Latest news with #MITTechnologyReview
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DesignRush Unveils U.S. State Rankings for AI Tool Energy Costs
Miami, Florida--(Newsfile Corp. - June 25, 2025) - DesignRush, a B2B marketplace connecting businesses with agencies, has just released a new report analyzing the hidden energy cost of AI. Using consumption estimates from MIT Technology Review and electricity pricing from the report presents the first state-by-state breakdown of how much U.S. businesses pay in electricity to run their AI tools. Key Takeaways on AI Operating Costs Based on typical AI tools usage from OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and other productivity AI chatbots, the average AI electricity use per employee is 754 kilowatt-hours annually - about the same as running a refrigerator. The average energy cost per AI-using employee is $114/year. Hawaii is the most expensive state, with businesses paying over $3,276 per year on average to power their AI tools, due to the nation's highest electricity rate ($0.40/kWh) and fifth-highest energy use. South Dakota, on the other hand, is the most affordable, with businesses paying just $497 annually. This is due to both low AI energy use (4,314 kWh per business) and a lower electricity rate of just $0.12 per kWh, one of the lowest in the country. High-adoption states like Texas and Florida balance scale with affordability: Texas: 148,000+ AI-using businesses at $663/year each. Florida: High adoption with moderate cost of $815/year. This ranking is based on state-level AI adoption rates, employee usage estimates, and commercial electricity prices, revealing the true cost behind the growing use of generative and productivity AI tools. As AI use scales, understanding operational energy costs becomes vital for budgeting, ESG compliance, and infrastructure planning. Top 5 Most Expensive States for Businesses to Run AI Rank State Avg Cost per kWh AI's Energy Demand per Year (kWh) Annual AI Cost per Business 1 Hawaii $0.40 24.62M $3,276.47 2 Massachusetts $0.27 281.16M $2,149.78 3 Maine $0.23 43.66M $1,981.73 4 California $0.27 1.54B $1,975.82 5 Alaska $0.20 28.07M $1,631.64 6 New York $0.22 556.25M $1,617.09 7 New Hampshire $0.22 38.90M $1,518.09 8 Rhode Island $0.25 42.28M $1,477.87 9 Connecticut $0.26 101.65M $1,412.06 10 Vermont $0.21 21.92M $1,353.32 Top 5 Most Affordable States to Run AI: Rank State Avg Cost per kWh AI Energy Consumption per Business (kWh) Annual AI Cost per Business 1 South Dakota $0.12 4314.05 $496.98 2 North Dakota $0.09 5896.55 $513.00 3 Nebraska $0.09 5746.57 $545.35 4 North Carolina $0.12 4951.7 $604.60 5 Utah $0.09 6979.72 $656.09 6 Texas $0.12 5486.2 $663.28 7 Wyoming $0.10 6756.86 $704.74 8 Montana $0.11 6182.52 $705.43 9 Idaho $0.10 7409.29 $715.74 10 Washington $0.11 6435.72 $721.44 The full dataset includes each state's AI adoption rates, employee estimates, electricity usage, and dollar cost per business, helping organizations benchmark the operational footprint of their AI tools. About DesignRush is a B2B marketplace and media platform connecting businesses with agencies through expert reviews and agency ranking lists, awards, knowledge resources, and personalized agency recommendations for vetted projects. Media ContactAnonta Khananonta@ SOURCE: DesignRush To view the source version of this press release, please visit
Forbes
17-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
20 Ways To Turn Marketing Missteps Into Smarter Strategy Moves
getty Every communications professional has a story about a campaign that didn't land as they hoped. Maybe the message missed the mark, the audience didn't respond or the timing was off—whatever the reason, these "flops" often teach us the most. The key is taking the time to unpack what really went wrong and why, without rushing to move on. Below, 20 Forbes Communications Council members share some reflections and practical takeaways from past marketing misfires. These lessons can sharpen your instincts, strengthen your planning and help you spot weak points before they become costly. The failed campaign, the failed idea, is always an important reminder to take the swing and swing hard. What I took away from that moment was that it is vital to take the swing—armed with the research and information, coupled with what your experience tells you—and to trust it. Even if it "fails," you learn more from that swing and that informs the successes that are sure to follow. - Nina Mehta, MIT Technology Review Every failed campaign is a reminder to step outside our echo chamber. Great ideas need validation through data, testing and audience feedback. The biggest lesson? Strategy isn't just creative; it's collaborative. Success comes when we create with our audience, not just for them. - Lyric Mandell, PhD, MOXY Company Marketing involves risk and experimentation; we all have our share of flops. I learned that replicating a competitor's success didn't work for us, even if it was a good idea. The key is to learn, experiment and be creative, but focus on your unique brand, voice and value. That early flop shaped my approach. - Kayla Spiess, Searce Embracing failure as a learning experience is the core of an experiment-centric mindset. Taking calculated risks, prioritizing learning over pure performance and answering "Why didn't it work as expected?' creates the psychological safety needed to keep pushing boundaries. Teams working under this culture are up to two times more productive and three times more innovative than teams led without this framework. - Vanina Marcote, IBM I've absolutely had ideas flop, and it always comes down to losing sight of the data because I fell in love with a preconceived narrative. The biggest lesson? Your gut is powerful, but it needs grounding. Now I anchor every creative impulse in data and dialogue, relying on the team's collective wisdom as a sounding board to verify and refine intuition into something truly impactful. - Joshua Stratton, Against The Current Forbes Communications Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify? Yes, we once launched a campaign focusing only on product features, and it fell flat. The key lesson was to shift from product-first to audience-first messaging. Now, every campaign starts with audience pain points, ensuring a relevant emotional connection and better engagement. - Saakshar Duggal, Artificial Intelligence Law Hub One of the most valuable lessons I've learned in marketing is that just because you have a clever idea doesn't mean it'll succeed without a little extra creativity. I once launched a social campaign that sounded great on paper but flopped in execution. It taught me that smart concepts need bold strategies and out-of-the-box ideas, like influencer partnerships or unexpected approaches, to truly connect. - Victoria Zelefsky, Anne Arundel Economic Development Corporation Yes—I once led a campaign that flopped because we assumed the audience knew our industry's jargon. The visuals were strong, but the message didn't land. The lesson? Test your messaging early. Now, I always bring in audience feedback before launch to avoid internal tunnel vision and ensure we're solving real problems, not just creating noise. - Maria Alonso, Fortune 206 I once launched a campaign with a focus on broad audience appeal, hoping to reach a wide demographic. It underperformed because it lacked specificity and didn't resonate deeply with any one group. The biggest lesson I learned was the importance of understanding your target audience's unique needs. Now, I focus on personalization and segmentation to ensure campaigns speak directly to the right ICP. - Antony Robinson, Novalnet AG We launched a digital campaign to gather video-based customer stories at scale through a vendor platform. The team tested different channels and messages, and even added incentives, but it didn't get us any stories. A few months later, we got 150 videos at our annual conference with the same mechanism, in a lively in-person setting. Context and timing often matter more than tools or incentives. - Rinita Datta, Cisco Systems, Inc. We once launched an email campaign filled with clever puns and eye-catching visuals, thinking creativity alone would drive engagement. It completely flopped. The biggest lesson we learned was that clarity always beats cleverness. Now, our focus remains on crafting messages that are clear, relevant and value-driven, ensuring the audience immediately understands what's in it for them. - Lauren Parr, RepuGen Our client insisted on placing our spokesperson on a daytime talk show, despite our target audience—senior execs and decision-makers—not watching. We advised against it and suggested more relevant platforms, but the talk show took priority. The result: lack of impact and board disappointment. The lesson: Always align strategy with where your target audience truly engages. - Katie Jewett, UPRAISE Marketing + Public Relations I've written sizzle reels that felt spot-on in the script but didn't work once they were cut. Or I loved it, and the client didn't. That's the creative space. Not everything hits. When it flops, I look at what landed and why. Sometimes it takes a walk around the block to accept the criticism. Creative work isn't about getting it right every time. It's about staying open-minded and trying again. - Rich Bornstein, Bornstein Media Our audience is giving us clues every day. If we listen to our audience, we build ideas based on their needs. However, if we jump into a conference room without the right research and analytics, we make the mistake of thinking we are so smart that we don't need research. That's pretty rare, and customers have a way of reminding us to listen. - Bob Pearson, The Next Practices Group In a previous role, my team tried to publish the company's first original research report based on trends and insights from platform usage. I underestimated the reliability of the data, and we failed. Since then, I've been able to produce multiple reports. Now, my first question is, "Do we have access to the right data to generate meaningful insights?" We only go ahead if I'm happy with the answer. - Rekha Thomas, Path Forward Marketing Not every idea lands—and that's the point. Real growth doesn't come from playing it safe. The magic is in the process, not just the outcome. I've learned to expect some misalignment, ask for feedback, embrace the discomfort and keep going anyway. Creative risk refines your craft, and failure is the cost of growth. - Amber Roussel Cavallo, Civic Builders We were so convinced our edgy, disruptive approach would resonate with a younger audience. We went all-in, pushing boundaries we thought our competitors wouldn't dare to cross. However, it turns out we misread the cultural moment—what we thought was daring came across as tone-deaf and, frankly, alienated a significant portion of our target demographic. The backlash was educational. - Patrick Ward, NanoGlobals Yes, all marketers have ideas that flop. It doesn't always mean the campaign or product was bad. Timing often plays a bigger role than we admit. The key is to dig into the data and ask: Was it poor messaging, product readiness or market timing? Some of my best-performing ideas today were ones that initially failed. I just launched too soon. - Prateek Panda, The biggest lesson I learned from flopping ideas is that reach without relevance is just noise, meaning you are just burning the budget if you don't back the hype with user value. For that reason, every idea must clear a north-star KPI and deliver a clear benefit before launch. - Jamie Elkaleh, Bitget Wallet Every marketer has ideas or campaigns that fail. Not every test beats the control. Every new idea is just a test to compare against what you are already doing. So, failure is simply part of the process. No marketing initiative is truly a failure as long as you learn from it. Every idea that underperforms teaches you more about what doesn't work. Learn from every campaign and you'll never "fail." - Tom Wozniak, OPTIZMO Technologies, LLC
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future?
The US state of Montana has become the first in the country to let patients try experimental drugs – even if they are not terminally ill. The new law allows doctors to refer patients to licensed 'experimental treatment centres', where they can access drugs that have only passed phase 1 clinical trials – the earliest stage of testing in humans. This goes far beyond existing federal law, which only allows terminally ill patients to access such drugs under the Right to Try Act, passed in 2017. Montana already had a fairly permissive right to try law, which was originally designed to let terminally ill patients access treatments that hadn't yet received full approval by the drug regulator. In 2023, that law was expanded to include patients with any medical condition. The latest law goes even further, creating a formal system for clinics to offer these experimental treatments. According to an article in MIT Technology Review, the new law was shaped and promoted by a group of longevity advocates – a mix of scientists and influencers who are focused on extending human life. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Before new medicines reach the market, they usually go through several stages of testing. A phase 1 trial is the first step in human studies and is designed to find a safe dose and spot early side-effects. It typically involves a small group – between 20 and 100 people – and does not prove the drug works. Only around 12% of drugs that enter phase 1 trials go on to gain full approval. Many fail due to safety issues or lack of effectiveness. Montana's new law allows access to these early-stage treatments with a doctor's recommendation – even for patients who are not terminally ill. Clinics must be licensed as experimental treatment centres, and 2% of their profits must be used to help low-income patients access these therapies. Supporters say it gives people more control over their own health and could help boost innovation in areas like cancer, neurodegenerative disease and age-related decline. There is also hope it could turn Montana into a destination for medical tourism, attracting biotech investment. But critics warn that the move could put vulnerable patients at risk. Drugs in phase 1 trials may be safe enough to test – but their long-term effects are still unknown, and they may not work. There are also concerns over whether insurers will cover complications, since the drugs are not approved. Legal protections for both patients and doctors remain unclear. Elsewhere in the world, access to experimental drugs is more tightly controlled. In the UK, experimental drugs are usually only available through formal clinical trials or special 'compassionate use' requests – all subject to strict oversight by regulators like the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority. The same applies across the EU, where compassionate use is typically limited to drugs in later stages of testing. Japan has a similar system, called 'expanded access clinical trials', which also limits use to drugs already in phase 2 or beyond. And in South America, some countries allow patients to keep receiving experimental drugs after trials end – but not to start them outside of a trial. Montana's decision marks a bold new approach in the continuing debate over patient rights. It raises big questions about safety, ethics, regulation and the role of government in balancing innovation with public health. It could end up being a model for other states – or a cautionary tale. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Stargate and beyond: The global data centre arms race
In May 2025, OpenAI announced its plans to develop a new data centre in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This planned 5GW data centre campus may become one of the largest in the world. The development is linked to the broader Stargate Project, a $500bn AI infrastructure initiative focused on building large-scale data centres across the United States. For every dollar the UAE invests in Stargate UAE and the broader data centre project in Abu Dhabi, the UAE will invest an additional dollar in US AI infrastructure. This latest development highlights the US' race to progress in AI. The Stargate Project involves a joint venture between OpenAI, SoftBank, Oracle, and MGX, and aims to create a network of facilities to support AI training and development. The project is intended to expand existing AI infrastructure and establish the US as a leader in AI innovation. China, however, is not falling behind. The central government had designated AI infrastructure as a national priority, urging governments to accelerate the development of AI-focused data centres. Hundreds of new infrastructure projects were announced in 2023 and 2024. Interestingly, in March 2025, the MIT Technology Review revealed that there was an underutilisation of data centres in China, probably due to a weaker demand than expected, plus the shifts in AI trends with the rise of DeepSeek. In Q1 2025, DeepSeek released a reasoning model called R1 that achieved performance comparable to ChatGPT o1 but at a significantly lower cost. This made many AI companies rethink their requirements for hardware and scale. Globally, as demand for data storage and processing surges, data centre expansion accelerates. According to GlobalData, the number of data centre projects by construction start date remained relatively stable between 2019 and 2024, before surging in 2025 due to companies scaling up data centre projects to support growing AI workloads. GlobalData also estimates that combined investment in new infrastructure construction projects by Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft will grow 114% in 2025 compared to 2024. On April 2, 2025, US President Donald Trump imposed various tariffs on imports into the US, sending global financial markets into turmoil. The announcement has disrupted the global economy and is expected to negatively impact the US data centre industry. Steel and aluminium are essential materials for data centres, used not only in their construction but also in critical components like power equipment and cooling systems. The 25% tariff on all US steel and aluminium imports, first announced in February 2025, will increase construction and component costs, raising the cost per square foot of new data centres. As a result, there is likely to be a reduction in investments in infrastructure projects in the US for the foreseeable future. Data centres currently in the planning or pre-construction phase will likely be hit hardest economically. Increased material costs could lead to scaled-back plans, delayed timelines, or a shift toward regions with more stable prices. Data centres rely on advanced chips to power AI models, cloud computing, and any high-performance workload. Currently, semiconductors are exempt from the new tariffs. However, imported equipment used to produce chips is not exempt from tariffs. The increased cost of chip-related components will be passed down to the companies building data centres, thus slowing their upgrades and expansion. These infrastructures are also notoriously energy-intensive and increasingly use renewables to meet sustainability targets. In recent years, spurred by technological developments and favourable policy incentives, North America's energy transition has gathered pace. A key part of this transition has been the rapid expansion of energy storage, which is crucial to grid stability. However, the current administration may delay North America's energy transition and shift away from renewables and back to thermal power and conventional fuels. With the US reliant on Chinese lithium-ion batteries, these tariffs will significantly impact energy storage development, including the battery energy storage systems (BESSs) deployed in data centres. More broadly, reduced support for energy transition technologies may limit the centres' ability to source renewable energy. In addition, these centres face challenges from a congested power grid, and tariffs on key materials like steel and aluminium are worsening the issue. The cost of essential grid components, which rely on steel, will likely rise, potentially delaying infrastructure upgrades. These delays threaten the reliable power supply needed for large-scale data centres. It will be difficult for companies that build and operate data centres to scale AI capabilities and digital infrastructure while navigating an increasingly fragmented global economic and geopolitical landscape. As a result of these challenges, the cost of data centre capacity is expected to rise, with these increases ultimately being passed down to enterprises and consumers. "Stargate and beyond: The global data centre arms race" was originally created and published by Verdict, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. 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
Technical.ly
27-05-2025
- Business
- Technical.ly
What Pennsylvania stands to lose if federal research dollars dry up
This is a guest post by Thomas P. Foley, a former college president and the current president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania. In early March, on behalf of 85 independent nonprofit colleges, I sent a letter to Congress about the many ways that funding research benefits each one of us. In the weeks since, this topic has exploded across news headlines, as the effects of cuts to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) become clear. Your daily routine — even what you're doing right now, reading an online article — is likely shaped by the innovations born from academic research funded with federal dollars. I could list hundreds of examples for you, many even pioneered in PA, like WiFi and Java code, but simply put, according to the MIT Technology Review, 'every major technological transformation in the US, from electric cars to Google to the iPhone, can trace its roots back to basic science research once funded by the federal government.' NIH and NSF funding is a major economic driver for Pennsylvania. In fact, Pennsylvania ranks fourth in the nation in winning NIH federal research grants. Local researchers won $1.8 billion in NIH funds last year alone, and just one year of NIH funding in Pennsylvania generates $5.2 billion in economic activity and supports 21,787 jobs. NSF funding amounted to another $332 million for Pennsylvania in fiscal year 2024. Every one of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania, whether rural or urban, receives research funding through NIH and NSF. Cutting these programs is estimated to mean a $27 million loss to Dauphin County (Harrisburg), $259 million loss to Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), and a $397 million loss in Philadelphia. Cutting research funding means real dollars that will be pulled out of Pennsylvania's economy. Education is an export that pays off Don't sell education short. Higher ed is doing the heavy lifting for our state's economy. One of the nation's biggest exports is education, even bigger than coal, corn and natural gas. The PA Chamber of Business and Industry found that the 5 th largest industry in PA isn't steel – it's higher education. Two hundred thousand jobs in PA are supported by the independent nonprofit higher ed sector alone, with thousands more jobs supported by our outstanding trade schools, community colleges and state-owned and state-related colleges. We've made strides in ' brain gain ' here in Pennsylvania, and we changed a Rust Belt narrative into a story of success. PA is a magnet for talent, our colleges attract the second highest number of out-of-state college students in the country (considered an economic 'export' for the state), and the number of college graduates moving into the state has ticked up (51% increase in 2023 according to Newsweek). Sixteen percent of all American Nobel Prize winners were affiliated with one of Pennsylvania's independent nonprofit universities and colleges. We're winning in innovation, and we've made a thriving ecosystem where university research fuels businesses and supports startup culture. So why lose all that by reversing course and cutting the research that underpins our state's prosperity? An impending brain drain Nationwide, we're looking at potentially 68,000 job losses due to NIH cuts alone, according to the Science & Community Impacts Mapping Project. That doesn't include the unknown loss in medical breakthroughs or tech innovations that won't happen now without much-needed research. The losses pile up from there. Universities are cutting back on their doctoral programs, which means fewer doctors at your local hospital and fewer researchers working on treatments for diabetes and cancer. Foreign countries are actively seizing their moment to poach American talent and lure away our best and brightest minds (see: Australia, China, EU, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, South Korea). Remember, WWII and the Cold War were fought in labs and lecture halls as well as on battlefields when America was a shining beacon for émigré scientists (see: Manhattan Project, Project Paperclip). Tomorrow's competitive edge can be found today on college campuses where A.I. and drones were first developed, and Pennsylvania's higher ed sector is already a significant contributor to our nation's isn't about conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. In fact, in years past, it was a Republican who pushed for more funding for higher ed and NASA, when President Eisenhower realized the competitive advantage of America's universities. Let's not give away what took so many years to win.
