Tesla’s latest job postings show robotaxis shifting from demo to 24/7 logistics—hiring dispatch, cleaning, and tele-ops instead of drivers.

A bipartisan bill aims to turn “AI efficiencies” from earnings-call vapor into quarterly, public line items that companies and agencies must defend.

AI found a new home in the spreadsheet, and 31,039 pink slips just carried its signature.

IBM’s “rebalance” keeps headcount flat while quietly trading legacy roles for AI‑first work to buy margin—and time—on the P&L.

When a pink slip says AI did it, is that technology at work—or a convenient alibi for old-fashioned cost cutting?

LinkedIn quietly flipped default AI training on for public profiles across Europe, Canada, and Hong Kong—tightening the hiring funnel, amplifying lock‑in, and raising hard questions about consent, audits, and bias.

Nadella just rewrote what a ‘hire’ means at Microsoft: add people only where a human-plus-agents system can deliver more than a pre‑AI peer.

The viral ‘scariest chart’ looks like robots versus workers, but the timestamps and sector fingerprints point to tight money—not automation—as the real job killer.

Powell just legitimized AI-driven hiring freezes, warning job creation is “pretty close to zero” even as capex roars—reshaping incentives, labor metrics, and the path of rates.

A benchmark that pays for deliverables found today’s agents can only bill for a sliver of real work—about 2.5%—resetting the automation narrative.