An EY exec tells BI how the consulting firm is helping companies integrate AI this year: 'This idea of up-skilling the entire workforce to use AI, I think it's kind of silly'
Between rapid technological progress and the lag of adoption, there's continued uncertainty about how AI will reshape the future of work.
Many employees are anxious about their value, for instance. Executives are at once captivated by the potential for profits and worried about keeping up with their competitors. Investors and company boards are frustrated by the losses they've already incurred from not moving fast enough.
Consulting firms are often at the heart of it all. From the outset, at least, they've positioned themselves as the go-to experts to help corporations understand and navigate this latest wave of technology.
Yet their work can often be as unclear as the technology itself. To demystify it, Business Insider spoke to EY's new chief technology officer for its Americas Consulting division on what AI really means for workers in 2025.
First off, are people losing jobs anytime soon?
There have been comments about cataclysmic unemployment rates that are gonna plunge us into the next Great Depression. I mean, I think it's interesting to think about those alternatives. It's just not what I'm seeing.
Broadly speaking, what can we expect to see from AI integration in the next year?
I think over the next year, you're going to see an increasing uptake in these copilots, these tools like the ChatGPTs and the private and public models, and interjecting some AI capability into existing enterprise applications, and increasing productivity and efficiency.
How is EY specifically helping clients integrate AI this year?
We're thinking a lot about what we're calling the next generation of enterprise applications — interfaces that present people with what they need based on their role, offer key AI insights, and let them act. The AI agents generate suggestions, and the human validates and approves.
We're piloting this now with some major clients, and it's been an incredible success. That's how we're thinking about the convergence of digital and human workforces — not just managing them together, but creating systems where AI augments people in a seamless way.
Can you provide an example of these applications in action?
If I'm a cruise director on a cruise ship, there are lots of things that impact how my guests enjoy the ship.
The makeup of the people on the ship, the weather, what day — if you're on a day at sea, or if you're going to a port — all of that stuff. There's data to be found there on what happens and how the guests behave. I mean like their buying activities, where they like to hang out, those types of things.
So, we can harness that information with AI agents to actually understand and predict what's going to happen. We know, for example, that tomorrow's weather is going to be bad, and it's a day at sea. We know historically how all of that affects the movement of people and the consumption of products, whether that be merchandise, food, or beverages.
So, we recommend that you take half of the people from this venue and move them to this venue. We recommend moving around products so you don't run out, because we know what demand is going to look like. We recommend redeploying people to do different things in anticipation of this. The AI will turn around and list out and build out that process automatically.
The human in the loop says, "Okay, that makes sense," or "I want to change this piece."
This is through a very visual, nice interface. They click go, and then there's a chain of orchestration that happens, in which people are notified, leadership is notified, supply chain changes on the ship.
What's the value of up-skilling here? How much do employees need to learn about AI?
They just know that they have a screen and an application that says, "Here's how much stuff you have now of this," and "Here's how many you have coming inbound," maybe. They don't need to know how the technology works. This idea of up-skilling the entire workforce to use AI — I think it's kind of silly.
How are you helping companies think through questions like this?
You need to look at the functions — rethink that. That also dovetails into the people part, right? You're not only just giving them technology that's AI-enabled, you're allowing them to start to rethink how they do their job, and how they can be more efficient at the job, and also provide more overall value and capability.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - We have filed the case that could overturn Wickard and limit Commerce Clause powers
Roscoe Filburn owned a wheat farm in rural Montgomery County, Ohio. When he used his own farm to feed his own family, he fell under the hammer of the federal government. It was 1938, and America was in the throes of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Agricultural commodity prices—and specifically, wheat prices—fluctuated wildly, costing farmers their fortunes, farms, and families. In an effort to stabilize wheat prices, the federal government intervened and artificially capped the amount of wheat each farmer could grow. It sought to shrink the wheat supply while demand remained the same, and thereby increase the wheat price. Under this federal policy, the government eventually fined Filburn. Justifiably skeptical that this was within the federal power, Filburn challenged the fine in court. The case was Wickard v. Filburn — one that lives in infamy and whose effects are felt strongly to this day. Unlike the state governments, the federal government is one of limited and enumerated power: It possesses only the powers specifically granted in the Constitution, and no others. As such, it based its wheat scheme on Congress's power 'to regulate Commerce … among the several States.' Widely known as the 'Interstate Commerce Clause,' as its text indicates, this federal power is restricted to commerce that takes place between states. Wheat and similar commodities are often bought, shipped, and sold across state lines, and their availability within one state can affect markets in others. On its face, then, intervention into the wheat market could seem a reasonable expression of the power to regulate interstate commerce. But the federal government went much further than that. Filburn's case began in 1940, when the federal government had imposed a wheat cap for Filburn's farm. He abided by that cap for wheat he sold on the market, but he retained some additional wheat to feed his family and his animals. Despite this wholly local, non-commercial use of his own wheat, the federal government fined him for exceeding his quota. After two years of proceedings, the Supreme Court notoriously sided with the government. The court's reasoning? By eating wheat he grew himself, Filburn was failing to buy wheat on the national market, and by not buying wheat on the national market, he was engaging in an activity which, if others were to follow suit, could affect that national market. The federal government could therefore regulate even Filburn's family activity on his own farm in Ohio because it could hypothetically affect interstate commerce. Congress and federal agencies have taken that reasoning and run with it ever since. Under the logic of this precedent and ensuing cases, the federal commerce power has stretched to reach virtually every activity under the sun. To this day, the federal government uses these cases to assert a nearly limitless sweep of power. The Commerce Clause has become a catch-all justification for thousands of federal laws and regulations. Agricultural production? Interstate commerce. Public health? Interstate commerce. Obscure spider species? Interstate commerce. Real estate disclosures? Also, somehow, interstate commerce. For decades, public-interest lawyers like ourselves have sought to rework this line of jurisprudence. In April, our firm, the Center for the American Future, filed Corley v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, with the aim of restoring the Constitution's proper balance of power in this space. The plaintiffs in that case, a real estate attorney and a property owner in Lubbock, Texas, want to transfer residential real estate into a legal entity. This should be as simple as filling out the deed, handling the closing details, and signing the paperwork — that is how it has always worked. And real estate is about the most 'local' activity there is. It does not cross state lines, and each property is intrinsically unique. It is a stretch to say that such an activity, especially when no financing has been secured and no money has changed hands, falls within interstate commerce. But, predictably, the federal government has argues otherwise. The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as 'FinCEN,' has put in place roadblocks, rules, penalties, and paperwork for this simple intrastate activity. These extra steps require the disclosure of sensitive information, such as social security numbers, birthdates, closing costs, financing, and other data. FinCEN's claimed purpose is to combat money laundering, but its restrictions apply to every single person making a covered real estate transfer, regardless of whether he or she is suspected of a crime. Most importantly, the regulations apply with no regard to interstate commerce. Even if the property is next-door and is transferred for free, according to FinCEN, the agency can reach it under the Commerce Clause. Our Constitution is clear in restricting federal power. Whether Congress legislates or an executive agency regulates, no part of the federal government may expand beyond the powers set forth in the Constitution. For more than 80 years, those restrictions have been ignored as the federal commerce power has been pushed beyond the bounds of reason. But the Center for the American Future, through carefully crafted legal arguments, hopes to restore the Constitution's careful balance of power. Clayton Calvin is an attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation's litigation arm, the Center for the American Future. Matt Miller is a senior attorney in the Center for the American Future. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
12 Next-Gen AI And Social Startups Backed By Thrive Capital And Y Combinator Shaping 2025: 'We're On The Brink Of Another Big Consumer Wave'
A new wave of AI-driven consumer startups is gaining traction among investors in 2025, with many of these platforms blending artificial intelligence with real-world interaction to reshape how people connect, discover, and build communities, Business Insider reports. Vanessa Larco, former New Enterprise Associates partner and founder of the venture firm Premise, told Business Insider, "We're on the brink of another big consumer wave" as interest returns to early-stage consumer tech startups. Don't Miss: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Named a TIME Best Invention and Backed by 5,000+ Users, Kara's Air-to-Water Pod Cuts Plastic and Costs — The following 12 companies were identified by venture capitalists as emerging leaders across dating, social networking, faith, fashion, and in-person experience, with several being backed by top firms including Y Combinator and Thrive Capital. 1. Sitch This AI matchmaking app uses a chatbot trained by human matchmakers to suggest five setups per week, with tiers from $90 to $160, Business Insider reports. Larco, through Premise, has invested in the company as an angel investor. 2. Margins Margins is a social reading platform designed for the BookTok generation. Since launching in December, the app has grown to approximately 130,000 users. According to Business Insider, the startup has drawn interest from investors including Rhian Horton at Stellation Capital, though the firm has not backed the company to date. 3. Tolan Tolan is an AI companion platform designed to simulate conversation and connection. The startup is among those being closely watched by Larco, though she has not invested in the company, Business Insider says. 4. Swsh Swsh is a Gen Z-focused photo-sharing platform designed for live events like Rolling Loud and Electric Daisy Carnival Vegas. According to its website, Swsh uses AI to help users surface photos and videos from shared albums and includes group chat features for real-time connection. Trending: GoSun's Breakthrough Rooftop EV Charger Already Has 2,000+ Units Reserved — 5. Doji Virtual try-on for fashion, Doji uses AI to generate avatars showing designer clothes and raised $14 million in a Thrive Capital-led seed round, according to Business Insider. 6. Bible Chat An AI chatbot trained on the Bible, Bible Chat has 25 million users and $16 million in funding, Business Insider says. The company's funding reflects growing investor interest in spiritual AI platforms. 7. Series This Yale-founded professional networking app employs AI agents to connect early-career users. According to Business Insider, it has strong early-stage capital behind it, fueling interest from investors drawn to AI-driven professional tools. 8. Beli A real-world dining tracker, Beli gamifies restaurant visits with friend ranking in 30,000 cities and over 65 million ratings. The startup has raised $12 million in funding and highlights how AI and real-world interaction are fueling investor interest, Business Insider says. 9. Lore A fandom-centric AI platform, Lore is still in beta but has caught VC attention for its focus on niche communities, according to Business Insider. 10. Status Status is an AI-powered social platform that lets users interact with fictional characters designed to simulate social media experiences. The app was launched by a team that went through Y Combinator in 2022 and has attracted over 2.5 million users to date. Investors including FirstMark's Derek Chu and Patron's Amber Atherton named Status as a startup to watch, though neither firm has backed the company, Business Insider says.11. Spillt Called "Goodreads for recipes," Spillt lets users clip and share recipes and has collected over 400,000 items. Business Insider says that by combining social discovery and cooking, Spillt shows how niche apps build truly engaged communities. 12. Gigi Marketed as "the AI who knows everyone," Gigi connects users via personalized AI matchmaking. Gigi is co-founded by Clara Gold and backed by Intuition VC angel Hugo Amsellem, according to Business Insider. Artificial intelligence continues to shape the investment landscape in consumer startups. Paul Warren, CEO of Margins, told Business Insider that there have been "no real crazy big raises... unless it is a really strong gen AI angle." That shift in funding strategy is driving the rise of startups that combine AI with specific, high-engagement use cases. General platforms are losing ground to niche communities, Business Insider says. According to Warren, users are turning toward "much smaller things, cozier things, much more niche-oriented things." Read Next: Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. Image: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article 12 Next-Gen AI And Social Startups Backed By Thrive Capital And Y Combinator Shaping 2025: 'We're On The Brink Of Another Big Consumer Wave' originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
We have filed the case that could overturn Wickard and limit Commerce Clause powers
Roscoe Filburn owned a wheat farm in rural Montgomery County, Ohio. When he used his own farm to feed his own family, he fell under the hammer of the federal government. It was 1938, and America was in the throes of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Agricultural commodity prices—and specifically, wheat prices—fluctuated wildly, costing farmers their fortunes, farms, and families. In an effort to stabilize wheat prices, the federal government intervened and artificially capped the amount of wheat each farmer could grow. It sought to shrink the wheat supply while demand remained the same, and thereby increase the wheat price. Under this federal policy, the government eventually fined Filburn. Justifiably skeptical that this was within the federal power, Filburn challenged the fine in court. The case was Wickard v. Filburn — one that lives in infamy and whose effects are felt strongly to this day. Unlike the state governments, the federal government is one of limited and enumerated power: It possesses only the powers specifically granted in the Constitution, and no others. As such, it based its wheat scheme on Congress's power 'to regulate Commerce … among the several States.' Widely known as the 'Interstate Commerce Clause,' as its text indicates, this federal power is restricted to commerce that takes place between states. Wheat and similar commodities are often bought, shipped, and sold across state lines, and their availability within one state can affect markets in others. On its face, then, intervention into the wheat market could seem a reasonable expression of the power to regulate interstate commerce. But the federal government went much further than that. Filburn's case began in 1940, when the federal government had imposed a wheat cap for Filburn's farm. He abided by that cap for wheat he sold on the market, but he retained some additional wheat to feed his family and his animals. Despite this wholly local, non-commercial use of his own wheat, the federal government fined him for exceeding his quota. After two years of proceedings, the Supreme Court notoriously sided with the government. The court's reasoning? By eating wheat he grew himself, Filburn was failing to buy wheat on the national market, and by not buying wheat on the national market, he was engaging in an activity which, if others were to follow suit, could affect that national market. The federal government could therefore regulate even Filburn's family activity on his own farm in Ohio because it could hypothetically affect interstate commerce. Congress and federal agencies have taken that reasoning and run with it ever since. Under the logic of this precedent and ensuing cases, the federal commerce power has stretched to reach virtually every activity under the sun. To this day, the federal government uses these cases to assert a nearly limitless sweep of power. The Commerce Clause has become a catch-all justification for thousands of federal laws and regulations. Agricultural production? Interstate commerce. Public health? Interstate commerce. Obscure spider species? Interstate commerce. Real estate disclosures? Also, somehow, interstate commerce. For decades, public-interest lawyers like ourselves have sought to rework this line of jurisprudence. In April, our firm, the Center for the American Future, filed Corley v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, with the aim of restoring the Constitution's proper balance of power in this space. The plaintiffs in that case, a real estate attorney and a property owner in Lubbock, Texas, want to transfer residential real estate into a legal entity. This should be as simple as filling out the deed, handling the closing details, and signing the paperwork — that is how it has always worked. And real estate is about the most 'local' activity there is. It does not cross state lines, and each property is intrinsically unique. It is a stretch to say that such an activity, especially when no financing has been secured and no money has changed hands, falls within interstate commerce. But, predictably, the federal government has argues otherwise. The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as 'FinCEN,' has put in place roadblocks, rules, penalties, and paperwork for this simple intrastate activity. These extra steps require the disclosure of sensitive information, such as social security numbers, birthdates, closing costs, financing, and other data. FinCEN's claimed purpose is to combat money laundering, but its restrictions apply to every single person making a covered real estate transfer, regardless of whether he or she is suspected of a crime. Most importantly, the regulations apply with no regard to interstate commerce. Even if the property is next-door and is transferred for free, according to FinCEN, the agency can reach it under the Commerce Clause. Our Constitution is clear in restricting federal power. Whether Congress legislates or an executive agency regulates, no part of the federal government may expand beyond the powers set forth in the Constitution. For more than 80 years, those restrictions have been ignored as the federal commerce power has been pushed beyond the bounds of reason. But the Center for the American Future, through carefully crafted legal arguments, hopes to restore the Constitution's careful balance of power. Clayton Calvin is an attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation's litigation arm, the Center for the American Future. Matt Miller is a senior attorney in the Center for the American Future.
