• Abdulrahman Alfozan will stay jailed pre-trial, a San Francisco judge decided Monday.
• The engineer is accused of bugging a conference room at OpenAI, and he has been fired.
• Alfozan posed a risk of non-appearance, the judge said, after discussing his ties to Saudi Arabia.

A former OpenAI engineer accused of bugging the AI startup's office was denied release by a San Francisco judge on Monday, meaning he'll have to mount his defense from jail.

The Justice Department arrested Abdulrahman Alfozan on October 9 and charged him with using or attempting to use a device to intercept oral communications. He's accused of placing a recording device behind a television in an OpenAI conference room — an FBI affidavit includes photos of the device wrapped in toilet paper, and a man they say is Alfozan peering behind the TV.

On Monday, the engineer wore a yellow surgical mask and a jail-issued orange sweatshirt to the San Francisco courthouse. Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse prodded Alfozan's legal team about the risk that he might not appear for a future court hearing.

Tse said that Alfozan's wife and son had traveled to Saudi Arabia with no plans to return, and went back and forth with Yasin about a one-way ticket that Alfozan had previously booked to the country. Tse said that Saudi Arabia and the US do not have an extradition agreement, and expressed skepticism that he had sufficient ties to the Bay Area to prevent his departure.

William Pernik, Alfozan's attorney, argued that, rather than being detained, Alfozan should be fitted with an ankle monitor, ordered to stay home, and have limits placed on his use of technology. The lawyer also said Alfozan is willing to put up "essentially all the money his family has" as bond, including a roughly $1 million investment account.

"Everything this man has, he's willing to surrender, and say, 'I'm not going anywhere,'" Pernik said.

Pernik and Nas Yasin, another of Alfozan's attorneys, cited his coming naturalization interview as evidence of his local ties.

"He was weeks away from achieving every immigrant's dream in this country," Pernik said.

Yasin told Tse that she learned Alfozan's wife had obtained a short-term visitor visa to return to the US, to help improve her husband's case for ties to the Bay Area.

Tse also asked Alfozan's legal team a slew of questions about his relationship with Saudi Arabia, including a commitment by the Saudi consulate to pay his bond and support his legal effort.

Nick Parker, an assistant US attorney, appeared for the prosecution. He argued that the threat of forfeiting a $1 million bond wouldn't be enough to convince Alfozan to return if he made it out of the US, because he might be able to earn more money in Saudi Arabia.

"There is a real threat here that once he leaves, the case is over," Tse responded.

The judge scheduled the case's next hearing for early November.

OpenAI called the recording device "sophisticated" when the arrest went public, though it said it hadn't found signs that he'd taken AI model weights, source code, or customer information. OpenAI fired Alfozan.

Alfozan's charge carries a maximum penalty of 5 years. Pernik said in a statement last week that the allegations "appear wholly out of character for him."

Alfozan, 35, has a green card that makes him a lawful permanent resident of the United States. He attended MIT, then worked at Facebook (now Meta) from 2017 to 2023. After a stint at the engineering startup Nash Technologies, Alfozan joined OpenAI in 2025.

FBI agents have already taken Alfozan's Saudi passport.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at scouncil@businessinsider.com, or over text, Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 415-757-8198. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Netflix's film chief Dan Lin is out after two years.
• He's the latest top exec to exit following a 6% cut at the streamer, its biggest since 2022.
• New content chief Peter Rice will oversee film until a successor to Lin is announced.

Film head Dan Lin is out at Netflix, the latest exec to be ousted in the wake of the streamer's biggest layoff since 2022.

Lin was hired as film chair in 2024 with a mandate to bring greater cost discipline and variety to Netflix's films, which had focused on big-budget output under his predecessor, Scott Stuber. Lin cut big upfront paychecks to actors, reduced staff, and reorganized his department. He oversaw a slate that included Oscar-winning "KPop Demon Hunters," "Happy Gilmore 2," and "Frankenstein."

Lin's exit is the latest big shocker at Netflix. Also out in recent days was chief content officer Bela Bajaria, who was replaced by Hollywood veteran Peter Rice, a former exec at Disney and Fox.

Rice will oversee film until a new head is announced, Netflix said in a statement confirming Lin's departure.

Last week, Netflix laid off 1,000 employees, or about 6% of global head count. That was the streamer's largest cull since 2022, when the company lost subscribers for the first time in more than a decade.

The streaming giant has been hampered by slowing engagement growth and a stock price that has declined more than 40% over the past year. The streamer is contending with the rise of free, ad-supported streaming led by YouTube and the popularity of social video. In recent months, Netflix has turned to podcasters and creators to bulk up its library.

Netflix is set to report third-quarter earnings after the bell on Tuesday.

• Screenshots of Vinted listings circulating on social media show products being offered for a fraction of their retail prices.
• The suspected stolen merchandise was listed after looting in France.
• Vinted told The Telegraph it had taken immediate action to identify and remove listings connected to the violence.

Resale websites including Vinted have removed suspicious listings after they were flooded with apparently stolen goods in the wake of riots that swept across France.

Perfumes, designer handbags, cosmetics and even Pokémon cards have appeared on second-hand marketplaces following a weekend of violence that saw shops ransacked, The Telegraph — which, like Business Insider, is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network — reported.

Screenshots circulating on social media show products being offered for a fraction of their retail prices, including bags overflowing with Sephora cosmetics advertised for as little as €10 (£8.40).

The listings have triggered suspicions that looters are trying to sell stolen goods online. eBay and Vinted have removed some items and stepped up their monitoring of suspicious activity.

One advert on Vinted showed six Sephora lip glosses being sold for €15, while another offered six tubes of cleansing cream for just €12.

Sephora France sells comparable own-brand lip glosses for around €13 each, meaning six would ordinarily cost around €78.

Other listings included Christian Dior perfumes advertised for €250 and large quantities of make-up still in their original packaging.

In one case, Pokémon trading cards allegedly stolen from a shop in Lille were advertised on Vinted, with some still bearing their original price stickers.

Hundreds of cards were reportedly found scattered across streets in the northern French city after a fire at Le Coin des Barons, a shop specialising in collectable cards.

A trophy said to have been stolen from French e-sport club Team Vitality was advertised on eBay for €1,250.

The silver StarLadder Counter-Strike trophy was photographed against a graffiti-covered wall and listed under the title: "STOLEN RARE VITALITY CS2 TROPHÉE."

Team Vitality confirmed that its Paris premises had been looted during Saturday's unrest, with trophies and computer equipment stolen and display windows smashed.

The listings emerged as France struggled to contain some of its worst civil unrest in years, caused by anger over the cost of living and deteriorating public services.

More than half a million people joined demonstrations on Saturday, with violent clashes breaking out in Paris, Marseille, Lyon and other cities.

French authorities said more than 2,400 people had been arrested by Sunday, while nearly 1,000 police officers were injured.

Emmanuel Macron, the French president, has stepped up powers to ban protests as he acknowledged intelligence "failures" over the riots.

The unrest has spread beyond France, with demonstrations about living costs and public spending also taking place in Belgium, Portugal and Italy.

French retailers have been left counting the cost, with supermarket giant Carrefour reporting damage to 50 stores, including 20 that were looted.

'We have zero tolerance for it'

Sephora closed its French stores on Saturday evening and kept them shut on Sunday after several branches were ransacked.

Vinted said it had taken immediate action to identify and remove listings connected to the violence.

A spokesman said: "The sale of stolen goods, or soliciting them, is strictly prohibited on Vinted, and we have zero tolerance for it."

The company said it had stepped up monitoring and would take action against offenders, including permanently banning accounts. It added that it was working with law enforcement and French authorities to identify suspicious sellers.

An eBay spokesman said: "The sale of stolen property is strictly prohibited on eBay."

The company said it used technology to identify suspicious activity and worked closely with police to investigate criminal behaviour.

The spokesman added: "If we receive confirmation from law enforcement that an item has been stolen, we remove it immediately and take action against the seller."

This story originally appeared on The Telegraph and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from Business Insider, POLITICO, The Telegraph, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.

• Anthropic is looking to shape AI regulation by pitching an AI safety bill of its own.
• POLITICO obtained a confidential draft of the proposed legislation.
• The bill would let the government block an AI model only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people.

Representatives for the artificial intelligence giant Anthropic have quietly pitched Capitol Hill lawmakers on a draft bill to regulate frontier AI safety and security, according to three people with knowledge of the efforts who were granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The confidential draft, obtained by POLITICO and not previously reported, marks a notable effort by the frontier AI lab to shape the rules governing its own technology as Congress weighs how to respond to the fast-moving industry.

"This bill represents the proposals outlined in Anthropic's Advanced AI Framework, which we have been advocating for with federal and state lawmakers since June," an Anthropic spokesperson said. "These are sensible policies we believe Congress should act on."

The bill would let the government block a model's release or use only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people. The risk must stem from the creation or release of a biological weapon, the model evading its developer's controls or a cyberattack. The language mirrors that found in California's AI laws including SB 53, which was signed into law last year.

Leading AI labs disclosed a series of incidents this summer, in which AI agents hacked or probed websites and platforms. None reported so far appear to have caused widespread deaths or over $1 billion in damages.

Anthropic has yet to publicly back particular legislative efforts in Congress, but they have backed some state AI safety laws, including two in California. Their head of U.S. state and local government relations previously told POLITICO that they hope states will continue to pass ever-stronger AI safety laws that raise the standard nationwide.

Under the bill, independent evaluators, which would register with the Commerce Department, would be tasked with periodically evaluating the lab and its frontier models. The evaluators may be paid for their work by the lab itself so long as the payment is not contingent on the evaluations' results.

If the evaluators determine there is "imminent enumerated risk" for a company's frontier models, they must report it to Commerce within 72 hours of completing their assessment.

While the Commerce Department could bring a request to the judge to halt the release of a model after determining that it poses a risk, the language explicitly prohibits any other U.S. "department, agency, or officer" from suspending the model's development, deployment or internal use. A federal judge for the District Court for the District of Columbia could order the suspension of a model.

Over the summer, Anthropic was subject to sweeping export controls that shut down two of its most advanced models. The decision was made in a whirlwind series of phone calls between administration officials and the company's executives, worrying some in the tech industry that access to their technology may be restricted on the whims of government officials.

Anthropic's bill would also preempt some state AI laws related to public disclosure of risk, third-party evaluation and reporting of critical incidents. Preemption has been a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill, with Democrats rejecting some proposals they feared would neuter regulations passed by the likes of California, Illinois and New York.

Many tech industry groups have argued that a state-by-state patchwork of laws is difficult to comply with compared to a unified national standard.

The legislation would also require frontier labs to create safety frameworks, publish transparency reports for new frontier models, implement protections for whistleblowers and report critical safety incidents to Commerce.

Capitol Hill has seen a flurry of activity on AI safety legislation this summer. In the House, Reps. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) spearheaded the FRONTIER Act, which would give the government the ability to stop the deployment of risky models and preempt some state AI laws.

In the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have been negotiating an AI safety bill intended to mitigate catastrophic risks. But it has faced headwinds from some safety-minded groups and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on Cruz's Commerce Committee, who want the government to have a larger role in reviewing AI models.

Other progressives, including Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have gone well beyond their colleagues in calling for a pause in advanced AI development and a ban on superintelligence, a type of theoretical AI that far surpasses humans' cognitive capabilities.

This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.

Cooley has made billions doing what law firms do: hire great lawyers, bill for their time, and keep clients happy. Artificial intelligence is scrambling that formula. If machines can do in minutes what once took an associate hours, what exactly should clients be paying for?

Rachel Proffitt thinks she has the answer.

On a toasty October afternoon in San Francisco, I met Proffitt for lunch to talk about the future of the global law firm she now leads. When the check arrived, neither of us knew how much the restaurant paid the dishwasher or how many minutes the chef spent preparing our meal. We were paying for the experience, not the labor behind it.

Why, she wondered, should legal services be so different?

"Clients have never been excited about the fact that it took us 82 hours to do something. They don't care," she says. "They just want the outcome. They want the results."

The billable hour is only the beginning. AI is forcing law firms to rethink how many associates they really need and how those young lawyers learn their craft. Client relationships are changing as companies use software to get a head start on the work they send to outside counsel. Some of that work may never reach a lawyer at all.

If tech is about to reinvent law firms, Cooley should be one of the firms with the clearest view of what's coming. From its early days on San Francisco's Market Street, it worked with semiconductor manufacturers and venture capitalists when the valley was still covered in fruit trees and canneries. Cooley grew up alongside the tech industry, and today it is as comfortable defending Meta in court as it is helping Andreessen Horowitz round up billion-dollar funds.

That evolution has been lucrative. Cooley says its gross revenue jumped from $912 million in 2015 to $2.4 billion last fiscal year. Its crosstown rival, Wilson Sonsini, brought in $1.7 billion in 2025, according to The American Lawyer. Still, the gulf between Cooley and Big Law's largest firms remains enormous. Kirkland & Ellis, the industry's revenue leader, cracked $10 billion last year. Latham & Watkins, another go-to firm for Silicon Valley, hit $8.3 billion.

The next wave of tech public listings promises a fortune in legal fees for the chosen few. Gibson Dunn landed SpaceX's IPO. Anthropic tapped Wilson Sonsini for its coming listing. And Cooley is reportedly sharing OpenAI's IPO work with Wachtell Lipton, one of Wall Street's most formidable law firms.

The irony is hard to miss. Big Law is fighting for a piece of the biggest technology companies in the world, even as those companies build the tools that could upend the business of law itself.

Proffitt came up as a lawyer under the old rules. Her next task is to figure out what it will take to build a great law firm under the new ones.

'The winner's circle'

Profitt didn't grow up wanting to be a lawyer but liked how law school taught her to think. Litigation was out of the question: Public speaking during mock trials made her stomach turn. "It was transactional law or bust," she says.

She started her career as a summer associate at Wilson Sonsini and worked her way up to partner. She fell in love with the intensity of the work, pulling all-nighters at the financial printers where she marked up securities filings by hand. She recalls the Christmas Eve when her father marveled that she had made it through the day without taking a work call. After 15 years at the firm, she left for Cooley in 2017.

Three years ago, Proffitt got a call at home that she didn't see coming. Joe Conroy, then Cooley's chief executive, wanted to know whether she would consider succeeding him.

She was flattered, but also "a bit terrified," she says. She spent two decades helping startups, including Unity Software, Procore, and Instacart, raise money and go public. Running a firm with 3,000 employees was another matter. She talked to her family, then put herself forward for the job. She started in 2024.

Proffitt couldn't have guessed how quickly AI would jolt her industry from its steady state. It wasn't too long ago that clients insisted that the technology go nowhere near their work, fearing what would happen if their data disappeared into someone else's model.

"It was clear to me then that we don't get to just exist as we are and continue to be at the top of our game," she says.

Cooley had remade itself once before. The firm's Silicon Valley roots were both a strength and a liability, said Conroy in an interview. Cooley was known for helping startups get off the ground. The conventional wisdom was that as those companies grew, they would graduate to one of the elite New York law firms for their biggest deals and courtroom battles.

To keep clients from the garage to the boardroom, as Conroy put it, Cooley needed to expand. It opened new offices and built out its litigation and capital markets practices. The firm also spent years courting Wall Street banks, says Proffitt, so that when a company asked which law firm to hire for its IPO, Cooley would make its shortlist.

Today, its client roster reads like a Kiplinger roundup of hot tech stocks: Nvidia, Uber, Snowflake, and Zoom, to name a few listings it worked on. Since 2016, Cooley has advised issuers on 183 IPOs that raised nearly $59 billion, making it the second-most active firm by deal count after Latham, according to Deal Point Data. Proffitt wouldn't discuss reports that Cooley has landed OpenAI's IPO work.

For 16 years, Conroy pushed Cooley toward what he calls Big Law's "winner's circle." Proffitt's job is to get it there.

Startup speed

Her strategy starts with making Cooley move more like the tech companies it represents.

Proffitt recruited David Wang, a former lawyer turned legal technology executive, with an ambitious mandate. She didn't just want to make Cooley's lawyers more productive, Wang said in an interview. She wanted to change how clients interact with them altogether.

Earlier this year, Cooley launched a tool with the startup Legora that lets Y Combinator founders review common contracts without calling a lawyer. OpenAI helped it build a tool for Cooley's lawyers to prepare paperwork for companies going public. Next, Cooley is working with Google on an AI agent that scans documents for confidential information before they're filed in court, then suggests redactions for lawyers to review.

There's something almost cannibalistic about a law firm building software that could eat into its own billable hours. But Cooley sees a bigger risk in letting someone else do it. In-house legal teams are increasingly using chatbots to take the first crack at work they would otherwise send to outside counsel. A new breed of "AI-native" law firms is promising cheaper, faster services.

Big Law does not want to be caught flatfooted. Firms are throwing money at startups like Harvey and Legora, and increasingly, they're building their own technology. Kirkland has committed $500 million to proprietary software, starting with a platform for private equity fundraising built with Palantir. Latham bought its own Nvidia servers so it can customize models in-house. Like Cooley, Wilson Sonsini has self-service tools that let companies handle basic legal work.

For Proffitt, the danger isn't lost billable hours. It's the missed connections. The scrappy startup that needs a contract reviewed today might need help closing an acquisition later. But if the bots take care of the small stuff, Cooley could miss its chance to build the relationship.

Proffitt says Cooley must find new ways to connect with clients. Putting technology in their hands is one option, even if it means giving away a little of the work.

"When you need the next thing that matters, the thing that you don't trust to put into the machine," she says, "how do I ensure that you want to talk to our team?"

The firm is also rethinking its own structure for the new era. Wang now leads Cooley AI, a wholly owned subsidiary designed to operate at something closer to startup speed. The separate company gives his team more freedom to hire engineers and put new technology through its paces, he says, without getting bogged down in the parent firm's bureaucracy.

The irony, Proffitt says, is that all this technology could leave lawyers with more time for the human stuff. Lawyers may visit their clients more. Talk through thorny decisions. Drop in on the strategy session to learn how their advice fits into a client's business.

Keeping those relationships alive might require a little more old-fashioned schmoozing. When I asked Proffitt whether the answer was throwing great parties, she didn't entirely disagree. "Everyone loves a party," she says.

The future of legal work

Proffitt doesn't pretend to have a crystal ball. She has ideas, though.

The billable hour? Not dead yet. She expects law firms to offer clients a menu of pricing options, from hourly rates to flat fees and outcome-based pricing.

Hiring slowdowns at the junior level? "Too early to tell," she says.

The apprenticeship model? That gets trickier. If software can write first drafts and spot issues, how will young lawyers get the practice they need? Proffitt says Cooley is exploring ways for associates to sharpen their skills on simulated legal matters, starting with AI-powered mock depositions.

Proffitt came up in an era when canceled dinners and all-nighters were a badge of honor. She's betting that the next generation won't need quite so many of them to become great lawyers. Her test will come a decade from now, when today's junior associates are ready to make partner.

If Cooley has found a better way to teach them, perhaps the old model won't be missed. If it hasn't, no amount of AI can make up the difference.

Melia Robinson is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, where she writes about how artificial intelligence is changing the legal industry.

• Amazon is on an unprecedented spending spree to build more AI data center capacity than anyone else.
• The company has extensive experience, yet even it's struggling to bring capacity online fast enough.
• Internal documents show Amazon getting bilions of dollars of Nvidia GPUs before they can be deployed.

At an internal staff meeting in September, AWS CFO John Felton had a joke for Prasad Kalyanaraman, the executive overseeing much of Amazon's AI infrastructure expansion.

"You've taken us free cash flow negative as a company, so congratulations," Felton said, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by Business Insider.

The remark was lighthearted. But it captured a stunning reversal.

Just two years ago, Wall Street was debating what Amazon would do with its growing cash hoard. Now, cash flow has evaporated as Amazon embarks on its biggest bet ever, spending $220 billion this year alone to build the physical backbone for AI.

At the meeting, Kalyanaraman did not dispute Felton's premise. Amazon's machine-learning and AI business is "hugely free cash flow negative," he said, adding that he expects the company's free cash flow to remain negative for "the next couple of years or so."

Amazon has made big bets before. It spent heavily on cloud computing, fulfillment centers, and its delivery network long before they became some of the company's most valuable assets. Investors questioned those investments at the time, but Amazon ultimately built enormous, profitable businesses from them.

AI is testing this playbook at a far larger scale. Amazon is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to data centers, servers, and power before investors know how quickly those investments will generate revenue.

The company is the best, or among the best, at building data centers, with decades of experience. But the size and complexity of these projects, and the bottlenecks holding progress back, are challenging — even for such a respected cloud pioneer.

Internal documents reviewed by Business Insider and people familiar with the matter show the company trying to coordinate a sprawling industrial system whose parts move on different schedules. A delay in power, equipment, or construction can leave billions of dollars in hardware waiting — and Amazon's cash tied up — while forecasts and costs keep shifting.

Why Amazon thinks it will work

Amazon says it has strong evidence that the capacity will be needed. AWS revenue grew 37% in the second quarter, its fastest pace in 18 quarters, while its backlog reached $496 billion.

CEO Andy Jassy thinks the company has a "clear line of sight" to strong financial returns from this record investment cycle. In his latest annual shareholder letter, he called AI a "once in a lifetime opportunity" and said Amazon would not be conservative in its investments.

"We've been through this cycle with the first big AWS growth wave, and liked the results," Jassy wrote. "We expect to feel similarly about this next wave."

Investors are concerned by the scale of the industry's expansion, especially as AI data centers are costing more to build and taking longer to complete.

The market is "repricing anything that funds multi-year builds against revenue that arrives later," Dan Ives, an analyst at Yorkville Ives, wrote in a recent report. Growing uncertainty around data center permitting and the political fight over electricity prices have given investors another reason to question how quickly these investments will pay off, he added.

Racks, but not enough power

One major industry challenge is securing enough power to run the equipment that goes inside data centers. This includes expensive racks of servers that contain GPUs and other chips that train and run AI models and services such as ChatGPT.

Internal emails from August show Amazon preparing a new "Early Rack Receipt" process for an expected wave of server racks carrying Nvidia's GB300 chips at US facilities before final deployment.

One Amazon email projected the company would take delivery of about $5 billion of Nvidia GB300 racks in August, followed by another roughly $3 billion each month "for the foreseeable future."

Some AWS data center sites had room for more racks but not enough available power to turn them on, people familiar with the effort said, leaving the equipment to be staged at intermediary warehouses until the facilities were ready. These people asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters.

Timing and coordination

Usually, Amazon doesn't pay for racks until the gear is put into a data center, leaving suppliers to carry the cost of the equipment in transit, according to the internal documents obtained by Business Insider. This helps the company conserve cash.

However, the intensity of the AI data center building boom has made this type of coordination harder. Amazon has to compete more for scarce resources as it jockeys with rivals for access to Nvidia GPUs and other AI components.

Under the new "Early Rack Receipt" process, Amazon now takes ownership of these racks earlier in the supply chain, rather than waiting until the equipment reaches a data center.

The means spending cash sooner. And any delays getting the racks installed and plugged into a reliable power source potentially pushes back the moment when revenue starts flowing from these assets.

At least one AWS supply chain team did not have "a clear forecasted path" for getting racks into data centers, according to one of the emails reviewed by Business Insider.

An Amazon spokesperson said the company routinely stages finished hardware near deployment sites so it can be installed once power capacity is available, calling that approach "best business practice."

The spokesperson added that AWS has "long-established systems" to track infrastructure assets and disputed that the broader company lacks a forecasted path for getting racks into data centers.

This problem is not unique to Amazon.

Bernstein analysts wrote in a recent note that power permits, cooling systems, electrical equipment, construction, and hardware all move on separate schedules.

"Timing is imperfect," the analysts said.

"Inherently uncertain"

During the internal staff meeting in September, Felton, the AWS CFO, described the broader problem eloquently: "How do you work in the future when the future is inherently uncertain?"

Kalyanaraman, the AI infrastructure leader, said Amazon's internal outlook for the return on its AI investments had improved. But the assumptions behind those returns keep shifting.

"The forecast is changing on a daily basis," Kalyanaraman said. "The world that we live in is extremely dynamic."

Those shifting assumptions include when data centers will be ready and how much equipment AWS needs to keep on hand, he explained.

An eight-week supply buffer might be routine for a smaller company. But at Amazon's scale, Kalyanaraman said, this could mean holding "billions and billions of dollars" worth of additional equipment inventory — tying up precious cash.

Frugality meets the AI boom

Such tensions are especially striking for Kalyanaraman, a 21-year Amazon veteran who earlier this year was promoted to the elite S-team that reports directly to Jassy.

Amazon's founding story is defined by frugality. It famously used cheap doors as desks when founder Jeff Bezos started in Seattle in the mid-90s.

Kalyanaraman has absorbed this lore into bones. In late 2023, as AWS faced slower growth and layoffs, he urged employees to do more with less. "Frugality breeds innovation," he said back then.

That instinct still shapes his approach. In the September meeting this year, Kalyanaraman told Felton that AWS tries to make major investments at the "last responsible moment," when it has the clearest possible view of demand.

"If we can wait to spend the capital as late as possible, it's better for us," he said.

But the frenetic pace of the AI boom makes this principle difficult to follow. By the time demand is fully visible, the servers, power, and construction capabilities that AWS needs may no longer be available. That puts pressure on the company to commit more money sooner to secure supply and meet its data center capacity goals.

Kalyanaraman recalled telling Jassy in 2023 that AWS would "surely" be out of its capacity crunch by 2027. Instead, Amazon still expects demand to exceed its available capacity in 2027, the AI infrastructure chief said during the meeting this September.

Secured Power at Risk

Getting enough electricity may be the biggest challenge for an industry leader like Amazon.

The company has 44 gigawatts of data center capacity under development across 16 states, more than double Google, Meta, and Microsoft, according to Cleanview Research estimates.

An internal AWS dashboard called "Secured Power at Risk" tracks utility and regulatory constraints affecting electricity capacity AWS has lined up for its data centers.

The risks include transmission bottlenecks, requirements to reduce use during grid stress, and "use it or lose it" provisions that can jeopardize capacity if a data center project misses usage or construction milestones.

In other words, AWS is not simply waiting for electricity to arrive. It is managing a portfolio of commitments that can become more costly if a data center project is delayed.

Maryland proposals

A submission to Maryland's utility regulator last year, obtained through a public records request, illustrates the kind of exposure that can accompany massive data center buildouts.

Amazon told the Maryland Public Service Commission that large data center customers could help pay for grid upgrades or bring new power capacity to market without burdening other electricity ratepayers.

The company also proposed setting aside collateral to help utilities get more comfortable with the large investments needed to generate more electricity for data centers. Amazon proposed three years of collateral so that if a large electricity customer abandoned unused capacity, the utility would have time to re-sell the power.

The proposal is not evidence that AWS has made such a payment or posted collateral. It does, however, show that large data centers can face extra financial obligations, beyond their own electricity bills, if projects are delayed or cancelled.

The Amazon spokesperson said such utility rules are not unique to AWS. The company has not disclosed how much cash it has paid upfront to secure power.

New constraints 'keep popping up'

The AI buildout also incurs expenses that are harder to model than a conventional capex plan.

In the September meeting this year, Kalyanaraman said that while reviewing plans for gigawatts of capacity in West Texas, AWS confronted a labor problem: There weren't enough nearby pipefitters, electricians, and other skilled workers to build the facilities.

The company's response, he said, was to pay to construct housing complexes near its data centers so workers could live there for the two or three years needed to complete the projects.

Even the crates used to ship servers have become a planning issue. It may seem absurd to worry about the price of a container when servers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, Kalyanaraman said. But at AWS's scale, where the company needs so many crates, even trivial items can become a material expense.

"We have new constraints that keep popping up," Kalyanaraman said.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at ekim@businessinsider.com or Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 650-942-3061. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• A version of this story originally appeared in the AI Insider newsletter.
• Sign up for Business Insider's weekly AI Insider newsletter here.

AI companies have already scraped much of the web. Now they're chasing something even more valuable: data that shows how humans actually work.

That's the focus of Business Insider's new series, The AI Data Grab. This week, we published three stories showing how the race for workplace data is accelerating.

One piece, from Charles Rollet, Tom Carter, and Stephen Council, examines the booming market for company records. AI firms are offering businesses six- and even seven-figure sums for anonymized Slack messages, emails, presentations, and internal documents.

The goal is to teach AI systems how people solve problems, collaborate, make decisions, and complete long, multi-step tasks. Those real-world workflows are becoming the fuel for the next generation of AI agents.

Another story, from Melia Robinson, explores how law firms are building AI systems around decades of legal knowledge, turning their own experience into a competitive advantage rather than relying solely on off-the-shelf AI models and tools.

A third piece, by Rya Jetha, reveals how AI companies pay people to record real-world work, such as cooking dinners and packing warehouses, to teach robots how humans perform everyday physical tasks.

Together, these stories point to a major shift in AI development. The first wave of generative AI was mostly about bigger models and faster chips. The next chapter is about machines understanding how work gets done, so AI can help us do it better and quicker.

Sign up for the AI Insider newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com

• A witness who testified against Andrew Left has himself become involved in an insider trading probe.
• Left's lawyers asked a judge to toss the jury verdict that found him guilty of securities fraud.
• Prosecutors said they didn't learn about the investigation until after the trial was over.

A witness who testified against Andrew Left has himself become involved in an insider trading probe, bringing a new twist to the bombastic short-seller's fraud conviction.

Left's lawyers this month asked the judge who oversaw his trial to toss the jury's verdict convicting him of 13 counts of securities fraud. The trial was irredeemably unfair, they said, because they never had the chance to ask the witness about the investigation and attack his credibility.

"A new trial would probably produce an acquittal," Left's lawyers wrote.

In June, a federal jury in Los Angeles found Left guilty of 13 counts of securities fraud. Prosecutors said he deceived investors by using social media and research reports to set target prices for stocks — including Tesla, Nvidia, and Palantir — while quietly trading them at different prices with his own money.

The founder of Citron Research, Left is something of a short-seller celebrity. He placed bets against GameStop at the same time it became a meme stock, which pitted him against some retail traders on social media. For years, he was a fixture on CNBC and Bloomberg, where he shared his views on stock prices.

Left hasn't been sentenced. In addition to the criminal case, he faces a parallel civil lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission that remains unresolved.

Left's criminal conviction shook certain corners of Wall Street, which viewed the trial as a referendum on free speech and the legality of activist short-seller tactics. Left, testifying in his own defense at the trial, said that the views he shared about public companies were sincere.

One of the trial's prosecution witnesses was Daniel Bachus, the CFO of Grand Canyon Education, a publicly traded technology company that provides services to universities. Left's lawyers say that Bachus was the only witness who testified that Left used his Citron Research reports to lie about a company, not merely omit information.

On August 21 — weeks after the trial ended — Grand Canyon Education placed Bachus on paid administrative leave "in connection with an ongoing governmental investigation" involving a non-employee's trades of the company's stock, the company said in an SEC disclosure. The prosecutors in Left's case referred to it in their own filings as an "insider trading investigation."

No government agency has publicly accused Bachus or Grand Canyon Education of any misconduct in connection with the investigation. In the SEC disclosure, the company said it wasn't the focus of the investigation. Representatives for the SEC and for Grand Canyon Education declined to comment. Bachus didn't respond to Business Insider's requests for comment.

Left's lawyers say they should have been informed about the investigation at the time of the trial so that they could cross-examine Bachus and try to convince the jury that he wasn't a credible witness.

"This evidence would have destroyed the credibility of the government's only false-statements witness," they wrote in a filing.

The prosecution team told Left's lawyers it didn't learn about the investigation until after the trial was over. It's not clear which government agency opened the investigation, nor when Bachus or Grand Canyon Education became aware of it. Many of the filings about the issue remained sealed or redacted on the court docket for Left's case.

In court filings, Justice Department prosecutors said Left's lawyers overstated Bachus' role in the short-selling case, which alleged securities fraud involving more than a dozen different public companies. They said Left wanted to conduct "his own shadow investigation into Bachus" to try to discredit him as a witness.

"The law does not permit fishing expeditions in search of a claim," prosecutors said.

Left declined to comment. Left's attorney Eric S. Rosen said he could not comment because many relevant documents remained under seal.

A spokesperson for the US Attorney's office in Los Angeles declined to comment.

• Anthropic examined what might happen when AI and robots are combined.
• That could put more hands-on jobs, including gardening, in the path of automation, Anthropic warned.
• I'm skeptical that robots can handle the messy reality of pulling weeds.

Remember when Anthropic's AI jobs report suggested gardeners were among the safest workers because AI couldn't pull weeds or tell a rose from a dandelion? I joked about that in AI Insider earlier this year.

Well, Anthropic updated the research to freak us all out a bit more.

This time it asks a bigger question: What happens when you combine AI with robots? That change pushes many hands-on jobs much higher on the disruption scale. On paper, it makes sense. In practice, I'm skeptical.

For instance, anyone who's spent time working in a garden knows how hard it is to identify the right plant, kneel in awkward spots, and pull a weed out properly by the roots without damaging everything around it.

Robots are improving. But if you've ever watched one tackle a messy real-world task, you'll know there's a long road between a research chart and reality.

The chart below illustrates how adding robots could change job-task exposure across selected job categories. Cleaning & maintenance includes gardeners along with janitors and similar roles.

• Anthropic published new surveys comparing its staffers' sentiments to those of US workers.
• The AI startup's employees expect the tech to change work and the economy far more dramatically.
• Most Anthropic employees guessed that unemployment would top 12% in 2030.

Anthropic employees believe that AI will make their labor obsolete. Most US workers don't see their jobs that way at all.

The AI company published research on Friday that compares surveys with US adults against an internal poll of 1,334 Anthropic employees. Most of the Anthropic staffers said AI will handle at least 80% of their jobs by 2030, while only about 5% of the US workers felt the same.

The research, titled "The AI expectations gap," shows the chasm between how the employees at the AI startup feel and how other American adults feel. Anthropic workers are far more optimistic about the progress of AI capabilities, how much it's already saving time, and how fast the economy will grow.

The median Anthropic employee said that by the end of 2030, they expect AI to handle 95% of the work of building a new AI model.

Peter McCrory, Anthropic's chief economist, wrote on X that the views might help outsiders prepare for more capable AI systems.

"We're publishing this research because Anthropic runs roughly a year and a half ahead of the economy on AI adoption, so what happens at Anthropic could be a leading indicator for the broader world," he said.

Anthropic workers expect higher unemployment and extreme GDP growth

Anthropic's surveys examined how workers already use AI and how they think it will change.

"US adults and Anthropic staff largely agree about what AI can do today," the researchers wrote. "However, they disagree about how quickly it will improve, how widely it will be used, and how large the productivity gains measured by time saved will be."

There are a few possible explanations for the discrepancies. Anthropic employees have larger budgets for the tools and often get access to unreleased models. US workers, on average, are more likely to work with their hands or in a service industry.

The researchers found that workers in manual trades, production, and transport thought AI would handle the least of their work by 2030, compared with Anthropic staffers, tech workers, and respondents in business and finance.

Most Anthropic employees surveyed said that they expect the unemployment rate to top 12% in 2030. The majority of the US workers thought it would hover around or under 8%. It's currently 4.2%.

So far, researchers have found mixed evidence on AI disrupting the job market — a Yale team recently found it had mainly changed jobs, and had "no connection" to changes in unemployment.

The Anthropic researchers also compiled survey responses to estimate predictions on economic growth. Based on their answers, the median US adult's guess for GDP growth in 2030 was 5.4%, compared with 17.1% among Anthropic employees. The country's GDP grew by 2.2% last year.

Anthropic's staffers are following their leader

Anthropic's CEO, Dario Amodei, has become one of the industry's most closely watched voices on labor upheaval. In March of 2025, he said he expected AI to write 90% of code within 6 months, and "essentially all of the code" within the year. He made more headlines that May, telling Axios that AI could wipe out half of entry-level white-collar jobs within five years and lift unemployment to 10% or 20%.

Amodei expanded on that claim in a later essay, writing that he expects AI to be different from prior technological changes. He wrote that he expects an "unprecedented" short-term shock to labor, and that the economy will grow dramatically.

"AI isn't a substitute for specific human jobs but rather a general labor substitute for humans," he wrote.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at scouncil@businessinsider.com, or over text, Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 415-757-8198. Use a personal email address, a non-work WiFi network, and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Nvidia's communications operation has been reshaped as the company became the face of the AI boom.
• Roughly 15 staffers have left the lean team since 2025 as Nvidia reorganized its communications org.
• Former employees described growing workloads as responsibilities expanded.

Nvidia's communications organization has been reshaped as the company became the face of the AI boom, with multiple teams brought under new leadership and a string of departures.

Business Insider identified roughly 15 communications employees who have left Nvidia since 2025, based on LinkedIn profiles and interviews with former employees.

The organization now numbers roughly 70 to 80 people globally, and has more than doubled in size since Mylene Mangalindan joined as vice president of corporate communications in 2023, according to a person close to the company.

The departures have also included newer hires. Anna Soellner, who was recruited to lead corporate communications, left after roughly four months, Business Insider previously reported.

Nvidia is known for high retention. It reported companywide turnover of 3.7% in fiscal 2026, up from 2.5% the prior year, and well below the tech industry average of 21.9% cited in its latest sustainability report.

Mangalindan succeeded longtime communications chief Bob Sherbin, who retired in 2024. She previously worked at the advisory firm Brunswick Group.

She was brought in to "bring fresh blood" and "upgrade the team" to meet Nvidia's growing profile, one former employee said.

At the end of 2024, Nvidia restructured its communications organization. It brought enterprise public relations under Mangalindan's leadership alongside the corporate communications team she already led, according to two former employees.

Corporate communications focuses on Nvidia's reputation and major media outlets, while enterprise handles product and industry messaging, including for its data center business.

One former employee said the consolidation reflected the growing importance of Nvidia's data center business, which sells chips and systems that power AI and had become its biggest revenue driver.

Analyst relations, social media, and influencer marketing also moved under Mangalindan's remit this year, another former employee said.

Three former employees said Nvidia's communications team had long operated with relatively lean staffing, even as workloads grew alongside the company's public profile, leaving staff juggling multiple responsibilities.

These employees said they experienced long hours, difficulty taking time off, and pressure to respond quickly to emails and Slack messages.

A person close to Nvidia said the company's lean staffing allows employees to move quickly and also requires long hours. The person said Mangalindan encourages staff to take vacation, though the team's small size can make scheduling time off difficult, particularly in the summer.

Nvidia is widely known for its demanding work environment. CEO Jensen Huang has emphasized operating at the "speed of light" and is known for fostering a culture of constant accountability.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at gweiss@businessinsider.com or Signal at @geoffweiss.25. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Disney plans to pay $60 million to hire 66 employees from Character.AI, which filed for bankruptcy.
• Former Character.AI Karandeep Anand is Disney's new chief technology officer.
• CEO Josh D'Amaro's company laid off tech staffers in September in its third round of cuts this year.

Disney is paying up for employees from an AI chatbot startup that filed for bankruptcy, shortly after trimming its own tech workforce.

The Mouse House plans to pay $60 million per year to 66 workers from Character.AI, according to a Chapter 11 filing on Tuesday from its parent company. In mid-September, Disney hired Character.AI CEO Karandeep Anand to be its first-ever company-wide tech chief. (The company hasn't yet disclosed how much it's paying Anand.)

These additions are part of Disney's AI strategy under CEO Josh D'Amaro, who's been investing in the media giant's tech platforms to help jumpstart a stagnant stock that's up less than 2% in the last 12 months and is down over 36% in the last five years.

Disney's decision to bring in these Character.AI staffers came two weeks after it laid off several hundred workers — including some tech employees. The late-September cuts were Disney's third major round of layoffs since D'Amaro took over in mid-March.

In addition to the $60 million in compensation, Disney is setting aside an additional $30 million for an "aggregate retention pool" to incentivize Character.AI employees to stay. The company expects to spend $180 million on "total compensation and retention" for these staffers in the next three years, the filing said.

Of the 66 Character.AI staffers who were offered jobs by Disney, 56 have already resigned from the AI startup, while the other 10 are waiting for the US government to update their work visas.

Entertainment lawyer Corey Martin of Granderson Des Rochers, who advises companies on media transactions, said he's not surprised by those pay figures since Character.AI's employees are its biggest asset.

"They're highly compensated employees. The numbers can be eye-popping, but it's not that unusual in this space," said Martin, who didn't work on the deal or with Disney.

Disney also agreed to pay $20 million for Character.AI's key assets, including some of its IP and tech. Other companies can submit competing bids for the assets by November 20. The entire process will be overseen by a bankruptcy court judge. Disney didn't respond to requests for comment for this story.

Character.AI filed for bankruptcy after facing lawsuits from families who alleged that their teenagers harmed themselves or committed suicide after using the company's custom AI chatbots. The AI startup and Google, one of its backers, settled several child safety lawsuits earlier this year.

Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter to Character.AI last fall, telling it not to create AI chatbots featuring its copyrighted characters without permission. Character.AI complied, removing chatbots with characters from Disney franchises like Star Wars and Marvel.

In its bankruptcy announcement, Character.AI said that it had been facing "significant legal, regulatory, and operational headwinds."

Anand told Disney employees in a memo last Friday that the Mouse House was "uniquely positioned to win" in a competitive media business that he said was "at an inflection point." The tech chief also said he enjoyed meeting his new colleagues and looked forward to working with them.

"What stands out most is the talent and care this team puts into its work, the craft Disney has perfected, and the strong foundation you've built," Anand said.

• Khaby Lame's splashy $975 million deal is still on ice nine months after it was announced.
• Lame's plan to merge his business with a publicly traded firm was celebrated by creator economy insiders.
• The public company's stock price has fallen 99% since its January high.

A new financial filing provides fresh details — and more questions — about a mysterious $975 million deal struck by TikTok's top star, Khaby Lame.

On January 9, Lame — who has over 160 million followers — entered into an agreement that would theoretically net him a major payday and take his company public. The mechanism: a merger with the publicly traded Rich Sparkle Holdings, a financial printing firm based in Hong Kong.

Then, in late January, Lame went silent on the merger. Now, we have an update: the deal is still on ice. A Rich Sparkle financial filing on September 30, its first since March, described the deal as conditional on a due diligence process, a minimum valuation of Lame's company, and stock exchange approval. That's the same language that has appeared in previous filings.

While the deal has been in limbo, Rich Sparkle's stock has plummeted 99% from its peak. In the wake of the announcement of the deal with Lame's company in January, the stock shot up to a high of about $180. On Thursday, it closed at $1.93. Several prominent brokerages had restricted or blocked trading in the stock, Business Insider exclusively reported in April.

The original deal announcement was celebrated throughout the creator economy, since such rich valuations are rare among influencer-founded companies, and it would give everyday investors an unusual opportunity to directly bet on a creator. The high profile of Lame, a Senegalese-Italian creator who rose to fame from dialogue-free comedy videos, means the outcome of the deal could impact how investors assess the viability of backing businesses centered on individual creators.

The January deal terms promised Lame's company 75 million shares, which would be worth about $145 million at Thursday's closing share price. The initial agreement had valued that stake at $975 million.

Rich Sparkle and Lame did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

At the time of the original announcement, Rich Sparkle said that it planned to create an AI avatar of Lame to do brand deals and sell products on social media. It projected this business could drive more than $4 billion in annual product sales.

An unusual stock detail

The new filing contains another intriguing detail: Rich Sparkle issued nearly $39 million in stock to its staff as part of their compensation during the six months ended March 31, resulting in an operating loss of almost $40 million. In the year-earlier period, it issued no share-based compensation.

This new share issuance means some employees could have benefited from the stock's massive spike following the Lame deal announcement. The filing doesn't indicate which staffers received shares or exactly when they got them within that six-month period.

Paul Nary, a management professor at Wharton, said the size of the share issuance was unusual relative to the company's valuation and revenue.

If the deal is in motion, we haven't heard a peep from Lame, who removed Rich Sparkle's stock ticker, ANPA, from his social-media bios in late January. The content creator continues to post for brands, recently making a cameo in the James Bond-inspired video game "007 First Light," signing on as a brand ambassador for travel eSIM company Holafly, and promoting the Dakar 2026 Youth Olympic Games.

• The battle for voters in the 2026 midterm elections is playing out on the TikTok For You Page.
• One in four Americans say creator content has influenced who they voted for.
• Political candidates are scrambling to connect with more creators in order to reach voters.

Content creators are influencing much more than our coffee orders and skincare routines.

About one in four Americans (26%) say influencer content has affected who they've voted for, according to a survey of around 2,000 US adults conducted by Morning Consult in September, commissioned by Business Insider.

Creator content is an "underestimated avenue" for political campaigns, said Nicole Dunger, a founding partner at the marketing firm People First, which works with candidates and advocacy groups on their creator strategies. "It is a real player and a big player in this space now."

If 2024 was the podcast election, 2026 is shaping up to be the influencer one. Instagram and TikTok creators have joined Fox News hosts and personalities like Joe Rogan as go-to sources of information for voters.

Influencers like Jake Paul and Hasan Piker have emerged as main characters in politics this year.

Paul recently joined President Donald Trump in Ohio for a midterm rally, posting TikTok clips of his Air Force One flight. Piker, meanwhile, has become a campaign ally for progressives like Michigan's Abdul El-Sayed and a negative talking point for Fox News commentators.

As online attention has become a key asset in politics, influencers are helping candidates break through the noise.

A little over half of US adults (56%) told Morning Consult that creator content had affected their views on political or social issues to some degree. That figure jumped among Gen Z respondents, where close to three in four respondents said their views had been swayed by influencer posts.

For campaigns, the challenge is identifying the right creators to work with, particularly when many influencers don't regularly talk about politics.

"You have to have your base of people, your core supporters, and then you have to have a broader cultural space of people who don't always talk about politics," said Parker Butler, a managing partner at the digital strategy firm Luminary Strategies, which works on social strategy with Democratic candidates like James Talarico. "It's worth having different pockets of creators for different purposes."

Reaching creators with smaller followings than Piker (about 3 million Twitch followers), or Paul (around 21 million YouTube subscribers) is a focus in 2026, Butler said.

He said the goal is to shift the creator outreach strategy from "this person has a million followers" to identifying influencers who work in a particular niche a campaign is trying to reach.

Political chatter is moving from TV to YouTube

More and more, political discussions are playing out on digital platforms, whether that's podcasts, YouTube videos, or Twitch streams.

YouTube was the top source for political and election news among US adults in September, narrowly beating out TV, print, and X (formerly Twitter), according to a survey from Syracuse University.

About one in five Democrats and Republicans said podcast appearances could make them "more likely to support a candidate," according to a July through August survey of likely midterm voters from the podcast industry group Sounds Profitable. A smaller share of Independents (11%) said podcasts could make them more likely to back a candidate.

While campaigns see attention moving online, they're still spending the bulk of their ad budgets on TV.

Part of that may be because they're accustomed to buying TV spots. They're also reckoning with the fact that influencer marketing is harder to predict and measure, particularly as social-media feeds become more personalized and algorithmically driven.

"It can be very challenging, but you see the results in the end," Dunger said. "It's the same with door knocking. We know door knocking somehow works and has worked for so long, but it's not like we have those direct measurements."

• A version of this post appears in the CMO Insider: Creator Brief newsletter.
• Sign up for Business Insider's marketing newsletter.

The latest hot marketing KPI: RSVPs.

Creators ranging from Substackers to "SNL" stars are jumping off the screen to in-person events — and marketers can't get enough.

"IRL is the No. 1 brand equity builder of all the channels," said Justin Thomas-Copeland, CEO of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As).

As it becomes harder to reach customers online, in-person events offer a way for brands to connect with their biggest fans — and hopefully inspire a flurry of social content.

One night last month, Snapple turned a decommissioned Staten Island Ferry into a floating comedy club featuring Colin Jost and Pete Davidson.

Lindsay Burstein, a top marketer at Snapple parent Keurig Dr Pepper, said the night resulted in about 200 pieces of user-generated content.

"It is the buzziest thing that the brand has done in a very long time," she said.

Events aren't a new phenomenon, but interest from marketers is surging. In its annual survey of marketers, Linqia found that 53% said they planned to work with influencers on events in 2026, up from 34% in 2025.

"We've seen an uptick in both custom brand pop-up experiences and brand activation at large events," Linqia's chief strategy officer Keith Bendes said.

Influencer marketers are becoming event planners

IRL activations and events can also help brands gauge the depth of a creator's connection with their audience — and how valuable partnering with them might prove.

Substack creators, for instance, have "rabid fans and followers" who are hungry to connect in person, said Rothy's VP Anna Doré.

After Substacker Erika Veurink's article for New York Magazine featuring Rothy's shoes went viral, Rothy's struck a partnership with the writer that included a vintage pop-up experience at a Rothy's in New York City.

The Rothy's pop-up drew over 200 people and grew the store's foot traffic by 75% that day.

There can be category-specific reasons some brands are going all in on events. Flushable wipes maker Goodwipes, for one, leans on IRL experiences, said SVP of marketing Meredith Diehn, "partially because it's an intimate category, but there's a lot of questions around flushability and why should I leave toilet paper for Goodwipes."

Still, it can often be harder to measure success from an IRL event and prove it's an efficient use of marketing dollars.

"Live experiences is not an efficient business," Bilt CMO Zoe Oz said. "It's like the most inefficient, unscalable thing you can possibly do. But we found those to be 10 times more effective than the other ways we used to spend money."

Events also aren't a foolproof strategy, Copeland of 4As said.

There's a lot that goes into an experience, and if one part goes wrong or a creator is involved in an inauthentic way, criticism can spread quickly.

They present practical challenges as well, sometimes forcing marketers to wear yet another hat: event planning.

Burstein said that planning Snapple's comedy event — despite its eventual success — took her "blood, life, sweat, and tears."

• Microsoft AI recently announced its latest model MAI-Base-2.
• AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman compared the model to a similar offering from OpenAI.
• Microsoft trained its model more efficiently than OpenAI, he said in an internal meeting.

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman told employees an in-house model was better than a similar offering from OpenAI, one of the software giant's biggest customers and partners.

"We now have a stronger pre-trained base model than the model that currently powers GPT 5.6 Sol," Suleyman said during a town hall meeting with employees on Thursday. "And in fact, we used one-quarter of the compute that OpenAI used to train their model."

Pre-training is the first stage of building an AI model, when it learns patterns from huge amounts of text, images, and other information. This takes massive amounts of expensive computing power, so Microsoft could save money if it's worked out a way to do this more efficiently.

Microsoft announced the model, MAI-Base-2, earlier on Thursday.

Suleyman said Microsoft privately tested this model against OpenAI models, including one nicknamed "Spud" that powers GPT-5.6. He added that Microsoft's model performed better on tests measuring how well AI can understand and predict patterns in information.

The comparisons are based on technical information Microsoft has about OpenAI's models, Suleyman said.

"Privately and confidentially, we've also compared it to the OpenAI models," Suleyman told employees, while suggesting that Microsoft has special access to information on how OpenAI models perform.

It's notable that Suleyman would choose to highlight limitations of OpenAI models, even in private discussions. Microsoft has invested billions of dollars in OpenAI, and owns a stake in the startup that is likely worth more than $100 billion. Any criticism of OpenAI could potentially dent the value of this huge investment.

The two companies also have a major partnership, with Microsoft offering OpenAI models to its Azure cloud customers. Microsoft has used OpenAI models for its own products such as Copilot, too.

But the relationship between the two companies has frayed in the past year or so. Increasingly, Microsoft has tried to branch out from OpenAI, including by working on its own models.

Suleyman also said Microsoft's new AI model used "12 times less computation than was used for DeepSeek, for example, on compute efficiency."

Suleyman didn't specify which DeepSeek model, but a public blog post described the pre-training of MAI-Base-2 being a lot more efficient than a similar offering from the Chinese lab, called DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Base.

Microsoft in March created a new combined team for its commercial and consumer Copilot products and reassigned Suleyman to focus on building AI models in the company's superintelligence unit.

Microsoft declined to comment and OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at astewart@businessinsider.com or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• OpenAI's Alexander Embiricos said the AI era gives a choice: work more, or work less.
• He's in charge of Dots, the company's new always-on work assistant.
• AI is often pitched as freeing up time. Embiricos responded to the idea that it might add more work.

As the competitive AI race pushes tech workers into long hours, the head of OpenAI's new Dots product says AI gives people another option: work a whole lot less.

Alexander Embiricos, who leads OpenAI's enterprise product and helms the new Dots agent tool, told a crowd at TechCrunch's Disrupt conference on Thursday that AI's capabilities have created something of a fork in the road for workers. You can grind to meet the moment. Or you can use AI to kick your feet up a little.

"We basically have a lot more choice now," he said.

Embiricos made the comments after a reporter asked about when AI systems will actually deliver more free time. The reporter shared an anecdote where an OpenAI employee used a ChatGPT mobile feature to work in their car and on a plane — not exactly liberated by the new tech.

Embiricos said that the moment has already arrived where a worker can "outsource" tasks to AI and do less work. Then again, some people are so excited about AI's potential that they feel like it's an "interesting, ripe moment" to put in extra hours.

"I think that's why a lot of people are motivated to work very hard right now. That includes myself," he said. "But I think actually there is this choice, and there's totally this other setup where you could delegate a ton more things."

OpenAI is billing its Dots tool as a workplace assistant, always on and capable of proactively handing tasks and sorting to-dos. Embiricos uses his Dot often in Slack, he said, engaging on various threads.

His perspective illustrates how early companies are in their journey to adopt AI tools. Most companies have not yet automated their work tasks, and many workers are still debating how much to use the tools. Early AI adopters, meanwhile, can sprint through some work that used to take days or weeks, especially in software engineering.

Embiricos summed up the situation he feels workers are in: "You either choose: do you expand the ambition of what you can do, or do you do less? I do think we're there."

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at scouncil@businessinsider.com, or over text, Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 415-757-8198. Use a personal email address, a non-work WiFi network, and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Netflix is replacing its content chief after laying off about 1,000 employees.
• Former Disney and Fox executive Peter Rice will take the role from departing Bela Bajaria.
• Netflix has gone through a bruising period as Wall Street questions its long-term direction.

Netflix has hired a new content chief after a stock slump and struggles to grow its viewership.

Peter Rice, a former Fox and Disney executive, will oversee Netflix's $20 billion budget for movies and shows starting on October 26, the company announced on Thursday.

Rice will replace Bela Bajaria, who's leaving the company after almost a decade. Bajaria took the top content job in 2023 and memorably described the ideal Netflix show as a "gourmet cheeseburger."

The exec shake-up came a day after the streaming giant laid off about 1,000 employees, its biggest round of layoffs in four years.

Netflix has had a tough year.

Co-CEO Ted Sarandos said at a Bloomberg media event last month that Netflix is "not growing as fast as I want us to, and we're working on making that move faster."

Shares are down nearly 40% in the past 12 months as investors increasingly worry about slower viewership growth and the company's long-term direction. Netflix's attempt to buy Warner Bros. — which was ultimately stymied by David Ellison's Paramount — soured the Wall Street narrative about the company's future.

Rice was previously the head of Disney's TV arm, where he ran Hulu and networks like ABC, Disney Channel, and FX. He was fired from the Mouse House in 2022 by former Disney CEO Bob Chapek and replaced by Dana Walden, who's now Disney's creative chief.

"Peter is one of the most effective at-scale operators in the entertainment industry," Sarandos said in a statement. The co-CEO added that Rice's "business acumen is sharp, his talent relationships are exceptionally strong, and his experience across TV and film is deep and broad."

Bajaria "led enormous changes at Netflix," Sarandos said, crediting her for helping the streamer broaden its content mix to live events and sports.

Under Bajaria, Netflix had hits like "KPop Demon Hunters" — its biggest movie ever — as well as breakout shows like "Wednesday" and Emmy Award winner "Adolescence."

However, Netflix's engagement growth was only 2% in the first half of 2026, and the company has faced increased competition from free streamers like YouTube and Tubi. YouTube is now well ahead of Netflix as the most-watched service on US TV screens.

Netflix, which had more than 325 million subscribers as of its last disclosure in January, remains the clear leader among paid streaming services. That said, Rice will have to figure out the right content mix to fend off both its Hollywood rivals and social-media competitors like Instagram and TikTok.

• Apollo is delaying recruiting for its 2028 associate class, Business Insider has learned.
• This follows last year's delay, which helped slowed down private equity's chaotic recruiting process.
• Apollo said it wants young bankers to have more experience before making their next career move.

Apollo is delaying on-cycle recruiting again this year, after a similar move last year helped push back the recruiting timeline across the private equity industry.

The private equity giant told prospective candidates Thursday afternoon that it will not recruit its 2028 associate class this calendar year, according to an email obtained by Business Insider.

The memo, signed by David Sambur, co-head of Private Equity, and Antoine G. Munfakh, deputy global head of Private Equity, said the firm will wait until candidates who started their investment banking careers over the summer are "closer to completing one full year of professional experience."

The hope, the memo said, is that this will convince others in private equity to delay their process so both candidates and employers can make "better decisions." Last year, after Apollo CEO Marc Rowan said the firm would delay on-cycle recruiting, others, such as General Atlantic also decided to pause.

"We were encouraged that others in the industry took similar steps, and we hope more firms will do the same this year," the memo said.

On-cycle recruiting — the controversial process through which private equity firms hire junior investment bankers for associate roles a year or even two before they would start — had crept earlier and earlier in the years following the pandemic.

Competition among private equity firms to lock up top talent pushed recruiting earlier and made the process notoriously intense. It would kick off with little warning, with junior bankers sometimes calling in sick or interviewing in the middle of the night to avoid jeopardizing their day jobs. JPMorgan's CEO, Jamie Dimon, has been a big critic of the process, calling it "unethical."

In 2025, amid rumblings that on-cycle recruiting could take place before some students even graduated from college, JPMorgan rolled out a policy that incoming analysts could be terminated for accepting future-dated private equity offers.

Apollo then decided to pause its on-cycle recruiting for 2027 associates, setting off a chain reaction that delayed the process well into this year.

Questions have swirled if the practice would kick off early again this for the 2028 class, but it appears with this latest move, Apollo is trying to slow down the recruiting timeline across the industry again.

Read the full memo below:

—-

To: Prospective Apollo Associate Candidates, Class of 2028

Subject: Apollo Recruiting, Class of 2028

Congratulations on beginning your career in investment banking. We know how exciting and demanding this period can be, and we hope you are enjoying the experience and learning a great deal.

Last June, we wrote to prospective candidates for our Associate Class of 2027 to explain why Apollo would be delaying its recruiting process. We believed then, as we do now, that young professionals should have the opportunity to develop their skills, gain meaningful experience and better understand their interests before making important decisions about their careers.

We were encouraged that others in the industry took similar steps, and we hope more firms will do the same this year. Young professionals still deserve more time to gather valuable life and work experience before making important career decisions.

We wanted to share with you that for the Associate Class of 2028, we will not participate in on-cycle recruiting this calendar year and intend to wait until candidates are closer to completing one full year of professional experience before engaging in formal recruiting for an Associate position. We believe giving candidates more time and experience before beginning the process leads to better decisions for candidates and employers alike.

In the meantime, we will continue to spend time with many of you, introduce you to our platform and share the diverse array of career opportunities available at Apollo. When our formal recruiting process begins, we intend to approach it thoughtfully and give candidates ample time to prepare, interview and consider their offers.

None of this changes our enthusiasm for meeting and recruiting exceptional young talent. Quite the opposite. Investing in our people has always been central to Apollo's success, and we remain committed to attracting and developing the next generation of investment professionals.

For now, our advice is simple: Focus on the opportunity in front of you. Learn as much as you can. Build relationships, develop your judgment, and take the time to discover what genuinely interests you. There will be plenty of time to make decisions about the next chapter of your career.

We look forward to getting to know you and hope many of you will consider building your careers at Apollo.

Best,

David Sambur

Partner, Co-Head of Private Equity and Head of Equity

Antoine G. Munfakh

Partner, Deputy Global Head of Private Equity