 |
|
|
|||||
The distance between a world-changing innovation and its funding often comes down to four minutesthe average time a human reviewer tends to spend on an initial grant application. In those four minutes, reviewers must assess alignment, eligibility, innovation potential, and team capacity, all while maintaining consistency across thousands of applications. It’s an impossible ask that leads to an impossible choice: either slow down and review fewer ideas or speed up and risk missing transformative ones. At MIT Solve, we’ve spent a year exploring a third option: teaching AI to handle the repetitive parts of review so humans can invest real time where judgment matters most. WHY AI, AND WHY NOW In 2025, Solve received nearly 3,000 applications to our Global Challenges. Even a cursory four-minute review per application would add up to 25 full working days. Like many mission-driven organizations, we dont want to trade rigor for speed. We want both. That led us to a core question many funders are now asking: How can AI help us evaluate more opportunities, more fairly and more efficiently, without compromising judgment or values? To answer this question, we partnered with researchers from Harvard Business School, the University of Washington, and ESSEC Business School to study how AI could support early-stage grant review, one of the most time-intensive and high-volume stages of the funding lifecycle. WHAT WE TESTED AND WHAT WE LEARNED The research team developed an AI system (based on GPT-4o mini) to support application screening and tested it across reviewers with varying levels of experience. The goal was to understand where AI adds value and where it doesnt. Three insights stood out: 1. AI performs best on objective criteria. The system reliably assessed baseline eligibility and alignment with funding priorities, identifying whether applications met requirements or fit clearly defined geographic or programmatic focus areas. 2. AI is more helpful to less experienced reviewers. Less experienced reviewers made more consistent decisions when supported by AI insights, while experienced reviewers used AI selectively as a secondary input. 3. The biggest gain was standardization at scale. AI made judgments more consistent across reviewers, regardless of their experience, creating a stronger foundation for the second level of review and human decision-making. HOW THIS TRANSLATES INTO REAL-WORLD IMPACT At Solve, the first stage of our review process focuses on filtering out incomplete, ineligible, or weak-fit applications, freeing human reviewers to spend more time on the most promising ideas. We designed our AI tool with humans firmly in the loop, focused on the repetitive, pattern-based nature of initial screening that makes it uniquely suited for AI augmentation. The tool: Screens out applications with no realistic path forward. Supports reviewers with a passing probability score, a clear recommendation (Pass, Fail, or Review), and a transparent explanation. When the 2025 application cycle closed with 2,901 submissions, the system categorized them as follows: 43% Pass; 16% Fail; and 41% Review. That meant our team could focus deeply on just 41% of the applicationscutting total screening time down to ten dayswhile maintaining confidence in the quality of the results. THE BIGGER TAKEAWAY FOR PHILANTHROPY Every hour saved during the early stages of evaluation is an hour redirected toward the higher-value work that humans excel at: engaging more deeply with innovators and getting bold, under-resourced ideas one step closer to funding. Our early results show strong alignment between AI-supported screening and human judgment. More importantly, they demonstrate that its possible to design AI systems that respect nuance, preserve accountability, and scale decision-making responsibly. The philanthropic sector processes millions of applications annually, with acceptance rates often below 5%. If we’re going to reject 95% of ideas, we owe applicantsespecially those historically excluded from fundinga genuine review. Dividing responsibility, with humans making decisions and AI eliminating rote review, makes it that much more possible at scale. It’s a practical step toward the thoroughness our missions demand. Hala Hanna is the executive director and Pooja Wagh is the director of operations and impact at MIT Solve.
Category:
E-Commerce
Planned layoffs have now reached their highest rate since 2009’s Great Recession. The data comes from Challenger, Gray & Christmas’ new layoffs report, which revealed that U.S.-based employers announced 108,435 job cuts in January, marking the highest rate to start a year since 2009. Also notable, in the same month, just 5,306 planned hires were announcedthe lowest total on record for January. According to the data, that means layoffs are up a staggering 118% from the same period a year ago, and 205% from December 2025. Generally, we see a high number of job cuts in the first quarter, but this is a high total for January, Andy Challenger, workplace expert and chief revenue officer for the firm, said in the report. It means most of these plans were set at the end of 2025, signaling employers are less-than-optimistic about the outlook for 2026. The most hard-hit sectors for layoffs are transportation, technology, and health care industries. According to a Reuters report, 31,243 planned cuts came from United Parcel Service (UPS). UPS plans to close 24 facilities in 2026, as part of a major restructuring effort. On the tech side, 22,291 tech job cuts, most came from Amazon, as the company announced plans to lay off 16,000 corporate employees. Some of you might ask if this is the beginning of a new rhythmwhere we announce broad reductions every few months, wrote Beth Galetti, senior vice president of people experience and technology at Amazon, in an announcement last week. Thats not our plan. But just as we always have, every team will continue to evaluate the ownership, speed, and capacity to invent for customers, and make adjustments as appropriate. Meanwhile, the healthcare sector has been battling as a result of federal funding cuts with 17,107 job cuts announced in January, making it the largest cut since April 2020. Healthcare providers and hospital systems are grappling with inflation and high labor costs, Challenger said. Lower reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare are also hitting hospital systems. These pressures are leading to job cuts, as well as other cutting measures, such as some pay and benefits. Its very difficult for leaders of these companies to tighten budgets while not sacrificing patient care. Additionally, the Labor Department reported that job openings are down to the lowest rate since September 2020, as vacancies fell to 6.5 million in December.Of course, many have been quick to blame AI for a surging number of layoffs. But some experts say that it has more to do with current economic conditions, and that AI could be being used as a mere scapegoat. In a post on BlueSky responding to the new data, CNBC journalist Carl Quintanilla shared a quote attributed to market researcher Renaissance Macro Research (RENMAC), referencing the Challenger report and explaining the real reasons behind the downslide: …While there is quite a bit of attention on AI driving layoffs, most of the reasons cited in this data set are about closing, economic conditions, restructuring, and loss of contract. AI is a comparatively small factor behind the January jump in layoff news. That aligns with data from entities like the Brookings Institution and Yale University, which found that sectors (including ones especially susceptible to AI) havent seen drastic changes in the amount of available jobs since ChatGPT debuted in 2022. Still, other experts continue to believe that AI’s toll on the job market will be crushing. We are at the beginning of a multi-decade progress development that will have a major impact on the labor market, said Gad Levanon, chief economist at the Burning Glass Institute, a workforce research firm, told CNBC last year. Theres probably much more in the tank, he said.
Category:
E-Commerce
Have you seen larger-than-life depictions of your friends lately? They might have been sucked into the latest social trend: creating AI-generated caricatures. The trend itself is simple. Users input a common prompt: “Create a caricature of me and my job based on everything you know about me,” and upload a photo of themself, and, voila! ChatGPT (or any AI-image platform) spits out an over-the-top, cartoon-style image of you, your job, and anything else it’s learned about you. This ability is predicated on a robust ChatGPT (or other AI) chat history. Those who don’t have a close, personal relationship with the AI might need to give additional information to get a more accurate depiction. But notably, that’s yet another instance of potential AI privacy concerns. It’s not the first AI image trend. Other social media challenges have had users posting themselves as AI-generated cartoons, Renaissance paintings, or fantasy characters. AIs image capabilities have gone in a few different directions. Some of them, like with this trend, or the meme-ification of Sora, are seemingly harmless fun. However, Sora has started to see issues with bad-faith individuals being able to create AI deepfakes (see also: Grok porn). Meanwhile, even as the trend continues to rise, more than 13,000 ChatGPT users reported issues on Thursday, according to outage tracking website Downdetector.com.
Category:
E-Commerce
Tech workers have been worried for years about the AI tidal wave coming for their jobs, but their bosses are starting to worry too. Stocks plunged this week as fears escalated that AI advancements will take a bite out of business for many software and services companies. The market losses are tied to updates to Anthropics AI-powered workplace productivity suite, Claude Cowork, which threatens to replace some software tools ubiquitous in the professional world. Companies with business in research and legal software like Thomson Reuters and LegalZoom dropped dramatically on the Anthropic news, with a wide swath of software stocks following suit. Intuit, PayPal, Equifax all dropped by over 10%, with enterprise software companies like Atlassian and Salesforce deepening their own losses, which started well before the latest AI news. The S&P North American software index also slid further this week, worsening a recent losing streak punctuated by a 15% decline in January the indexs worst month in nearly two decades. Unlike Claude Code, a coding tool designed for developers, Anthropic built Claude Cowork as a powerful, general purpose AI agent for non-coders. Available to Anthropics $100-per-month premium subscribers, Claude Cowork can knock out easier tasks like searching, collecting and organizing files, but its also capable of taking on much bigger challenges like making slide decks, producing reports and pulling and synthesizing information from other business software tools, like Zendesk and Microsoft Teams. Claudes ability to execute complex tasks with dedicated software sub-agents prompted plenty of nervous jokes about humans being replaced by C-suites full of AI. And that was before a new Anthropic update introduced powerful new plugins designed to automate tasks across domains like finance, legal, sales, data, marketing, and customer support. The market is still digesting those new agentic AI capabilities, which could pose an existential threat to the software-as-a-service companies that undergird big chunks of the economy. Fears of a zero sum software game grow Anthropic co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei has made his own ominous predictions about AI displacing human workers. Last year, Amodei predicted that AI could vaporize half of entry-level white collar roles, sending unemployment as high as 20% within five years. He pointed to losses in industries like tech, law, consulting and finance, specifically. “We, as the producers of this technology, have a duty and an obligation to be honest about what is coming,” Amodei told Axios. “I don’t think this is on people’s radar.” Not everyone deeply invested in AI agrees. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang swatted away worries that AI would eat the traditional software industry after the stock bloodbath that began on Tuesday. “There’s this notion that the tool in the software industry is in decline, and will be replaced by AI, Huang said, emphasizing that relying on existing software tools makes more sense than reinventing the wheel. It is the most illogical thing in the world, and time will prove itself.
Category:
E-Commerce
The federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws in the workplace made an unexpected disclosure this week: Nike was under investigation for its approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion, due to claims that the company had discriminated against white employees and job applicants. The investigation suggests that Nikes diversity goals and other DEI initiatives led the company to hire non-white workers to meet quotas or award them with more opportunities for career advancement, thereby discriminating against white workers. It is notable as the first major legal undertaking by Andrea Lucas, who President Trump installed as the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) last year. But it also indicates that Lucas is serious about targeting corporate employers over alleged discrimination against white workers, which she has clearly signaled is a priority for the agency under the Trump administration. It is designed to instill fear into the hearts of large companies, says Chai Feldblum, a former EEOC commissioner and a member of EEO Leaders, a group of former senior officials who worked at the EEOC and Department of Labor under multiple administrations. If they’re afraid, then small companies will be afraid. And the point is to chill any form of equity and diversity efforts, even legal ones. An unusual investigation The investigation into Nike is unusual for a few reasons: It is, of course, the first inquiry into what the agency has called DEI-related discrimination. But it is also rare that the EEOCs investigations into employers become public before they have concluded, since the process is supposed to be confidential. An EEOC investigation typically either ends in a dismissal or, if the agency finds reasonable cause and concludes there was discrimination, results in a conciliation process that allows an employer to resolve the issue in private, with both parties coming to an agreement. If conciliation fails, the agency would then decide whether or not to bring a lawsuit, which is considered a last resort and happens infrequently. The EEOC does often use subpoenas to force employers to comply with their requests for information. According to Feldblum, subpoenas can be a useful tool for the agency to extract information from a company that might be stonewalling or only offering partial responses to its inquiries. In the case of Nike, however, the EEOC went to court to enforce the subpoena, thrusting the investigation into the public record. What is unusual about this is the publicity, Feldblum says. Which is what chair Lucas wants. She’s doing that by suing on a subpoena. I think it’s a question whether EEOC is following its normal process for enforcing subpoenas. Nike seemed to suggest as much in a statement to Fast Company. This feels like a surprising and unusual escalation, a company spokesperson said. We have had extensive, good-faith participation in an EEOC inquiry into our personnel practices, programs, and decisions and have had ongoing efforts to provide information and engage constructively with the agency. We have shared thousands of pages of information and detailed written responses to the EEOCs inquiry and are in the process of providing additional information. The statement continued: We are committed to fair and lawful employment practices and follow all applicable laws, including those that prohibit discrimination . . . We will continue our attempt to cooperate with the EEOC and will respond to the petition. A possible new precedent Feldblum argues the EEOCs approach to this investigation could set a precedent of taking companies to court over what the agency perceives to be insufficient cooperation with its requests for information. The press release put out by the EEOC makes evident that the agency had requested extensive details about Nikes employment decisions, including its criteria for layoffs, the use of demographic data and how it was tied to executive compensation, and specifics about 16 programs that offered mentoring, leadership, or career development opportunities to underrepresented employees. Unlike many of the cases the EEOC investigates, this one was not initiated by a complaint from a worker alleging discrimination; Lucas herself brought the charge against Nike in 2024. But its not clear exactly what prompted the investigation. The EEOC claims to be looking into systemic allegations of DEI-related intentional race discrimination at Nike that have targeted white workers. By Lucass own admission, per a statement in the EEOC release, this investigation seems to have been prompted by Nikes public disclosures about its DEI programs. (When Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms last year requesting details on their DEI practicesa move that drew widespread criticismshe had relied on public statements.) You sign a commissioner charge under penalty of perjury, Feldblum says. You need to have at least some evidence of discrimination to sign that charge. Now if you believe that simply having a [diversity] goal is reasonable evidence of discrimination, then you’ll go ahead and sign that. The future of DEI Like many companies at the time, Nike set ambitious DEI goals after the murder of George Floyd sparked a racial reckoning across corporate America. (The company has also grappled with broader culture issues over the years, including allegations of sexual harassment and gender discrimination.) In 2021, Nike tied executive compensation to DEI commitments that were intended to increase the share of women in leadership and boost representation of racial and ethnic minorities to 35% across its workforce. In the time since, however, Nike has cycled through five chief diversity officers; the company also declined to put out a corporate sustainability report last year, which typically documents its progress on DEIthough Nike claimed it had not wavered from its diversity commitments. Depending on how the EEOC investigation unfolds, Nike could face significant repercussions. The court will likely uphold the subpoena, according to Feldblum, which means Nike will likely have to produce reams of additional information. If the EEOC decides to make an example of Nike, the investigation could ultimately result in a lawsuitwhich would have far-reaching consequences for other employers and potentially set a precedent for subsequent investigations. I think we allemployers, employees, the general publichave got to assume there will be a continued onslaught of attacks on DEI, Feldblum says, urging companies to review, not retreat” from their diversity programs and position on DEI. The EEOC is trying to stop employes from doing anything to increase diversity and equity, and they are stretching their own procedures, as well as the law . . . And that is a very sad day for an agency entrusted with enforcing employment civil rights laws.
Category:
E-Commerce