Why Your Finance Team Needs an AI Strategy, Now
The finance function is evolving fast. Whether it's streamlining close processes or spotting anomalies before they become real problems, artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer just a buzzword. It's a real capability that businesses are expecting finance leaders to adopt.
And that expectation extends to the teams they lead.
Yet there's one big challenge: most finance departments weren't built for this shift. Talent shortages are already stretching departments thin, and many current employees lack the tools—or the training—to capitalize on what AI has to offer.
So how do you build a finance team that's not only prepared for AI but empowered by it? Find out by joining us for our free webinar, Why Your Finance Team Needs an AI Strategy, Now, powered by Oracle NetSuite and Entrepreneur.
Dr. Jill Schiefelbein, AI strategist and host of the Humanize Automation podcast, will moderate a conversation with Rebeca Bichachi, CPA and Product Marketing Director for Oracle NetSuite. Together, they'll walk through six specific strategies to build a finance department that's truly future-ready.
From reevaluating your hiring criteria to eliminating unfulfilling tasks with smart automation, this session goes beyond theory and offers practical, scalable action steps. Attendees of this webinar will learn:
Why "intentional experimentation" is your best on-ramp to AI integration
How to expand your talent pool by looking outside traditional finance roles
Ways to reskill current team members—without overwhelming them
Where to deploy AI tools to free up time for strategic, high-impact work
How to spot (and reward) your early adopters and AI champions
What today's "ideal candidate" for finance looks like—and why that definition is shifting fast
Whether you're a CFO, controller, or finance leader at a growing business, this session will help you align your AI ambitions with your most valuable resource: your people.
The Why Your Finance Team Needs an AI Strategy, Now webinar will take place live on Thursday August 28 at 12 p.m. ET | 9 a.m. PT.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Copyrighted Books Are Fair Use For AI Training. Here's What To Know.
The use of AI systems has become part of our daily lives. The sudden presence of generative AI systems in our daily lives has prompted many to question the legality of how AI systems are created and used. One question relevant to my practice: Does the ingestion of copyrighted works such books, articles, photographs, and art to train an AI system render the system's creators liable for copyright infringement, or is that ingestion defensible as a 'fair use'? A court ruling answers this novel question, and the answer is: Yes, the use of copyrighted works for AI training is a fair use – at least under the specific facts of those cases and the evidence presented by the parties. But because the judges in both cases were somewhat expansive in their dicta about how their decisions might have been different, they provide a helpful roadmap as to how other lawsuits might be decided, and how a future AI system might be designed so as not to infringe copyright. The rulings on Meta and Anthropic's respective cases require some attention. Let's take a closer look. More than 30 lawsuits have been filed in the past year or two, in all parts of the nation, by authors, news publishers, artists, photographers, musicians, record companies and other creators against various AI systems, asserting that using the authors' respective copyrighted works for AI training purposes violates their copyrights. The systems' owners invariably assert fair use as a defense. They provide a helpful roadmap as to how other lawsuits might be decided, and how a future AI system might be designed so as not to infringe copyright. The Anthropic Case Anthropic planned to create a central library of "all the books in the world." The first decision, issued in June, involved a lawsuit by three book authors, who alleged that Anthropic PBC infringed the authors' copyrights by copying several of their books (among millions of others) to train its text generative AI system called Claude. Anthropic's defense was fair use. Judge Alsup, sitting the Northern District Court of California, held that the use of the books for training purposes was a fair use, and that the conversion of any print books that Anthropic had purchased and converted to digital was also a fair use. However, Anthropic's use of pirated digital copies for purposes of creating a central library of 'all the books in the world' for uses beyond training Claude, was not a fair use. Whether Anthropic's copying of its central library copies for purposes other than AI training (and apparently there was some evidence that this was going on, but on a poorly developed record) was left for another day. It appears that Anthropic decided early on in its designing of Claude that books were the most valuable training materials for a system that was designed to 'think' and write like a human. Books provide patterns of speech, prose and proper grammar, among other things. Anthropic chose to download millions of free digital copies of books from pirate sites. It also purchased millions of print copies of books from booksellers, converted them to digital copies and threw the print copies away, resulting in a massive central library of 'all the books in the world' that Anthropic planned to keep 'forever.' None of this activity was done with the authors' permission. Significantly, Claude was designed so that it would not reproduce any of the plaintiffs' books as output. There was not any such assertion by the plaintiffs, nor any evidence that it did so. The assertions of copyright infringement were, therefore, limited to Claude's ingestion of the books for training, to build the central library, and for the unidentified non-training purposes. Users of Claude ask it questions and it returns text-based answers. Many users use it for free. Certain corporate and other users of Claude pay to use it, generating over one billion dollars annually in revenue for Anthropic. The Anthropic Ruling Both decisions were from the federal district court in Northern California, the situs of Silicon ... More Valley. To summarize the legal analysis, Judge Alsup evaluated each 'use' of the books separately, as it must under the Supreme Court's 2023 Warhol v. Goldsmith fair use decision. Turning first to the use of the books as training data, Alsup found that the use of the books to train Claude was a 'quintessentially' transformative use which did not supplant the market for the plaintiffs' books, and as such qualified as fair use. He further found that the conversion of the purchased print books to digital files, where the print copies were thrown away, was also a transformative use akin to the Supreme Court's 1984 Betamax decision in which the court held that the home recording of free TV programming for time-shifting purposes was a fair use. Here, Judge Alsup reasoned, Anthropic lawfully purchased the books and was merely format-shifting for space and search capability purposes, and, since the original print copy was discarded, only one copy remained (unlike the now-defunct Redigi platform of 2018). By contrast, the downloading of the over seven million of pirate copies from pirate sites, which at the outset was illegal, for central library uses other than for training purposes could not be held to be a fair use as a matter of law, because the central library use was unjustified and the use of the pirate copies could supplant the market for the original. Anthropic Is Liable For Unfair Uses – The Cost of Doing Business? The case will continue on the issue of damages for the pirated copies of the plaintiffs' books used for central library purposes and not for training purposes. The court noted that the fact that Anthropic later purchased copies of plaintiffs' books to replace the pirated copies will not absolve it of liability, but might affect the amount of statutory damages it has to pay. The statutory damages range is $750 per copy at a minimum and up to $150,000 per copy maximum. It tempts one to wonder about all those other millions of copyright owners beyond the three plaintiffs – might Anthropic have to pay statutory damages for seven million copies if the pending class action is certified? Given the lucrativeness of Claude, could that be just a cost of doing AI business? The Meta Case Meta's decision to use shadow libraries to source books was approved by CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The second decision, issued two days following the Anthropic decision, on June 25, involves thirteen book authors, most of them famous non-fiction writers, who sued Meta, the creator of a generative AI model called Llama, for using the plaintiffs' books as training data. Llama (like Claude), is free to download, but generates billions of dollars for Meta. Like Anthropic, Meta initially looked into licensing rights from book publishers, but eventually abandoned those efforts and instead downloaded the books it desired from pirate sites called 'shadow libraries' which were not authorized by the copyright owners to store their works. Also like Claude, Llama was designed not to produce output that reproduced its source material in whole or substantial part, the record indicating that Llama could not be prompted to reproduce more than 50 words from the plaintiffs' books. Judge Chhabria, also in the Northern District of California, held Meta's use of plaintiffs' works to train Llama was a fair use, but he did so very reluctantly, chiding the plaintiff's lawyers for making the 'wrong' arguments and failing to develop an adequate record. Chhabria's decision is riddled with his perceptions of the dangers of AI systems potentially flooding the market with substitutes for human authorship and destroying incentives to create. The Meta Ruling Based on the parties' arguments and the record before him, like Judge Alsup, Judge Chhabria found that Meta's use of the books as training data for Llama was 'highly transformative' noting that the purpose of the use of the books - for creating an AI system - was very different than the plaintiffs' purpose of the books, which was for education and entertainment. Rejecting plaintiff's argument that Llama could be used to imitate the style of plaintiffs' writing, Judge Chhabria noted that 'style is not copyrightable.' The fact that Meta sourced the books from shadow libraries rather than authorized copies didn't make a difference; Judge Chhabria (in my opinion rightly) reasoned that to say that a fair use depends on whether the source copy was authorized begs the question of whether the secondary copying was lawful. Although plaintiffs tried to make the 'central library for other purposes than training' argument that was successful in the Anthropic case, Judge Chhabria concluded that the evidence simply didn't support that copies were used for purposes other than training, and noted that even if some copies were not used for training, 'fair use doesn't require that the secondary user make the lowest number of copies possible.' Since Llama couldn't generate exact or substantially similar versions of plaintiffs' books, he found there was no substitution harm, noting that plaintiffs' lost licensing revenue for AI training is not a cognizable harm. Judge Chhabria's Market Dilution Prediction Judge Chhabria warns that generative AI systems could dilute the market for lower-value mass market ... More publications. In dicta, clearly expressing frustration with the outcome in Meta's favor, Judge Chhabria discussed in detail how he thought market harm could – and should - be shown in other cases, through the concept of 'market dilution' - warning that a system like Llama, while not producing direct substitutes for a plaintiff's work, could compete with and thus dilute the plaintiff's market. There may be types of works unlike award-winning fictional works more susceptible to this harm, he said, such as news articles, or 'typical human-created romance or spy novels.' But since the plaintiffs before him didn't make those arguments, nor presented any record of the same, he said, he could not make a ruling on the same. This opportunity is left for another day. AI System Roadmap For Non-Infringement The court decisions provide an early roadmap as to how to design an AI system. Based on these two court decisions, here are my take-aways for building a roadmap for a non-infringing generative AI system using books:
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2025 NBA free agency: Deandre Ayton addition slightly improves Los Angeles Lakers' title odds
The Los Angeles Lakers finally have a new center after agreeing to a two-year deal with free agent and former No. 1 overall pick Deandre Ayton, and oddsmakers have bumped up their odds to win next year's NBA championship as a result. The Lakers moved from 16-1 to 14-1 to win the 2025-26 NBA championship at BetMGM, the seventh-best odds of any team and the fourth-best odds for any Western Conference team behind favorite Oklahoma City (+275), Denver (+700) and Houston (+800). Advertisement "They filled an obvious need with a previously unexpected option," Jeff Sherman, vice president of risk at the Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook told Yahoo Sports via text. "We went from 16-1 to 14-1 for perception purposes. We already have — and will continue to have — Lakers liability." The Lakers made the playoffs as the third seed in the West last season after trading for Luka Dončić in the middle of the season, but lost to the Minnesota Timberwolves in the first round in five games. As of Tuesday morning, the Lakers were the second-biggest title liability at BetMGM behind the Dallas Mavericks.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Giant Dividend Stocks to Buy to Shield Your Portfolio Now
During periods of market volatility and economic uncertainty, investors often look for refuge in dependable, dividend-paying stocks. These rare giants provide not only consistent income but also long-term stability. Dividend giants are typically well-established companies with strong cash flows, resilient business models, and a long history of rewarding shareholders, which can help safeguard your portfolio. 3 Overlooked Dividend Aristocrats To Buy in 2025 3 Giant Dividend Stocks to Buy to Shield Your Portfolio Now Get exclusive insights with the FREE Barchart Brief newsletter. Subscribe now for quick, incisive midday market analysis you won't find anywhere else. Valued at nearly $328 billion, AbbVie (ABBV) is a U.S.-based biopharmaceutical company focused on treating autoimmune disorders, cancers, neurological conditions, and aesthetic medical needs. Its strong cash flow, innovative research, and diverse portfolio of leading medicines position it as a global leader in both prescription therapeutics and aesthetics. AbbVie has a forward dividend yield of 3.5%, which is higher than the healthcare sector average of 1.58%. While the yield is appealing, a reasonable payout ratio indicates how much of its net income the company distributes as dividends while leaving enough to reinvest in the business. Its forward payout ratio of 46.9% is relatively low, indicating that dividend payments are sustainable and have room to grow. AbbVie is also a Dividend King, having paid and increased dividends for 53 straight years. AbbVie is best known for its blockbuster drug Humira, which treats autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, and psoriasis. However, to deal with Humira's patent expiration, the company has expanded its portfolio to include blockbuster drugs such as Skyrizi (for psoriasis and Crohn's) and Rinvoq (for rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis). In the most recent first quarter, Skyrizi's sales stood at $3.4 billion, up 70.5%, while Rinvoq's were $1.7 billion, up 57.2%. Adjusted earnings increased 6.5% in the quarter. Overall, Wall Street has assigned a 'Moderate Buy' rating to AbbVie stock. Out of 27 analysts covering the stock, 14 have a 'Strong Buy' rating, two suggest a 'Moderate Buy' rating, and 11 recommend a 'Hold' rating. The mean target price for ABBV is $208.88, which is 10% above its current levels. Its high price estimate of $250 implies potential upside of 33% over the next 12 months. AT&T (T) is a major American telecommunications company with a market capitalization of $208 billion. It offers wireless services, internet and broadband services, TV and streaming services, as well as business and enterprise solutions like network connectivity, cybersecurity, and cloud services. AT&T offers an attractive forward dividend yield of 3.85%, which is significantly higher than the communications sector average of 2.6%. Importantly, the company's forward payout ratio has improved to 49.7%, thanks to a simpler business model and strong free cash flow (FCF). In the first quarter, the company generated $3.1 billion in FCF, paying out dividends totaling $1.1 billion. Adjusted earnings per share rose by 6.3% in Q1. Furthermore, it expects to generate more than $16 billion in FCF by 2025, which should support dividend payouts. Overall, Wall Street rates AT&T stock as a "Moderate Buy.' Of the 28 analysts covering the stock, 17 recommend a "Strong Buy,' three recommend a 'Moderate Buy,' seven rate it a "Hold,' and one suggests a 'Strong Sell.' Currently, the stock is trading close to its average analyst target price of $29.21. Its high price target of $34, however, represents upside potential of 17.5% over the next 12 months. Valued at $45 billion, Target (TGT) is a major American retail company. Target is known for its low prices, trendy private-label brands, and excellent in-store and online shopping experiences. It also provides same-day delivery and curbside pickup. Target is part of the elite group of Dividend Aristocrats, a group of S&P 500 Index ($SPX) companies that have increased their dividends for at least 25 consecutive years. Target has raised its dividend annually for over 54 consecutive years as of 2025, also putting it in the even more exclusive Dividend Kings club. It recently increased its dividend by 1.8%. The company pays an attractive dividend yield of 4.4%, which is significantly higher than the consumer staples average of 1.9%. Behind every reliable dividend payer is a strong financial engine. While consumer spending can fluctuate, Target's business model enables it to adapt quickly. During a recession, consumers often migrate from premium retailers to value-oriented stores, giving Target a competitive edge. Target's adjusted earnings for the first quarter increased 11.8% to $2.27 per share. The company's payout ratio is within a sustainable range of 56.8%. This means Target has enough room to continue rewarding shareholders while reinvesting in its operations. Overall, Wall Street rates Target stock as a "Moderate Buy.' Of the 34 analysts covering the stock, eight recommend a "Strong Buy,' three say it is a 'Moderate Buy,' 21 rate it a "Hold,' and two suggest a 'Strong Sell.' Based on its average analyst target price of $110.25, the stock has upside potential of 10.9% from current levels. Plus, its high price target of $175 represents upside potential of 77.4% over the next 12 months. On the date of publication, Sushree Mohanty did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
