# AI Companies Are Hiring More — Transcript (2026-07-02)

https://aidailybrief.ai/e/2026-07-02 · Listen: https://pod.link/1680633614

---

[00:00:00] Today on the AI Daily Today on the AI Daily Brief, the latest numbers on AI and jobs. Before that in the headlines, is OpenAI about to give 5% of the company to the US government? The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI All right, friends, quick announcements before we dive in. First of all, thank you to today's sponsors, KPMG, Rackspace, Blitzy, and Hyperagent

If you wanna get an ad-free version of the show, go to patreon.com/aidailybrief, or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts. And to learn more about sponsoring the show, head on over to aidailybrief.ai/sponsors or shoot a note at sponsors@aidailybrief.ai

Well, all those conversations about AI companies getting more tied up with the government are getting a lot more real. OpenAI OpenAI has proposed handing over a 5% stake in the company to the US government

Now, Now, obviously there has been [00:01:00] chatter about this for some time now, and honestly, if you go way, way back in Sam Altman interviews from three or four years ago, it was it was clear at the very beginning of the project That That he thought this sort of pursuit of AI was something that inherently should have government involvement from the very beginning.

I I can't find the exact interview, but I remember thinking that he almost, seemed surprised that the US government wasn't interested in getting involved back then. Now, Now, coming back to the deal now, this potential 5% stake would be contributed to a sovereign wealth fund structured in a similar way to the Alaskan Permanent Fund, which collects oil and mining revenue for the benefit of citizens.

At current valuations, the stake would be worth around $42 billion. And it's unclear whether the administration would be purchasing the stake or whether it would, be a gift to the American people

The other The other wrinkle is that OpenAI has proposed that all leading AI developers should contribute 5% of their equity. Beyond Beyond Anthropic, this might include Google, Meta, and others. And it's not clear that any of these other firms would agree with OpenAI's proposal or if they're participating in discussions



FT pointed to what many people assume is a pretty [00:02:00] clear quid pro quo, writing, " Giving the government an ownership stake could help secure good relations with the administration and would mark an attempt to address political blowback by sharing the wealth generated by AI with the public."

Now in terms of Now in terms of handicapping where these conversations are, sources said the discussions were still in the early stages, referring to them as, quote, "conceptual." they they also added that such a deal might require an act of Congress to implement



Regarding this strange new era of tributary capitalism

Also on Wednesday, memory producer Micron agreed to invest $250 million in Trump accounts, the government-funded investment accounts for children that were introduced last year

On Truth Social, Trump declared Micron a, quote, "truly great American company, one of the hottest anywhere in the world," adding that this is, quote, "the biggest corporate investment of its kind and will help jumpstart the American dream for these fabulous children as we celebrate America's 250th anniversary."

Trump accounts Trump accounts so far have been largely funded by individual philanthropy, including a $6.25 billion donation from Dell CEO Michael Dell and his wife Susan

Although other companies have made smaller contributions to the program



Look, Look, it's [00:03:00] pretty clear at this point that the Overton window on these sort of deals is shifting



And I'm sure we'll have more context to talk about it in the future. So before I

say something that makes a big chunk of you angry, let's move on to the next story



Meta is reportedly going down an Elon-esque path planning to launch a cloud services business as a way to monetize their excess AI capacity.

According to According to sources speaking with Bloomberg, Meta is developing plans to launch a cloud business that will sell access to their AI infrastructure. One potential plan is selling access to models hosted on Meta's data centers

Similar to the AWS Bedrock platform, another approach would be to sell access to raw compute along the same lines as Neo clouds like CoreWeave. Sources said the plans are still in development and subject to change, but they're far enough along to have a name and a leadership team in place. The The business line will be called Meta Compute and is led by Head of Infrastructure Janardhan working alongside Daniel Gross of Meta Superintelligence Labs and President Dina Powell McCormick



Now, careful Now, careful listeners will know that this is not the first we've heard of this plan. Back in Back in May, Mark Zuckerberg told investors that the idea was definitely on the table and that they'd been fielding requests from other [00:04:00] companies.

At At the time, Zuckerberg said no deals had been struck as Meta had strong internal demand for all that compute. however, he mentioned that external sales would be a natural outlet if Meta overbuilt capacity Now Now this plan, of course, mirrors Elon Musk's pivot to cloud. In early May, SpaceX signed a $1.25 billion a month deal to provide compute to Anthropic.

This This was followed closely by deals with Google and later a more modest deal with Reflection AI

These deals dramatically improve the bottom line for SpaceX, with with compute sales now estimated to be their primary revenue driver ahead of Starlink



and and just as the market liked

Elon's moves, They They seemed to like Zuckerberg's bob and weave as well. The report The report triggered an immediate response, sending Meta stock soaring by as much as 10% before closing the day up 8.8%.

This This was Meta's best single-day performance in six months. NeoCloud's CoreWeave and Nebius were pummeled, losing 17% respectively

Jefferies called the plan strategic, comparing it to the early days of AWS, where Amazon was able to monetize excess capacity from website hosting to help finance further [00:05:00] investment

Mizuho wrote that they don't believe the business will be a meaningful short-term revenue driver for Meta. Instead, they cast it, quote, "More as planning for all potential scenarios, including a plan B." Still, analysts wrote that compute sales would be an overall positive, adding what they call a margin of safety to medium-term earnings

Now in the finance corner of X, the debate was raging. Some believe this will lead Meta to cut back on CapEx, with the pivot representing a tacit admission that they've overbuilt



the bullish view, however, is that Meta will finally deliver a solid revenue narrative for their AI spend while also cutting investment costs, triggering a significant boost to earnings



Look, my guess is as we've seen with SpaceX, This does not mean the end of Meta's efforts to train models or anything like that



it's just taking advantage of a resource they've built Writes Rune Writes Rune from OpenAI, " You either die a frontier lab or live long enough to see yourself sell compute."

Now speaking of SpaceX, The Wall Street Journal reports that SpaceX showed investors a prototype of an AI device prior to IPO. The Journal described it as a, quote, "Handset-like device designed to [00:06:00] reshape how humans interact with AI." They wrote that it's slimmer than an iPhone, would run on a proprietary operating system, and would integrate technology from xAI



Elon was quick to deny the reporting, calling it utterly false within minutes. And it's kinda difficult to know what to make of the story. It could be Elon responding to Sam Altman's desire to develop the dominant AI device. it could just be another part of the IPO hype train

Or Or it could be a new vertical play from Elon Inc



SpaceX bought up a slice of the wireless spectrum in 2025, and analysts have recently suggested that they should acquire T-Mobile as a way to break into the mobile market



So are we going to see the combination of a mobile carrier, Starlink for mobile internet, and an AI-first handset?

Over in Anthropic land, the company has rolled back spyware targeting Chinese labs after controversy erupted on Reddit. Earlier this Earlier this week, a Reddit user called Legit Michael wrote, " Anthropic embedded spyware in Claude Code and attempted to hide it from you." They explained that since a software update in early April, Claude Code has been checking whether users have a proxy enabled, and if so, the software is covertly transmitting information back to [00:07:00] Anthropic through surreptitious changes to the system prompt. Michael claimed the software will tell Anthropic whether a user is in China or even if a user is associated with a Chinese lab.

This information was extrapolated from time zone settings and other metadata Now, we knew Anthropic was doing something to monitor the activities of Chinese labs reportedly using their models for distillation.

Their recent letter to Congress and prior research reports had specific numbers that implied some level of usage monitoring

And despite And despite the Claude auto moderator on the Reddit page calling this a nothing burger

Claude co-developer Tarik announced that this approach had been rolled back, posting, " "This This is an experiment we launched in March that was meant to prevent account abuse from unauthorized resellers and protect against distillation. The team has landed stronger mitigation since then, and we've actually been meaning to take this down for a while.

We've merged the PR, and this should be fully rolled back in tomorrow's release."

Now, I think the thing Now, I think the thing to keep an eye on here is not so much Anthropic trying to Chinese distillation

It's another reminder of the visibility Anthropic has into the work being done on their systems



and and yet if anyone does have concerns about Anthropic, [00:08:00] They are certainly being shoved to the side right now as everyone flocks excitedly back to Fable

After an early morning of mashing the refresh button, users regained access to Fable 5 on Wednesday Elvis Sun wrote, " Fable five is so effing good." Here's everything I did in the last two hours. One, audit my business, found three high ROI tactical things to work on, mostly narrowing down on retention and acquisition levers. Two, solved my hardest backend problem that Co- Opus were too dumb to crack despite many attempts.

Three, solved my hardest engineering problem with media list agent reliability and future design directions. Four, Four, designed a content engine I've been trying to build. Honestly, I'm starting to feel Fable is smarter than me. The future of this is getting pretty weird

Andrew McAllister tweeted, " "Fable Fable is an absolute monster. The output quality is wild, crisp, comprehensive, fast, and the aesthetics are just gorgeous. It's just machine-gunning PRs I don't mean to gush, but I'm floored. I don't need a benchmark chart telling me, 

actually, SuiteBench Pro is two points higher. If you can't viscerally feel a model's performance by now, no chart is going to help you

Still, one of Still, one of the [00:09:00] big questions for the re-release was how often Fable would kick benign coding tasks over to Opus. And on that front, the reports are pretty mixed. Some some are complaining that it is happening near constantly. Developer Nick Dobos wrote, " "Fable Fable is mega nerfed?

Two chats on different projects, each routed four to 10x more tokens through Opus than Fable. Fable did only 20% of the work. WTF. Disappointing. Is anyone else seeing this?"

On On the flip side

Bridgemind also noted that quite a lot of their work was being routed to Opus, commenting, " I just paid $321 for a coding session where Fable 5 refused to do the work."



and and yet others like analyst Max Weinbach

Wrote that after a few hours of working, he was yet to have Fable refuse a request



Now Now other people are focused on figuring out the best way to get full value out of Fable. AI content creator Theo, for example, found that it was at its best when running other agents, commenting, It's the first model that feels like it actually gets how to use and orchestrate agents.

It has way more taste than OpenAI models, so the code it writes is way less cringe. I won't ship APIs or SDKs without Fable taking a look first."



going going back to the point that [00:10:00] I was making yesterday, policy reacher Miles Brundage suggested that having Fable as an orchestrator makes the Sonnet 5 release make a lot more sense

Taking a step back, Professor Ethan Mollick wrote, " Been reading all sorts of posts about the best way to develop workflows for Fable, and it reminds me of how little we actually know about the best way to organize work for long-running agents. Nobody has enough experience or has done enough testing to reach any real conclusions."

In other words, In other words, figuratively and literally, we are still on day one of figuring out how this new class of models work

And in welcome news, late on Wednesday, Anthropic reset weekly usage limits so users can experiment a bit more. However, that's gonna However, that's gonna do it for the headlines. Next up, the main episode 

One of the most important AI questions right now isn't who's using ai, it's who's using it? Well,

KPMG and the University of Texas at Austin. Just to analyzed 1.4 million real workplace AI interactions and found something surprising. The highest impact users aren't better prompt [00:11:00] engineers. They treat AI like a reasoning partner.

They frame problems, guide thinking, iterate, and push for better answers. and the good news, these behaviors are teachable at scale.

If you're trying to move from AI access to real capability, KPMG's research on sophisticated AI collaboration is worth your time. Learn more at kpmg.com/us/slash sophisticated. That's kpmg.com/us/sophisticated. 

One of the more interesting shifts in enterprise AI right now is how quickly the conversation is moving towards infrastructure and operations. As AI moves into core workflows, regulated data environments, and agentic systems, enterprises need governed infrastructure and inference that can operate reliably day to day with clear operational accountability built in from the start.

As those systems scale, the operating model increasingly becomes part of the AI strategy itself

Rack-Rackspace Technology is the operator of the full enterprise AI stack, from agents to infrastructure across private cloud, hybrid cloud, and edge environments. Rackspace builds and [00:12:00] operates governed AI infrastructure, inference, and production AI systems for organizations where sovereignty, compliance, and uptime are non-negotiable.

Their forward-deployed engineers stay embedded beyond deployment to help operationalize and run AI in live environments. to learn more about where enterprise AI runs and outcomes scale, go to rackspace.com Wanna accelerate enterprise software development velocity by five x? You need blitzie, the only autonomous software development platform built for enterprise code bases.

Your engineers define the project, a new feature, refactor or greenfield build

blitzie agents first ingest and map your entire code base. Then the platform generates a bespoke agent action Plan for your team to review and approve.

once approved, Blitzie gets to work autonomously. Generating hundreds of thousands of lines of validated end-to-end tested code.

More than 80% of the work completed in a single run. Blitzie is not generating code. It's developing software at the speed of compute. Your engineers review, refine, and ship. This is how Fortune 500 companies are compressing multi-month projects into a single sprint accelerating engineering velocity by five x experience.

Blitzie firsthand@blitz.com. [00:13:00] That's B-L-I-T-Z y.com.



This episode of the AI Daily Brief is brought to you by Hyperagent where you run fleets of agents your team can manage together New users get 1000 in inference Forget local agents and chat workflows waiting on your laptop to be prompted Hyperagent deploys alwayson agents in the cloud doing real work across the tools your team already uses Marketing's agent turns competitor moves into landing pages sales agent enriches leads drafts emails and updates the CRM ops agent chases the paperwork and tracks the budget Every agent has access to shared context and follows your rules about scope and approvals It's time you add agents that feel like teammates Hire yours at Hyperagent built by the team at Airtable Claim your 1000 in inference at hyperagent.com/aidailybrief. 

Welcome back to the AI Daily Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief. Today, we are checking in on the AI and jobs narrative. We actually haven't had all that much of this for a while, but there are a couple of new interesting studies that are providing some more [00:14:00] information in the unending question of what AI is and will do when it comes to jobs and employment 

Daddy's recording The first is a new report from the Center for AI Safety suggesting that Fable is a step change in AI's ability to do real work. The report was an update to the center's remote labor index

The benchmark measures a model's ability to complete economically valuable tasks drawn from common freelance professions. The The tasks include 3D modeling, architecture, graphic design, video and audio editing, data analysis, and programming web apps



now now what makes the index interesting is that whereas something like the meter long horizon task test uses something like 50 or 80% as the standard metric

For the remote labor index it measures a model's ability to do these tasks at a quality that a paying client would accept

Every Every deliverable that is tested is judged by human evaluators against what they call a gold standard deliverable, which was produced by a paid professional Meaning But this is a much harder test to [00:15:00] score well on

GPT-55, for example, only scored a 6.3%.



with Opus 4A just a little bit ahead of that at 8.3%.

Fable represents a big jump up coming in at 16.1%.

When they first When they first ran the benchmark late last year, GPT 5.2 was the top performer at 2.5%.



meaning that in a very short period of time, the numbers have increased significantly. the center wrote, " " The frontier has more than quadrupled in under eight months, a concrete signal of how quickly economically capable AI agents are advancing



The The pace of improvement is also clearly evident in the examples offered by the center. Some of the examples they gave werephotorealistic renders of rings



producing an advertisement video for an imaginary company called Skyline Tree Services that needed to be a 60-second flat design 2D animated advertisement with a voiceover provided



Finally, there were floor plan renders

Now, to be clear, completing sixteen percent of freelance tasks at a professional level is very different to being able to do sixteen percent of [00:16:00] all human jobs. the center itself was even critical about their own findings, writing, " "Today's Today's AI still falls short of professional quality on most projects

However, they added, " "This This increase in automation rate has been rapid, occurring in less than a year. The index spans a wide range of economically valuable work, so this trend directly captures how quickly the automation of remote work is advancing."

Now, interestingly, although most people agree that the exponential increase is impressive, there there are wildly different interpretations of the implications. On one On one end of the spectrum, you have folks like V who write, " Remote workers and freelancers need to think twice.

This benchmark shows just how high the success rate of AI models can be in handling digital tasks, such as creating 3D models, ad videos, rendering house floor plans, et cetera. Even Even though Fable 5 is still considered low, it won't be long before this number climbs higher.

It's It's becoming harder and harder to deny that digital work can be automated by AI."

On On the other end, you have folks like Scott who writes Even Fable 5 is still at a 16% automation rate. That means 84% of the time human is needed. In my opinion, the [00:17:00] real work has complexities orthogonal to what current AI systems can cover and require a fortress of priors that are a given for humans but not inherently installed for agents



frankly, I think this report has a little something for everyone, no matter where you find yourself on the AI jobs question



it shows that the quality of work is advancing very quickly, but also that there are huge challenges in actually getting to a fully economically viable product And the space in between those two represents a lot of opportunity for people, including the freelancers themselves, to redesign their economics, redesign their deliverables and figure out how to adapt to a changing landscape of opportunity

Indeed, one important distinction that we talk about a lot here, but that is finally finding its way into the broader discourse, is the distinction between tasks and jobs. At At a recent event run by the European Central Bank, OpenAI's chief economist, Ronnie Chatterji, said that he doesn't think AI will replace human workers.

He said, " "Just Just because a task is exposed to AI doesn't mean it's going to substitute for that. We need to We need to think a lot harder about what jobs are, how they will evolve, and that will help us give advice to [00:18:00] people about labor market trends rather than being optimistic or pessimistic."



Chatterjee discussed his own profession and the way that economists have been on the list for technological replacement for decades, but are somehow still able to find work. He commented, " "My My dad was an economist also in 1985. His job was very exposed to the personal computer when he first put one in his office.

But instead of using a punch card in a big room and a mainframe computer to run regressions, now he could run them on his computer, and it was a complement to his work over time that made him more productive."



Chatterjee cited software developers as the profession most in the firing line for AI replacement, but claimed that we haven't seen a lot of evidence thus far. He argued Those jobs shrinking as AI capabilities increased, that really hasn't happened to the same extent people were predicting

Now obviously this Now obviously this is coming from an OpenAI source But as we've seen, that certainly doesn't guarantee an optimistic take



Now there has, of course, recently been a shift in this discourse, particularly from OpenAI, not so much from Anthropic yet where Sam Altman has basically come out and said that he was wrong about the way that he thought AI was going to interact with jobs much to his delight as he and OpenAI are now much more convinced that this [00:19:00] is going to be an augmentation rather than a replacement situation

Now adding Now adding some messiness to this

There is still something clearly happening in the sectors most exposed to AI work replacement in the US. According to According to the most recent labor data, tech and finance are seeing the worst hiring outcomes. Payroll Payroll data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that these two sectors are now losing twenty-eight thousand jobs per month on average so far this year Overall, the year has seen a boost in hiring with a hundred and thirteen thousand jobs added per month on average.

But if you excluded tech and finance, that figure would be much higher. John Challenger The head of private payroll data analytics firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas blames AI disruption. 100,000 job cut announcements this year

And maintains that based on the amount of times AI is mentioned, quote, " It's certainly making an impact in a way that no technology has before."

Now, of Now, of course

It remains quite difficult to separate actual AI replacement from the useful narrative of AI replacement. In the In the tech sector, many still believe that AI is being used as a cover story for inevitable mass layoffs who [00:20:00] have more of their origins in over-hiring back in 2022 Puja Shiriam, Puja Shiriam, a senior US economist at Barclays said, " "Some of Some of this could genuinely be productivity replacing workers, but the narrative that keeps coming up is really a cost-cutting exercise by a lot of firms given the amount of investments they have committed towards AI."

Now, obviously the politics of AI are getting more and more acute. And And one interesting recent story in The New York Times was about what China is doing around AI and jobs



Now, one of my long-held theses is that if we started to see significant job displacement from AI

I think that one of the policies the United States would try before moving to something more dramatic like universal basic income, would be to provide incentives for firms to not fire people



I don't know whether it would be carrot or stick type incentives i.e., job cuts and subsidies on the positive end, or fines and fees on the negative end



but basically the idea would be for policy to create an incentive for organizations to keep people employed. part of why I've been at least theoretically interested in some type of policy like that

is that while it is more [00:21:00] involvement in the private sector than I like from my government in general it is also my longstanding belief that most companies are going to have to get through the efficiency phase of AI to get to the opportunity phase of AI

In other words, they're gonna have to go through all the cost cutting and efficiency gains to realize that the real opportunity of AI is in new opportunities. To the To the extent that there were policies that incentivized firms to keep people employed that might provide an acceleration over to the opportunity side

Because people have to figure out what to do with all that excess labor that they don't theoretically need anymore to deliver on their current product suite



leading potentially to some new thinking and new ideas



Now, Now, according to this New York Times report, China appears to be exploring policies that are somewhat in this vein.

The The Times writes, " "The The government is leaning heavily on companies to avoid layoffs, and those who don't fall in line might find themselves in court."



indeed, indeed, the idea of AI as augmenting people rather than replacing them is increasingly a matter of legal precedent in China In April, The Times writes, a court ruled that a tech company had illegally laid off a worker after replacing him with AI software The Hangzhou [00:22:00] Intermediate People's Court wrote, " The development of AI technology should be applied to liberating labor, promoting employment, and improving people's livelihood.

Labor laws allow employers to undertake technological changes and upgrade their operations, but it should also take into account the protection of workers' legitimate rights and interests."



The New York Times concludes, " Just how this will work in practice and how far the government is actually prepared to go with companies that don't comply remains to be seen. But what these rulings underscore is how much China is thinking about the problem."

Still, meanwhile, back here in the US, markets might be doing some of this work for us. You're starting to see more and more stories of companies that were quick to fire based on AI or at least blame AI for their firings, reversing those decisions

Ford has recently made news for their rehiring of what they call gray beard engineers Writes Bloomberg, " Ford Motor Company took an unusually human approach to fixing its stubborn quality problems. It brought back what it calls graybeard engineers to help train younger staff and to reprogram the artificial intelligence tools that weren't getting the job done."

Over the last three years, Ford said it has hired three hundred and fifty [00:23:00] veteran engineers, many of them former employees and others from suppliers, to help address seemingly intractable quality woes that have cost the automaker billions. The result? Ford is the top mainstream brand in the latest JD Power Initial Quality Survey.



Said Charles Poon, Ford's vice president, Ford's VP of vehicle hardware engineering: " Artificial intelligence is a fantastic tool, but it's only as good as the information you use to train it. Over prior years, we didn't pay as much attention as we should have to the experience of our most knowledgeable engineers that have been with us through many product cycles."

And Poon actually went farther. He said, " Mistakenly, we thought that just by introducing AI and ingesting the design requirements that we had, that we could produce a high-quality product. But we recognized that for us to enhance some of our automation and machine learning and AI tools, we needed to ensure that they were trained by the most experienced individuals."

Now, obviously this is just one company, but I do think it's a leading indicator of a narrative you're going to see more, which is companies recalibrating a little bit where AI is going to sit in their overall labor stack



Of course, Of course, one company is just an anecdote But the last report I wanted to cover today

is based on a [00:24:00] lot more data

In a research collaboration with Revelio Labs, Ramp recently correlated firm-level AI spending against payroll data for 21,000 US businesses

The headline stat? They found that companies with high AI adoption were growing headcount at 10% on average across the past two years, while companies with low AI adoption were basically flat

What's more, the beginning of aggressive headcount growth syncs up to the beginning of the company's AI adoption, suggesting a strong causative factor

and as to concerns about entry-level employment, well, Ramp found that headcount growth was also stronger at the entry level, running at an average of 12% compared to 10% overall



now now Ramp's lead economist, Harizian

made sure to point out



that data can hide a lot of nuance and tell a lot of stories. In sharing the results, he wrote, " "You You should be skeptical. Companies that adopt AI are already fast-growing

However, he pointed out that the study attempted to control for a lot of the obvious factors

For example, the study attempted to match like-for-like firms with a control group that hadn't adopted AI

[00:25:00] Hoping to ensure that Ramp wasn't just measuring the propensity of firms with high existing growth to spend the money on 

AI adoption. He also noted a prominent learning curve to firm-level AI adoption. Headcount growth didn't begin until six to 12 months into AI adoption plans

Now importantly, while this study was looking at firms with AI adoption, this is not primarily about the firms that are token maxing and spending millions of dollars on AI. Ramp's threshold for high levels of AI adoption was fairly modest With companies spending an average of thirty dollars per employee per month in the early phases.

AI spend did ramp up alongside headcount growth but Karazian said it wasn't a dramatic cost, well below $1,000 a head

As far as takeaways go, Karaziyan thought that this was very good news, especially for young people. He wrote, " This is our first evidence that high AI-adopting firms are hiring different kinds of employees. We believe they are selecting for a new set of skills, specifically people who know how to use AI and use it well.

Entry-level workers, especially recent graduates and college students, are a natural place to look."

Ultimately, It is way too early to know [00:26:00] exactly how AI and jobs are going to play out



still any of you who are even a remotely regular listener will know that I am extremely optimistic on this front

and I am encouraged To see not only the narrative, but some of the numbers validate at least parts of that optimism



one final set of numbers that I'll leave you with come from Box CEO Aaron Levie, who wrote, " At Box, we recently did a survey of 1,600-plus mid and large-sized companies, and the findings were similar to Ramp's.

58% of respondents expected headcount to rise over the next three years. That figure climbs to 79% among the most mature adopters of AI. The more advanced AI adopters expected to grow their headcount at a greater rate in the future than others."

In In reality, he concludes, this is what actually you should expect to happen. If a company can get more customers because they use AI in sales for account or market intelligence, they hire more salespeople, not fewer. If If you can build way more software than before, you end up hiring more engineers because the projects get bigger and you take on more

As always My long-term optimism about this does not mean that I think there isn't going to be important displacement that happens in the short term. I think [00:27:00] that there are categories of jobs that likely just get entirely wiped off the face of the planet. And I think that there are going to be vulnerable populations who have built their entire careers aroundsomething that AI happens to do well, who are at a stage in their career where just switching to something new isn't going to be exactly viable

But boy, creating good policy to support very specific interventions around particular at-risk roles and populations is a way different task than dealing with an AI job apocalypse. Anyways, guys, that is gonna Anyways, guys, that is gonna do it for today's AI Daily Brief.

Appreciate you listening or watching as always, and until next time, peace. Bye.​