Debate about whether artificial intelligence can replicate the intellectual labor of doctors, lawyers, or PhDs forgoes a deeper concern that’s looming: Entire companies—not just individual jobs—may be rendered obsolete by the accelerating pace of AI adoption. Reports suggesting OpenAI will charge $20,000 per month for agents trained at a PhD level spun up the ongoing debate about whose job is safe from AI and whose job is not. “I’ve not seen it be that impressive yet, but it’s likely not far off,” James Villarrubia, head of digital innovation and AI at NASA CAS, told me. Sean McGregor, the founder of Responsible AI Collaborative who earned a PhD in computer science, pointed out how many jobs are about more than just a set of skills: “Current AI technology is not sufficiently robust to allow unsupervised control of hazardous chemistry equipment, human experimentation, or other domains where human PhDs are currently required.” The big reason I polled the audience on this one was because I wanted to broaden my perspective on what jobs would be eliminated. Instead, it changed my perspective. AI needs to outperform the system, not the role Suzanne Rabicoff, founder of the human agency think tank and fractional practice, The Pie Grower, gave me some reading assignments from her work, instead of a quote. Her work showed me that these times are unprecedented. But something clicked in my brain when she said in her writing that she liked the angle of more efficient companies rising instead of jobs being replaced at companies with a lot of tech and human capital debt. Her response to that statement? “Exactly my bet.”  Sure, this is the first time that a robot is doing the homework for some college students. However, there is more precedent for robots moving market share than for replacing the same job function across a sector. Fortune 500 companies—especially those bloated with legacy processes and redundant labor—are always vulnerable to decline as newer, more nimble competitors rise. And not because any single job is replaced, but because the foundational economics of their business models no longer hold. AI doesn’t need to outperform every employee to render an enterprise obsolete. It only needs to outperform the system. Case study: The auto industry Take, for example, the decline of American car manufacturers in the late 20th century. In the 1950s, American automakers had a stranglehold on the car industry, not unlike today’s tech giants. In 1950, the U.S. produced about 75% of the world’s cars. But in the 1970s, Japanese automakers pioneered the use of robotics in auto manufacturing. These companies produced higher-quality vehicles at great value thanks to leaner operations that were also more precise. Firms like GM struggled to keep up, burdened by outdated factories and excessive human capital costs—including bloated pensions. The seismic shift in the decades to follow paints a picture of what could be in store for large companies now. In 1960, the U.S. produced about 48% of the world’s cars, while Japan accounted for just 5%. By 1980, Japan had captured around 29% of the market, while the U.S. had fallen to 23%. Today’s AI shakeup could look similar. Decades from now, we could look at Apple similarly to how we look at Ford now. AI startups with more agile structures are poised to eat market share. On top of that, startups can focus on solving specialized problems, sharpening their competitive edge. Will your company shrivel and die? The fallout has already begun. Gartner surveyed organizations in late 2023, finding that about half were developing their own AI tools. By the end of 2024, that dropped to 20%. As hype around generative AI cools, Gartner notes that many chief information officers are instead using outside vendors—either large language model providers or traditional software sellers with AI-enhanced offerings. In 2024, AI startups received nearly half of the $209 billion in global venture funding. If only 20% of legacy organizations currently feel confident competing with these upstarts, how many will feel that confidence as these startups mature? While headlines continue to fixate on whether AI can match PhD-level expertise, the deeper risk remains largely unspoken: Giant companies will shrivel and some may die. And when they do, your job is at risk whether you greet customers at the front desk or hold a PhD in an engineering discipline. But there are ways to stay afloat. One of the most impactful pieces of advice I ever received came from Jonathan Rosenberg, former SVP of products at Google and current advisor to Alphabet, when I visited the company’s campus in college. “You can’t just be great at what you do, you have to catch a great wave. Early people think it’s about the company, then the job, then the industry. It’s actually industry, company, job…” So, how do you catch the AI wave? Ankur Patel, CEO of Multimodal, advises workers to learn how to do their current jobs using AI tools that enhance productivity. He also notes that soft skills—mobilizing people, building relationships, leading teams—will become increasingly valuable as AI takes over more technical or routine tasks. “You can’t have AI be a group leader or team leader, right? I just don’t see that happening, even in the next generation forward,” Patel said. “So I think that’s a huge opportunity…to grow and learn from.” The bottom line is this: Even if the AI wave doesn’t replace you, it may replace the place you work. Will you get hit by the AI wave—or will you catch it? George Kailas is CEO of Prospero.ai.

Every few weeks, it seems like there’s a new headline about a lawyer getting in trouble for submitting filings containing, in the words of one judge, “bogus AI-generated research.” The details vary, but the throughline is the same: an attorney turns to a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT to help them with legal research (or worse, writing), the LLM hallucinates cases that don’t exist, and the lawyer is none the wiser until the judge or opposing counsel points out their mistake. In some cases, including an aviation lawsuit from 2023, attorneys have had to pay fines for submitting filings with AI-generated hallucinations. So why haven’t they stopped?The answer mostly comes down to time crunches, and the way AI has crept into nearly every profession. Legal research databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw have AI integrations now. For lawyers juggling big caseloads, AI can seem like an incredibly efficient assistant. Most lawyers aren’t necessarily using ChatGPT to write their filings, but they are increasingly using it and other LLMs for research. Yet many of these lawyers, like much of the public, don’t understand exactly what LLMs are or how they work. One attorney who was sanctioned in 2023 said he thought ChatGPT was a “super search engine.” It took submitting a filing with fake citations to reveal that it’s more like a random-phrase generator — one that could give you either correct information or convincingly phrased nonsense.Andrew Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School, argues many lawyers are using AI tools without incident, and the ones who get caught with fake citations are outliers. “I think that what we’re seeing now — although these problems of hallucination are real, and lawyers have to take it very seriously and be careful about it — doesn’t mean that these tools don’t have enormous possible benefits and use cases for the delivery of legal services,” Perlman said. Legal databases and research systems like Westlaw are incorporating AI services.In fact, 63 percent of lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters in 2024 said they’ve used AI in the past, and 12 percent said they use it regularly. Respondents said they use AI to write summaries of case law and to research “case law, statutes, forms or sample language for orders.” The attorneys surveyed by Thomson Reuters see it as a time-saving tool, and half of those surveyed said “exploring the potential for implementing AI” at work is their highest priority. “The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor’ not as a producer of documents,” one respondent said. But as plenty of recent examples have shown, the documents produced by AI aren’t always accurate, and in some cases aren’t real at all.RelatedIn one recent high-profile case, lawyers for journalist Tim Burke, who was arrested for publishing unaired Fox News footage in 2024, submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him on First Amendment grounds. After discovering that the filing included “significant misrepresentations and misquotations of supposedly pertinent case law and history,” Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida’s middle district, ordered the motion to be stricken from the case record. Mizelle found nine hallucinations in the document, according to the Tampa Bay Times.Mizelle ultimately let Burke’s lawyers, Mark Rasch and Michael Maddux, submit a new motion. In a separate filing explaining the mistakes, Rasch wrote that he “assumes sole and exclusive responsibility for these errors.” Rasch said he used the “deep research” feature on ChatGPT pro, which The Verge has previously tested with mixed results, as well as Westlaw’s AI feature.Rasch isn’t alone. Lawyers representing Anthropic recently admitted to using the company’s Claude AI to help write an expert witness declaration submitted as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Anthropic by music publishers. That filing included a citation with an “inaccurate title and inaccurate authors.” Last December, misinformation expert Jeff Hancock admitted he used ChatGPT to help organize citations in a declaration he submitted in support of a Minnesota law regulating deepfake use. Hancock’s filing included “two citation errors, popularly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’” and incorrectly listed authors for another citation. These documents do, in fact, matter — at least in the eyes of judges. In a recent case, a California judge presiding over a case against State Farm was initially swayed by arguments in a brief, only to find that the case law cited was completely made up. “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist,” Judge Michael Wilner wrote.Perlman said there are several less risky ways lawyers use generative AI in their work, including finding information in large tranches of discovery documents, reviewing briefs or filings, and brainstorming possible arguments or possible opposing views. “I think in almost every task, there are ways in which generative AI can be useful — not a substitute for lawyers’ judgment, not a substitute for the expertise that lawyers bring to the table, but in order to supplement what lawyers do and enable them to do their work better, faster, and cheaper,” Perlman said.But like anyone using AI tools, lawyers who rely on them to help with legal research and writing need to be careful to check the work they produce, Perlman said. Part of the problem is that attorneys often find themselves short on time — an issue he says existed before LLMs came into the picture. “Even before the emergence of generative AI, lawyers would file documents with citations that didn’t really address the issue that they claimed to be addressing,” Perlman said. “It was just a different kind of problem. Sometimes when lawyers are rushed, they insert citations, they don’t properly check them; they don’t really see if the case has been overturned or overruled.” (That said, the cases do at least typically exist.)Another, more insidious problem is the fact that attorneys — like others who use LLMs to help with research and writing — are too trusting of what AI produces. “I think many people are lulled into a sense of comfort with the output, because it appears at first glance to be so well crafted,” Perlman said.Alexander Kolodin, an election lawyer and Republican state representative in Arizona, said he treats ChatGPT as a junior-level associate. He’s also used ChatGPT to help write legislation. In 2024, he included AI text in part of a bill on deepfakes, having the LLM provide the “baseline definition” of what deepfakes are and then “I, the human, added in the protections for human rights, things like that it excludes comedy, satire, criticism, artistic expression, that kind of stuff,” Kolodin told The Guardian at the time. Kolodin said he “may have” discussed his use of ChatGPT with the bill’s main Democratic cosponsor but otherwise wanted it to be “an Easter egg” in the bill. The bill passed into law. Kolodin — who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2020 for his involvement in lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election — has also used ChatGPT to write first drafts of amendments, and told The Verge he uses it for legal research as well. To avoid the hallucination problem, he said, he just checks the citations to make sure they’re real.“You don’t just typically send out a junior associate’s work product without checking the citations,” said Kolodin. “It’s not just machines that hallucinate; a junior associate could read the case wrong, it doesn’t really stand for the proposition cited anyway, whatever. You still have to cite-check it, but you have to do that with an associate anyway, unless they were pretty experienced.”Kolodin said he uses both ChatGPT’s pro “deep research” tool and the LexisNexis AI tool. Like Westlaw, LexisNexis is a legal research tool primarily used by attorneys. Kolodin said that in his experience, it has a higher hallucination rate than ChatGPT, which he says has “gone down substantially over the past year.” AI use among lawyers has become so prevalent that in 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first guidance on attorneys’ use of LLMs and other AI tools. Lawyers who use AI tools “have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature” of generative AI, the opinion reads. The guidance advises lawyers to “acquire a general understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools” they use — or, in other words, to not assume that an LLM is a “super search engine.” Attorneys should also weigh the confidentiality risks of inputting information relating to their cases into LLMs and consider whether to tell their clients about their use of LLMs and other AI tools, it states.Perlman is bullish on lawyers’ use of AI. “I do think that generative AI is going to be the most impactful technology the legal profession has ever seen and that lawyers will be expected to use these tools in the future,” he said. “I think that at some point, we will stop worrying about the competence of lawyers who use these tools and start worrying about the competence of lawyers who don’t.”Others, including one of the judges who sanctioned lawyers for submitting a filing full of AI-generated hallucinations, are more skeptical. “Even with recent advances,” Wilner wrote, “no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.”See More:

Cosmology of Kyoto is a first-person horror exploration game where players navigate a deeply haunted yet surprisingly educational terrain. Originally released in 1993, Cosmology of Kyoto and its disturbing depictions of suffering have since become a cult classic. Roger Ebert, known hater, loved the game so much that he spent weeks playing it. Despite its acclaim, though, the game was a commercial failure and never got a sequel. At least, that’s what many people believed until now. In 2023, a game called TRIPITAKA 玄奘三蔵求法の旅 was listed on Yahoo Japan. The game was sold for $300 to an unknown party who, despite embarking on a bidding war that culminated in hundreds of dollars, didn’t really share anything publicly about it. The transaction was originally noticed by Mark Buckner, who brought it up in a discussion between fans about the original eerie Japanese game. Though diehard aficionados had a suspicion that the Cosmology developers had considered a follow-up, concrete evidence of it was scant. The only apparent mention of a sequel lied in the resumes of two Cosmology producers, Hiroshi Ōnishi and Mori Kōichi. Fans also spotted mention of it in an old website for a 1999 museum exhibition on the Silk Road. Though it was a work of fiction, Cosmology was rooted in the history of 10th century Japan and provided players with an in-game encyclopedia. It would make sense for a potential sequel to have enough an educational focus worthy of a museum exhibition. Despite these rumblings, it was unclear if the game had ever been published, or how far into production it got. Knowledge of the auction prompted video game academic Bruno de Figueiredo to track down the auction winner. The hope was that whoever bought it might share a copy of the game online. After all, up until this point, few knew what this game was and its mere existence lay in doubt. But if it did exist, then it was obviously significant from a historical perspective. Fans would be eager to play it. But getting collectors to share copies of rare games is tricky. If a game is widely accessible, then it’s no longer rare. Holding on to a copy ensures that it retains its aura as a prized possession. Hoarding also means that the value of a game won’t drop — in fact, it might rise. Not all collectors see their possessions as commodities, though. Holding on to a culturally significant game might be motivated by the desire to preserve it for future generations, which is relevant in instances where a copy of a game is still sealed. Uploading a game that you did not develop is also likely to be legally dubious. In this case, the owner declined to share the game in a form that others could play. The collector did however upload an hour’s worth of footage on YouTube. The game was called TRIPITAKA, and though it did not outright classify itself as a sequel, the art style, historical focus, and slightly unnerving vibe placed TRIPITAKA in a similar realm as Cosmology of Kyoto. Fans considered it a spiritual successor. Cosmology itself had been developed with the help of Japanese museums. For some, it was enough to get more of a game they loved. Even if they couldn’t personally control the gameplay, the TRIPITAKA video was lengthy enough to give a sense of what the experience would be like. Others were enraged: Couldn’t the collector see how important this game was? “I cannot understate just how disgusted I am that this piece of culture and art (that I am a huge fan of) isn’t being preserved and spread for the enjoyment of others,” one commenter on YouTube wrote. “Shame on you.” Undeterred by this roadblock, Bruno de Figueiredo continued his pursuit of TRIPITAKA. In 2025, his efforts bore fruit. On X, the expert on obscure Japanese games revealed that he had finally convinced the collector to share the game online after “years of appeals.” Figueiredo has since uploaded a playable ISO of the game online alongside a full three-hour playthrough of a game that had once been considered lost media. Figuerido did not respond to a request for comment. In a blog post, he emphasized the significance of this find by stating that “the importance of this footage could hardly be overstated.” He continued: I am delighted to have played a minor role in the unraveling of this thirty year old mystery, and can hardly contain my enthusiasm, as I now find myself equipped with sufficient information to produce a full post concerning a game about which I could not have written more than a sentence, just last year. Figuerido refers to TRIPITAKA as one of the rarest games ever made, and it’s true inasmuch as there appears to be only one known copy of it. Value and rarity are also fluid concepts that are ultimately determined by interested audiences. At the same time, TRIPITAKA’s fate and availability is shockingly ordinary when you consider how poorly the gaming industry preserves its own history. If the lack of care is evident with significant games that have arguable merit, it’s doubly true for average games. This is how a game with mixed reviews from twenty years ago suddenly starts commanding hundreds of dollars on resale sites; the scarcity happens because nobody felt a game was worth holding on to. “There are many extremely rare (and even lost) games for personal computers which, unlike consoles, don’t have any central control over who can publish a game, or what the minimum number of manufactured units needs to be,” says Frank Cifaldi, founder of the Video Game History foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving video games. Cifaldi notes that games in the 80s and 90s in particular, some of which were self-published and never got widespread circulation to begin with, are particularly prone to the type of obscurity that can lead to only a single copy of a game. “I would further suspect that there were many games and multimedia objects from Japan during this era that are just as rare, but we don’t hear about them because of their lack of historical significance in the West,” Cifaldi says. “I would bet good money that if you surveyed the collection at the Game Preservation Society in Japan, you’d come up with dozens of ‘only known copies’ of 1980s microcomputer games.”

Ever since Donald Trump returned to the White House earlier this year, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have rarely been out of the headlines. One of Trump’s first acts as president was to sign two executive orders shutting down DEI programmes within the US federal government, with those government employees working in diversity roles placed on paid leave.   While Trump hasn’t yet targeted private sector DEI schemes, a recent Bloomberg analysis found that the top companies in the US S&P index had scaled back their DEI commitments since the president’s re-election. What does this mean for tech companies in the UK, and could a similar retreat happen in this country? While in the UK the Reform party has promised to ditch DEI initiatives from local government councils that it controls, a survey by Censuswide shortly after Trump’s election reported that almost three quarters of the more than 1000 organisations who responded were running DEI programmes, with more than a quarter planning to increase their budgets for these schemes in the coming year. These figures were backed up by a recent Ipsos survey that found widespread support among the UK public for a range of DEI initiatives such as flexible working arrangements, gender pay gap reporting and inclusivity training, with around two in five of those surveyed disapproving of Trump’s actions restricting DEI programmes in the US. So there doesn’t appear to be great public support in the UK for a retreat from DEI initiatives; quite the opposite in fact, and the legal landscape in this country in relation to diversity and inclusion issues is also significantly different to the US as a whole.   The Equality Act 2010 provides protection to UK employees from a range of different types of discrimination, including sex, race, disability and age, from the first day of employment and DEI programmes can be a very necessary step in helping companies prevent discrimination and defend these types of claims when they’re brought. Indeed, Employment Tribunals will often expect companies to have DEI policies in place as standard, particularly for larger employers, with the lack of such policies leaving companies much more exposed to successful discrimination claims.  The introduction last year of the obligation on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment has only increased the potential liabilities for companies who don’t take DEI issues seriously and having a clear and regularly updated policy specifically dealing with sexual harassment will be one of the first steps in demonstrating that the reasonable steps duty has been met.  The existing legal framework in the UK therefore limits companies from dramatically reducing their DEI commitments even if they wanted to and the current political climate is likely to mean that the obligations on employers in this area will only increase.  The Labour government is currently consulting on proposals to introduce ethnicity and disability pay-gap reporting, in addition to the existing gender pay-gap reporting requirements, along with pay transparency rules similar to those currently being introduced in the EU and bringing dual discrimination (where discrimination is due to a combination of protected characteristics) into effect. These initiatives all show the degree to which the UK, as well as the EU more generally, is taking a different approach to DEI issues than the US at the moment. For those employees who value DEI programmes, the US retrenchment in this area provides UK employers, particularly IT companies, with a really strong opportunity to position themselves as an attractive option for global talent.   A commitment to DEI initiatives can be a genuine point of difference in attracting the best candidates, especially for younger employees as the recent Ipsos survey showed, and whereas the US might have been a key destination in the past for ex-pat IT employees, the UK could be well placed to close the gap in the next few years.   Nick Le Riche is a Partner in the Employment Law team at the international law firm Broadfield. Read more on DEI How has US pushback affected UK DEI? The DEI backlash is over – we are talking a full scale revolt What companies are rolling back DEI policies in 2025?

As concerns around the economy have risen in the US, the number of full-time employees doing side work or gig jobs has reached record highs. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 8.9 million Americans, or 5.4% of the civilian workforce, now hold more than one job, an all-time high. A new survey by global HR tech firm Remote placed the percentage of those working more than one job even higher. The survey of 2,000 full-time, desk-based US employees revealed that 18% have already taken on a second job or side hustle, and another 57% are considering one. The survey also found that only 17% of full-time office workers say their employer is giving them the resources and support they need to feel stable and motivated at work. Additionally, 79% of those surveyed by Remote indicated that they’re more concerned about the economic direction of the nation compared to last year. The top concerns driving those sentiments include retirement savings and financial preparedness (60%), followed by layoffs (45%) and job security (44%). Side gigs more common, but problems remain Gig workers, earning through short-term, flexible jobs via apps or platforms, are in high demand, according to career site JobLeads. JobLeads analyzed data from the Online Labour Observatory and the World Bank Group to reveal the countries dominating online gig work. The United States is leading in the number of online freelancers, with 28% of the global online freelance market. Software and tech roles dominate in the US, representing 36.4% of freelancers, followed by creative/multimedia (21.1%) and clerical/data entry jobs (18.2%). Emily Rose McRae, a senior director analyst at Gartner Research, said a new normal has emerged within organizations where employees working side gigs isn’t necessarily considered a problem. Prior to the pandemic in 2020, employers were much more sensitive to employees performing work for secondary companies. The real issue isn’t fraud — it’s poor performance, McRae said. If someone isn’t meeting expectations and it goes unnoticed, that’s a failure of management, not the fact that they have two jobs. “[Employers] are actually saying, ‘Well, if this starts to be a problem, let me know,’” she said. “You have to more actively manage the issue, instead of trying to prevent the problem.” Another issue with side gigs: “What if they’re doing a side hustle where they do work as a contractor that’s quite similar to the work they do for you as an employer?” McRae asked. “What if they’re doing it for a competitor? Where is the line there in terms of what you are comfortable having shared and not shared?” The other problem that has arisen is workers contracting out their jobs to cheap overseas labor — a practice known as “shadow stand-ins.” This trend has gained traction with the rise of remote work and online platforms like Fiverr and Upwork. To address these concerns, organizations should be actively monitoring their employees to ensure they’re holding to work standards and not burning out due to their self-imposed workloads across multiple gigs, McRae said. The bottom line is they need to not only pay attention to potential employees during the hiring process but continue to check in on employees regularly once they’re on board. “At a minimum, they need to pay much more active attention to potential intellectual property and other international informational security issues, and it also requires that managers be a little bit more attentive,” she said. Stress is up Remote’s survey also showed that 62% of those surveyed reported higher work-related stress than a year ago. Motivation is an issue as well: just 24% describe themselves as ‘very motivated’ at work, 31% say they are only slightly motivated, and 8% report being not at all motivated. “People are showing up, doing the work, and carrying real pressure, but the data shows they’re not hearing directly from leadership, and they’re not seeing action that matches the moment,” said Barbara Matthews, Chief People Officer at Remote. “That gap doesn’t close with simple perks or surface-level fixes. It takes real attention and follow-through.” According to Remote, employers need to acknowledge and accommodate employees’ lives outside work. By doing so, companies can better retain talent, while also expanding the talent pool to potential employees who can’t meet the rigid requirements of a traditional 9-5, fully in-office job. Employers should also: Prioritize regular, transparent communication about business performance and future plans.  Offer development pathways and mentorship to help employees grow and adapt. The ability to chart a clear path forward can make employees feel more secure in their role.  Check in on financial wellness and offer support (e.g., planning resources, education, or benefits) where possible.  Create a space for honest feedback, especially when the conversations are likely to feel tough. “The findings serve as a reminder that people-first leadership isn’t about guesswork; it’s about listening, responding, and proactively creating environments where employees can maintain stability and productivity even in uncertain times,” Matthews said.

Technology can be a double-edged sword. The right amount can fuel productivity, but too much can become a time waste. As with most things, the key is striking a healthy balance. Unfortunately, the deck is stacked against you. Apps and websites are designed to grab and hold your attention. So, how do successful people resist? “High-achievers use technology as a tool, not a distraction,” says Sachin Puri, chief growth officer at the web-hosting provider Liquid Web. “They make productivity apps their first priority, plan for intentional screen time, and select platforms intentionally. They may spend lots of time on screens, but they set boundaries where they need to, so that technology enhances their performance, rather than slowing it down.” To determine how high-achievers leverage tech, Liquid Web surveyed six-figure earners who excel in their careers to discover the habits and strategies they use to maximize productivity and minimize time wasting. Here’s what they found: They Are Intentional with Screen Time High-achievers spend an average of seven hours a day on their computers, which is a good chunk of time. However, they are primarily focused on activities that fall under the “productivity” umbrella, choosing sites that enhance and not hinder their career growth.  On average, they also limit phone use to three hours per day on things that could be deemed entertainment. This seems to suggest that they believe all work and no play can make a person dull. “High-achievers spend significant time on their screens but with clear intent,” says Puri. “This contrasts sharply with average Americans, who spend 23% more time on their phones.” They Go Tech-free (Sometimes) Forty-four percent of these high-achievers take daily tech breaks to better manage screen time and boost focus and well-being. While this is still the minority, it is a higher number than average Americans, 38% of whom take daily tech-free breaks.  “They use these breaks with intention, viewing them as a way to reset focus and maintain productivity rather than escape from work,” says Puri. “Instead of stepping away aimlessly, they use this time strategically to enhance their performance and mental clarity.” Tech breaks happen both during and outside work hours, depending on individual routines. For example, some high-performers may take short breaks during the day to sustain productivity, while others may choose to unplug in the evening or on weekends to separate work from personal life. “Regardless of timing, the key is using breaks strategically to maintain performance,” says Puri.  They Choose Tools for Productivity High-achievers also select their tech tools with an eye on efficiency, the survey discovered. For example, two thirds rely on calendar and scheduling tools, and 40% use AI chatbots to stay ahead of deadlines, optimize workflows, automate repetitive tasks, assist with brainstorming new ideas, and summarize lengthy pieces of information. “Compared to average Americans, successful individuals were 32% more likely to use calendar and scheduling tools and 11% more likely to rely on AI chatbots to optimize their workflows,” says Puri. “These tools have enabled them to maintain focus, manage time effectively, and achieve their goals more efficiently.” They Focus Their Social Media Habits Finally, high-achievers are mindful of social media. For example, 49% avoid TikTok entirely. Instead, they gravitate toward sites that offer a career-related benefit. Nearly 40% use Reddit as their most popular platform for learning and engagement. Successful people are also much more engaged on LinkedIn. Only 17% of high-achievers said they don’t use the professional networking site, compared to 38% of average Americans who aren’t engaged there. “Many high-achievers don’t give up on screens altogether—they just shift their focus,” says Puri. “Their social media habits show it, with many opting for interactive, discussion-based apps such as Reddit over passive scroll-based apps such as TikTok.” The lesson here is that screen time isn’t always a time suck. It’s where your attention goes that can help or hinder your success. 

Unity surveyed over 1,400 multiplayer gamers in the US, UK, Japan, and Korea to find out what multiplayer gamers want from their experiences so you can get a head start on planning your next project.Developing multiplayer games can require more up-front work to get running – like specialized expertise, ongoing service, and up-front capital and maintenance costs.In that sense, multiplayer game development is more of an investment than single player game creation – so you need to design the player experience right in order to find success.But what’s most important to multiplayer gamers? We surveyed players across the globe to find out.In each country (US, UK, Japan, Korea), we focused on two categories of multiplayer gamers: Casual and core.Casual gamers: Those who spend at least two hours gaming per week, of which at least 30 minutes is playing multiplayerCore gamers: Those who spend at least four hours playing multiplayer games in any combination of the following traditionally multiplayer genres: Shooter (battle royale, FPS, third person shooter), MOBA, MMO, racing, sports, or fightingWe collected responses from approximately 1,400 gamers, split about 50/50 between the core and casual groups. Here’s what we found.One thing we found is that demand for multiplayer games is massive, and people around the world are playing a lot of multiplayer titles without walled gardens. More than half the global population (52%) play games, and of those gamers, 77% play multiplayer games.Additionally, crossplay is a powerful tool that is helping fuel deeper engagement with multiplayer gaming – with those who spend the most time playing cross-play titles also being the ones spending the most time playing multiplayer games.Features that make playing with others easier are significant factors when gamers are choosing a new multiplayer title to invest their time in, and also impact enjoyment of games they’re actively playing.Players want to easily connect with their friends through shared gaming experiences. When choosing a new multiplayer game, the most important in-game feature is the ability to chat with friends.When it comes to how they like to chat, 52% of respondents prefer creating chat parties with menus inside of their games, while 25% most prefer using a separate device/software solution, and only 15% of respondents preferred using a separate device.This indicates that investing in a smart in-game player comms solution is a good move for your multiplayer titles.Also ranking highly in must-have features for a multiplayer game is a short wait to join a match, with 29% of gamers ranking this in their top three.Tip 💡 Invest in social features – like friends lists, parties, and in-game comms – for your multiplayer title to give reasons a player to choose your game and build a community within it.Most multiplayer gamers stay engaged with games post launch and will spend on content to keep their experiences fresh, with over half of multiplayer gamers (61%) reported having purchased some amount of multiplayer game DLC content in the last thirty days.When it comes to the breakdown between core and casual gamers, there are a few key differences in how they spend on extra content.Core gamers are almost twice as likely to spend 20 or more USD/GBP on DLC and casual gamers are slightly more likely to spend in the sub-20 USD/GBP band for their extra content.Tip 💡 Keep fresh content and experiences rolling into your game updates to increase the longevity of your game and keep your players coming back for more. They’re willing to pay if you’re willing to provide.Casual gamers aren’t relegated to specific genres like card and puzzle games. Aside from FPS, fighting, and sports – where more core gamers report having played a title within the last week – there’s a relatively even split of core and casual gamers enjoying games in every genre.In fact, on average, across all genres, there’s a less than 10 percentage point difference between core and casual gamers who have played a title within the genre in the last week.For example, 51% of core gamers played a role-playing game in the last week, versus 46% of casual gamers.As mentioned, FPS, fighting, and sports titles have the biggest difference in popularity with core and casual audiences, with a 23, 16, and 16 percent difference between the audiences respectively.Card games have the most even split of casual versus core gamers (43% vs 44%), with racing, simulation, puzzle, and RPGs tied for second place.Tip 💡 Don’t let your planned genre box you into thinking you’ll only reach a certain audience. Knowing that there are people out there for all kinds of games, across core and casual gamers, might just open up the opportunity for you to build your dream game for an audience you hadn’t yet considered.Dive deeper into the full findings of our 2022 multiplayer report by downloading the PDF.Starting on a new multiplayer game project? Get everything you need to create your game, connect your players, and empower communication from our Multiplayer suite of products.Unity is looking to equip studios of all sizes with both the knowledge and tools needed to deliver on these experiences for years to come. Get involved with us and the community by heading over to our Unity Gaming Services forum.

A hot potato: Although Nvidia has caught the most flak for continuing to sell mid-range $400+ graphics cards with just 8GB of VRAM, AMD has also persisted with this approach in the budget-performance segment. Although independent benchmark data reveals the ongoing quality and performance sacrifices associated with smaller VRAM pools, Team Red continues to defend its lower-tier products with statements that, while technically accurate, obscure the true value propositions of modern GPUs. AMD's Frank Azor recently defended the company's decision to sell an 8GB variant of the Radeon RX 9060 XT amid growing criticism of mid-range and mainstream graphics cards featuring limited VRAM. While Nvidia is more frequently guilty of this trend and AMD cards often offer more memory, the most affordable and popular products from both companies suffer from the same issue. Following a Computex unveiling of the RX 9060 XT, which offers 8GB and 16GB configurations, Azor responded to a question regarding the cheaper version by claiming 8GB of VRAM is sufficient for 1080p, the most popular PC gaming resolution. Our reviews of similar GPUs like Nvidia's RTX 5060 Ti 8GB and 5060 reveal that, while this is true, low VRAM significantly handicaps cards compared to similar hardware with more memory. While virtually any title in 2025 is playable with 8GB of VRAM at the right graphics settings, the size of the VRAM pool can still significantly impact the user experience. Comparing the 8GB and 16GB versions of the RTX 5060 Ti reveals that while average frame rates are often similar, running out of memory can dramatically worsen one-percent lows, leading to noticeable stuttering. Some games perform worse overall on the 8GB model, and others – like Indiana Jones and the Great Circle – crash at settings where the 16GB GPU runs smoothly. // Related Stories Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 highlights a different issue. Both cards deliver nearly identical frame rates at ultra settings with the 4K texture pack enabled, but the 8GB version struggles to render high-resolution textures. In another benchmark, the 8GB RTX 5060 Ti even falls behind Intel's Arc B580 – a 12GB card that costs over $100 less and targets a lower performance tier. These issues can arise even at 1080p, a resolution still used by 55% of surveyed Steam users. Azor also noted that the mainstream GPU market is aimed largely at esports players, who likely represent the largest segment of users. Steam's most popular games – esports titles like Counter-Strike 2, Marvel Rivals, Dota 2, and Apex Legends – can still achieve high frame rates on 8GB cards. Related reading: 4GB vs. 8GB: How Have VRAM Requirements Evolved? However, as GPUs become more expensive, many users are turning to budget hardware for playing demanding AAA titles, which benchmarks show they can handle surprisingly well. With sufficient VRAM and upscaling technology, mainstream GPUs are perfectly capable of 4K gaming. Nvidia's approach to reviews of 8GB GPUs also suggests manufacturers are aware of the shortcomings. The company withheld 8GB RTX 5060 Ti review units from independent outlets and restricted access to RTX 5060 drivers for reviewers unwilling to benchmark the card under favorable conditions. One such condition was enabling quadruple frame generation, a feature that distorts raw performance metrics and consumes additional VRAM. Meanwhile, ray tracing – a feature Nvidia frequently markets as a core benefit – is notably memory-intensive. AMD's first 8GB card, the Radeon RX 480, launched nearly nine years ago at $229. It's remarkable that manufacturers still sell GPUs with the same VRAM capacity for over $300. Outside of esports, these products are likely to age poorly, especially if next-generation consoles, which are expected to feature more than 20GB of memory, launch within these cards' life spans. How much VRAM do you have?

A submarine that sank over 100 years ago during WWI has been surveyed off the coast of San Diego.