Waymo is erroneously carding riders and some say it's a new form of flattery

Waymo wants to ensure underage riders are not using its robotaxis, in some cases by contacting riders to confirm their age.

Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

• Getting carded at a bar is sometimes taken as a compliment to one's youthful appearance.
• Some Waymo riders are getting age-checked and also taking it as a form of flattery.
• The robotaxi company is cracking down on underage riders violating its terms of service.

Getting carded by a server is a classic form of flattery — an unintended way to let someone know they look younger than they are or just have a really effective skincare routine.

In 2026, it's all about getting age-checked by a Waymo.

In recent weeks, Waymo riders have reported receiving calls from a remote support agent during their trips, asking whether they're old enough to ride in the robotaxi. Some have posted their interactions on social media.

"We received a notification that there is a minor riding in the vehicle. Can I confirm, 'How old are you?'" a support agent can be heard saying in one TikTok video. The rider responded: "I'm 31!"

Waymo bars people under 18 from riding its robotaxis without adult supervision. In Phoenix, the company offers teen accounts for 14 to 17-year-olds. That hasn't stopped some parents from putting their underage kids inside a Waymo, using robotaxis as personal chauffeurs.

To crack down on violations, Waymo uses its in-cabin cameras to flag riders who could be breaking the rules. The company said on its website that it also uses AI and machine learning models, but said that it does not use facial recognition or biometric identification to identify the riders.

Waymo said it has interior cameras for safety, security, and maintenance.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

The process is not perfect.

Riders who say they are well over 18 have shared on social media their curious experience of being carded by a Waymo. Some can't tell if it's a backhanded compliment.

"I got a @Waymo age verification call in the middle of my ride today," Seema Amble, a partner at Andreessen Horowitz, wrote on X. "Is this the new version of getting carded? Should I be flattered?"

One social media user who goes by the handle @clarahyee jumped at the opportunity to share her skincare routine with her followers after she was carded by a Waymo.

"Here's the skincare routine that made Waymo AND Uber think I'm a minor," she said in her video.

Waymo operator just interrupted my trip on rider support to verify that I was over 18.

Honestly…. Thank you?!

— Christina Melas-Kyriazi (@ChristinaPhili5) May 15, 2026

Waymo's age-verification process may have also flagged edge-case riders.

Danh Trang, a South Park Commons partner, wrote on X that he has achondroplasia — a genetic condition that affects bone growth and is the most common form of dwarfism. About 1 in 15,000 to 1 in 40,000 people are born with the condition, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

A Waymo flagged his ride.

"I'm 39. I have achondroplasia. I'm 4'2"," Trang said. "@Waymo, hope this makes it into a future model update."

Trang added to his X post that this is a "pretty typical achondroplasia experience" and that he mostly shared it because he "thought it was funny."

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

Videos of carding moments shared online show that the verification process typically involves a rider support agent asking the rider for their age and confirming they're the account holder.

A Waymo spokesperson said the company will continue to refine its system and processes for accuracy over time.

"For the safety of our riders, we have policies in place to help us identify violations of our terms of service, including age eligibility," the spokesperson said. "At times, we may contact riders to verify they are aged 18 years or older — or 14-17 for authorized teen accounts in Phoenix."

Autonomous cars like Waymo haven't taken over the world, but they're already showing how frontier technology adds new quirks — and concerns — to modern life.

Waymo's fifth-generation platform has nearly 30 cameras attached to the vehicle.

Alexander Tamargo/Getty Images for Waymo

In San Francisco, a robotaxi hub, riders might use Waymo like an office on wheels; women have given birth inside of Waymos; and DoorDash drivers can pick up a couple extra bucks if they close a Waymo door left ajar.

The cars have also given rise to new kinds of nuisances. There have been reported issues of constant honking at the depots where Waymos charge. In December 2025, a massive power outage in SF left Waymos stuck in the middle of intersections.

Advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have also raised concerns around privacy and surveillance since AVs have cameras inside and outside the vehicles.

"The sheer amount of visual and other information collected by a fleet of cars traveling down public streets conjures the threat of the possibility for peoples' movements to be tracked, aggregated, and retained by companies, law enforcement, or bad actors — including vendor employees," the EFF wrote in a blog.

Waymo said it protects riders' privacy but uses safeguards, such as interior cameras, to identify policy violations.

For those who get carded, it's a reminder: Yes, Waymo is watching you. But at least you look good.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/xNoAsz8

Pizza Hut's AI system caused 'cascading' problems and $100M in damages, franchisee alleges in new suit

Pizza Hut's AI system caused "cascading operational breakdowns and customer dissatisfaction," resulting in $100 million in damages, a franchisee alleged in a new lawsuit.

Illustration by Budrul Chukrut/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

• A Pizza Hut franchisee alleged in a lawsuit that the chain's AI system damaged its business.
• The suit alleges that the system led to delays and cratering sales at over 100 restaurants.
• The franchisee, Chaac Pizza Northeast, is seeking more than $100 million in damages.

A top Pizza Hut franchisee says the chain's rollout of an AI-powered delivery system turned once-speedy pizza orders into a cold, late-arriving mess — and cratered a business that had been outperforming nearly every other operator in the system.

In a lawsuit filed on May 6 in Texas Business Court, franchisee Chaac Pizza Northeast accused Pizza Hut of forcing stores to adopt Dragontail, a delivery-management platform that Pizza Hut described as using artificial intelligence to "optimize" food delivery, despite what the suit calls obvious incompatibilities with Chaac's business model.

Chaac, which operates about 111 Pizza Hut restaurants across New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, alleges the system caused "cascading operational breakdowns and customer dissatisfaction" after it gave DoorDash drivers real-time visibility into kitchen workflows and order timing.

The franchisee says the fallout exceeded $100 million in lost business and enterprise value.

Before Dragontail's rollout, Chaac says more than 90% of its pizza deliveries arrived within 30 minutes, and the company consistently posted double-digit sales growth and guest-satisfaction scores above system averages. After Pizza Hut rolled out Dragontail in 2024, the franchisee says delivery performance sharply deteriorated.

The complaint says DoorDash drivers began waiting to batch multiple orders together after gaining virtual visibility into kitchen systems, allowing them to see when pizzas would come out of the oven.

Instead of immediately leaving with a completed order, the suit claims drivers waited "up to fifteen (15) minutes" for additional deliveries, increasing the time between when a pizza is removed from the oven rack and when it leaves the building to be delivered. That delay slowed deliveries, disappointed customers, and caused a sharp drop in sales, the suit says.

The lawsuit also alleges Dashers could see tip amounts and whether orders were cash payments, making some drivers less likely to accept certain deliveries.

"With the intention to improve efficiency and service to the customer, Dragontail did the exact opposite," the suit says. "It caused significant delays and pummeled consumer satisfaction."

Chaac alleges Pizza Hut failed to adequately train operators on the system, refused requests for support, and ignored worsening delivery metrics after sales began plunging in key markets. In New York City, the franchisee says year-over-year sales growth swung from positive 10.19% to negative 9.78% after the rollout.

The lawsuit argues Pizza Hut breached its franchise agreement by mandating continued use of the software while failing to exercise "reasonable business judgment" or modify the system to accommodate Chaac's reliance on DoorDash drivers.

Chaac is seeking more than $100 million in damages, plus attorneys' fees and other relief.

In a statement emailed to Business Insider, a Pizza Hut spokesperson said the company was reviewing the lawsuit's claims and would respond "through the appropriate legal channels” but declined to comment further.

Representatives for DoorDash and attorneys for Chaac did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

The lawsuit lands as Pizza Hut faces broader pressure across its US business. The chain's parent company, Yum! Brands, said last year it was exploring strategic options for the struggling brand — including a possible sale — after Pizza Hut posted multiple consecutive quarters of declining same-store sales.

In a February earnings call, Yum! Brands announced plans to shutter 250 Pizza Hut locations in the US in the first half of the year.

Executives have said the brand has struggled to compete in an increasingly crowded market, where rivals such as Domino's Pizza and Little Caesars have leaned heavily into low-cost deals and delivery partnerships.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/ncRu5kV

Map: See where gas prices are the most and least expensive across the US

Gas prices have been rising this year. Business Insider made an interactive map to compare average prices.

Frederic J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images

• See how your state's gas prices compare to others with our interactive map.
• Gas prices have climbed since late February. The US average jumped from $2.98 to over $4.50 a gallon.
• Even as the US leads global oil production, prices remain tied to volatile international markets.

How do gas prices in your state stack up against the rest of the country? Business Insider created an interactive map so you can find out.

Gas prices have been climbing steadily since late February.

The national average was $2.98 a gallon on February 27, according to AAA, and surged over $4 by March 31. By mid-May, average prices were over $4.50.

So far, states on the West Coast have been hit the hardest by rising gas prices. California's average first topped $6 a gallon on April 30.

Some central states like Oklahoma and Kansas have consistently posted the lowest averages during the recent spike.

The differences are stark — but prices have risen dramatically in every state.

Analysts say several factors are driving the increase. Blockades by the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz — a key global oil transit route that carries an estimated 20% of the world's oil — have raised global supply concerns.

Spring typically brings a switch to a more expensive summer fuel blend, and recent American Midwest refinery outages have also tightened supply in the Great Lakes region.

Those pressures are pushing prices higher even as the US remains the world's largest oil producer, in part because oil is traded globally.

"The same oil we rely on can be moved anywhere in the world, and we're seeing exports at record levels," Patrick De Haan, a fuel market expert at GasBuddy, told Business Insider. "This is capitalism. When you put your house on the market, you're not like 'Yay, I'm going to take the cheapest bid.'"

The supply and geopolitical pressures could keep prices elevated for months — though there's still significant uncertainty. De Haan said there's a "huge range" of potential summer gasoline prices, with a national average of anywhere from $3.50 to $5.50 a gallon.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/AGc20RV

I used AI to help market my bagel shop. Then the one-star reviews came in.

Adam Jones used AI to edit social media posts for Myer's Bagels. After customers left bad reviews, he took the posts down and apologized.

Adam Jones

• Adam Jones owns Myer's Bagels, a Montreal-style bagel shop that tried using AI to edit its social media posts.
• Customers decried the use of AI in the shop's Instagram comments and left negative Google reviews.
• Jones apologized and said he'd be more careful with AI and social media — though he's not anti-AI.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Adam Jones, the 53-year-old owner of Myer's Bagels in Burlington, Vermont. It's been edited for length and clarity.

We specialize in Montreal-style bagel production. For us, it's just north of us. For the rest of the country, it's a newer item. We don't proof them as much, so they don't get as airy. They're denser and a little chewier. We also use wood to cook the bagels.

We're about 22 people, and everyone takes the orders, makes the bagels, and does everything.

You always have to recreate the wheel to stay competitive. Social media is where you need to be. I'm not naive to it, but it's not a stronger part of my experiences. So, I'm learning.

In the past, I've had great employees — i.e., college students — who love social media themselves, so they're happy to take it on. It'd be good for a few months, but then the rest of their lives come into place, and it wasn't a full-time job. It would slowly die. We'd get along fine, but then I'd throw another person on, and the same thing would happen.

Why I used AI for our shop's social media posts

I was pointed to a company that helps small businesses with AI. It helps with human resources. I have a paid accountant and bookkeeper. They can give me their analysis, but why not have a third opinion?

This program does many different aspects of business, and one is social media. It was nice. There's a calendar where you can build a whole month of posts to release on Instagram. We're a college town, so graduation is coming up. I'd ask: What's a neat spin on a post about graduation to encourage someone to come in? The program comes up with an idea.

It allows us to import our photos that we've taken, and it uses those, but it can tweak them. Part of the picture was real. I looked at it and said, "Not too bad." Some of the AI bagels they had in the background didn't look like ours, and I would say, "Can you make that smaller and thinner?"

It didn't take long for our audience to realize what we were posting wasn't 100% Myer's. I appreciate their passion for us not doing this the way they'd like.

AI turned an online review for Myer's Bagels into a handwritten note.

Myer's Bagels

One had a picture of our retail bags for the grocery store. Those were actually our photos of the bags. The AI went into our Google, Yelp, or old Instagram comments and pulled out a review from Sam. It put our bags in front of a wood fire that wasn't our fire, and took that quote and made a fake handwritten note.

Was it untruthful? Yes. Was it our fire, image, and background? No. For McDonald's or anyone else who's advertising food, it's in a studio. But Sam is a real person. Sam made that quote, and those were our bags.

We have a picture that we'd used before of our baker rolling out the dough. AI took that photo, superimposed it on a nice wooden cutting board, and then put a fire in the background and a kettle to boil bagels.

That's not how we're laid out, and our customers know that. But it was our real bagels, real hands, real dough.

AI generated a new layout of the Myer's Bagels retail store, something customers noticed.

Myer's Bagels

Between those two photos, I bet there were 25-30 comments for each one, plus people replying.

We had some very passionate, adamant people who went to our Google reviews. They left us one star, claiming nothing about the food, just about this situation. No one called us directly; it was more of a response through social media. The pen is mightier than the sword.

There were a few people who went in to defend us, saying, "Look, they're a small business. They just wanted to be more creative." I appreciate those comments, but certainly the negative responses were much more.

Some were very civil, others I would classify as not very civil. I don't judge on that part. The medium allows it, and for us to be on it, you have to be ready to respond or fall victim to whatever you do.

I apologized — but I'm not anti-AI

We got quite a bit of feedback on a few posts. I went in, pulled them, and apologized.

I wasn't married to the idea. It was a test, or the first foot forward. So, I was willing to erase them and say: "We will do better. We've heard." It's just like, if people don't like a bagel flavor and it doesn't sell, we will make a new bagel flavor.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Myer's Bagels (@myersbagelsbtv)

We're not anti-AI. We will continue to use AI in many aspects of the business, because it's what's going to keep Myer's here for another 30 years. Without extra help, I'm not going to be able to keep up with the rhythm and the pace of growth.

AI is not going away. I look at it as a tool to do things better and easier as a business owner.

It's not good for everything, but it's a tool that has value to make Myer's better for my employees and me. Ultimately, it's also good for the consumers, since it keeps prices down and combats inflation. There's a bigger picture here.

For social media, I think there's still a place for it, but I need to tread much more carefully.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/ihGvRnP

I've seen Sam Altman in action plenty of times. Here's why I was surprised when I watched him on the stand.

Business Insider reporter Stephen Council outside the federal courthouse in Oakland.

Stephen Council/Business Insider

• I've reported on CEO Sam Altman since ChatGPT's release, so I was eager to see his trial testimony.
• The trial's stakes are sky-high for Altman as he fights to keep control of OpenAI.
• Altman delivered his pitch for the company, though he didn't have answers for the hardest questions.

It's tricky business to define Sam Altman's "day job."

He's got the basic task of overseeing OpenAI's executives and staff, as any CEO does. Work doesn't stay at the office, though. Altman has become the public face of the AI boom, responsible for selling a technology that's upending workforces, capturing markets, and costing billions of dollars to build. That's often a high-wire act, and especially so this week — he also had to sell himself.

I watched Altman's testimony on Tuesday in the Oakland courtroom where, for weeks, jurors have weighed Elon Musk's arguments against those of OpenAI and Microsoft. Musk says Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman "stole" the OpenAI charity. They responded that the charity actually thrives because of the commercial moves they made.

It's a high-profile, high-stakes trial, and I was keen to see how Altman would perform. Reporting on OpenAI over the last few years, I've watched him schmooze with San Franciscans, chop it up with AI boosters, and hit softball questions from Jimmy Fallon. He posts to X, joins podcasts, writes blogs — it's all part of his gig. Altman is a content creator, a CEO working to spread hype.

So it was no surprise to me that Altman gave the jury an optimistic vision for both his company and for AI itself. The shocking part was how little he did to protect his own reputation.

The softball questions for Sam Altman ran out

Wearing a dark suit, a thin purple tie, and a slightly furrowed brow, Altman was the day's star witness. He followed OpenAI's lawyer William Savitt through anecdotes, details, and admissions for a breezy first hour of testimony. Then, as the attorney wound down his time, Savitt asked Altman about the OpenAI Foundation's work — the actual goals of the nonprofit at the center of all this legal trouble.

Altman was articulate, and, as usual, forward-looking. He talked about plans to research Alzheimer's and to prepare society for economic change. He expressed hope for a better future, saying that the new tech's benefits should spread widely. He said he was still "extremely" enthusiastic about the company's remaining nonprofit oversight and got off a line about Musk trying to "kill" the very charity he was accusing Altman of "stealing."

Do-gooder ideals, plus optimism about healthcare: It was a rebuttal built on Altman's practiced style of pitching AI to the general public.

The cheery rapport stopped there.

Musk's head lawyer, Steven Molo, then kicked off cross-examination by asking Altman whether he's "completely trustworthy."

"I believe so," Altman said.

The feeling in the courtroom had palpably shifted. Molo responded with a hint of incredulity, "But you don't know whether you're completely trustworthy?"

"I'll just amend my answer to yes," Altman replied.

Under Molo's barrage, Altman had an odd response

Attorneys usually try to strip credibility from an opponent's witness. Molo continued peppering Altman with questions aimed at doing exactly that.

The lawyer said Altman had repeatedly been called "deceptive," citing statements from four other witnesses: OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever, former CTO Mira Murati, and former board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley.

Gone was the confident, loquacious CEO. Altman deflected on allegation after allegation, often stating that he hadn't heard the testimony or didn't know specifically what had been said.

Once, he made a larger rebuttal, saying there was "a breakdown in trust between me and the board and a difference — a big difference — of opinion." Then he returned to saying he hadn't heard McCauley's testimony.

Finally, Molo asked, "Is it important to you to find out what's going on in this trial?"

"Yes," Altman responded. "Although I also have a very busy day job and have not been able to be here every day."

He added that he "certainly" cares about the trial. A jury has sat for weeks, and the stakes are huge: Musk wants Altman removed as CEO and seeks $150 billion in damages. Most people I spoke with favor OpenAI to win. Still, Altman will need his credibility for the years ahead.

He stepped off the witness stand around midday, after more hammering from Molo. In the back of the courtroom, I was left thinking that the CEO could have — if only for a week — made the trial his day job.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/nhFi41B

I tested Claude Design and Canva AI. One had to be coached, the other anticipated my every need.

I used Claude Design and Canva to create the same presentation to see how they stack up.

Aditi Bharade

• Claude's new model, Opus 4.7, came with a new tool — Claude Design.
• The tool allows users to create slide decks, graphics, and marketing collateral.
• I tested how Claude Design compares to the tried-and-true Canva for designing a presentation.

For over a decade, Canva has been one of the most popular graphic design platforms. Now, Anthropic has an opportunity to capture some of that market with AI.

Anthropic announced its latest Opus 4.7 AI model on April 16, and a day later announced the launch of Claude Design, a tool which it said allows users to "create polished visual work like designs, prototypes, slides, one-pagers, and more."

Designs created by Claude Design can be exported directly to Canva, Anthropic said in the release.

The new Claude feature comes as the industry warns of a "SaaSpocalypse," in which AI threatens the business models of software companies like Canva, website builder Wix, and management platforms Workday and Asana.

To better understand the SaaSpocalyse fears, I tested how Claude Design and Canva stack up when tasked with designing the same slide deck.

For this test, I asked Claude Design and Canva's AI tool to create an improved version of the Photography 101 slide deck that I made manually in January.

One of the slides in my original presentation deck. It could definitely use some help.

Aditi Bharade

I used the deck while delivering a photography workshop for reporters at Business Insider's Singapore bureau. Let's just say my photography skills are better than my design skills.

I tested Canva AI first

Canva AI's landing page looked like most other vibe-coding platforms.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

Canva, like other software companies, is embracing AI to fend off competition from AI. It's rolling out its AI 2.0 feature to all users, turning Canva into an agentic platform that can generate editable designs.

I tested out AI 1.0, then got an early trial also to see how 2.0 stacks up against Claude.

First impressions of Canva AI: The landing page resembled other vibe-coding platforms like Lovable, Replit, and Base44, with the slogan, "What will we design today?"

I submitted my prompt, asking for a presentation split into six sections with quizzes to test understanding, and a dark minimalist design with blue accents.

I liked that Canva confirmed the presentation's flow before generating it.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

Canva then asked me to choose the audience type — casual, professional, or educational — as well as the deck's style and length. And before designing the slides, Canva presented a rough outline of what each slide would include, which I could edit.

I thought that was neat.

The slides were decent, but required editing

AI 1.0 gave me two designs to choose from. One was an immediate no, with loud elements that clashed and made the text hard to read. The graphics used were also rather simplistic.

I didn't love how the elements overlapped with the text.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

The second design was better, but its text boxes overlapped, the text was misaligned, and it was at times minuscule. It also didn't have as many photos as I'd like. I fed Canva another prompt asking it to align and standardize the text boxes, add more pictures, and make it more engaging.

The final product I got from Canva AI was much better than what I had created myself.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

The final product was much better than the bad deck I made in January, something I could definitely use for a refresher workshop.

I repeated the same test a couple of days later with AI 2.0. The process was largely unchanged, except that I could manually change elements while chatting with the AI tool — a useful change from 1.0.

Canva AI 2.0 allowed me to use the chatbot and manually edit simultaneously.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

The design from AI 2.0 was a bit boring, so I asked it to regenerate the slide deck with more images and a cleaner aesthetic.

It gave me a warning — "This will use a significant amount of your AI usage since I'll need to regenerate each slide" — but I ended up with a slightly more polished presentation.

Canva AI 2.0 redesigned the slides when I asked it to, and I preferred the second set a lot more.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

I laughed when the AI got tired of redesigning and told me the redesign was complete, even though four slides remained unchanged. When I prompted it to look again, it hit me with the good old, "You're right, sorry about that!"

It took a couple of prompts to get it to where I wanted, but I was impressed by Canva's AI generation.

We were definitely off to a good start.

Then I tried Claude Design

Next, I turned to Claude Design. I had previously tried generating a logo of my initials with Opus 4.7, and the design left a lot to be desired.

I was initially not too impressed with Claude's design skills.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

So I was not expecting a lot when I asked it to create the photography presentation.

To my surprise, Claude asked me in-depth follow-up questions before starting to design. It asked what camera I would be using, the skill levels of participants — beginners, phone-photo experienced, hobbyists — and even the exact shade of blue I wanted as an accent color.

And the deck it generated surpassed my expectations.

I thought the graphics that Claude Design generated were clear and helped explain concepts.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

For example, one slide featured a graphic of the "exposure triangle," which illustrated how ISO, aperture, and shutter speed affect a photo's brightness.

Claude fixed errors without any prompting

Claude Design began editing its own work without my input.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

But what impressed me the most about Claude Design was that it anticipated my needs.

In the first version, some text boxes overlapped. Without prompting, Claude started identifying and fixing these problems, acting as its own editor without needing any input from me.

The only problem I ran into with Claude Design was when I tried to change an image in one of the quiz slides. The question was about photographing a politician at a podium, but the picture was of a young man sitting in front of a circular window.

I asked Claude to give me a relevant picture.

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

I asked Claude to change it to a picture of a politician.

Instead, it generated the image of a farmer. I tried again — it gave me a picture of the Senate. Third time, a handshake. At that point, I gave up and asked it to revert to the picture of the guy in front of the window.

Claude didn't really get what I meant by "politician at a podium."

Screenshot/Aditi Bharade

It gave me some insight into the criticisms of Claude's Opus 4.7, with users saying it burns through tokens too quickly and sometimes gives ridiculous answers.

However, it responded better to other prompts. For example, it initially lumped the five editing tips into one slide, but expanded each tip into its own slide seamlessly when I asked it to.

Canva's final product was good, but in my view, Claude Design's was better and required a lot less prompting on my part.

Final thoughts

At the end of building the slide decks, I remember thinking to myself, "I'm never making slides from scratch again."

It was a close competition, but Claude Design edged it because it identified its own errors and corrected them without prompting, while Canva needed to be told what to fix.

One consideration — there is a difference in the subscription costs for both platforms. An individual subscription to Claude Pro costs $17 a month, and a Pro Max subscription costs $100 a month and allows higher token usage.

Meanwhile, Canva AI is free for use, for up to "200 Standard AI uses," per its pricing chart. Canva Pro, which offers "10x more AI than Canva Free," costs $18 a month.

And of course, if you can't choose between the two, you can use both together.

"Now, when someone creates an idea or a draft in Claude, they can instantly take it into Canva and turn it into something real where it's fully editable, collaborative, and on brand," Canva's spokesperson said. "From there, it's easy to refine, adapt across different formats, and publish or share it anywhere."

Anthropic did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/VFElvSZ

I'm an early participant in a UBI program that helps workers displaced by AI, and the support is life-changing

Dean Grey

• Dean Grey, an entry-level software engineer, is participating in a new UBI and upskilling program.
• Grey said entry-level jobs have evaporated, and hundreds of applications went nowhere.
• Grey said the mentorship and the $1,000 monthly stipend renewed his sense of hope and structure.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Dean Grey, a participant in a program by AI Commons that aims to upskill and retrain workers who have been displaced by AI alongside a monthly stipend. Grey is an entry-level software engineer who is struggling with his job search.

I never imagined I would become an early participant in what feels like a social experiment for the AI era. But after spending years trying to break into tech, only to watch entry-level jobs evaporate almost as quickly as I got there, that's exactly where I found myself.

I grew up in Massachusetts and graduated from UMass years ago. Before tech, I worked mostly in management jobs, "just sort of trucking along," as I like to joke — though eventually that became literal. I spent about 4 years working in trucking, but I knew I wanted something more stable and better paying, and tech seemed like the future. Shows like "Mr. Robot" and movies like "Hackers" made the industry feel exciting and creative.

So I saved up enough money to make the leap. I enrolled in Hack Reactor, a coding boot camp program, where I learned software engineering. At the time, I thought I was doing everything right.

I trained for a tech career as the market collapsed

After boot camp, I joined a training-to-hire company that promised to prepare people like me for jobs with large clients. The understanding was that we'd move directly into industry work afterward.

By the time my training ended, the market had changed dramatically. Hiring had slowed. Companies were suddenly obsessed with AI. Instead of moving directly into work, many of us were put on waiting lists for months. I waited about five months before eventually landing a contract position with Infosys.

It quickly became clear there wasn't much future there. Our contracts were finite, and there was really no upward mobility. I had put all of my eggs in this basket, and it was disappointing.

When that contract ended, I entered what became one of the hardest periods of my life.

Hundreds of applications met with silence

Like many people trying to break into tech right now, I sent out hundreds of applications.

I got a handful of phone screenings and two Zoom interviews that never progressed beyond the first round. At one point, it was exciting to get a rejection because a lot of companies were just ghosting me.

I burned through savings, called in favors, took gig work and temporary jobs, filled out online surveys — basically anything I could do to survive. Unemployment benefits helped for a while, but not enough to build a future.

The UBI program gave me structure and hope

A project Dean Grey is working on with the AI Commons, a high is a chatbot that helps newly unemployed individuals navigate their next steps.

Dean Grey

When the AI Commons approached me about joining a new basic income pilot program for workers displaced by AI, I was mostly grateful not to feel alone anymore.

The program provides a monthly stipend — up to $1,000 — along with technical training, mentorship, engineering projects, and community support.

The project is still so new, and the curriculum is still developing, but it gave me a sense of hope and structure again, which matters more than people realize.

Every morning starts with standups where we discuss what we're building and what's blocking us. I meet weekly with mentors and pair-program with more experienced engineers. For the first time in a long time, I feel like I'm moving forward instead of standing still.

The financial support has also been such a boon and life-changing. Being behind on all my bills has been a crushing stress. But with this basic income, I'm able to focus on improving my résumé, working on projects, attending meetings, and building my network.

The stipend doesn't feel like permission to stop working. If anything, it's the opposite. It gives me enough stability to actually invest in myself again.

Now I'm building an AI chatbot to help laid-off workers

One of the biggest projects I'm working on now is an AI-powered chatbot for people navigating layoffs and unemployment.

The idea is simple: when someone loses a job, they often don't even know what questions to ask first. My chatbot is designed to guide them through the process, explain unemployment laws by state, connect them to resources, and eventually help direct them toward real human support systems.

I don't know exactly what the future of work looks like. Honestly, sometimes it feels bleak. But this program has convinced me that people can adapt if they're given enough support, time, and community to do it.

I hear a lot of criticism of UBI, mostly about how it could erode agency and meaning and might be taken advantage of.

I'm optimistic because, at the end of the day, it might just mean we transition to a new way of finding purpose, if not in what we do for a living, then in how we express ourselves or what we do creatively. I don't think that we'll ever run out of ways to find purpose in life.

Read the original article on Business Insider

from Business Insider https://ift.tt/gMDZ4zS