A dangerous strain of bird flu is spreading in US livestockMediaMedium/Alamy Since Donald Trump assumed office in January, the leading US public health agency has pulled back preparations for a potential bird flu pandemic. But as it steps back, another government agency is stepping up. While the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) previously held regular briefings on its efforts to prevent a wider outbreak of a deadly bird flu virus called H5N1 in people, it largely stopped once Trump took office. It has also cancelled funding for a vaccine that would have targeted the virus. In contrast, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has escalated its fight against H5N1’s spread in poultry flocks and dairy herds, including by funding the development of livestock vaccines. This particular virus – a strain of avian influenza called H5N1 – poses a significant threat to humans, having killed about half of the roughly 1000 people worldwide who tested positive for it since 2003. While the pathogen spreads rapidly in birds, it is poorly adapted to infecting humans and isn’t known to transmit between people. But that could change if it acquires mutations that allow it to spread more easily among mammals – a risk that increases with each mammalian infection. The possibility of H5N1 evolving to become more dangerous to people has grown significantly since March 2024, when the virus jumped from migratory birds to dairy cows in Texas. More than 1,070 herds across 17 states have been affected since then. H5N1 also infects poultry, placing the virus in closer proximity to people. Since 2022, nearly 175 million domestic birds have been culled in the US due to H5N1, and almost all of the 71 people who have tested positive for it had direct contact with livestock. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter “We need to take this seriously because when [H5N1] constantly is spreading, it’s constantly spilling over into humans,” says Seema Lakdawala at Emory University in Georgia. The virus has already killed a person in the US and a child in Mexico this year. Still, cases have declined under Trump. The last recorded human case was in February, and the number of affected poultry flocks fell 95 per cent between then and June. Outbreaks in dairy herds have also stabilised. It isn’t clear what is behind the decline. Lakdawala believes it is partly due to a lull in bird migration, which reduces opportunities for the virus to spread from wild birds to livestock. It may also reflect efforts by the USDA to contain outbreaks on farms. In February, the USDA unveiled a $1 billion plan for tackling H5N1, including strengthening farmers’ defences against the virus, such as through free biosecurity assessments. Of the 150 facilities that have undergone assessment, only one has experienced an H5N1 outbreak. Under Trump, the USDA also continued its National Milk Testing Strategy, which mandates farms provide raw milk samples for influenza testing. If a farm is positive for H5N1, it must allow the USDA to monitor livestock and implement measures to contain the virus. The USDA launched the programme in December and has since ramped up participation to 45 states. “The National Milk Testing Strategy is a fantastic system,” says Erin Sorrell at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. Along with the USDA’s efforts to improve biosecurity measures on farms, milk testing is crucial for containing the outbreak, says Sorrell. But while the USDA has bolstered its efforts against H5N1, the HHS doesn’t appear to have followed suit. In fact, the recent drop in human cases may reflect decreased surveillance due to workforce cuts, says Sorrell. In April, the HHS laid off about 10,000 employees, including 90 per cent of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an office that helps investigate H5N1 outbreaks in farm workers. “There is an old saying that if you don’t test for something, you can’t find it,” says Sorrell. Yet a spokesperson for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says its guidance and surveillance efforts have not changed. “State and local health departments continue to monitor for illness in persons exposed to sick animals,” they told New Scientist. “CDC remains committed to rapidly communicating information as needed about H5N1.” The USDA and HHS also diverge on vaccination. While the USDA has allocated $100 million toward developing vaccines and other solutions for preventing H5N1’s spread in livestock, the HHS cancelled $776 million in contracts for influenza vaccine development. The contracts – terminated on 28 May – were with the pharmaceutical company Moderna to develop vaccines targeting flu subtypes, including H5N1, that could cause future pandemics. The news came the same day Moderna reported nearly 98 per cent of the roughly 300 participants who received two doses of the H5 vaccine in a clinical trial had antibody levels believed to be protective against the virus. The US has about five million H5N1 vaccine doses stockpiled, but these are made using eggs and cultured cells, which take longer to produce than mRNA-based vaccines like Moderna’s. The Moderna vaccine would have modernised the stockpile and enabled the government to rapidly produce vaccines in the event of a pandemic, says Sorrell. “It seems like a very effective platform and would have positioned the US and others to be on good footing if and when we needed a vaccine for our general public,” she says. The HHS cancelled the contracts due to concerns about mRNA vaccines, which Robert F Kennedy Jr – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – has previously cast doubt on. “The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration,” said HHS communications director Andrew Nixon in a statement to New Scientist. However, mRNA technology isn’t new. It has been in development for more than half a century and numerous clinical trials have shown mRNA vaccines are safe. While they do carry the risk of side effects – the majority of which are mild – this is true of almost every medical treatment. In a press release, Moderna said it would explore alternative funding paths for the programme. “My stance is that we should not be looking to take anything off the table, and that includes any type of vaccine regimen,” says Lakdawala. “Vaccines are the most effective way to counter an infectious disease,” says Sorrell. “And so having that in your arsenal and ready to go just give you more options.” Topics:

Meta is reportedly set to invest $15 billion to acquire a 49% stake in Scale AI, in a deal that would make Scale CEO Alexandr Wang head of the tech giant’s new AI unit dedicated to pursuing “superintelligence.”Scale AI, founded in 2016, is a leading data annotation firm that hires workers around the world to label or create the data that is used to train AI systems.The deal is expected to greatly enrich Wang and many of his colleagues with equity in Scale AI; Wang, already a billionaire, would see his wealth grow even further. For Meta, it would breathe new life into the company’s flagging attempts to compete at the “frontier” of AI against OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic.However, Scale’s contract workers, many of whom earn just dollars per day via a subsidiary called RemoTasks, are unlikely to benefit at all from the deal, according to sociologists who study the sector. Typically data workers are not formally employed, and are instead paid for the tasks they complete. Those tasks can include labeling the contents of images, answering questions, or rating which of two chatbots’ answers are better, in order to teach AI systems to better comply with human preferences.(TIME has a content partnership with Scale AI.)“I expect few if any Scale annotators will see any upside at all,” says Callum Cant, a senior lecturer at the University of Essex, U.K., who studies gig work platforms. “It would be very surprising to see some kind of feed-through. Most of these people don’t have a stake in ownership of the company.”Many of those workers already suffer from low pay and poor working conditions. In a recent report by Oxford University’s Internet Institute, the Scale subsidiary RemoTasks failed to meet basic standards for fair pay, fair contracts, fair management, and fair worker representation.Advertisement“A key part of Scale’s value lies in its data work services performed by hundreds of thousands of underpaid and poorly protected workers,” says Jonas Valente, an Oxford researcher who worked on the report. “The company remains far from safeguarding basic standards of fair work, despite limited efforts to improve its practices.”The Meta deal is unlikely to change that. “Unfortunately, the increasing profits of many digital labor platforms and their primary companies, such as the case of Scale, do not translate into better conditions for [workers],” Valente says.A Scale AI spokesperson declined to comment for this story. “We're proud of the flexible earning opportunities offered through our platforms,” the company said in a statement to TechCrunch in May. Meta’s investment also calls into question whether Scale AI will continue supplying data to OpenAI and Google, two of its major clients. In the increasingly competitive AI landscape, observers say Meta may see value in cutting off its rivals from annotated data — an essential means of making AI systems smarter. Advertisement“By buying up access to Scale AI, could Meta deny access to that platform and that avenue for data annotation by other competitors?” says Cant. “It depends entirely on Meta’s strategy.”If that were to happen, Cant says, it could put downward pressure on the wages and tasks available to workers, many of whom already struggle to make ends meet with data work.A Meta spokesperson declined to comment on this story.

In Brief Posted: 11:46 AM PDT · June 14, 2025 Image Credits:Matthias Balk/picture alliance / Getty Images Google reportedly plans to cut ties with Scale AI Meta’s big investment in Scale AI may be giving some of the startup’s customers pause. Reuters reports that Google had planned to pay Scale $200 million this year but is now having conversations with its competitors and planning to cut ties. Microsoft is also reportedly looking to pull back, and OpenAI supposedly made a similar decision months ago, although its CFO said the company will continue working with Scale as one of many vendors. Scale’s customers include self-driving car companies and the U.S. government, but Reuters says its biggest clients are generative AI companies seeking access to workers with specialized knowledge who can annotate data to train models. Google declined to comment on the report. A Scale spokesperson declined to comment on the company’s relationship with Google, but he told TechCrunch that Scale’s business remains strong, and that it will continue to operate as an independent company that safeguards its customers’ data. Earlier reports suggest that Meta invested $14.3 billion in Scale for a 49% stake in the company, with Scale CEO Alexandr Wang joining Meta to lead the company’s efforts to develop “superintelligence.” Topics AI, Google, Meta, Scale AI

Nier: Automata creators deny characters "were problematic overseas" and blame mistranslated subtitle for censorship rumours Nier miss. Image credit: Square Enix News by Vikki Blake Contributor Published on June 14, 2025 Nier: Automata producer Yosuke Saito and director Yoko Taro have denied that any of their character designs were restricted for Western audiences. As spotted by Automaton, the developers were compelled to comment after a mistranslated Japanese-to-English subtitle intimated Nier: Automata had been subjected to censorship from Square Enix to meet global standards. GODDESS OF VICTORY: NIKKE | Producers' Creative Dialogue Special Livestream.Watch on YouTube In the interview above (skip to 28:12 for the segment concerned), Sony executive Yoshida Shuhei asked the developers about their design process. "Our concept is always to do something that's 'not like anything else'. What I mean is, if Nier: Replicant had a boy as the main character, Nier: Automata would have a girl protagonist. If Western sci-fi is filled with Marine-like soldiers, we might go in the opposite direction and use Gothic Lolita outfits, for example," Taro said. "We tend to take the contrarian route." "There are, of course, certain things that are ethically or morally inappropriate – even if they're just aspects of a character," Saito added, according to the subtitles. "We try to draw a line by establishing rules about what’s acceptable and what’s not. "While certain things might be acceptable in Japan, they could become problematic in certain overseas regions, and even characters could become problematic as well. These are the kind of situation[s] we usually try to avoid creating. As a result, there are actually countries where we couldn't officially release Nier: Automata." This immediately caused consternation with fans but as Automaton points out, this "could be a little tricky to translate, even for an advanced Japanese speaker". When asked directly about the claim, Taro denied it, saying on X/Twitter: "I've never heard of such a thing happening". Saito simply said he thought the things he'd mentioned had been mistranslated, and would clarify this in a future livestream. In the same interview, former PlayStation exec Shuhei Yoshida called Nier: Automata the "game that changed everything", as it was responsible for reviving the Japanese games industry on its release. In a recent interview, Yoshida discussed how during the PS3 era, sales of Japanese games had declined, and increasingly studios there were chasing "overseas tastes". That changed with NieR: Automata in 2017, released for the PS4. "I think Yoko Taro created it without paying any mind at all to making it sell overseas, but it was a tremendous success," Yoshida said.

The Swiss architects first submitted controversial plans to overhaul the Grade II-listed terminus in the City of London in May 2023 on behalf of Sellar and Network Rail. Now the AJ understands the practice is drawing up a rival scheme, separate to its original proposal, which is effectively a third but as yet unseen design for the station and a development above it. ACME, on behalf of Network Rail, submitted its own proposals in April after Network Rail appointed the Shoreditch practice to draw up plans last year. This put the brakes on Herzog & de Meuron’s 2023 scheme, which had been updated with amendments in 2024 in response to criticism over heritage harm – though the application was never withdrawn and remains live on the City of London’s planning portal.Advertisement According to sources, Herzog & de Meuron – still with Sellar’s backing – is actively working on a fresh scheme with ‘much less demolition’, which could rival ACME’s plans as well as its own 2023 scheme. SAVE Britain’s Heritage, which the AJ understands is among several bodies to have been consulted on the ‘third’ scheme for Liverpool Street station, told the AJ: ‘There are now potentially three live schemes for the same site. ‘However, what is interesting about Sellar’s latest proposal is that it involves much less demolition of the station. Network Rail and their current favoured architect, ACME, would do well to take note.’ Historic England, which strongly opposed the original Herzog & de Meuron scheme, is understood to have been shown the Swiss architects’ latest proposals in March. The heritage body’s official response to the ACME scheme has not yet been made public. A spokesperson for the government’s heritage watchdog told the AJ of the emerging third proposal: ‘We have seen a revised scheme designed by Herzog & de Meuron, but it has not been submitted as a formal proposal and we have not provided advice on it.’Advertisement The C20 Society added that it ‘can confirm that it has been in pre-app consultation with both ACME and Herzog & de Meuron regarding the various schemes in development for Liverpool Street Station’. The body, which campaigns to protect 20th century buildings, added: ‘We will provide a full statement once all plans have been scrutinised.’ In November, the Tate Modern architects appeared to be off the job following the appointment by Network Rail of Shoreditch-based ACME, which came up with an alternative scheme featuring slightly smaller office towers as part of the planned above-station development. The ACME plan for Liverpool Street includes an above-station office development that would rise to 18 storeys, with balcony spaces on the 10th to 17th storeys and outdoor garden terraces from the 14th to 17th storeys. These proposals are marginally shorter than Herzog & de Meuron’s original 15 and 21-storey designs. However, despite these changes, ACME and Network Rail’s scheme has recently seen criticism by the Victorian Society, which told the AJ last month that it would object to the ACME scheme, claiming the above-station development ‘would be hugely damaging to Liverpool Street Station and the wider historic environment of the City of London’. In September last year, Sellar confirmed that that Herzog & de Meuron was working on an amended proposal, as the AJ revealed at the time. However, it is unclear if the latest, third option is related to that work. While both applications introduce more escalators down to platform level and accessibility improvements, the Herzog & de Meuron scheme proved controversial because of planned changes to the inside of the Grade II*-listed former Great Eastern Hotel building above the concourse, which would have seen the hotel relocate to new-build elements. The Swiss architect’s original proposals would have also removed much of the 1992 additions to the concourse by British Rail’s last chief architect, Nick Derbyshire – which had not been included in the original 1975 listing for Liverpool Street station. Historic England listed that part of the station in late 2022 after a first consultation on the Herzog & de Meuron plans. Network Rail told the AJ that it remains ‘fully committed’ to the ACME plan, which was validated only last month. Herzog & de Meuron referred the AJ to Sellar for comment. Sellar declined to comment. ACME has been approached for comment.

Anthropic on Thursday announced Claude Gov, its product designed specifically for U.S. defense and intelligence agencies. The AI models have looser guardrails for government use and are trained to better analyze classified information.The company said the models it’s announcing “are already deployed by agencies at the highest level of U.S. national security,” and that access to those models will be limited to government agencies handling classified information. The company did not confirm how long they had been in use.Claude Gov models are specifically designed to uniquely handle government needs, like threat assessment and intelligence analysis, per Anthropic’s blog post. And although the company said they “underwent the same rigorous safety testing as all of our Claude models,” the models have certain specifications for national security work. For example, they “refuse less when engaging with classified information” that’s fed into them, something consumer-facing Claude is trained to flag and avoid. Claude Gov’s models also have greater understanding of documents and context within defense and intelligence, according to Anthropic, and better proficiency in languages and dialects relevant to national security. Use of AI by government agencies has long been scrutinized because of its potential harms and ripple effects for minorities and vulnerable communities. There’s been a long list of wrongful arrests across multiple U.S. states due to police use of facial recognition, documented evidence of bias in predictive policing, and discrimination in government algorithms that assess welfare aid. For years, there’s also been an industry-wide controversy over large tech companies like Microsoft, Google and Amazon allowing the military — particularly in Israel — to use their AI products, with campaigns and public protests under the No Tech for Apartheid movement.Anthropic’s usage policy specifically dictates that any user must “Not Create or Facilitate the Exchange of Illegal or Highly Regulated Weapons or Goods,” including using Anthropic’s products or services to “produce, modify, design, market, or distribute weapons, explosives, dangerous materials or other systems designed to cause harm to or loss of human life.” At least eleven months ago, the company said it created a set of contractual exceptions to its usage policy that are “carefully calibrated to enable beneficial uses by carefully selected government agencies.” Certain restrictions — such as disinformation campaigns, the design or use of weapons, the construction of censorship systems, and malicious cyber operations — would remain prohibited. But Anthropic can decide to “tailor use restrictions to the mission and legal authorities of a government entity,” although it will aim to “balance enabling beneficial uses of our products and services with mitigating potential harms.” Claude Gov is Anthropic’s answer to ChatGPT Gov, OpenAI’s product for U.S. government agencies, which it launched in January. It’s also part of a broader trend of AI giants and startups alike looking to bolster their businesses with government agencies, especially in an uncertain regulatory landscape.When OpenAI announced ChatGPT Gov, the company said that within the past year, more than 90,000 employees of federal, state, and local governments had used its technology to translate documents, generate summaries, draft policy memos, write code, build applications, and more. Anthropic declined to share numbers or use cases of the same sort, but the company is part of Palantir’s FedStart program, a SaaS offering for companies who want to deploy federal government-facing software. Scale AI, the AI giant that provides training data to industry leaders like OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and Meta, signed a deal with the Department of Defense in March for a first-of-its-kind AI agent program for U.S. military planning. And since then, it’s expanded its business to world governments, recently inking a five-year deal with Qatar to provide automation tools for civil service, healthcare, transportation, and more.See More:

On November 4, 2003, a doctor gave Jon Gluck some of the worst news imaginable: He had cancer — one that later tests would reveal as multiple myeloma, a severe blood and bone marrow cancer. Jon was told he might have as little as 18 months to live. He was 38, a thriving magazine editor in New York with a 7-month-old daughter whose third birthday, he suddenly realized, he might never see.“The moment after I was told I had cancer, I just said ‘no, no, no,’” Jon told me in an interview just last week. “This cannot be true.”Living in remissionThe fact that Jon is still here, talking to me in 2025, tells you that things didn’t go the way the medical data would have predicted on that November morning. He has lived with his cancer, through waves of remission and recurrence, for more than 20 years, an experience he chronicles with grace and wit in his new book An Exercise in Uncertainty. That 7-month-old daughter is now in college.RelatedWhy do so many young people suddenly have cancer?You could say Jon has beaten the odds, and he’s well aware that chance played some role in his survival. (“Did you know that ‘Glück’ is German for ‘luck’?” he writes in the book, noting his good fortune that a random spill on the ice is what sent him to the doctor in the first place, enabling them to catch his cancer early.) Cancer is still a terrible health threat, one that is responsible for 1 in 6 deaths around the world, killing nearly 10 million people a year globally and over 600,000 people a year in the US. But Jon’s story and his survival demonstrate something that is too often missed: We’ve turned the tide in the war against cancer. The age-adjusted death rate in the US for cancer has declined by about a third since 1991, meaning people of a given age have about a third lower risk of dying from cancer than people of the same age more than three decades ago. That adds up to over 4 million fewer cancer deaths over that time period. Thanks to breakthroughs in treatments like autologous stem-cell harvesting and CAR-T therapy — breakthroughs Jon himself benefited from, often just in time — cancer isn’t the death sentence it once was.Our World in DataGetting better all the timeThere’s no doubt that just as the rise of smoking in the 20th century led to a major increase in cancer deaths, the equally sharp decline of tobacco use eventually led to a delayed decrease. Smoking is one of the most potent carcinogens in the world, and at the peak in the early 1960s, around 12 cigarettes were being sold per adult per day in the US. Take away the cigarettes and — after a delay of a couple of decades — lung cancer deaths drop in turn along with other non-cancer smoking-related deaths.But as Saloni Dattani wrote in a great piece earlier this year, even before the decline of smoking, death rates from non-lung cancers in the stomach and colon had begun to fall. Just as notably, death rates for childhood cancers — which for obvious reasons are not connected to smoking and tend to be caused by genetic mutations — have fallen significantly as well, declining sixfold since 1950. In the 1960s, for example, only around 10 percent of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia survived more than five years. Today it’s more than 90 percent. And the five-year survival rate for all cancers has risen from 49 percent in the mid-1970s to 69 percent in 2019. We’ve made strikes against the toughest of cancers, like Jon’s multiple myeloma. Around when Jon was diagnosed, the five-year survival rate was just 34 percent. Today it’s as high as 62 percent, and more and more people like Jon are living for decades. “There has been a revolution in cancer survival,” Jon told me. “Some illnesses now have far more successful therapies than others, but the gains are real.”Three cancer revolutions The dramatic bend in the curve of cancer deaths didn’t happen by accident — it’s the compound interest of three revolutions.While anti-smoking policy has been the single biggest lifesaver, other interventions have helped reduce people’s cancer risk. One of the biggest successes is the HPV vaccine. A study last year found that death rates of cervical cancer — which can be caused by HPV infections — in US women ages 20–39 had dropped 62 percent from 2012 to 2021, thanks largely to the spread of the vaccine. Other cancers have been linked to infections, and there is strong research indicating that vaccination can have positive effects on reducing cancer incidence. The next revolution is better and earlier screening. It’s generally true that the earlier cancer is caught, the better the chances of survival, as Jon’s own story shows. According to one study, incidences of late-stage colorectal cancer in Americans over 50 declined by a third between 2000 and 2010 in large part because rates of colonoscopies almost tripled in that same time period. And newer screening methods, often employing AI or using blood-based tests, could make preliminary screening simpler, less invasive and therefore more readily available. If 20th-century screening was about finding physical evidence of something wrong — the lump in the breast — 21st-century screening aims to find cancer before symptoms even arise.Most exciting of all are frontier developments in treating cancer, much of which can be tracked through Jon’s own experience. From drugs like lenalidomide and bortezomib in the 2000s, which helped double median myeloma survival, to the spread of monoclonal antibodies, real breakthroughs in treatments have meaningfully extended people’s lives — not just by months, but years.Perhaps the most promising development is CAR-T therapy, a form of immunotherapy. Rather than attempting to kill the cancer directly, immunotherapies turn a patient’s own T-cells into guided missiles. In a recent study of 97 patients with multiple myeloma, many of whom were facing hospice care, a third of those who received CAR-T therapy had no detectable cancer five years later. It was the kind of result that doctors rarely see. “CAR-T is mind-blowing — very science-fiction futuristic,” Jon told me. He underwent his own course of treatment with it in mid-2023 and writes that the experience, which put his cancer into a remission he’s still in, left him feeling “physically and metaphysically new.”A welcome uncertaintyWhile there are still more battles to be won in the war on cancer, and there are certain areas — like the rising rates of gastrointestinal cancers among younger people — where the story isn’t getting better, the future of cancer treatment is improving. For cancer patients like Jon, that can mean a new challenge — enduring the essential uncertainty that comes with living under a disease that’s controllable but which could always come back. But it sure beats the alternative.“I’ve come to trust so completely in my doctors and in these new developments,” he said. “I try to remain cautiously optimistic that my future will be much like the last 20 years.” And that’s more than he or anyone else could have hoped for nearly 22 years ago. A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More: Health

Although the US unemployment rate held steady at 4.2% in May with 139,000 jobs added to the US workforce, nearly 100,000 layoffs were also announced — up 47% from last year, according to new data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and others. Tech and federal cuts led the way in layoffs, driven by economic pressure, programmatic firings and AI-driven shifts in workforce needs, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Technology remains a top sector for cuts amid ongoing disruptions, according to the firm’s data. In May, tech companies announced 10,598 layoffs, bringing the 2025 total to 74,716; that’s up 35% from 55,207 at the same time last year. “Tariffs, funding cuts, consumer spending, and overall economic pessimism are putting intense pressure on companies’ workforces. Companies are spending less, slowing hiring, and sending layoff notices,” Andrew Challenger, senior vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said in a statement. Uneasiness continues to weigh on tech hiring, according to CompTIA, a provider of IT training and certification products. The unemployment rate for tech jobs in May was 3.4%, roughly in line with April’s 3.5%, CompTIA data showed. The tech unemployment rate continues to sit below the national rate. CompTIA Tech sector companies added a modest 1,571 net new employees in May, analysis of the BLS jobs report by CompTIA showed. Job growth in cloud infrastructure and tech services was offset by reductions in the telecommunications sector. Tech employment across the broader economy declined by an estimated 131,000 positions. “With prior month employment gains, tech occupation employment remains in the positive for the year,” CompTIA said. “It is undoubtedly a challenging time for employers and job seekers facing uncertainty on multiple fronts,” said Tim Herbert, CompTIA’s chief research officer. “At the same time, it requires taking a measured approach given the data continues to hold up reasonably well.” One bright spot for tech hires in May was the finance and insurance industry, which collectively saw a 21% increase in new tech job postings; new tech job openings also rose by 16% in the retail sector, according to CompTIA. Even so, tech layoffs have continued as AI adoption soars and economic pressures drive a major shift toward new roles and skills in the workforce. “AI isn’t replacing jobs,” said Kye Mitchell, president of tech workforce staffing firm Experis US. “It’s fundamentally redefining how work gets done. We’re seeing AI augment skillsets and make professionals more capable, faster, and able to focus on higher-value work.” Technology only displaces jobs when about 80% of tasks can be automated — and AI isn’t close to doing that, said Mitchell. Right now, AI is enhancing skills, boosting productivity, and freeing up time for higher-value work. Hiring for AI positions and those requiring AI skills continues to grow rapidly, according to a CompTIA analysis of data from Lightcast and Stanford University study. CompTIA found that employer job postings related to AI are up 117% year-to-date year-over-year. Challenger, Gray & Christmas Skills-based hiring remains core to many employers’ recruiting strategies. About half of all tech job postings did not specify a need for a four-year academic degree, seeking instead a combination of work experience, training and industry-recognized certification, according to CompTIA’s and other data. Even so, employers are hesitant to hire. “Economic uncertainty is absolutely creating a cautious hiring environment, but it’s more complex than tariffs alone,” Mitchell said. “Our data shows employers adopting a ‘wait and watch’ stance as they monitor economic signals, with job openings down 11% year-over-year.” Still, the tech job market is adjusting as AI adoption grows. AI skill mentions in job postings fell 10% in May but are still up 10% for the year, showing steady demand, Mitchell said. The tech industry had been nearly bullet-proof from mass layoffs prior to 2022. After a hiring surge between 2020 and 2022 to meet digitization efforts as more people worked from home, the market shifted and began slashing jobs to readjust to the new reality. Tech companies such Google, Amazon, Meta (Facebook) and others laid off tens of thousands of workers  as an adjustment to over-hiring during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023 alone, 1,186 tech companies laid off about 262,682 staff, compared to 164,969 layoffs in 2022. In January 2024, job cuts leaped 136% over December and hit a 10-month high, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. While the labor market remained steady, there are signs that hiring across the board is softening. Open job postings fell 7% this year and new postings dropped 16% in the past month — the first full contraction of 2025. Year-to-date, new postings are flat compared to last year, according to Ger Doyle, ManpowerGroup’s regional president for North America. Doyle, however, was optimistic. “This is a chill, not a freeze,” he said. “Workers and employers are holding steady, awaiting clarity.” For example, he said, project management roles are up 483% year-over-year, and as the broader outlook improves, a rebound could follow, he added.  Demand for data roles is surging as companies shift from AI experiments to execution. Database architect postings are up 2,140% year-over-year, with data scientist postings up 280% — clear signs of companies building the backbone for an AI-driven future, Experis’s data showed. “This shift is also reshaping how talent enters the industry. Entry-level opportunities are becoming more limited, making it harder for recent graduates to gain a foothold,” Mitchell said. “For those looking to break in, deep analytical and technical skills are no longer optional.”

Like a good pair of Basquiat Crocs, there are innumerable bad ways to license an artist’s work. So when Airstream looked to partner up on a project with the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, the aluminum-clad trailer brand could have just printed one of the architect’s famous patterns on a limited run of its vehicles and called it a day. It probably would have even sold well. But that is decidedly what Bob Wheeler, Airstream’s president and CEO, did not want to do.  “We said, ‘All right, let’s make sure that everything has a purpose and a function—that way it’s not just a pastiche, or some kind of lame attempt to mimic something,’” Wheeler recalls. “We didn’t want it to seem overdone or kitschy.” Instead, the brand embarked on a multiyear collaboration with the experts at Wright’s Taliesin West home and studio in Scottsdale, Arizona, and today the two are rolling out the 28-foot Airstream Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian Limited Edition Travel Trailer. With just 200 numbered vehicles that retail for $184,900 on offer, you—like me—might not be able to afford one at the moment, but they just might also restore your faith in the art of the artist collab at large.  [Photo: Airstream] BETTER LATE THAN NEVER Wheeler has a passion for midcentury design (as you might expect of Airstream’s CEO), so it tracks that he’d be a natural fan of Wright’s organic architecture. “Honestly, this has been a dream of mine for the last 20 years, which is about as long as I’ve been president of Airstream,” he says. “Why are Wright’s designs so celebrated today? It’s because they’re timeless. I think there are values there that incentivize someone to buy an Airstream that overlap in some meaningful ways.” Though Wright and Airstream founder Wally Byam were active at the same time and likely shared some of the same design fan base, there’s no record of them ever meeting. But a collaboration between the two ultimately proved inevitable when Wheeler reached out to Wright’s foundation in 2022. Foundation historian Sally Russell says her team wasn’t initially sure how robust a joint project could be. They eventually toured the Airstream factory in Ohio where the trailers are handmade using 3,000 rivets over the course of 350 hours, and saw how much customization was truly possible. Then she realized that it could be a great showcase of Wright’s work.  Beyond an Airstream’s signature aluminum exterior, Wheeler says the trailer is essentially a blank canvas. “And that’s where we can really flex some design muscle and allow others to do so.”  Russell says the foundation first explored whether to make the trailer feel like an adaptation of a specific Frank Lloyd Wright home. “The answer to that was no,” she says. “We didn’t want to try to re-create the Rosenbaum House and shove it into the size of a trailer. It didn’t make sense, because Frank Lloyd Wright certainly designed for each of his individual projects—he created something new, something that expressed the individual forms of the project, the needs of the client. So there was a great awareness of wanting to continue that legacy through the work that we did on the trailer.” The two teams ultimately homed in on the concept of Usonian design, a style that aimed to democratize design via small, affordable homes with a focus on efficient floor plans, functionality, and modularity.  In other words: an ideal fit for an Airstream. [Photo: Airstream] COLLAPSIBLE CHAIRS AND CLERESTORY WINDOWS When you approach the trailer, the connection to Wright is immediate on the custom front door featuring the Gordon leaf pattern, which the architect commissioned his apprentice Eugene Masselink to design in 1956. It’s a tip of the hat to nature, presumably an Airstreamer’s destination, and can be found subtly throughout the trailer in elements like sconces and cabinet pulls—but not too much, per the design mission at the outset. (“At one point we had a lot more of that Gordon leaf in there,” Wheeler notes. “We dialed that way back.”) With the push of a button, the bench seating converts into a king-size bed—one of Wheeler’s favorite elements. It is the largest bed in any Airstream, and is a first for the company, he says.  [Photo: Airstream] Another convertible element, in line with that focus on modularity, is the living space at the front of the trailer. Here, a dining table, desk, and seating inspired by the slant-back chairs that Wright used throughout his career collapse into a wall cabinet. Wheeler says Airstream used to deploy clever features like this in the midcentury era, before modern preferences trended toward built-in furniture. “So in some ways, this is a bit of a flashback to an earlier design in the ’50s, which is appropriate.” The teams also honored Wright’s focus on natural light, relocating Airstream’s usual overhead storage in favor of clerestory windows, which are prominent in Usonian homes. Meanwhile, the overall color palette comes from a 1955 Wright-curated Martin-Senour paint line. Russell says the team selected it for its harmonious blend with the natural settings where the trailer is likely headed, featuring ocher, red, and turquoise.  Ultimately, “It’s like a Frank Lloyd Wright home, where you walk into it, and it’s a completely different experience from any other building,” Russell says. “I hope that he would be very happy to see that design legacy continue, because he certainly did that with his own fellowship and the apprentices that he worked with.” [Photo: Airstream] USONIAN LIFE Starting today, the limited-edition, numbered trailers will be available for order at Airstream dealerships. Wheeler says the company was originally going to release just 100 of them, but got so much positive feedback from dealers and others that they doubled the run.  On the whole, the collaboration comes in the wake of a boom time for Airstream, which is owned by Thor Industries. Airstream experienced a surge during the pandemic, resulting in a 22% jump in sales in 2021 as people embraced remote work or realigned their relationship to the world.  “We’ve come back to earth now, and now we’re much more tied to actual market retail rates, which is what we know,” Wheeler says. In its third-quarter financials, Thor reported $2.89 billion in revenue (up 3.3% from previous year). While the company declined to provide Airstream-specific numbers, its overall North American towable RV division is up 9.1% from the same period in 2024. But there’s a problem afoot: The current administration’s tariffs, which Wheeler says made settling on the price for the Frank Lloyd Wright collaboration tricky. He adds that the company is struggling with shortages caused by the disruption in the supply chain, and high interest rates are also a problem.  [Photo: Airstream] “Look, we’re 94 years old,” he says. “We’ve been through more of these cycles than we can count, so we’re fine, and we’ll continue to trade on authenticity, quality, great service and support, a great dealer network, and a brand that really has become part of the fabric of the U.S. traveling adventure.”

Larry Fabbroni is an architect, strategic advisor, and Chief Innovation Officer for Practice of Architecture. Throughout his career, he has led efforts to reform studio culture and innovate practice. He earned his MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In 2017, as leaders in the AIA’s Young Architects Forum (YAF), we led the launch of the Practice Innovation Lab (PIL) and hosted a symposium that imagined new architectural practice models. At that time, we already felt that practice innovation was overdue in a profession that has not seen scaled disruption to its business model in over a century. Today, we are confident that there has never been a more critical time for the profession to embrace innovation. Redefining Innovation Henley Hall: Institute for Energy Efficiency by KieranTimberlake, Santa Barbara, California | KieranTimberlake’s research expertise creates value beyond a baseline labor model.  Currently, artificial intelligence dominates strategy conversations, but just as we saw back in 2017, larger patterns prompt calls for innovation. Talent attraction is increasingly challenging, disruptive technology continues to emerge, and actors from outside our industry show growing interest in the space. While incremental innovation has long been a part of the profession, relatively few firms have adopted new practices that create value beyond a baseline labor model. Firms such as KieranTimberlake have shown that research expertise can do this. MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach. BIG has taken on the role of architect-as-developer. Snøhetta houses a product design division. We could continue to list great firms that have pushed the boundaries of practice, but they represent exceptions that have yet to be recognized as new standards. Indeed, the confluence of those factors that led to the original PIL continues to make the case that the time for scaled innovation is now. A Melting Iceberg: Incremental Changes Depleting the Profession Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway | Photo by Ivar Kvaal | Snøhetta houses a product design division, innovatively presenting a alternative business model for firms.  One of the dangers of operating in a slow-moving industry is that change is difficult to detect and even more challenging to comprehend. If an iceberg loses 1% of mass per year, it’s tough to take notice, but the end result is catastrophic. This is what is happening to our profession. For newcomers, if it feels like there are increasingly more attractive opportunities elsewhere, that’s because there are. For seasoned professionals, if it feels like it’s become more challenging to maintain the same levels of prosperity, that’s because it has. Less(er) Talent In some ways, the shift towards companies recognizing “talent” as their most excellent resource has bewildered architects: we have always relied on talent. However, the patterns of talent leaving our profession are concerning. We say “feel” because there is no significant data. We spoke to Kendall A. Nicholson, Senior Director of Research at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), who confirmed that aggregated data on graduate placement does not exist. So we inquired about what placement looks like at several programs around the country. Omar Khan, Head of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture, informed us that approximately 90% of students pursue a minor to expand their horizons, and that in 2022, nearly one in three graduates entered the tech sector. Khan stated that these opportunities aren’t just student-driven — large innovative companies increasingly seek the value that graduates of architecture schools will provide. This increasing difficulty in capturing the talent that architecture schools are producing results in a shrinking and diluted talent pool. For a profession so reliant on human resources, this presents extreme risk. Pay Gaps In an increasingly expensive world, we are not able to compete for the best talent with emerging industries. It’s easy to understand why a popular career pivot for architects has become UX design. Designing user experience for websites pays significantly better than designing the same for the built environment. According to Glassdoor, 2023 entry-level UX designers earned an average of $78K, while the AIA salary calculator suggests architecture grads can expect to earn an average of $59 K. The talent we do attract into the profession often loses interest when they experience low pay and long hours, all while most firms lack clear paths and criteria for advancement or compensation increases. A Smaller Piece of the Pie Examining data in isolation, one might conclude that the profession continues to grow; the number of architects has increased substantially over the last century, and this trend has persisted in recent years. The problem with this growth is that the estimated share of the US GDP for Architectural Services has shrunk over time. This is not a manageable number to measure before 1999, when NCARB first aggregated local jurisdictional data. Due to limitations in industry economic data, we’re only showing data since 2011 for the purposes of this article. In that time, the number of architects has grown, the market size for services has grown, but the share those services represent as a portion of the US GDP has declined — by 15% if we use US Census data to almost 30% if we use industry research data (we used IbisWorld.com, however we found data that suggested a worse and others that offered a slightly better picture). To put it another way, architecture is a stagnant industry with a shrinking share of the economy. It’s challenging to examine this data and emerge feeling confident about the profession, but there is a silver lining. The biggest impediment to innovation for architects is not a lack of talent, but rather the business model. Design thinking has been widely adopted throughout the world as a key component of innovation processes; however, the problem is that we operate in the realm of professional services, which inherently is not well-suited to promoting innovation. Reliance on that formula is causing our iceberg to melt. The Tsunami: The AI Tidal Wave is Here The Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture by MASS Design Group, Rwanda | MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach that creates value beyond a baseline labor model.  As we confront the exodus of talent, it is easy for both firm owners and clients to imagine AI bringing efficiencies and replacing “CAD-monkeys” with machines. However, any firm that wants to operate — and win — as anything more than a low-cost provider will need a strategy to increase value, not just cut costs. AI is merely part of the toolbox required to confront a perfect storm of forces. Jobs will Disappear Goldman Sachs predicts that as much as 37% of our industry tasks will be replaced by AI. Many see this as a pathway to lower costs and increased profits. However, that is short-sighted. Markets will adjust quickly and demand lower costs for services; additional new value will need to be articulated and proven, and this will only happen through innovation. New Jobs will Emerge (but fewer of them) AI prophets often emphasize that technological innovation has historically led to net employment gains. Previous World Economic Forum estimates predicted losses of up to 85 million existing jobs worldwide, with parallel gains of as many as 97 million new jobs. However, these estimates were revised in the WEF 2023 Economic Outlook, which now anticipates a net loss of 14 million jobs. This stark outlook signals an even greater need for architects to become more innovative. The 2024 RIBA AI Report indicates that 41% of architecture firms were already utilizing AI, though current tools are indeed just the beginning. Marketing, business development and content creation will be standard areas of AI deployment moving forward. Still, revolutionary changes will come in how we learn, not only to use new tools, but also to collaborate with digital agents. How will this happen? We can theorize, but it is not possible to know for sure until it arrives, so we need to have a plan before we can see the tidal wave from land. The Alien Invasion: Outsiders Are Entering Our Orbit VIA 57 West by BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group, New York City, New York | BIG has pioneered a new model for practice by taking on the role of architect-as-developer. For years, we’ve heard cries that “architects gave away the role of master builder.” But how much did architects actually give, and how much was taken by innovative competition? This distinction is critical because the wagons are circling, and the AEC space has become ever more attractive to investors. Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment The numbers are often difficult to parse because architecture can impact so many verticals and does not operate as its own sector in the investment realm; however, the trends suggest a groundswell is underway. A 2023 McKinsey report shows that construction tech deals nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, growing by 85%. At the same period, the number of deals increased by 30%, indicating that interest continues to grow. An increasing size of deals also suggests a maturity of the market. As interest in infrastructure investments has declined from its high in 2020, and along with real estate, has been blunted by high interest rates, institutional investors continue to see opportunities in the AEC space. Firm Acquisitions AEC firms that deliver predictable returns have proven to be attractive targets for PE firms. In the second quarter of 2024, private equity firms accounted for over one-third of AEC firm mergers and acquisitions. For M&A deals, the industry has seen an increase in attractiveness with expanded infrastructure spending as a catalyst. However, this interest can also be tied to the lack of innovation that has resulted in an industry ripe for consolidation. M&A orchestrators generate large amounts of profit by streamlining operations, eliminating redundancies, and then stamping out competition. An entire community has been built around this, with AEC Advisors hosting an annual “Private Equity Summit” that brings together CEOs of AEC firms with PE investors. Startups As an extension of the growing interest from venture capital in the space, there is an upward trend in the AEC space being targeted for disruption by entrepreneurs who see an industry that represents a significant portion of the global GDP. AEC Works, a project of e-verse that catalogs AEC startups and investors, lists nearly 800 startups from around the world, with almost 200 identified as “architecture-focused.” The signal is clear: startups are looking to figure out how to do what you do cheaper, better, or perhaps both. Combining this environment with depleted talent pools, a declining share of GDP, and revolutionary technology, it is a correct response to be alarmed. Significant change is inevitable. It is time for architects to see the same opportunities that investors and entrepreneurs see, and learn to navigate within these spaces. The Great Opportunity Throughout history, new actors have enjoyed a “leap-frog” effect and been able to surpass established incumbents to reshape industries, markets and economies. From climate change to pandemic ripple effects, to the housing crisis, to generational shifts in the workforce, there are many forces that directly impact the work of architects and call for innovation. The need for new ways of designing and delivering different components of the built environment is ever-present and will be solved by teams that either include — and might be led by — architects, or those that do not. Most end users will only care if the resulting product is superior. This time of tension is indeed a time of great opportunity. Architects who embrace innovation in pursuing new iterations of our dated business models may actually achieve what many of us have dreamed of from the start: to leave a positive mark on the world. We think the future of the profession depends on it. Top image: Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway The post Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency appeared first on Journal.