Sanders is an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Layoffs are at an all-time high since 2009, and we’re also experiencing the lowest hiring on record in the job market. But AI spending is also reaching all-time highsespecially among Big Tech companies, who are on an extravagant spending spree. As I recently reported, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon are forecast to drop a staggering $650 billion on AI in 2026 alone.
And while many companies are pouring a lot of that moneywe’re talking hundreds of billionsinto building massive data centers, hoping to establish a long-term strategic advantage in the AI arms race, many are still hiring workers for jobs that utilize AI skills.
So, what are those skills? While many people assume the most in-demand AI skill is coding, according to a new report, it’s actually not. Here’s a look at what recruiters and companies are looking for right now.
The most in-demand AI skills
A recent report from online freelance marketplace Upwork found that the AI skill for which hiring is growing fastest is AI video generation and editing (a type of design and creative work). Demand for that skill is up over 329% year over year (YoY).
That refers to the ability to use AI tools to cut down on time by generating and editing video content from text, images, or audio.
Some of the other AI skills that are most in demand include the following (by category):
Coding and web development: Artificial intelligence integration is up 178%.
Data science and analytics: Data annotation and labeling is up 154%.
Customer service and admin support: E-commerce management is up 130%.
Design and creative work: AI image generation and editing is up 95%.
Job skills are foundational, not replaceable
“While the World Economic Forum estimates that 39% of workers skills will be transformed or become redundant by 2030only a small share of complex tasks can be fully automated by todays AI,” according to the report.
While workers are increasingly concerned about being displaced by AI, Upwork’s findings show companies still rank talent acquisition and retention as their top strategic priority (consistently ahead of innovation and technology adoption). This means that instead of replacing workers with AI, businesses are still prioritizing adaptable and agile learners slightly ahead of those who can build or understand AI tools (at least, for now).
