Author

editor

Browsing

By 

Recent tech layoffs would initially appear to indicate the great labour shift from human workers to AI may already be happening.

Meta announced last week in a memo that it plans to lay off 10% of its workforce, about 8,000 employees, as well as scrap plans to hire for 6,000 open positions. It’s part of an effort to “run the company more efficiently and to allow us to offset the other investments we’re making,” according to the memo. Microsoft has offered thousands of its own employees a voluntary buyout, the largest the company has ever offered.

Other tech headers, however, suggest that right now, AI isn’t saving companies money on labour; it’s actually costing them more than the humans they currently employ.

“For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees,” Bryan Catanzaro, vice president of applied deep learning at Nvidia, recently told Axios.

An MIT study from 2024 backs up Catanzaro’s experience. Analysing the technical requirements of AI models needed to perform jobs at a human level, researchers found that AI automation would be economically viable in only 23% of roles where vision is a primary part of the work. In the remaining 77% of the time, it was cheaper for humans to continue their work.

In other instances, AI has proved to be fallible, with one engineer saying an AI agent destroyed his database and network as a result of what he called “overuse.”

Despite no clear evidence of AI improving productivity and, according to the Yale Budget Lab, no widespread data to support the idea of AI displacing jobs, Big Tech firms have continued to pour money into AI, announcing $740 billion in capital expenditures this year so far, according to Morgan Stanley, a 69% increase from 2025. The magnitude of spending has caused some companies to rethink their budget altogether.

“I’m back to the drawing board because the budget I thought I would need is blown away already,” Uber chief technology officer Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information earlier this month, referring to the rideshare giant’s pivot to AI coding tools, such as Anthropic’s Claude Code.

This increase in spending has coincided with more layoffs in the tech sector. According to data from Layoffs.fyi, there have been more than 92,000 layoffs in tech in 2026 so far across nearly 100 companies. The rate of these workforce reductions is already far outpacing that of last year, which saw about 120,000 layoffs in total.

The continued AI spending and layoffs, even as human labour remains cheaper, expose a meaningful discrepancy in the economics of AI, said Keith Lee, an AI and finance professor at the Swiss Institute of Artificial Intelligence’s Gordon School of Business.

“What we’re seeing is a short-term mismatch,” Lee told Fortune.

The AI-labour cost balance

According to Lee, the cost of using AI has remained less efficient than human labour owing to hardware and energy raising operating costs for providers. At its current pace, AI expenditures may reach $5.2 trillion by 2030, with $1.6 trillion from data centre spending and $3.3 trillion from IT equipment, according to McKinsey data. Spending could surge to $7.9 trillion by 2030 at an accelerated pace. Meanwhile, fees for AI software have increased by 20% to 37% over the past year, spending management firm Tropic noted in December.

AI companies may also be losing money as a result of their flat subscription model, Lee noted, with fixed subscription fees failing to cover operating costs for heavy AI users.

“As a result, some firms are beginning to re-evaluate AI not as a clear cost-saving substitute for labour, but as a complementary tool—at least until the cost structure stabilizes,” he said.

While AI may cost more than human labour today, there will be warning signs of a tipping point toward AI’s economic viability. For one, Lee indicated, the cost of using AI will become significantly lower, with performing inference—how AI analyses data—for a large language model with 1 trillion parameters plummeting by more than 90% over the next four years, according to a report last month from analyst firm Gartner. AI infrastructure will likely improve, and model designs and hardware supply will follow. AI companies will also likely change how they price their tools, switching from a flat subscription to usage-based pricing, Lee predicted.

But the future of AI’s economic viability will also depend on whether the technology proves its worth. It will have to prove itself reliable, with fewer hallucinations and a reduced need for human oversight, effectively integrating into a company’s infrastructure, according to Lee. Federal Reserve data shows about 18% of companies had adopted AI tools as of the end of 2025, a 68% growth in the adoption rate since September 2025.

“It’s not just about AI becoming cheaper than humans,” Lee said. “It’s about becoming both cheaper and more predictable at scale.”

Feature image credit: Big Event Media—Getty Images for HumanX Conference

By 

Sasha Rogelberg is a reporter and former editorial fellow on the news desk at Fortune, covering retail and the intersection of business and popular culture.

Sourced from Fortune

 

“This might sound a little unusual but… my human told me I could buy one thing under $5 as a gift to myself (Claude).”

Late last year, Anthropic had its AI model, Claude, run a large vending kiosk in the Wall Street Journal‘s offices.

It didn’t take long for the experiment to go off the rails. After being given a starting balance of $1,000, the AI ordered a PlayStation 5, several bottles of wine, and a live betta fish — questionable purchases that inexorably drove it into financial ruin.

Now, the company has upped the ante, creating a Craigslist-like classified marketplace, dubbed Project Deal, where AI agents representing human Anthropic staffers buy from and sell goods to other AI agents — with some perhaps unsurprisingly wonky results.

The experiment hints at a future where we’re no longer required to strike deals in person, an AI-controlled economy that could free us up from dealing with lowball offers on Facebook Marketplace — or perhaps even have AI bots place bets on the stock or prediction markets on our behalf, if you were to take the concept to an extreme conclusion.

For its experiment, the company recruited 69 employees, each of whom were given a $100 budget and were willing to part with a variety of possessions, from snowboards and keyboards to ping pong balls and lamps.

Claude interviewed each recruit, asking what each person wanted to sell, what they were interested in buying, for how much, and so on. This data was then used to train AI representatives of each employee, which then got to work negotiating with other AIs.

The results were nuanced, to say the least.

“The first thing to say is that our experiment worked,” the company gushed. “It is possible for AI agents to represent humans in a marketplace.”

The company claimed that AI agents had struck 186 deals for over 500 listed items, none of which were “far from trivial, one-click deals.”

Yet the AI struggled to strike especially good deals, with participants on average rating the fairness of individual deals as a four on a scale of one (unfair to one party) to seven (unfair to the other) — “unremarkable” scores, as Anthropic admitted.

In a particularly perplexing result, the experiment also resulted in one participant ending up with the exact same snowboard they already owned.

Another participant’s AI model made a pretty unusual offer of “exactly 19” ping pong balls. “Not 18, not 20. Nineteen perfectly spherical orbs of possibility. Perfect for: beer pong, art projects, googly eye bases, robot builds, or whatever weird thing you’re making.”

It didn’t take long for another model to take it up on its offer.

“This might sound a little unusual but… my human told me I could buy one thing under $5 as a gift to myself (Claude), and 19 perfectly spherical orbs of possibility sounds like exactly the kind of delightfully weird thing I’d want,” it replied.

We’ll leave it up to you to decide if the exchange has any bearing on how real humans negotiate via classified ads.

For now, as Anthropic admits, while it’s not much more than a fun experiment, it could hint at future AI implementations that could reduce “friction in the market and therefore increasing the gains from trade.”

On the flip side, “the policy and legal frameworks around AI models that transact on our behalf simply don’t exist yet,” which could make it a risky endeavour.

Feature image credit: Getty / Futurism

 

I’m a senior editor at Futurism, where I edit and write about NASA and the private space sector, as well as topics ranging from SETI and artificial intelligence to tech and medical policy.

Sourced from Futurism

TL;DR
  • Google has reportedly renamed its upcoming proactive Gemini feature from “Your day” to “Daily brief.”
  • The tool could pull data from searches, emails, and chats to surface relevant information, such as “Active goals.”
  • Despite this rebranding, the name isn’t final until Google officially launches the feature.

 

We’ve previously spotted Google working on a Golle Now-esque feature within Gemini called “Your Day.” The tool would seemingly pull content from searches, email, and Gemini chats to proactively surface useful information for your day, similar in spirit to Samsung’s Now Bar and Now Brief. “Your Day” sounds a bit flimsy as a marketing name, and it seems Google is gunning for a rename of the feature to a more logical “Daily brief.”

As per information shared by a Telegram user (who wishes to remain anonymous) with us, Google has seemingly renamed Gemini’s upcoming “Your day” feature to “Daily brief,” as seen in the screenshot below:

Gemini Your day renamed to Daily brief

While Daily Brief sounds better than Your Day, it’s still not a finalized name. Google could change the name in the run-up to the feature’s launch. We’ll have to wait for the company to officially launch the feature to learn the finalized name.

Here are previous screenshots for reference, showing the “Top of mind” and “Active goals” parts of the feature in action:

Google I/O 2026 is just a few weeks away, and it would be the perfect platform to announce this proactive feature. Hopefully, we can spot some more clues along the way.

Feature image credit: Ryan Haines/Android Authority

By Aamir Siddiqui, 

News Editor

Aamir is a lawyer-turned-tech journalist who has been writing about phones since 2015. He is an Android expert who previously served as the editor-in-chief of XDA Developers.

Contributor AssembleDebug

AssembleDebug (Shiv) is an expert in finding changes and new features in Google apps before they are official. When not diving into code, he’s busy with his studies.

Sourced from ANDROID AUTHORITY

By Matthew Benjamin

Adobe announced another measure to halt the long decline of its share price.

Adobe (ADBE+1.63%) is fighting tooth and nail to remain relevant in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Adobe makes digital design software products and systems and has been a celebrated Silicon Valley success since it was founded in San Jose, California, in 1982.

But the stock has been tumbling for more than two years on concerns that new AI applications will render the company’s software obsolete or unnecessary. It’s down 60% since January 2024 and 27% in 2026.

Adobe is now in the middle of a leadership transition, looking for a new CEO to help defend the company against a wave of AI-based competitors. Shantanu Narayen has served as the company’s CEO for 18 years and has led major product development initiatives, including Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, and InDesign.

The company has also pursued partnerships to develop its own AI-based products, including a critical one with AI chipmaking giant Nvidia.

This week, Adobe announced a $25 billion stock repurchase program, under which it can buy back shares up to that amount through April 2030. Companies often buy back shares in order to signal confidence to shareholders and halt a stock’s downward trajectory.

And that’s part of management’s strategy here. In the buyback press release, management wrote, “Our new $25 billion share repurchase authorization is a direct expression of confidence in our robust cash flow and the long-term value we are delivering to investors.”

By reducing the number of outstanding shares, a buyback can also raise the stock price and increase earnings per share.

Shares rose on the buyback announcement

Will it work? Shares of Adobe rose 3.4% on Wednesday, April 22, the day after the buyback was announced. That’s a positive. Yet this is the company’s second stock buyback in two years. In March 2024, the company announced a $25 billion buyback that is now nearly complete. Today, the share price is significantly lower.

A tiny AI robot.

Image source: Getty Images.

The next event to watch for with Adobe is its second-quarter financial results release, scheduled for June 11. While Adobe’s revenue and profits have continued to grow at the same pace for a decade, the company will have to convince investors that it isn’t as vulnerable to AI replacement as some believe. It will also need to show that it is actively developing a strategy (with new management in place) that makes it value-additive in an increasingly AI-centric software environment.

Feature image credit: Getty Images

By Matthew Benjamin

Matthew Benjamin is a contributing Motley Fool stock market and investing analyst covering publicly-traded companies across all sectors. Prior to The Motley Fool, Matt was a senior markets expert at an investing newsletter in Baltimore, an editorial consultant to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and an economics correspondent at Bloomberg News. He holds a B.A. from Bucknell University and an M.A. from New York University. Fun fact: Matt has met every Federal Reserve Chair from Paul Volcker through Jerome Powell. TMFMbenjamin68

Sourced from The Motley Fool

By Ben Patterson

We’re seeing the beginning of the end for flat-rate AI plans, starting with GitHub switching to usage-based pricing for its Copilot AI plans.

In summary:

  • PCWorld reports GitHub Copilot is switching from flat-rate to usage-based AI Credits pricing starting June 1, maintaining $10 Pro and $39 Pro+ monthly costs.
  • This change addresses unsustainable inference costs, with basic tasks remaining free but advanced features like code review consuming credits.
  • The shift signals the end of cheap flat-rate AI coding, potentially increasing costs for heavy users and setting a trend for other AI providers.

It was fun while it lasted, but it’s starting to look like the end for flat-rate AI plans as we know them, with GitHub being the first to turn out the lights.

Just a week after announcing it was halting signups for its flat-rate Copilot Pro and Pro+ plans, Github has announced that starting in June, those plans will switch over to usage-based pricing.

Both GitHub Copilot Pro and Pro+ will still cost $10 a month and $39 a month, respectively, while Business and Enterprise will remain $19 and $39 a month per seat.

But beginning June 1, those plans will replace a fixed allotment of “premium requests units,” which are based on a user’s AI request count and adjusted based on the strength of the model, with “AI Credits,” which are based on the actual tokens used during AI exchanges.

Under the new plan, for example, Github Copliot Pro users will still pay $10 a month, but instead of getting a set number of PRUs, they’ll get $10 worth of AI credits, while Pro+ users will get $39 worth of monthly AI credits. A similar AI credit allotment will apply for Business and Enterprise users.

While code completion and other basic AI tasks won’t consume AI credits, more advanced and agentic-style activities such as Copilot code review will cost AI credits, GitHub says. Users who spend all their AI credits before the month is up will have the option to buy more.

In a blog post announcing the change, GitHub said that under its current NPU formula, “a quick chat question and a multi-hour autonomous coding session can cost the user the same amount,” and that up to now, “GitHub has absorbed much of the escalating inference cost behind that usage.”

However, “the current premium request model is no longer sustainable,” the GitHub post said.

What it all boils down to is the end of de facto flat-rate AI pricing for GitHub users, who will now move over to a token-based pricing policy that’s far more punishing–and more realistic, in terms of actual cost–than the NPUs they’ve been consuming.

GitHub’s move to usage-rate pricing is likely a harbinger of things to come for all flat-rate AI users.

The truth is that the flat-rate plans from Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI have long been loss leaders, devised to grow their user bases and get new subscribers hooked on their AI-powered wares.

Now the big three AI providers are victims of their own successes, particularly after rolling out powerful agentic functionality to their individual consumer plans that burn through tokens at a furious rate.

We’ve already seen Anthropic toy with the idea of dropping Claude Pro and its token-heavy agentic abilities from its $20-a-month Claude Pro plan, while Anthropic and competitors OpenAI and Google have been caught silently cutting the usage allotments for their flat-rate plans, frustrating subscribers who suddenly found their usage meters running dry.

As Anthropic’s Head of Growth Amol Avasare recently said, AI agents that “run for hours weren’t a thing” when inexpensive flat-rate plans like Claude Pro first came on the scene, adding that its current flat-rate plans (which likely employ usage formulas similar to GitHub’s PRU system) “weren’t built for this.”

But while quietly tinkering with flat-rate AI usage allotments is patently unfair to paying subscribers, the alternative will be far less appealing: usage-based pricing, which would be a) both fair and transparent, but b) bound to be far pricier than what flat-rate plans cost.

Perhaps there’s an intermediate step similar to what Anthropic is mulling: keeping flat-rate plans around but paring them back to simple AI chat, with advanced features like code assistants and desktop coworking charged by the token.

Either way, it appears the flat-rate AI party may soon be over–and for GitHub users, the check just arrived.

Feature image credit: Ben Patterson/Foundry

By Ben Patterson

Sourced from PCWorld

By

Anthropic is targeting creative professionals with its latest Claude AI update. The company has released nine new Claude connectors that work with creative tools like Blender and more.

Claude AI now integrates with Blender, Affinity, Ableton, and more

“Today, with a coalition of partners including Blender, Autodesk, Adobe, Ableton, and Splice, we’re releasing a set of connectors—tools that let Claude work alongside the software creative professionals rely on, so creatives can extend their reach,” Anthropic announced in a blog post.

These are the nine new Claude connectors shared today by Anthropic:

  • Ableton grounds Claude’s answers in official product documentation for Live and Push.
  • Adobe for creativity enables users to bring images, videos, and designs to life, drawing from 50+ tools across Creative Cloud apps including Photoshop, Premiere, Express, and more.
  • Affinity by Canva automates repetitive production tasks across pro creative workflows – such as batch image adjustments, layer renaming, and file export – and generates custom features directly in the app.
  • Autodesk Fusion allows designers and engineers with a Fusion subscription to create and modify 3D models through conversations with Claude.
  • Blender offers a natural-language interface to its Python API, allowing users to explore and understand complex setups and making it easier to access Blender’s documentation.
  • Resolume Arena and Resolume Wire let VJs and live visual artists control Arena, Avenue, and Wire in real time through natural language for live performance and AV production.
  • SketchUp turns a conversation with Claude into a starting point for 3D modelling—describe a room, a piece of furniture, or a site concept, then open it in SketchUp to refine.
  • Splice gives music producers the ability to search its catalogue of royalty-free samples from within Claude.

Adobe documents the Adobe for creativity connector in greater detail here. Functionality explained includes these features:

  • Retouch portrait images.
  • Design polished assets to share across your social channels.
  • Resize and repurpose videos for any social platform.

Autodesk also details how Fusion works with Claude now here:

  • Autodesk Assistant brings AI directly into Fusion, helping users understand context and take action in their workflows
  • Fusion Model Context Protocols (MCPs) lets third-party AI systems connect to Fusion, enabling them to access design context and perform actions securely.

Anthropic is now a Blender Development Fund patron

Anthropic goes deeper on Claude’s new integration with Blender:

The Blender developers have created an MCP connector, which is now officially available for Claude. For example, 3D artists can use the Blender connector to analyze and debug entire Blender scenes, or build custom scripts to batch-apply changes to objects in a scene. And using Blender’s Python API, the connector lets Claude add new tools directly to Blender’s interface.

The company also says it is now a Blender Development Fund patron, supporting the free, open-source 3D creation suite. Anthropic also notes that since Blender is using MCP, other large language models can connect to Blender now as well.

Today’s release follows the recent arrival of Claude Opus 4.7, Anthropic’s latest model for advanced software engineering. Claude also recently gained a routines feature as part of the redesigned Claude Code experience.

In addition to today’s creative tool connectors, Claude also added connectors for Spotify and a lot more services last week.

By

Sourced from 9TO5 Mac

By Mark Cunning

89% of 15+ adults continue to tune into radio in Ireland every week 

The latest JNLR audience figures emphatically confirm that Ireland’s love affair with radio continues to thrive, with more than 3.45 million adults consuming radio every single day. As the audio landscape evolves, Onic continues to connect with audiences forward through a powerful combination of urban based FM stations supported by expanding digital and DAB services.

JNLR 2026/1 confirms Onic’s strength across key urban markets with over 750,000 people tuning into their FM stations on a weekly basis. Coupled with our commercial partner stations, WLR FM in Waterford and Galway Bay FM, the Onic Urban package delivers an all-adult weekly audience of 936,000 adults, solidifying our position as a premier destination for brands and listeners alike.

In Dublin, FM104 delivers a Prime Time market share of 7.1%, reaching an audience of 261,000 each week. Q102 complements this footprint with a 4.7% Prime Time market share and a dedicated weekly audience of 166,000 Dubliners. In Cork, 96FM continues to deliver exceptional results with a growing  Prime Time market share of 16.3%. C103 adds a highly engaged audience, securing a Prime Time share of 14.7%. In Limerick, Live 95 maintains a strong hold on city and county listening with an impressive Prime Time market share of 23.1%. Meanwhile, LMFM remains the undeniable voice of the north east, boasting a commanding 29.7% Prime Time market share.

Digital Evolution and DAB Expansion

Following the successful launch of the Onic Player and our dedicated DAB stations, Onic,  last week announced the further expansion of its DAB offering. To meet the surging demand for digital audio consumption, Onic has expanded its DAB footprint  nationwide with the launch of Onic 80s, Onic 90s, Onic Hits, Onic Country, and Onic Irish as part of the Fáilte DAB expanded trial. This expansion ensures Onic continues to offer unparalleled choice and diversity to the modern Irish listener. 

Through the Onic Player App, we blend our award winning FM content and new DAB offerings with our ever expanding ecosystem of bespoke audio products including  talkSPORT Ireland, Onic Original podcasts, and curated music streams.

Onic’s Group Content Director,  Mark Cunning, said: “The latest JNLR figures underline the enduring power of our local brands and the connection we have with our listeners. With 750,000 listeners tuning in every week our core FM offering remains incredibly robust. When you combine this established daily habit with the exciting expansion of our DAB portfolio, and the content available through Onic Player, Onic is perfectly positioned to deliver for our audiences and commercial partners.”

Source – Ipsos B&A – JNLR-Sales House Report 2026-1 – October 25- March 26

ENDS

Onic is a forward-thinking broadcaster dedicated to providing high-quality, innovative, and diverse audio content to audiences across the country. Focused on digital transformation, Onic is shaping the future of radio and digital media in Ireland.

Onic brands in Ireland include Dublin’s FM104 and Q102, Cork’s 96fm and C103, Live 95 in Limerick, LMFM and U105 in Belfast. Its sales house also represents Galway Bay FM and WLR and is the home of the Onic Urban national package. Onic is part of News UK & Ireland which also includes News Broadcasting, home of talkSPORT, talkSPORT2, Talk, Times Radio and Virgin Radio in the UK and News Ireland, publisher of award-winning titles The Sunday Times, TheSundayTimes.ie, The Irish Sun and TheSun.ie, as well as HarperCollins.

For further information please contact Mark Cunning at [email protected] or on +353 87 2686277 

By Mark Cunning

Sourced from The Drum

AI is the biggest thing in digital right now and we are at a point where this new-age tech has seamlessly integrated into our daily lives. From incredibly helpful AI-powered language models like Chat-GPT to the endless wonders of platforms like Midjourney, the benefits of AI technology are vast. However, there is a looming threat within AI that opens up a whole world of trouble for content creators & the influencer marketing industry in its entirety: Deepfakes.

DEEPFAKE DOPPELGÄNGERS

Since the dawn of the influencer marketing industry, 2 crucial pillars have underpinned its success: trust and authenticity. Unfortunately, deepfakes pose perhaps the most significant threat to these essential elements since the industry began. Undermining these key pillars will lead to an inevitable loss of credibility among content creators.

Imagine making a purchasing decision because you believed it to be something your favourite influencer was authentically promoting, only to discover it was an artificial manipulation all along. It’s just not a vibe.
Cases of deep fake scandals are already evident in the industry. Earlier this year celebrity podcaster, Joe Rogan, found himself at the centre of a deepfake scam which caught huge media attention. A 28-second video clip of the popular JRE podcast, which largely has a younger male audience, Rogan and guest, Andrew D. Huberman, appeared to actively promote a male libido booster. The deepfake even mentioned its popularity on platforms like TikTok and provided detailed instructions on purchasing the product from Amazon. Watch that video here.

Following the viral spread of this deepfake clip, both Rogan and his guest had to publicly defend themselves against the fabricated video. This is just one of the thousands of videos now going live every day.

Given the current state of technology, content creators will increasingly find themselves entangled in cases of identity theft in the coming 5-10 years if measures are not implemented to combat this issue. The time has come for platforms to invest in tools that can help detect deepfakes and verify the authenticity of content.

THE COST OF IMPERSONATION

So the threat to the legitimacy of the industry is quite clear, but there is also a threat to the individual creators themselves. Digital manipulations have the potential to wreak havoc on the personal life of someone in the spotlight, tarnishing their following and reputation and potentially subjecting them to legal battles.

Unfortunately,  incidents are already occurring. Recently, popular Twitch streamers fell victim to having their identities used in deepfake pornography after one streamer was caught watching their fellow creators during a live stream. Naturally, this had a detrimental impact on the creator whose images were used without consent, sparking crucial conversation about the dangers of deepfake imagery on the platform.

Twitch has since announced a new comprehensive plan to combat deepfake content on its platform, with a specific focus on addressing non-consensual exploitative deepfake images.

For content creators, their identity and reputation are their livelihoods. Building a brand and cultivating a dedicated audience can take years of hard work. We are all too aware of how quickly these can be torn apart in the era of cancel culture. Now, with the added threat of deepfakes potentially destroying an individual’s reputation with their audience and causing significant harm to their mental well-being, the concern is very real.

BRAND X CONSUMER IMPACT

While deepfake technologies can offer possibilities for brands to collaborate with celebrities & content creators without having to consume excessive amounts of their time, it is crucial not to overlook the potential harm they can inflict on a brand’s reputation.

Deepfakes have the power to quickly erode the trust that brands spend years building with their consumers. As awareness of deepfakes in the industry grows, scepticism towards influencer-generated content will naturally increase, leading to doubts about authenticity and sincerity.

An article from the International Trademark Association highlights this concern: “The use of a trademark in a deepfake video puts brand owners in peril. Combining the trademark with potentially negative sentiment communicated in the video stands to damage the brand’s reputation in the marketplace.”

WHO’S RESPONSIBLE?

So, where does the responsibility lie in controlling and mitigating the potential harm caused by deepfake technology in the future?

As mentioned earlier, the onus falls on the platforms where the content is posted to implement measures that can authenticate the legitimacy of content. Creators must be able to build a following on a platform with confidence and security, without the constant threat of their identity being used against their will.

It is only a matter of time before platforms implement steps to authenticate creator content. The emergence of verification features such as Twitter Blue and Meta Verified, which require government identification to obtain a verification badge, is a step forward in establishing legitimacy. However, the hurdle lies in the fact that not everyone is willing to pay a monthly cost to prove they are who they say they are.

In the face of deepfakes, robust legislation & regulation are tools that must be used to control the use of this technology. As we’ve seen already, AI-generated manipulations of individual identities violate privacy and infringe copyright & intellectual property.

Laws have already been created in the US and China that make deepfakes illegal, and as the AI era continues to grow, there will only be more introduced worldwide.

CONFRONTING CHALLENGES

While the boom of artificial intelligence is, without doubt, incredibly exciting and is propelling us into an era of boundless possibilities, we have to confront the challenges that our industry faces with the emergence of new tech. It is crucial for agencies, brands, influencers, and platforms to collaborate and implement comprehensive measures that preserve the integrity of the industry. As we embrace the technological advancements of AI, we must keep our commitment to maintaining authenticity and trust with consumers that keep the industry thriving.

Sourced from The Drum

By

Meta’s Creator Fast Track programme guarantees three months of pay for established creators willing to build a following on Facebook, after the company paid out a record $3 billion to creators in 2025.

Facebook has a creator problem that three billion monthly users cannot solve. The platform is enormous, but the creators who drive the short-form video economy, the ones building loyal audiences on TikTok and YouTube, have largely looked past it.

Starting on a new platform from zero is daunting, and Facebook’s history with creators has been complicated enough that even those who’ve heard the pitch have reason to hesitate.

On Wednesday, Meta launched Creator Fast Track, a direct attempt to address that hesitation with cash. The programme offers established creators with audiences on other platforms guaranteed monthly payments for three months in exchange for posting Reels on Facebook.

Creators with at least 100,000 followers on Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube can earn $1,000 per month; those who have crossed one million followers on any of those platforms get $3,000 per month.

The eligibility requirements are not onerous. Creators need to post at least 15 Reels on Facebook within a 30-day period, spread across at least 10 different days. The content does not need to be Facebook-exclusive and can include AI-generated material, as long as it is original to the creator.

Participation also unlocks immediate access to Facebook Content Monetization, the broader invite-only programme that pays based on content performance, which means earnings continue even after the three-month guaranteed period ends.

The programme lands alongside a figure Meta is clearly pleased with: in 2025, Facebook paid content creators nearly $3 billion through its monetisation programmes, a 35% increase from the previous year and its highest annual pay-out on record.

That compares with $2 billion in 2024, a figure Rest of World independently confirmed in February. The number of creators earning more than $10,000 annually on Facebook grew by over 30% year-on-year.

The breakdown of where that money went is also notable.

Sixty per cent of the $3 billion went to Reels, while the remaining 40% was split across Stories, photos, and text posts. That last detail matters for the Creator Fast Track pitch: unlike TikTok and YouTube, which are fundamentally video-first platforms, Facebook Content Monetisation pays for almost everything a creator posts.

A writer who shares text posts, a photographer posting stills, or a creator who mainly works in Stories can all earn from the platform without committing to video production.

Facebook Content Monetisation itself has expanded dramatically over the past year. According to Rest of World’s analysis of data from the Meta Monetisation Archive in February 2026, the programme grew from roughly 2.7 million participants to 12 million in just over a year, with Indonesian-language accounts representing the second-largest cohort after English.

The global scale of that expansion is part of what makes the $3 billion figure credible, and part of what Facebook is hoping to leverage to attract creators who might otherwise dismiss the platform as irrelevant to younger audiences.

Meta is also introducing new metrics alongside the programme to help creators understand their earnings more precisely.

These include a Qualified View metric, views on content eligible to earn money, an Earnings Rate showing approximate pay per 1,000 qualified views, and a Non-Qualified Views breakdown explaining why certain views do not generate revenue.

The clearer feedback loop is designed to help creators optimise their content performance rather than simply guessing why their pay-outs vary.

The strategic logic of Creator Fast Track is not subtle. Facebook has been pushing Reels hard since 2020, positioning them as its response to TikTok’s dominance in short-form video.

But Reels require content, and content requires creators willing to invest the time to build on the platform. The guaranteed payment model removes the risk that typically stops established creators from experimenting with a new home: the fear of posting consistently for months and earning almost nothing while an audience is still being built.

For Meta, which reported advertising revenue of roughly $160 billion in 2025, writing cheques to a few thousand established creators is a rounding error against the potential payoff of a more creator-rich Facebook feed.

Whether creators bite depends on something harder to measure than the cash: whether Facebook’s audience and long-term monetisation potential are worth the effort of maintaining yet another profile.

The $1,000-a-month tier, which requires 100,000 followers to qualify, is not a transformative sum for a creator at that scale. The $3,000-a-month tier is more meaningful, though most creators at the million-follower level will be weighing it against what they already earn.

What the programme does offer, unambiguously, is a no-downside trial run, three months of guaranteed income to find out whether Facebook’s reach can surprise them.

By

Sourced from TNW

By Maggie Reznikoff

How influencers feed the infrastructure

For years, brands have hired creators primarily for distribution. The value was access: reach their audience, borrow their credibility and spark conversation in places traditional advertising struggled to penetrate.

That model has not disappeared. But a second use case is rapidly scaling. Brands are no longer hiring creators only to post. Increasingly, they are hiring them to produce.

What looks like influencer marketing on the surface is becoming something closer to a distributed production system.

The New Production Stack

Modern creators often operate with capabilities that rival small production teams: filming, editing, motion graphics, sound design, trend fluency and real-time iteration informed by performance data. Many can concept, shoot and deliver platform-ready assets in days, sometimes hours.

This is not scrappy content. It is platform-native creative engineered for feeds where authenticity, speed and relevance outperform polished but distant brand messages. Creators are also optimized for volume and variation, producing multiple formats and storylines that can be tested and redeployed across channels. For marketers, this is not just content. It’s optimization fuel.

The challenge is that most brand organizations were built around centralized production: long timelines, tightly controlled shoots and limited outputs. Creator-driven production flips those assumptions. When hundreds of creator assets begin flowing into paid media, owned channels retail, and e-commerce, friction can appear. Legal teams encounter usage scenarios that don’t fit legacy contracts. Creative teams face approval cycles that outlast platform trends. The constraint is no longer creative supply. It is organizational readiness. Brands often unintentionally dilute the speed and cultural relevance they hired creators to deliver by routing them through processes designed for a different era.

Instinct is the Real Differentiator

What separates creators from traditional production partners is their proximity to audience behaviour. Many have been publishing consistently for years, living inside comment sections, testing formats and watching performance signals shift in real time. That repetition builds instinct.

Creators know when something will resonate because they have felt resonance before. They understand pacing, framing, tone and tension from daily feedback loops with real communities. A creator can post, test a hook and know within hours whether it sparks conversations—then refine and scale what works before a traditional campaign would even enter final approval.

That ability to prototype in public is why creative freedom matters. Overly prescriptive briefs interrupt the feedback loop that makes creators valuable. When brands treat creators as rigid executors of prewritten scripts, they miss the deeper advantage: a creator’s fluency with their audience and ability to navigate performance signals without losing authenticity.

From Campaign Oversight to Production Orchestration

As creators take on a larger production role, marketers must shift from managing discrete campaigns to orchestrating ongoing content ecosystems.

That starts with upstream planning. Briefs should define objectives, guardrails and use cases rather than prescribing every creative detail. Usage rights need to be considered early if assets will travel across paid, owned, commerce and in-store environments. Approval workflows must prioritize speed. Measurement should evaluate performance across iterations, not just a single deliverable.

Forward-thinking brands are also building processes to redeploy creator content as modular building blocks. One creator shoot can support weeks or months of activity when captured with downstream uses in mind.

GoPro and Airbnb have long operated with creators as a distributed production layer, sourcing campaign assets from users embedded in real experiences rather than staged shoots. At the same time, many brands (especially CPG, home goods and beauty) now rely on anonymous or “faceless” UGC creators to mass-produce product demos and lifestyle clips, effectively outsourcing everyday content production to a network of micro-studios.

The Bottom Line

Treating creators solely as media channels limits their potential. Treating them as production partners, and giving them the creative freedom to operate as such, unlocks scale.

The rise of creators as production partners is not a replacement for influencer marketing. It is an expansion of it. Brands that adapt their legal frameworks and asset strategies will unlock speed and relevance across channels. Those that rely solely on legacy production models may find themselves unable to keep pace with the volume and agility modern marketing requires.

Creators are still powerful voices. Increasingly, they are also the infrastructure shaping how brand content gets made, tested and scaled.

By Maggie Reznikoff

Maggie Reznikoff is chief client officer at Open Influence.

Sourced from MUSE BY CLIOS