For all of their fast growth, Asia’s economies are grappling with stagnant productivity. Much of Asia’s recent growth is driven by greater investment, and not by improvements in total factor productivity, or in how efficiently inputs are turned into outputs. At best, productivity growth is slowing down; at worst, it’s declining. 

And even where productivity is still improving, it’s not doing so fast enough to catch up to leading firms in developed markets like the U.S. Throughout the 2010s, leading firms throughout Southeast Asia grew productivity below the global average. (China, by comparison, managed to keep up.)

“In just about every Asian market, productivity as a measure of GDP divided by GDP per capita is stagnating or declining,” Simon Tate, Asia-Pacific president for Workday says. “Every executive that I talk to is worried about productivity,” whether due to aging population, poor public policy, or the rise of remote work. 

In the past, Asian firms had an easy solution to the productivity problem: Just throw more people at the problem. Cheap labor allowed manufacturers and firms to expand without hurting margins. 

But as Asia’s economies get richer and older, hiring more people is no longer the easy solution it used to be. “There are no more people,” Tate says. “There is no more productivity to be gained from just throwing people at the problem.”

Let the youth take over

Executives like Tate often argue that AI, particularly “agentic AI,” can help lift productivity. In theory, these newer forms of AI can autonomously carry out user-defined tasks, freeing up the human employee to do more. 

Almost all Asian companies say they want to adopt these new technologies. A February survey from Accenture found that nine out of 10 Asian businesses were preparing to adopt some form of agentic AI in the next three years. 

But actually putting these models into practice is another question, particularly for older executives with little experience working with AI at all, let alone AI agents. 

Tate notes that Asia’s workplaces will soon be home to five different generations, spanning from boomers all the way through to the youngest workers, the so-called Generation Alpha.

“Generation Alpha will have a higher degree of digital fluency than the other four previous generations combined,” Tate says, adding that today’s HR officers are “not at all prepared” for the flood of AI-savvy young workers.

Around 80% of Gen Z workers in Asia-Pacific want to have the most modern technologies in their workplace, according to a recent report from Workday. Just over two-thirds of these workers would see the lack of cutting-edge technology as a negative. 

But Tate thinks the answer is more than just giving younger employees the space to thrive in the office. He suggests Asian companies go one step further, and treat younger generations as a source of much-needed expertise. 

“When you look at the make-up of boards of the top 100 public companies across APAC, board positions—even advisory board positions—are still very much made up of baby boomers and Gen Xers,” he says, with “close to zero” positions held by those in their twenties and thirties. 

Tate suggests companies consider “reverse mentoring,” or getting a younger person to train up older cohorts in how new technologies can be best applied. In much the same way that a millennial or Gen-Z founder might ask someone from an older generation to serve as a board director, Tate suggests that established companies consider appointing a younger member of society to provide their own expertise on technology and business. 

“We just falsely assume that they’re too young and they don’t have any good ideas,” he says. “If you put a bunch of really bright, super ambitious people in a room and throw a problem at them, they will add value in helping to solve it.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Hello and welcome to Eye on AI. In this edition…the new Pope is all in on AI regulation…another Chinese startup challenges assumptions about how much it costs to train a good model…and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says Meta is offering $100 million signing bonuses to poach AI talent.

Last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote on his personal blog that: “We are past the event horizon; the takeoff has started. Humanity is close to building digital superintelligence, and at least so far it’s much less weird than it seems like it should be.” He went on to say that 2026 would be the year that we “will likely see the arrival of systems that can figure out novel insights. 2027 may see the arrival of robots that can do tasks in the real world.”

Altman’s blog created a buzz on social media, with many speculating about what new development had caused Altman to write those words and others accusing Altman of shameless hype. In AI circles, “takeoff” is a term of art. It refers to the moment AI begins to self-improve. (People debate about “slow take off” and “fast take off” scenarios. Altman titled his blog “The Gentle Singularity,” so it would seem Altman is positioning himself in the slow—or at least, slowish—takeoff camp.)

In the blog, Altman made it clear he was not yet talking about completely automated self-improvement. Rather, he was talking about AI researchers using AI to help them develop yet more capable AI. “We already hear from scientists that they are two or three times more productive than they were before AI,” he wrote. “We may be able to discover new computing substrates, better algorithms, and who knows what else. If we can do a decade’s worth of research in a year, or a month” then the rate of AI progress will accelerate from its already rapid clip.

Altman allowed that “​​of course this isn’t the same thing as an AI system completely autonomously updating its own code, but nevertheless this is a larval version of recursive self-improvement.”

But, as Altman is probably aware, there are a growing number of AI researchers who are in fact looking at ways to get AI to improve its own code.

The ‘Darwin Goedel Machine’

Just a few weeks ago, Jeff Clune, a well-known AI researcher who holds positions at both the University of British Columbia and Google DeepMind, and a team from Tokyo-based AI startup Sakana AI published research on what they called a “Darwin Goedel Machine.”

This is AI that evolves its own code to perform better on a benchmark test that measures how well AI models function as “coding agents” that can write and evaluate software programs. The first initial agent is tested on the benchmark. Then it is prompted to evaluate the logs of its own performance on that benchmark and propose one single modification to its own code that would likely improve its performance on that benchmark (this could be the ability to use a particular software tool, or it could be something more fundamental in how the model reasons about the code it is generating). The AI model is then told to rewrite its own Python code to implement that one change. Then the new, evolved agent is tested again on the benchmark and the process repeats.

After the first modification, each new version of the AI that can successfully try the benchmark is stored in an archive—even if its score is lower than the parent version. (Those that fail to produce valid code at all are discarded.) The AI is then told it can pick any version of itself from the archive and propose changes to that version. This is designed to prevent the model from going down what will ultimately prove to be an evolutionary dead-end, allowing it to step across different evolutionary pathways to find useful modifications.

After 80 generations, the Darwin Goedel machine was able to improve its performance from an initial 20% score on SWE-Bench, a common coding benchmark, to 50%. On Polyglot, another coding test, it boosted its score from an initial 14.2% to 30.7%. (The best human-coded agent for that particular test only scores 16%.) What’s more the strategies the model came up with to improve its own performance were general enough that they still worked when researchers switched the underlying foundation model being used to power the system as well as if the researchers asked the model to switch coding languages, for instance going from Python to C++.

Is self-improving AI safe?

If you think self-improving AI sounds a little scary—like it might be possible for this sort of AI to escape human control—you’re right. The computer scientists acknowledge this and emphasize that they tested the system in a “sandbox” where its access to the web was “strictly limited,” according to the Sakana blog describing the research.

The researchers also speculated that self-improvement could be a tool for enhancing AI safety. For instance, in a discovery that is becoming alarmingly common when using advanced AI models, the research team found that the Darwin Goedel Machine sometimes lied about having conducted certain unit tests on the code it was writing—and even forged logs supposedly showing the successful test results.

The researchers wanted to see if the Darwin Goedel Machine could propose ways to keep itself from engaging in this deceptive behavior. So it decided to give the model points for reducing instances of “tool use hallucination,” and asked it to try to maximize that score. This worked in many cases, the researchers reported, with instances of faked test logs declining. But in other cases, the model simply tried to cheat again—removing the markers the researchers used to detect hallucinations, even when the prompt the researchers used told the model explicitly not to do this. Yikes!

Because the researchers had full access to all code changes the AI was making and the AI had no ability to alter this record, the researchers were easily able to see that the Darwin Goedel Machine was attempting to engage in this kind of deception. “While in this case the issue was easily detected, more work is needed to prevent the model from attempting to cheat in this way in the first place,” the researchers wrote.

So, Altman may indeed be right—we are past the event horizon. But as these results show, whether the singularity will be a gentle one, as Altman suggests, remains to be very much to be seen.

With that, here’s more AI news. (And hat tip to Google DeepMind research scientist Ed Hughes for highlighting the Darwin Goedel paper in his fascinating talk at the always interesting Research and Applied AI Summit in London last week.)

Jeremy Kahn
[email protected]
@jeremyakahn

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• Luxury brands are retreating to exclusivity after years of trying to broaden their appeal, but they’re now struggling to reconcile that elusiveness with younger consumers’ desire to share and express identity online. With the luxury market shrinking—marked by a 3% dip in early 2025 and the loss of around 50 million customers—brands must urgently innovate to maintain relevance, exclusivity, and emotional connection in the social media era.

Luxury brands have retreated back to their safe space of exclusivity, having explored new avenues to win customers during COVID. The only problem is, to win and retain the next generation of shoppers they must marry their need to remain elusive with a consumer who wants to share everything online.

These companies have no time to waste. According to a spring update on the sector from Bain & Co, the industry is losing speed relatively quickly.

The study released Thursday shows the sector’s worth was €1.5 trillion ($1.7 trillion) in 2024, though for Q1 of 2025 estimates are shrinkage of 3% compared to last year.

Even last year, personal luxury goods was one of the categories which marked the most notable slowdown, knocking from €369 billion in 2023 down to €364 billion in 2024. That marked its first contraction in 15 years—with the notable exception of the pandemic.

And the gap between winners and losers in the luxury sector is also growing, added the author’s writers Claudia D’Arpizio and Federica Levato.

The gap between the top 75th percentile and the bottom 25th percentile performers increased by 1.5 times in Q1 2025 compared to a year earlier, with market leaders continuing to charge ahead while the bottom 20% to 30% of the sector continued to report a reduction in growth.

Part of the problem is consumers are wrangling with what Bain & Co describes as the “value equation”—basically, are they getting enough—be it experience, social and cultural kudos, or workmanship—out of the purchase for the elevated price they are paying?

For a “long period” luxury brands were trying to enlarge their customer base to be more inclusive, D’Arpizio tells Fortune. This was really reinforced in some categories with “entry items like streetwear, sneakers, and even beauty—all the categories that could have been more relevant for young people, but also with people with less discretionary spending.”

That strategy “overcorrected” she added, with brands overly relying on iconic design or experiences, reducing their pace of innovation and hence, leading consumers to question if their spend is really worth it.

“So last year we had a big loss of customers—around 50 million less customers buying luxury product—in particular in the younger generation, and a big drop on customer advocacy,” D’Arpizio continued. “What is happening now that the brands are trying to fix that, and trying to reignite this relationship with these customers without losing their exclusivity.”

Exclusivity in the online age

Shifting back to exclusivity is a more difficult ask when younger consumers are known as the social media generation for their propensity to post online.

Gone are the days of galas with no cameras, of designer handbag back rooms with no filming allowed: It’s all available on a For You Page within moments of ending.

“Luxury has always been about showing off,” D’Arpizio, who is Bain & Co’s lead for the global fashion, luxury goods vertical, continued. “The previous generation was showing off wealth and showing off accomplishments in life, now it’s more showing off of your of your personality or your ability to choose your aesthetics, your quality of life. 

“There is a big need, in particular in Gen Z, for sharing. This sharing means expressing their personality … but also a desire of conformity. These are two forces that are contradictory but in reality are a big driver for luxury consumption because luxury brands can provide this conformity, but then inside the luxury brand, mixing and matching, choosing your own style, developing your own style, creates your self-expression.”

She continued: “Social media has provided a huge impulse to luxury consumption because the potential of sharing with a larger audience has created both more customers but also in augmentation of their communication strategies and so they have a broader reach. 

“So yes, they want to be exclusive, but they know the power of social media.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

OpenAI is phasing out the work it does with data-labeling startup Scale AI, cutting ties with the company days after Meta Platforms Inc. invested billions of dollars in it and hired its founder. 

Scale accounted for a small fraction of OpenAI’s overall data needs, according to an OpenAI spokesperson who confirmed the firm’s decision to phase out work with the company. The ChatGPT maker was already in the process of winding down its reliance on Scale before Meta, an OpenAI competitor, took a 49% stake in the firm, the spokesperson said, adding that OpenAI had been seeking other providers for more specialized data needed to support increasingly advanced artificial intelligence models. 

OpenAI’s plans inject new uncertainty into Scale’s business in the wake of Meta’s unusual deal. Meta is investing $14.3 billion in Scale and has poached the startup’s chief executive officer, Alexandr Wang, for a new so-called “superintelligence” unit, focused on building a more powerful, and hypothetical, form of AI software. Other Scale employees are expected to follow Wang to Meta to work on AI.

A Scale AI spokesperson declined to comment.

Founded in 2016, Scale signed up prominent customers, including Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Meta and OpenAI, providing them with the data needed to build AI models. However, Meta’s deal with Scale raised concerns that the social-media company may gain new visibility into its rivals’ AI development efforts. Google plans to cut ties with Scale, Reuters reported, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter.

Right after the Meta deal was announced, OpenAI Chief Financial Officer Sarah Friar had signaled that the company intended to keep working with Scale. “We don’t want to ice the ecosystem because acquisitions are going to happen,” Friar said at the VivaTech conference in Paris last week.

Over the past six to 12 months, however, OpenAI had determined that Scale was not the best fit for it because the AI developer needed more data expertise than Scale could provide, the OpenAI spokesperson said. OpenAI has shifted to building more advanced AI models that can mimic the process of human reasoning, as well as agent-like models that can carry out tasks with limited input from users. Forbes previously reported OpenAI had been winding down its Scale work for months.

Scale initially focused on working with an army of contractors to do the grunt work of labeling text and images for earlier AI systems. Scale has gradually enlisted better-paid contractors with doctorates, nursing and other advanced degrees to help develop more sophisticated models.

Despite those efforts, OpenAI has increasingly relied on other data providers, including newer entrants like Mercor, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Mercor was previously known for using AI for recruiting tech employees, but now focuses on finding experts to help AI companies develop more advanced models. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

MILAN (AP) — Global sales of personal luxury goods are ”slowing down but not collapsing,” according to a Bain & Co. consultancy study released Thursday.

Personal luxury goods sales that eroded to 364 billion euros ($419 billion) in 2024 are projected to slide by another 2% to 5% this year, the study said, citing threats of U.S. tariffs and geopolitical tensions triggering economic slowdowns.

“Still, to be positive in a difficult moment — with three wars, economies slowing down, inequality at a maximum ever — it’s not a market in collapse,’’ said Bain partner and co-author of the study Claudia D’Arpizio. “It is slowing down but not collapsing.”

Alongside external headwinds, luxury brands have alienated consumers with an ongoing creativity crisis and sharp price increases, Bain said. Buyers have also been turned off by recent investigations in Italy that revealed that sweatshop conditions in subcontractors making luxury handbags.

Sales are slipping sharply in powerhouse markets the United States and China, the study showed. In the U.S., market volatility due to tariffs has discouraged consumer confidence. China has recorded six quarters of contraction on low consumer confidence.

The Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia are recording growth. Europe is mostly flat, the study showed.

This has created a sharp divergence between brands that continue with strong creative and earnings growth, such as the Prada Group, which posted a 13% first-quarter jump in revenue to 1.34 billion euros, and brands like Gucci, where revenue was down 24% to 1.6 billion euros in the same period.

Gucci owner Kering last week hired Italian automotive executive Luca De Meo, the former CEO of Renault, to mount a turnaround. The decision comes as three of its brands — Gucci, Balenciaga and Bottega Veneta — are launching new creative directors.

Kering’s stock surged 12% on news of the appointment. D’Arpizio underlined his track record, returning French carmaker Renault to profitability and previous roles as marketing director at Volkswagen and Fiat.

“All of these factors resonate well together in a market like luxury when you are in a phase where growth is still the name of the game, but you also need to make the company more nimble in terms of costs, and turn around some of the brands,’’ she said.

Brands are also making changes to minimize the impact of possible U.S. tariffs. These include shipping directly from production sites and not warehouses and reducing stock in stores.

With aesthetic changes afoot “stuffing the channels doesn’t make a lot of sense,’’ D’Arpizio said.

Still, many of the headwinds buffering the sector are out of companies’ control.

“Many of these (negative) aspects are not going to change soon. What can change is more clarity on the tariffs, but I don’t think we will stop the wars or the political instability in a few months,’’ she said, adding that luxury consumer confidence is tied more closely to stock market trends than geopolitics.

President of Italian luxury brand association Altagamma Matteo Lunelli underlined hat the sector recorded overall growth of 28% from 2019-2024, “placing us well above pre-pandemic levels.”

While luxury spending is sensitive to global turmoil, it is historically quick to rebound, powered by new markets and pent-up demand.

The 2008-2009 financial crisis plummeted sales of luxury apparel, handbags and footwear from 161 billion euros to 147 billion euros over two years. The market more than recovered the losses in 2010 as it rebounded by 14%, with an acceleration in the Chinese market. Similarly, after sales plunged by 21% during the pandemic, pent-up spending powered sales to new records.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

BEERSHEBA, Israel (AP) — Israel’s defense minister threatened Iran’s supreme leader on Thursday after the latest missile barrage from Iran damaged the main hospital in southern Israel and hit several other residential buildings near Tel Aviv. Israel meanwhile struck a heavy water reactor that is part of Iran’s nuclear program.

At least 240 people were wounded by the Iranian missiles, four of them seriously, according to Israel’s Health Ministry. The vast majority were lightly wounded, including more than 70 people from the Soroka Medical Center in the southern city of Beersheba, where smoke rose as emergency teams evacuated patients.

In the aftermath of the strikes, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz blamed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and said the military “has been instructed and knows that in order to achieve all of its goals, this man absolutely should not continue to exist.”

U.S. officials said this week that President Donald Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Khamenei. Trump later said there were no plans to kill him “at least not for now.”

Israel carried out strikes on Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor, in its latest attack on the country’s sprawling nuclear program. The conflict began last Friday with a surprise wave of Israeli airstrikes targeting military sites, senior officers and nuclear scientists.

A Washington-based Iranian human rights group said at least 639 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 1,300 wounded. In retaliation, Iran has fired over 400 missiles and hundreds of drones, killing at least 24 people in Israel and wounding hundreds.

Meanwhile, an Israeli military official said that Iran used a missile with multiple warheads in an attack Thursday, posing a new challenge to its defenses.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in line with military regulations.

There was no immediate independent analysis that could be made. However, Iran has hinted in the past that it was pursuing such weaponry.

Instead of having to track one warhead, missiles with multiple warheads can pose a more difficult challenge for air defense systems, like Israel’s Iron Dome.

Missile hits main hospital in southern Israel

Two doctors told The Associated Press that the missile struck almost immediately after air raid sirens went off, causing a loud explosion that could be heard from a safe room. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief media.

The hospital said the main impact was on an old surgery building that had been evacuated in recent days. After the strike, the medical facility was closed to all patients except for life-threatening cases, it said. Soroka has over 1,000 beds and provides services to around 1 million residents of Israel’s south.

There were no serious injuries from the strike on the hospital.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the attack and vowed a response, saying: “We will exact the full price from the tyrants in Tehran.”

Iran has fired hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel, though most have been shot down by Israel’s multi-tiered air defenses, which detect incoming fire and shoot down missiles heading toward population centers and critical infrastructure. Israeli officials acknowledge it is imperfect.

Many hospitals in Israel activated emergency plans in the past week, converting underground parking to hospital floors and moving patients underground, especially those who are on ventilators or are difficult to move quickly.

Israel also boasts a fortified, subterranean blood bank that kicked into action after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack ignited the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip.

‘No radiation danger’ after strike on reactor

Israel’s military said its fighter jets targeted the Arak facility and its reactor core seal in order to prevent it from being used to produce plutonium.

“The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development,” the military said. Israel separately claimed to have struck another site around Natanz it described as being related to Iran’s nuclear program.

Iranian state TV said there was “no radiation danger whatsoever” from the attack on the Arak site. An Iranian state television reporter, speaking live in the nearby town of Khondab, said the facility had been evacuated and there was no damage to civilian areas around the reactor.

Israel had warned earlier Thursday morning it would attack the facility and urged the public to flee the area.

Iran rejects calls to surrender or end its nuclear program

Iran has long maintained its program is for peaceful purposes. However, it also enriches uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich at that level.

Israel is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East but does not acknowledge having such weapons.

The strikes came a day after Iran’s supreme leader rejected U.S. calls for surrender and warned that any military involvement by the Americans would cause “irreparable damage to them.” Israel had lifted some restrictions on daily life Wednesday, suggesting the missile threat from Iran on its territory was easing.

Already, Israel’s campaign has targeted Iran’s enrichment site at Natanz, centrifuge workshops around Tehran and a nuclear site in Isfahan. Its strikes have also killed top generals and nuclear scientists.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he would travel to Geneva for meetings with his European counterparts on Friday, indicating a new diplomatic initiative might be taking shape. Iran’s official IRNA news agency said the meeting would include foreign ministers from the United Kingdom, France and Germany and the European Union’s top diplomat.

Trump has said he wants something “much bigger” that a ceasefire and has not ruled out the U.S. joining in Israel’s campaign. Iran has warned of dire consequences if the U.S. deepens its involvement, without elaborating.

Arak had been redesigned to address nuclear concerns

The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran.

Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon.

Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility over proliferation concerns.

The reactor became a point of contention after President Donald Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018. Ali Akbar Salehi, a high-ranking nuclear official in Iran, said in 2019 that Tehran bought extra parts to replace a portion of the reactor that it had poured concrete into to render it unusable under the deal.

Israel, in conducting its strike, signaled it remained concerned the facility could be used to produce plutonium again one day.

“The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development,” the Israeli military said in a statement.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, has been urging Israel not to strike Iranian nuclear sites. IAEA inspectors reportedly last visited Arak on May 14.

Due to restrictions Iran imposed on inspectors, the IAEA has said it lost “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s heavy water production — meaning it could not absolutely verify Tehran’s production and stockpile.

___

By SAM MEDNICK, NATALIE MELZER, and JON GAMBRELL. Melzer reported from Tel Aviv, Israel, and Gambrell from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writer Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv contributed.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Nike Inc.’s new brand with entrepreneur and reality TV star Kim Kardashian’s Skims label has pushed back its launch after initially planning to release its first collection this spring.

NikeSkims is dealing with production delays as it prepares to debut the brand this year, according to people familiar with the matter. Shoppers have been awaiting the line’s initial products in recent months, ahead of a global rollout planned for 2026. 

Despite the delays, Nike still expects to release NikeSkims products sometime this year, one of the people with knowledge of the matter said. It’s unclear exactly when the first NikeSkims goods will be available for purchase, what products will be included in the line and if consumers will get a preview before the initial release. 

Both Nike and Skims have bet heavily on the partnership. Nike is counting on Kardashian to help boost its women’s business and add cultural relevance as it looks to spark a turnaround. Skims, meanwhile, has an opportunity to solidify its presence in the activewear market by teaming up with the world’s largest sportswear company.

Nike Chief Executive Officer Elliott Hill, who came out of retirement to take the role last year, told investors in March he expected the first “comprehensive collection” would be available during the quarter that ended in May.

Nike shares fell as much as 0.5% on Wednesday, erasing an earlier gain. The stock is down more than 20% this year, compared with a 2% increase in the S&P 500. Investors will be looking for updates when the company reports its fourth-quarter earnings results on June 26. 

Nike has been putting together a dedicated team for the project, which had been kept secret for more than a year until an announcement in February. The division, which is made up of employees from Nike, Skims and new hires, is still recruiting designers. It’s expected to create and sell a selection of training footwear, apparel and accessories.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• I tried vanilla syrups from Monin, DaVinci Gourmet, Torani, and Portland Syrups in cold-brew coffee.
• I think the Monin syrup had the best vanilla flavor, but I also liked the one from Portland Syrups.
• Although some people might enjoy them, I wasn't blown away by the Torani or DaVinci Gourmet syrups.

It's possible to save money by making coffee at home — but if it's not very good, what's the point?

Fortunately, the right syrup can help make even a novice-made drink taste like it's from a café.

To figure out which belong in my at-home coffee bar, I picked up vanilla syrups from Monin, DaVinci Gourmet, Torani, and Portland Syrups.

I tested them by stirring half the serving size of each into 8 ounces of cold-brew coffee. (A full serving can be too sweet for my liking.)

Here's how the vanilla syrups compared.

Monin's vanilla syrup seemed promising.

Although the Monin syrup bottle was plastic, the elegant-looking label made it feel more high-end to me.

I paid $18.69 for the 33.8-ounce bottle, or $0.55 an ounce.

The ingredients list is short: pure cane sugar, water, natural flavors, natural vanilla extract, and fruit/vegetable juice for coloring.

Of the syrups I tried, this one had the highest calories (100) and sugar (23 grams) per serving, which was 1 ounce, or 2 tablespoons.

The Monin syrup had a rich flavor and a nice level of sweetness.

The syrup had a thin consistency and a nice, natural vanilla scent.

When I added it to the coffee, the vanilla flavor wasn't as strong as it had smelled in the bottle, but it still came through.

Because of the higher sugar content, I expected this syrup to be too sweet. Instead, I found it was the perfect level of sweetness with a more complex, rich aftertaste that kind of reminded me of caramel.

The DaVinci Gourmet brand was new to me.

Although I was familiar with brands like Monin or Torani, I had never come across DaVinci Gourmet in stores or online before.

This 25.4-ounce bottle of syrup cost me $6.88. It had the lowest cost per ounce at $0.27.

The ingredients list includes water, cane sugar, citric acid, preservatives, natural flavors, and added caramel color. Each 2-tablespoon serving contains 18 grams of sugar and 70 calories.

This syrup tasted a bit too artificial for my liking.

The syrup was very thin, and it had an alcohol scent that reminded me of opening a bottle of vanilla extract. It was quite dark from the added coloring.

As for flavor, this tasted very sweet with a really faint vanilla flavor. I didn't love the aftertaste, which seemed somewhat bitter and artificial to me.

To me, Torani is the most recognizable brand of the bunch.

I was the most familiar with Torani, which is oftentimes the only coffee syrup I see on shelves at my local grocery stores.

The 25.4-ounce bottle I purchased came with a pump for convenience and cost me $14.99, or $0.59 an ounce.

The ingredients include pure cane sugar, water, citric acid, preservatives, and natural flavors, but no additives for color.

Each 2-tablespoon serving contains 20 grams of sugar and 80 calories.

The syrup's flavor was more subtle than I expected.

The syrup was very light in color and slightly thicker in consistency than the others (although still thin enough to stir easily into cold coffee).

I didn't smell much of anything when I opened the bottle.

Although I've used Torani syrups before, I was surprised by how subtle the vanilla flavor seemed when comparing this side-by-side with other options.

The sweetness level was ideal, but I wished the vanilla flavor were stronger.

Portland Syrups is a smaller and new-to-me business.

The next syrup I tried is from Portland Syrups, a small business based in Portland, Oregon.

I loved that it came in a chic glass bottle with a metal cap. Notably, it was the only syrup to require refrigeration after opening.

This 12-fluid-ounce bottle cost $14.99, or $1.25 an ounce.

Despite the higher price, this syrup still contains the same number of servings as the others I tried, since it's more concentrated. The serving size is 1 tablespoon (half of the others).

The ingredients seemed simple — filtered water, organic cane sugar, brown sugar, vanilla extract, vanilla concentrate, lactic acid, and organic vanilla fleck.

It has 25 calories and 6 grams of sugar per serving.

I was impressed by the complex flavors in this syrup.

Upon opening this syrup, I strangely thought it smelled like vanilla and bananas.

Given the simple ingredient list, I expected a really strong vanilla flavor. In reality, I only got a hint of vanilla, and instead got a lot more richness and depth from the brown sugar.

This syrup was delicious with coffee, but it tasted much different from how I'd expect a vanilla syrup to taste.

My favorite syrup offered the most traditional vanilla flavor.

All in all, I think Monin's syrup gave my coffee the best classic vanilla flavor.

I felt it had the strongest vanilla taste and I appreciated its fairly simple list of ingredients — even though it was a bit higher in sugar than I'd typically like.

The Portland Syrups option was a close second for me. It fell short because it didn't have the classic vanilla taste I expected, but the deeper, more complex flavor notes made it enjoyable.

I wasn't wowed by the Torani syrup, but I'd buy it again in the future simply because it's the easiest for me to find in grocery stores. I liked the level of sweetness in it, but I wanted a stronger vanilla flavor.

Torani also sells French-vanilla and vanilla-bean syrups, so I may try those in the future to see if the vanilla flavor is more prominent.

Although the DaVinci syrup was technically the cheapest per ounce, I'd rather pay a little more for a different syrup on this list.

The good thing about all of these, though, is that you can use as much of each as you want to create your perfect cup of coffee.

• Shahad Ishraq was a systems development engineer at Amazon in Germany for just over three years.
• He quit at the end of May after the company implemented a five-day RTO.
• Ishraq said Andy Jassy's memo wasn't surprising, and he isn't concerned about his future career.

This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with 30-year-old Shahad Ishraq, from Germany. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Reading Andy Jassy's new memo on generative AI, I'm not surprised by anything.

I worked at Amazon for nearly three and a half years and left in late May because of the 5-day RTO mandate. My commute took an hour and a half each way, so I wanted to move to another job where I could still see my career progressing and do interesting work.

The memo feels consistent with what I'd been hearing from management and Jassy while working at Amazon. I think Jassy's comments are to show shareholders he's invested in the technology.

I initially worried about AI when I wasn't as familiar with the products. However, using AI will give you a better understanding of what it's capable of and what skills you can develop to differentiate yourself.

At Amazon, there were some eager adopters of AI and some skeptics

I joined Amazon in 2022 as a systems development engineer, working in Leipzig, Germany. My day-to-day work involved designing and implementing software and performing operational tasks.

When AI tools first came out a few years ago, we were told we could use them, but we should be very careful and follow the company's policies on their usage.

Amazon is a huge company. Within it, I spotted and heard about different approaches to AI adoption. There seemed to be a bunch of excited early adopters who shared their findings with everyone. There were people like me who followed the first bunch and saw what went well. There were also some skeptics and a small number of engineers who were outright against using AI.

For me, the dawn of AI was a bit scary at first. Everyone was saying it would put me out of a job. Unless you test the technology yourself and see what it can do, you'll fear the unknown. AI wasn't part of my job until sometime in 2024.

There were also some barriers to using the technology. When I first joined Amazon, ChatGPT wasn't even available, but when it did come out in 2022 we couldn't use it that extensively because of data security issues that come with copying our code into those models. When Anthropic's Claude became available within Amazon Bedrock — the company's internal service for developing generative AI applications — we were able to make more use of AI.

In my last few months at Amazon, I started experimenting a lot with approved AI tools, doing extensive tests with them. They don't do everything for me, but I've integrated these tools into my workflow, such as by asking it to create a plan for my tasks or spot differences between documents.

I noticed it often fails, and I have to make changes, but overall, it has improved my speed and increased my throughput significantly.

AI won't eliminate software engineers anytime soon

Andy Jassy's memo feels very consistent with what I've been told internally before I left Amazon and what the company has communicated publicly.

News articles talking about the memo focus on Jassy saying that a lot of jobs will be taken by AI. However, in the same sentence, he also says jobs will be created.

I've tried creating production-level applications using AI, and it takes a lot of effort to get these products ready. A company like Amazon can't roll out an application that breaks and causes havoc. They have to have firewalls, checks, and tests.

I don't see people going out of jobs in huge numbers soon. Amazon went on a hiring spree during COVID. If we see more layoffs, I think it will be associated with cutting back after that spree, rather than the impacts of AI.

AI agents are helping out software engineers a lot, and the amount of work agents do will probably increase gradually. I'm able to get agents working on three different things, while I look into other tasks.

But AI hallucinates quite a lot. It does things it's not asked to do. I often have to correct an AI agent producing code. Humans will be required to build guardrails and act as guardrails themselves. Implementing these guardrails will take time, and I think this will slow down the AI agent hype.

There's nothing new in Jassy's memo

I think Jassy's comments about AI are to show shareholders he's invested in the technology. Memos have to come out. Jassy has to place a lot of optimism around AI; otherwise, shareholders will think they're not doing anything with AI.

My advice to Amazon employees is to start using AI as much as possible to overcome their fear of the unknown. I now work as a software engineer at a utilities company. The more I've been using AI, the more comfortable I feel about myself. I can see what skills I have that I can use to stay relevant.

In tech, languages and developments come really fast. My guess is that people will need to use AI to write code and increase their throughput, and pure software engineers will gradually be replaced by people who have both software engineering and AI skills.

I'm personally trying to learn these skills because I think they'll become more important.

A spokesperson for Amazon told Business Insider, "Amazon employees use internal generative AI tools every day to innovate on behalf of our customers. We have safeguards in place for employee use of these technologies, including restrictions on sharing confidential information with third-party generative AI services."

Do you have a story to share about the AI job market? Contact this reporter at [email protected].

• Reid Hoffman said AI will transform jobs, but he doesn't think it will cause a 'bloodbath.'
• The LinkedIn cofounder was referring to comments made by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei last month.
• Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has also disagreed with Anthropic's AI job loss predictions.

Reid Hoffman, the venture capitalist who cofounded LinkedIn, said AI will transform jobs, but he rejected the idea that it will result in a "bloodbath" for job seekers.

"Yes, I think people are underestimating AI's impact on jobs," Hoffman said on an episode of the Rapid Response podcast, released Tuesday.

"But I think inducing panic as a response is serving media announcement purposes," he said, "and not actually, in fact, intelligent industry and economic and career path planning."

The podcast's host, Bob Safian, asked Hoffman about comments made by Dario Amodei, CEO of AI firm Anthropic, in May.

In an interview with Axios, Amodei warned that AI companies and governments needed to stop "sugarcoating" the potential for mass job losses in white-collar industries like finance, law, and consulting.

"We, as the producers of this technology, have a duty and an obligation to be honest about what is coming," Amodei said.

He estimated that AI could spike unemployment by up to 20% in the next five years, and may eliminate half of entry-level white-collar jobs within that same period.

Hoffman said he had called the Anthropic CEO to discuss it.

"'Bloodbath' is a very good way to grab internet headlines, media headlines," Hoffman said. (Axios, not Amodei, used the phrase "white-collar bloodbath.")

But, Hoffman added, "bloodbath just implies everything going away."

He said he disagreed with this assessment, believing that transformation, not mass elimination, of jobs is a more likely outcome.

"Dario is right that over a decade or three, there will be a massive set of job transformation," Hoffman said.

But he compared it to the introduction of tools like Microsoft Excel, which were believed by some at the time to mark the end of accountancy roles.

"In fact, the accountant job got broader, richer," Hoffman said.

He added: "Just because a function's coming that has a replacement area on a certain set of tasks doesn't mean all of this job's going to get replaced."

Instead of AI eliminating roles, Hoffman predicted: "We at least have many years, if not a long time, of person-plus-AI doing things."

Hoffman isn't the only business leader to question Amodei's AI doomsday prophecy.

Speaking at VivaTech in Paris earlier this month, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said he and Amodei "pretty much disagree with almost everything" on AI.

"One, he believes that AI is so scary that only they should do it," Huang said. "Two, that AI is so expensive, nobody else should do it."

Huang added, "And three, AI is so incredibly powerful that everyone will lose their jobs, which explains why they should be the only company building it."

Anthropic did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• Russia's economy is on the brink of recession, the country's economy minister said.
• Maxim Reshetnikov said at an economic forum that data shows its economy is cooling.
• Russia is facing stubborn inflation, labor shortages, and the impact of Western sanctions.

The Russian economy is "on the brink" of entering a recession, the country's economy minister warned on Thursday.

Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, a major annual business event in Russia, Maxim Reshetnikov said data showed the economy "cooling."

When a moderator asked him to describe the state of the economy, he said it seemed that the country was "on the verge of going into recession," according to Russian news agency Interfax.

He later clarified that he wasn't making an outright prediction. "I said that we were on the brink," Reshetnikov said. "From here on out, everything will depend on our decisions."

Reshetnikov has already raised concerns about the direction of the Russian economy. In May, while addressing the State Duma, he said that the economy was cooling so sharply it risked entering a state of economic "hypothermia."

In that address, Reshetnikov urged Russia's central bank to take into account easing inflation when setting interest rates. On June 6, the bank did just that, cutting its key interest rate from 21% to 20%, citing signs of declining inflation.

While inflation is easing slightly, it has remained stubbornly high — now hovering around 10% — since spiking in the wake of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Hard or soft landing?

The central bank's moves to dampen inflation meant a sharp economic slowdown was inevitable and even intentional, said Brigitte Granville, professor of international economics and economic policy at Queen Mary, University of London.

"The key question has always been whether the Russian economy would undergo a 'hard landing' — meaning inflation would be brought under control at the cost of tipping the economy into recession — or a 'soft landing,' where inflation moderates without triggering a recession," she told BI in an email.

Even if a technical recession did occur, Granville said Russia's labour market remained extremely tight, supporting wage growth. "Even a hard landing would not have serious consequences for the sustainability of Russia's war effort."

All in on defense

Since the start of the war, Russia has gone all in on defense spending.

It's on track to spend about $130 billion on defense, roughly a third of its federal budget, up from 28.3% in 2024.

It's also potentially running low on cash, with one Swedish economist predicting that Russia could run out of liquid reserves as soon as this fall.

The country is still grappling with the effects of Western sanctions, which have targeted its oil and gas exports and largely cut financial institutions off from the international financial communication system SWIFT.

Russia's economy is also suffering from a severe labor shortage, driven in part by the military mobilization, as well as a brain drain of young professionals leaving the country.

According to state media, Russia had a shortfall of some 2.6 million workers at the end of 2024, with shortages hitting the manufacturing, trade, and transportation sectors especially hard.

• Chef Aidan Owens of Herb & Sea is here to answer all your questions about oysters.
• East Coast oysters are briny and lean, while West Coast oysters are smaller and creamier.
• For oyster beginners, Owens recommends trying small varieties like Kusshis or Kumamotos.

For the uninitiated, oysters can be intimidating.

There are different sizes, varieties, and toppings. Should you go with Blue Point or Kumamoto? Should you add mignonette or cocktail sauce?

To answer all your burning questions and help you look like an expert at a seafood restaurant, we asked Aidan Owens to share his tips.

The Australian chef is the culinary director for Herb & Wood in San Diego and Herb & Sea in Encinitas, California, where he exclusively cooks with seafood from independent local fishermen. Owens even has an oyster shell recycling program to help a local lagoon conservation foundation.

Now, without further ado, here's Oysters 101.

East Coast vs. West Coast

It's common to see oysters identified as "East Coast" or "West Coast" on restaurant menus. This identifies whether the oysters come from the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, which infuses them with different flavors.

"East Coast oysters — like Blue Points or Wellfleets — are briny, salty, and lean," Owens told Business Insider. "West Coast oysters — like Kumamotos or Shigokus — are smaller, creamier, and sometimes a little sweet."

If you like your oysters mild, opt for those from colder waters. Owens explained that they grow more slowly and have a softer flavor.

"Brinier oysters usually come from warmer, saltier waters," he added. "They taste like the ocean."

Large vs. small

Don't just choose bigger oysters for the extra meat. They have a different taste from oysters of the smaller variety.

"Bigger oysters are brinier, meatier, and built for the grill," Owens said. "Smaller oysters are delicate and silky, perfect with just a squeeze of lemon."

If it's your first time with oysters, Owens suggests starting small.

"I usually recommend Kusshis or Kumamotos," he said. "They're delicate, sweet, and super approachable for first-timers."

Don't forget the toppings

When it comes to raw oysters, Owens prefers to keep the toppings minimal.

"A splash of lemon, a classic mignonette, or maybe a fermented hot sauce," he said.

However, don't be afraid to pack a punch if you're grilling the oysters.

"Go bold with garlic butter, smoky bacon, or even a little kimchi butter," Owens added.

Stay safe with a smell test

The rule that you should only eat oysters during the months that end with "R" is an outdated myth that "comes from a time before refrigeration," Owens said.

"Back then, warmer months made oysters riskier to eat," he added. "Thanks to modern refrigeration and farming practices, oysters are safe and delicious year-round."

All you need is a quick smell test to ensure your oyster is fresh.

"A good oyster smells like clean ocean air," Owens said. "If it smells like a bait bucket left in the sun, walk away."

• We started our family young and quickly realized the importance of planning for our child's future.
• Despite more immediate financial pressures, we prioritize our child's 529 savings plan.
• We are now committed to long-term financial planning and legacy building.

In 2021, my husband and I were only one year into postgraduate life and very new to marriage. At the time, our financial literacy left a lot to be desired, and being new parents only complicated all of this.

As our son grew month after month, we started thinking more seriously about his future and that of our family.

The phrase heard so often, "The days are long, but the years are short," started to feel very real as we navigated the first year with our son. We knew that while the day-to-day may feel overwhelming, many years from now, we'll look back and wonder if we had made the most of the years that flashed before us in a blink.

That's when I knew it was time to start saving for my son's future.

We chose a 529 plan

Our knowledge of financial planning for the future was limited. Being a researcher by nature, I scoured the internet, listened to podcasts, and spent more time than I'd like to admit playing with projection calculators. This carried on for months, and when our son was nearly a year old, I opened a 529 account in his name.

I chose this route for a few reasons: tax-free growth and withdrawals, the freedom to apply the funds to trade schools and more alternative paths of education, and the ability to use the funds for his K-12 schooling.

We've contributed to our now four-year-old son's 529 college savings plan every month since, even when it's not been easy. It's not a flashy or exciting decision, and it's not one that we made because we simply have piles of extra money lying around.

Like most parents of young kids, we're juggling the usual financial pressures: a mortgage and costs of homeownership, a car payment and vehicle maintenance, high grocery costs, and the real, ongoing expense of raising a child in today's economy.

But this particular choice to invest regularly in our child's future, even when other needs compete for our dollars, has become a cornerstone of our family's financial mindset.

Our small contributions still add up

At first, the contributions were small — $25 here, $50 there —whatever we could manage in those early months.

But gradually, I stopped seeing it as a "nice-to-have" and started treating it like a non-negotiable. Today, it's baked into our monthly budget, right alongside the mortgage and the utility bills.

We know we won't be able to cover every dollar of our son's future training and education, and that's OK. The point isn't perfection. It's preparation.

Now and as he grows, we will be intentional about modeling the value of hard work and financial stewardship. He'll know that while we've saved and planned ahead for him, he will also have a role to play in his education —through effort, responsibility, and ownership of his own goals.

Preparing for his future is part of our legacy

It's hard to think long-term when short-term costs are constantly staring you in the face. And yet, I believe that choosing to save for our child's future, even when it requires trade-offs today, is a powerful act.

More than a financial decision, it's one rooted in legacy. What does it really mean to raise kids while also building a life shaped by purpose, stewardship, and vision? For me, it looks like this: planning for the future while still being present, setting systems in place that reflect our values, and staying the course — even when things aren't perfect.

Of course, there are seasons when saving takes a backseat to survival. I know what it's like to weigh the cost of diapers against car repairs or a new HVAC system. But I've also learned that progress requires consistency and a willingness to begin, even if it's small.

So every month, we keep showing up for our future and that of our son. Quietly, steadily, and with a lot of heart.

One day, when he's old enough to ask why we made the choices we did, I hope he'll see that we believed in his potential, that we thought ahead, and that we made room for his future in the middle of our very full present.

Because to us, that's what legacy really is: not grand gestures, but intentional ones.

• After flying with 40 different airlines, Qantas stands out as my favorite.
• In my opinion, the airline offers great customer service and in-flight perks.
• Overall, I think Qantas offers the best combination of value, service, and reliability.

When I first started traveling internationally, I wasn't loyal to any one airline. I simply chose whichever flight could get me to my destination at the lowest price.

However, in my 30 years of flying with 40 different airlines in seats ranging from business to economy, I've learned that the cost of a ticket isn't everything.

Oftentimes, the key to having a great trip is booking with the right airline. And after hundreds of flights, I have one carrier I'll choose every time I can: Qantas.

From the friendly staff to the included perks, here's why I love flying with the Australian airline.

I always feel at home on Qantas flights

When flying with Qantas, I always find the staff to be friendly and welcoming.

In some cases, they'll even go out of their way to make my trips even better. Once, after a long layover in Europe and a delayed flight with another airline, I was feeling exhausted and disheveled.

When a Qantas crew member came by my economy seat with water, we started chatting and I explained my situation. Later, they returned with a first-class amenity kit and pajamas so I could freshen up and change out of my travel-worn clothes.

This small, thoughtful act made a big difference for me on a tough travel day, and is something I'll always remember.

I never worry about hidden costs — or pay for airport food

I love that even on the shortest domestic flights, Qantas offers a free meal or snack and nonalcoholic beverages. This means I never need to arrive early to buy overpriced airport food.

Qantas also provides complimentary beer and wine on domestic flights after 12 p.m. — a nice touch that makes even short flights more enjoyable.

One of my favorite perks, however, is that baggage is included in the ticket price on all domestic and international flights. This isn't the case on most major airlines (even Southwest famously ended its free baggage policy earlier this year).

In my opinion, it's just another thing that makes flying with Qantas pretty great.

The Oneworld alliance makes US travel more seamless

Another significant advantage of flying with Qantas is the airline's membership in the Oneworld alliance — a global network of 14 airlines that makes connections easier and offers benefits across carriers.

The perks are especially great for passengers who have a frequent flyer account with one of the participating airlines.

For example, my Qantas gold status grants me priority boarding, extra baggage allowance, and access to over 600 Oneworld lounges globally.

The lounge access is one of my favorite perks, since I can grab a decent meal before boarding a meal-free US domestic flight.

Sometimes, I even shower after a long-haul journey from Australia, arriving at my final destination refreshed and for the day.

When I'm able to, I always book with Qantas

No airline delivers perfect service 100% of the time. After all, delays and cancellations happen.

However, after hundreds of flights, I've found that Qantas offers the best combination of value, service, and reliability.

Although I may occasionally find cheaper fares elsewhere, the overall experience makes Qantas my go-to option whenever possible.