The two companies are launching the Accenture Anthropic Business Group to bring Anthropic's AI to Accenture's employees.

Empromptu claims all a user has to do is tell the platform's AI chatbot what they want — like a new HTML or JavaScript app — and the AI will go ahead and build it.

AWS has been working with the U.S. government since 2011 and is now building AI infrastructure specifically for the entity.

LinkedIn is launching its new AI-powered people search this week, after what seems like a very long wait for what should have been a natural offering for generative AI.

It comes a full three years after the launch of ChatGPT and six months after LinkedIn launched its AI job search offering. For technical leaders, this timeline illustrates a key enterprise lesson: Deploying generative AI in real enterprise settings is challenging, especially at a scale of 1.3 billion users. It’s a slow, brutal process of pragmatic optimization.

The following account is based on several exclusive interviews with the LinkedIn product and engineering team behind the launch.

First, here’s how the product works: A user can now type a natural language query like, "Who is knowledgeable about curing cancer?" into LinkedIn’s search bar.

LinkedIn's old search, based on keywords, would have been stumped. It would have looked only for references to "cancer". If a user wanted to get sophisticated, they would have had to run separate, rigid keyword searches for "cancer" and then "oncology" and manually try to piece the results together.

The new AI-powered system, however, understands the intent of the search because the LLM under the hood grasps semantic meaning. It recognizes, for example, that "cancer" is conceptually related to "oncology" and even less directly, to "genomics research." As a result, it surfaces a far more relevant list of people, including oncology leaders and researchers, even if their profiles don't use the exact word "cancer."

The system also balances this relevance with usefulness. Instead of just showing the world's top oncologist (who might be an unreachable third-degree connection), it will also weigh who in your immediate network — like a first-degree connection — is "pretty relevant" and can serve as a crucial bridge to that expert.

See the video below for an example.

Arguably, though, the more important lesson for enterprise practitioners is the "cookbook" LinkedIn has developed: a replicable, multi-stage pipeline of distillation, co-design, and relentless optimization. LinkedIn had to perfect this on one product before attempting it on another.

"Don't try to do too much all at once," writes Wenjing Zhang, LinkedIn's VP of Engineering, in a  post about the product launch, and who also spoke with VentureBeat last week in an interview. She notes that an earlier "sprawling ambition" to build a unified system for all of LinkedIn's products "stalled progress."

Instead, LinkedIn focused on winning one vertical first. The success of its previously launched AI Job Search — which led to job seekers without a four-year degree being 10% more likely to get hired, according to VP of Product Engineering Erran Berger — provided the blueprint.

Now, the company is applying that blueprint to a far larger challenge. "It's one thing to be able to do this across tens of millions of jobs," Berger told VentureBeat. "It's another thing to do this across north of a billion members."

For enterprise AI builders, LinkedIn's journey provides a technical playbook for what it actually takes to move from a successful pilot to a billion-user-scale product.

The new challenge: a 1.3 billion-member graph

The job search product created a robust recipe that the new people search product could build upon, Berger explained. 

The recipe started with with a "golden data set" of just a few hundred to a thousand real query-profile pairs, meticulously scored against a detailed 20- to 30-page "product policy" document. To scale this for training, LinkedIn used this small golden set to prompt a large foundation model to generate a massive volume of synthetic training data. This synthetic data was used to train a 7-billion-parameter "Product Policy" model — a high-fidelity judge of relevance that was too slow for live production but perfect for teaching smaller models.

However, the team hit a wall early on. For six to nine months, they struggled to train a single model that could balance strict policy adherence (relevance) against user engagement signals. The "aha moment" came when they realized they needed to break the problem down. They distilled the 7B policy model into a 1.7B teacher model focused solely on relevance. They then paired it with separate teacher models trained to predict specific member actions, such as job applications for the jobs product, or connecting and following for people search. This "multi-teacher" ensemble produced soft probability scores that the final student model learned to mimic via KL divergence loss.

The resulting architecture operates as a two-stage pipeline. First, a larger 8B parameter model handles broad retrieval, casting a wide net to pull candidates from the graph. Then, the highly distilled student model takes over for fine-grained ranking. While the job search product successfully deployed a 0.6B (600-million) parameter student, the new people search product required even more aggressive compression. As Zhang notes, the team pruned their new student model from 440M down to just 220M parameters, achieving the necessary speed for 1.3 billion users with less than 1% relevance loss.

But applying this to people search broke the old architecture. The new problem included not just ranking but also retrieval.

“A billion records," Berger said, is a "different beast."

The team’s prior retrieval stack was built on CPUs. To handle the new scale and the latency demands of a "snappy" search experience, the team had to move its indexing to GPU-based infrastructure. This was a foundational architectural shift that the job search product did not require.

Organizationally, LinkedIn benefited from multiple approaches. For a time, LinkedIn had two separate teams — job search and people search — attempting to solve the problem in parallel. But once the job search team achieved its breakthrough using the policy-driven distillation method, Berger and his leadership team intervened. They brought over the architects of the job search win — product lead Rohan Rajiv and engineering lead Wenjing Zhang — to transplant their 'cookbook' directly to the new domain.

Distilling for a 10x throughput gain

With the retrieval problem solved, the team faced the ranking and efficiency challenge. This is where the cookbook was adapted with new, aggressive optimization techniques.

Zhang’s technical post (I’ll insert the link once it goes live) provides the specific details our audience of AI engineers will appreciate. One of the more significant optimizations was input size.

To feed the model, the team trained another LLM with reinforcement learning (RL) for a single purpose: to summarize the input context. This "summarizer" model was able to reduce the model's input size by 20-fold with minimal information loss.

The combined result of the 220M-parameter model and the 20x input reduction? A 10x increase in ranking throughput, allowing the team to serve the model efficiently to its massive user base.

Pragmatism over hype: building tools, not agents

Throughout our discussions, Berger was adamant about something else that might catch peoples’ attention: The real value for enterprises today lies in perfecting recommender systems, not in chasing "agentic hype." He also refused to talk about the specific models that the company used for the searches, suggesting it almost doesn't matter. The company selects models based on which one it finds the most efficient for the task.

The new AI-powered people search is a manifestation of Berger’s philosophy that it’s best to optimize the recommender system first. The architecture includes a new "intelligent query routing layer," as Berger explained, that itself is LLM-powered. This router pragmatically decides if a user's query — like "trust expert" — should go to the new semantic, natural-language stack or to the old, reliable lexical search.

This entire, complex system is designed to be a "tool" that a future agent will use, not the agent itself.

"Agentic products are only as good as the tools that they use to accomplish tasks for people," Berger said. "You can have the world's best reasoning model, and if you're trying to use an agent to do people search but the people search engine is not very good, you're not going to be able to deliver." 

Now that the people search is available, Berger suggested that one day the company will be offering agents to use it. But he didn’t provide details on timing. He also said the recipe used for job and people search will be spread across the company’s other products.

For enterprises building their own AI roadmaps, LinkedIn's playbook is clear:

1. Be pragmatic: Don't try to boil the ocean. Win one vertical, even if it takes 18 months.

2. Codify the "cookbook": Turn that win into a repeatable process (policy docs, distillation pipelines, co-design).

3. Optimize relentlessly: The real 10x gains come after the initial model, in pruning, distillation, and creative optimizations like an RL-trained summarizer.

LinkedIn's journey shows that for real-world enterprise AI, emphasis on specific models or cool agentic systems should take a back seat. The durable, strategic advantage comes from mastering the pipeline — the 'AI-native' cookbook of co-design, distillation, and ruthless optimization.

(Editor's note: We will be publishing a full-length podcast with LinkedIn's Erran Berger, which will dive deeper into these technical details, on the VentureBeat podcast feed soon.)

Microsoft is launching a significant expansion of its Copilot AI assistant on Tuesday, introducing tools that let employees build applications, automate workflows, and create specialized AI agents using only conversational prompts — no coding required.

The new capabilities, called App Builder and Workflows, mark Microsoft's most aggressive attempt yet to merge artificial intelligence with software development, enabling the estimated 100 million Microsoft 365 users to create business tools as easily as they currently draft emails or build spreadsheets.

"We really believe that a main part of an AI-forward employee, not just developers, will be to create agents, workflows and apps," Charles Lamanna, Microsoft's president of business and industry Copilot, said in an interview with VentureBeat. "Part of the job will be to build and create these things."

The announcement comes as Microsoft deepens its commitment to AI-powered productivity tools while navigating a complex partnership with OpenAI, the creator of the underlying technology that powers Copilot. On the same day, OpenAI completed its restructuring into a for-profit entity, with Microsoft receiving a 27% ownership stake valued at approximately $135 billion.

How natural language prompts now create fully functional business applications

The new features transform Copilot from a conversational assistant into what Microsoft envisions as a comprehensive development environment accessible to non-technical workers. Users can now describe an application they need — such as a project tracker with dashboards and task assignments — and Copilot will generate a working app complete with a database backend, user interface, and security controls.

"If you're right inside of Copilot, you can now have a conversation to build an application complete with a backing database and a security model," Lamanna explained. "You can make edit requests and update requests and change requests so you can tune the app to get exactly the experience you want before you share it with other users."

The App Builder stores data in Microsoft Lists, the company's lightweight database system, and allows users to share finished applications via a simple link—similar to sharing a document. The Workflows agent, meanwhile, automates routine tasks across Microsoft's ecosystem of products, including Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, and Planner, by converting natural language descriptions into automated processes.

A third component, a simplified version of Microsoft's Copilot Studio agent-building platform, lets users create specialized AI assistants tailored to specific tasks or knowledge domains, drawing from SharePoint documents, meeting transcripts, emails, and external systems.

All three capabilities are included in the existing $30-per-month Microsoft 365 Copilot subscription at no additional cost — a pricing decision Lamanna characterized as consistent with Microsoft's historical approach of bundling significant value into its productivity suite.

"That's what Microsoft always does. We try to do a huge amount of value at a low price," he said. "If you go look at Office, you think about Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Exchange, all that for like eight bucks a month. That's a pretty good deal."

Why Microsoft's nine-year bet on low-code development is finally paying off

The new tools represent the culmination of a nine-year effort by Microsoft to democratize software development through its Power Platform — a collection of low-code and no-code development tools that has grown to 56 million monthly active users, according to figures the company disclosed in recent earnings reports.

Lamanna, who has led the Power Platform initiative since its inception, said the integration into Copilot marks a fundamental shift in how these capabilities reach users. Rather than requiring workers to visit a separate website or learn a specialized interface, the development tools now exist within the same conversational window they already use for AI-assisted tasks.

"One of the big things that we're excited about is Copilot — that's a tool for literally every office worker," Lamanna said. "Every office worker, just like they research data, they analyze data, they reason over topics, they also will be creating apps, agents and workflows."

The integration offers significant technical advantages, he argued. Because Copilot already indexes a user's Microsoft 365 content — emails, documents, meetings, and organizational data — it can incorporate that context into the applications and workflows it builds. If a user asks for "an app for Project Spartan," Copilot can draw from existing communications to understand what that project entails and suggest relevant features.

"If you go to those other tools, they have no idea what the heck Project Spartan is," Lamanna said, referencing competing low-code platforms from companies like Google, Salesforce, and ServiceNow. "But if you do it inside of Copilot and inside of the App Builder, it's able to draw from all that information and context."

Microsoft claims the apps created through these tools are "full-stack applications" with proper databases secured through the same identity systems used across its enterprise products — distinguishing them from simpler front-end tools offered by competitors. The company also emphasized that its existing governance, security, and data loss prevention policies automatically apply to apps and workflows created through Copilot.

Where professional developers still matter in an AI-powered workplace

While Microsoft positions the new capabilities as accessible to all office workers, Lamanna was careful to delineate where professional developers remain essential. His dividing line centers on whether a system interacts with parties outside the organization.

"Anything that leaves the boundaries of your company warrants developer involvement," he said. "If you want to build an agent and put it on your website, you should have developers involved. Or if you want to build an automation which interfaces directly with your customers, or an app or a website which interfaces directly with your customers, you want professionals involved."

The reasoning is risk-based: external-facing systems carry greater potential for data breaches, security vulnerabilities, or business errors. "You don't want people getting refunds they shouldn't," Lamanna noted.

For internal use cases — approval workflows, project tracking, team dashboards — Microsoft believes the new tools can handle the majority of needs without IT department involvement. But the company has built "no cliffs," in Lamanna's terminology, allowing users to migrate simple apps to more sophisticated platforms as needs grow.

Apps created in the conversational App Builder can be opened in Power Apps, Microsoft's full development environment, where they can be connected to Dataverse, the company's enterprise database, or extended with custom code. Similarly, simple workflows can graduate to the full Power Automate platform, and basic agents can be enhanced in the complete Copilot Studio.

"We have this mantra called no cliffs," Lamanna said. "If your app gets too complicated for the App Builder, you can always edit and open it in Power Apps. You can jump over to the richer experience, and if you're really sophisticated, you can even go from those experiences into Azure."

This architecture addresses a problem that has plagued previous generations of easy-to-use development tools: users who outgrow the simplified environment often must rebuild from scratch on professional platforms. "People really do not like easy-to-use development tools if I have to throw everything away and start over," Lamanna said.

What happens when every employee can build apps without IT approval

The democratization of software development raises questions about governance, maintenance, and organizational complexity — issues Microsoft has worked to address through administrative controls.

IT administrators can view all applications, workflows, and agents created within their organization through a centralized inventory in the Microsoft 365 admin center. They can reassign ownership, disable access at the group level, or "promote" particularly useful employee-created apps to officially supported status.

"We have a bunch of customers who have this approach where it's like, let 1,000 apps bloom, and then the best ones, I go upgrade and make them IT-governed or central," Lamanna said.

The system also includes provisions for when employees leave. Apps and workflows remain accessible for 60 days, during which managers can claim ownership — similar to how OneDrive files are handled when someone departs.

Lamanna argued that most employee-created apps don't warrant significant IT oversight. "It's just not worth inspecting an app that John, Susie, and Bob use to do their job," he said. "It should concern itself with the app that ends up being used by 2,000 people, and that will pop up in that dashboard."

Still, the proliferation of employee-created applications could create challenges. Users have expressed frustration with Microsoft's increasing emphasis on AI features across its products, with some giving the Microsoft 365 mobile app one-star ratings after a recent update prioritized Copilot over traditional file access.

The tools also arrive as enterprises grapple with "shadow IT" — unsanctioned software and systems that employees adopt without official approval. While Microsoft's governance controls aim to provide visibility, the ease of creating new applications could accelerate the pace at which these systems multiply.

The ambitious plan to turn 500 million workers into software builders

Microsoft's ambitions for the technology extend far beyond incremental productivity gains. Lamanna envisions a fundamental transformation of what it means to be an office worker — one where building software becomes as routine as creating spreadsheets.

"Just like how 20 years ago you put on your resume that you could use pivot tables in Excel, people are going to start saying that they can use App Builder and workflow agents, even if they're just in the finance department or the sales department," he said.

The numbers he's targeting are staggering. With 56 million people already using Power Platform, Lamanna believes the integration into Copilot could eventually reach 500 million builders. "Early days still, but I think it's certainly encouraging," he said.

The features are currently available only to customers in Microsoft's Frontier Program — an early access initiative for Microsoft 365 Copilot subscribers. The company has not disclosed how many organizations participate in the program or when the tools will reach general availability.

The announcement fits within Microsoft's larger strategy of embedding AI capabilities throughout its product portfolio, driven by its partnership with OpenAI. Under the restructured agreement announced Tuesday, Microsoft will have access to OpenAI's technology through 2032, including models that achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI) — though such systems do not yet exist. Microsoft has also begun integrating Copilot into its new companion apps for Windows 11, which provide quick access to contacts, files, and calendar information.

The aggressive integration of AI features across Microsoft's ecosystem has drawn mixed reactions. While enterprise customers have shown interest in productivity gains, the rapid pace of change and ubiquity of AI prompts have frustrated some users who prefer traditional workflows.

For Microsoft, however, the calculation is clear: if even a fraction of its user base begins creating applications and automations, it would represent a massive expansion of the effective software development workforce — and further entrench customers in Microsoft's ecosystem. The company is betting that the same natural language interface that made ChatGPT accessible to millions can finally unlock the decades-old promise of empowering everyday workers to build their own tools.

The App Builder and Workflows agents are available starting today through the Microsoft 365 Copilot Agent Store for Frontier Program participants.

Whether that future arrives depends not just on the technology's capabilities, but on a more fundamental question: Do millions of office workers actually want to become part-time software developers? Microsoft is about to find out if the answer is yes — or if some jobs are better left to the professionals.

May Habib, co-founder and CEO of Writer AI, delivered one of the bluntest assessments of corporate AI failures at the TED AI conference on Tuesday, revealing that nearly half of Fortune 500 executives believe artificial intelligence is actively damaging their organizations — and placing the blame squarely on leadership's shoulders.

The problem, according to Habib, isn't the technology. It's that business leaders are making a category error, treating AI transformation like previous technology rollouts and delegating it to IT departments. This approach, she warned, has led to "billions of dollars spent on AI initiatives that are going nowhere."

"Earlier this year, we did a survey of 800 Fortune 500 C-suite executives," Habib told the audience of Silicon Valley executives and investors. "42% of them said AI is tearing their company apart."

The diagnosis challenges conventional wisdom about how enterprises should approach AI adoption. While most major companies have stood up AI task forces, appointed chief AI officers, or expanded IT budgets, Habib argues these moves reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI represents: not another software tool, but a wholesale reorganization of how work gets done.

"There is something leaders are missing when they compare AI to just another tech tool," Habib said. "This is not like giving accountants calculators or bankers Excel or designers Photoshop."

Why the 'old playbook' of delegating to IT departments is failing companies

Habib, whose company has spent five years building AI systems for Fortune 500 companies and logged two million miles visiting customer sites, said the pattern is consistent: "When generative AI started showing up, we turned to the old playbook. We turned to IT and said, 'Go figure this out.'"

That approach fails, she argued, because AI fundamentally changes the economics and organization of work itself. "For 100 years, enterprises have been built around the idea that execution is expensive and hard," Habib said. "The enterprise built complex org charts, complex processes, all to manage people doing stuff."

AI inverts that model. "Execution is going from scarce and expensive to programmatic, on-demand and abundant," she said. In this new paradigm, the bottleneck shifts from execution capacity to strategic design — a shift that requires business leaders, not IT departments, to drive transformation.

"With AI technology, it can no longer be centralized. It's in every workflow, every business," Habib said. "It is now the most important part of a business leader's job. It cannot be delegated."

The statement represents a direct challenge to how most large organizations have structured their AI initiatives, with centralized centers of excellence, dedicated AI teams, or IT-led implementations that business units are expected to adopt.

A generational power shift is happening based on who understands AI workflow design

Habib framed the shift in dramatic terms: "A generational transfer of power is happening right now. It's not about your age or how long you've been at a company. The generational transfer of power is about the nature of leadership itself."

Traditional leadership, she argued, has been defined by the ability to manage complexity — big teams, big budgets, intricate processes. "The identity of leaders at these companies, people like us, has been tied to old school power structures: control, hierarchy, how big our teams are, how big our budgets are. Our value is measured by the sheer amount of complexity we could manage," Habib said. "Today we reward leaders for this. We promote leaders for this."

AI makes that model obsolete. "When I am able to 10x the output of my team or do things that could never be possible, work is no longer about the 1x," she said. "Leadership is no longer about managing complex human execution."

Instead, Habib outlined three fundamental shifts that define what she calls "AI-first leaders" — executives her company has worked with who have successfully deployed AI agents solving "$100 million plus problems."

The first shift: Taking a machete to enterprise complexity

The new leadership mandate, according to Habib, is "taking a machete to the complexity that has calcified so many organizations." She pointed to the layers of friction that have accumulated in enterprises: "Brilliant ideas dying in memos, the endless cycles of approvals, the death by 1,000 clicks, meetings about meetings — a death, by the way, that's happening in 17 different browser tabs each for software that promises to be a single source of truth."

Rather than accepting this complexity as inevitable, AI-first leaders redesign workflows from first principles. "There are very few legacy systems that can't be replaced in your organization, that won't be replaced," Habib said. "But they're not going to be replaced by another monolithic piece of software. They can only be replaced by a business leader articulating business logic and getting that into an agentic system."

She offered a concrete example: "We have customers where it used to take them seven months to get a creative campaign — not even a product, a campaign. Now they can go from TikTok trend to digital shelf in 30 days. That is radical simplicity."

The catch, she emphasized, is that CIOs can't drive this transformation alone. "Your CIO can't help flatten your org chart. Only a business leader can look at workflows and say, 'This part is necessary genius, this part is bureaucratic scar tissue that has to go.'"

The second shift: Managing the fear as career ladders disappear

When AI handles execution, "your humans are liberated to do what they're amazing at: judgment, strategy, creativity," Habib explained. "The old leadership playbook was about managing headcount. We managed people against revenue: one business development rep for every three account executives, one marketer for every five salespeople."

But this liberation carries profound challenges that leaders must address directly. Habib acknowledged the elephant in the room that many executives avoid discussing: "These changes are still frightening for people, even when it's become unholy to talk about it." She's witnessed the fear firsthand. "It shows up as tears in an AI workshop when someone feels like their old skill set isn't translated to the new."

She introduced a term for a common form of resistance: "productivity anchoring" — when employees "cling to the hard way of doing things because they feel productive, because their self-worth is tied to them, even when empirically AI can be better."

The solution isn't to look away. "We have to design new pathways to impact, to show your people their value is not in executing a task. Their value is in orchestrating systems of execution, to ask the next great question," Habib said. She advocates replacing career "ladders" with "lattices" where "people need to grow laterally, to expand sideways."

She was candid about the disruption: "The first rungs on our career ladders are indeed going away. I know because my company is automating them." But she insisted this creates opportunity for work that is "more creative, more strategic, more driven by curiosity and impact — and I believe a lot more human than the jobs that they're replacing."

The third shift: When execution becomes free, ambition becomes the only bottleneck

The final shift is from optimization to creation. "Before AI, we used to call it transformation when we took 12 steps and made them nine," Habib said. "That's optimizing the world as it is. We can now create a new world. That is the greenfield mindset."

She challenged executives to identify assumptions their industries are built on that AI now disrupts. Writer's customers, she said, are already seeing new categories of growth: treating every customer like their only customer, democratizing premium services to broader markets, and entering new markets at unprecedented speed because "AI strips away the friction to access new channels."

"When execution is abundant, the only bottleneck is the scope of your own ambition," Habib declared.

What this means for CIOs: Building the stadium while business leaders design the plays

Habib didn't leave IT leaders without a role — she redefined it. "If tech is everyone's job, you might be asking, what is mine?" she addressed CIOs. "Yours is to provide the mission critical infrastructure that makes this revolution possible."

As tens or hundreds of thousands of AI agents operate at various levels of autonomy within organizations, "governance becomes existential," she explained. "The business leader's job is to design the play, but you have to build the stadium, you have to write the rule book, and you have to make sure these plays can win at championship scale."

The formulation suggests a partnership model: business leaders drive workflow redesign and strategic implementation while IT provides the infrastructure, governance frameworks, and security guardrails that make mass AI deployment safe and scalable. "One can't succeed without the other," Habib said.

For CIOs and technical leaders, this represents a fundamental shift from gatekeeper to enabler. When business units deploy agents autonomously, IT faces governance challenges unlike anything in enterprise software history. Success requires genuine partnership between business and IT — neither can succeed alone, forcing cultural changes in how these functions collaborate.

A real example: From multi-day scrambles to instant answers during a market crisis

To ground her arguments in concrete business impact, Habib described working with the chief client officer of a Fortune 500 wealth advisory firm during recent market volatility following tariff announcements.

"Their phone was ringing off the hook with customers trying to figure out their market exposure," she recounted. "Every request kicked off a multi-day, multi-person scramble: a portfolio manager ran the show, an analyst pulled charts, a relationship manager built the PowerPoint, a compliance officer had to review everything for disclosures. And the leader in all this — she was forwarding emails and chasing updates. This is the top job: managing complexity."

With an agentic AI system, the same work happens programmatically. "A system of agents is able to assemble the answer faster than any number of people could have. No more midnight deck reviews. No more days on end" of coordination, Habib said.

This isn't about marginal productivity gains — it's about fundamentally different operating models where senior executives shift from managing coordination to designing intelligent systems.

Why so many AI initiatives are failing despite massive investment

Habib's arguments arrive as many enterprises face AI disillusionment. After initial excitement about generative AI, many companies have struggled to move beyond pilots and demonstrations to production deployments generating tangible business value.

Her diagnosis — that leaders are delegating rather than driving transformation — aligns with growing evidence that organizational factors, not technical limitations, explain most failures. Companies often lack clarity on use cases, struggle with data preparation, or face internal resistance to workflow changes that AI requires.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Habib's presentation was her willingness to acknowledge the human cost of AI transformation — and insist leaders address it rather than avoid it. "Your job as a leader is to not look away from this fear. Your job is to face it with a plan," she told the audience.

She described "productivity anchoring" as a form of "self-sabotage" where employees resist AI adoption because their identity and self-worth are tied to execution tasks AI can now perform. The phenomenon suggests that successful AI transformation requires not just technical and strategic changes but psychological and cultural work that many leaders may be unprepared for.

Two challenges: Get your hands dirty, then reimagine everything

Habib closed by throwing down two gauntlets to her executive audience.

"First, a small one: get your hands dirty with agentic AI. Don't delegate. Choose a process that you oversee and automate it. See the difference from managing a complex process to redesigning it for yourself."

The second was more ambitious: "Go back to your team and ask, what could we achieve if execution were free? What would work feel like, be like, look like if you're unbound from the friction and process that slows us down today?"

She concluded: "The tools for creation are in your hands. The mandate for leadership is on your shoulders. What will you build?"

For enterprise leaders accustomed to viewing AI as an IT initiative, Habib's message is clear: that approach isn't working, won't work, and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI represents. Whether executives embrace her call to personally drive transformation — or continue delegating to IT departments — may determine which organizations thrive and which become cautionary tales.

The statistic she opened with lingers uncomfortably: 42% of Fortune 500 C-suite executives say AI is tearing their companies apart. Habib's diagnosis suggests they're tearing themselves apart by clinging to organizational models designed for an era when execution was scarce. The cure she prescribes requires leaders to do something most find uncomfortable: stop managing complexity and start dismantling it.

Intel added $20 billion to its balance sheet in Q3 but didn't offer many details on the progress of its floundering foundry business.

China is on track to dominate consumer artificial intelligence applications and robotics manufacturing within years, but the United States will maintain its substantial lead in enterprise AI adoption and cutting-edge research, according to Kai-Fu Lee, one of the world's most prominent AI scientists and investors.

In a rare, unvarnished assessment delivered via video link from Beijing to the TED AI conference in San Francisco Tuesday, Lee — a former executive at Apple, Microsoft, and Google who now runs both a major venture capital firm and his own AI company — laid out a technology landscape splitting along geographic and economic lines, with profound implications for both commercial competition and national security.

"China's robotics has the advantage of having integrated AI into much lower costs, better supply chain and fast turnaround, so companies like Unitree are actually the farthest ahead in the world in terms of building affordable, embodied humanoid AI," Lee said, referring to a Chinese robotics manufacturer that has undercut Western competitors on price while advancing capabilities.

The comments, made to a room filled with Silicon Valley executives, investors, and researchers, represented one of the most detailed public assessments from Lee about the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the world's two AI superpowers — and suggested that the race for artificial intelligence leadership is becoming less a single contest than a series of parallel competitions with different winners.

Why venture capital is flowing in opposite directions in the U.S. and China

At the heart of Lee's analysis lies a fundamental difference in how capital flows in the two countries' innovation ecosystems. American venture capitalists, Lee said, are pouring money into generative AI companies building large language models and enterprise software, while Chinese investors are betting heavily on robotics and hardware.

"The VCs in the US don't fund robotics the way the VCs do in China," Lee said. "Just like the VCs in China don't fund generative AI the way the VCs do in the US."

This investment divergence reflects different economic incentives and market structures. In the United States, where companies have grown accustomed to paying for software subscriptions and where labor costs are high, enterprise AI tools that boost white-collar productivity command premium prices. In China, where software subscription models have historically struggled to gain traction but manufacturing dominates the economy, robotics offers a clearer path to commercialization.

The result, Lee suggested, is that each country is pulling ahead in different domains — and may continue to do so.

"China's got some challenges to overcome in getting a company funded as well as OpenAI or Anthropic," Lee acknowledged, referring to the leading American AI labs. "But I think U.S., on the flip side, will have trouble developing the investment interest and value creation in the robotics" sector.

Why American companies dominate enterprise AI while Chinese firms struggle with subscriptions

Lee was explicit about one area where the United States maintains what appears to be a durable advantage: getting businesses to actually adopt and pay for AI software.

"The enterprise adoption will clearly be led by the United States," Lee said. "The Chinese companies have not yet developed a habit of paying for software on a subscription."

This seemingly mundane difference in business culture — whether companies will pay monthly fees for software — has become a critical factor in the AI race. The explosion of spending on tools like GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT Enterprise, and other AI-powered productivity software has fueled American companies' ability to invest billions in further research and development.

Lee noted that China has historically overcome similar challenges in consumer technology by developing alternative business models. "In the early days of internet software, China was also well behind because people weren't willing to pay for software," he said. "But then advertising models, e-commerce models really propelled China forward."

Still, he suggested, someone will need to "find a new business model that isn't just pay per software per use or per month basis. That's going to not happen in China anytime soon."

The implication: American companies building enterprise AI tools have a window — perhaps a substantial one — where they can generate revenue and reinvest in R&D without facing serious Chinese competition in their core market.

How ByteDance, Alibaba and Tencent will outpace Meta and Google in consumer AI

Where Lee sees China pulling ahead decisively is in consumer-facing AI applications — the kind embedded in social media, e-commerce, and entertainment platforms that billions of people use daily.

"In terms of consumer usage, that's likely to happen," Lee said, referring to China matching or surpassing the United States in AI deployment. "The Chinese giants, like ByteDance and Alibaba and Tencent, will definitely move a lot faster than their equivalent in the United States, companies like Meta, YouTube and so on."

Lee pointed to a cultural advantage: Chinese technology companies have spent the past decade obsessively optimizing for user engagement and product-market fit in brutally competitive markets. "The Chinese giants really work tenaciously, and they have mastered the art of figuring out product market fit," he said. "Now they have to add technology to it. So that is inevitably going to happen."

This assessment aligns with recent industry observations. ByteDance's TikTok became the world's most downloaded app through sophisticated AI-driven content recommendation, and Chinese companies have pioneered AI-powered features in areas like live-streaming commerce and short-form video that Western companies later copied.

Lee also noted that China has already deployed AI more widely in certain domains. "There are a lot of areas where China has also done a great job, such as using computer vision, speech recognition, and translation more widely," he said.

The surprising open-source shift that has Chinese models beating Meta's Llama

Perhaps Lee's most striking data point concerned open-source AI development — an area where China appears to have seized leadership from American companies in a remarkably short time.

"The 10 highest rated open source [models] are from China," Lee said. "These companies have now eclipsed Meta's Llama, which used to be number one."

This represents a significant shift. Meta's Llama models were widely viewed as the gold standard for open-source large language models as recently as early 2024. But Chinese companies — including Lee's own firm, 01.AI, along with Alibaba, Baidu, and others — have released a flood of open-source models that, according to various benchmarks, now outperform their American counterparts.

The open-source question has become a flashpoint in AI development. Lee made an extensive case for why open-source models will prove essential to the technology's future, even as closed models from companies like OpenAI command higher prices and, often, superior performance.

"I think open source has a number of major advantages," Lee argued. With open-source models, "you can examine it, tune it, improve it. It's yours, and it's free, and it's important for building if you want to build an application or tune the model to do something specific."

He drew an analogy to operating systems: "People who work in operating systems loved Linux, and that's why its adoption went through the roof. And I think in the future, open source will also allow people to tune a sovereign model for a country, make it work better for a particular language."

Still, Lee predicted both approaches will coexist. "I don't think open source models will win," he said. "I think just like we have Apple, which is closed, but provides a somewhat better experience than Android... I think we're going to see more apps using open-source models, more engineers wanting to build open-source models, but I think more money will remain in the closed model."

Why China's manufacturing advantage makes the robotics race 'not over, but' nearly decided

On robotics, Lee's message was blunt: the combination of China's manufacturing prowess, lower costs, and aggressive investment has created an advantage that will be difficult for American companies to overcome.

When asked directly whether the robotics race was already over with China victorious, Lee hedged only slightly. "It's not over, but I think the U.S. is still capable of coming up with the best robotic research ideas," he said. "But the VCs in the U.S. don't fund robotics the way the VCs do in China."

The challenge is structural. Building robots requires not just software and AI, but hardware manufacturing at scale — precisely the kind of integrated supply chain and low-cost production that China has spent decades perfecting. While American labs at universities and companies like Boston Dynamics continue to produce impressive research prototypes, turning those prototypes into affordable commercial products requires the manufacturing ecosystem that China possesses.

Companies like Unitree have demonstrated this advantage concretely. The company's humanoid robots and quadrupedal robots cost a fraction of their American-made equivalents while offering comparable or superior capabilities — a price-to-performance ratio that could prove decisive in commercial markets.

The energy infrastructure gap that could determine AI supremacy

Underlying many of these competitive dynamics is a factor Lee raised early in his remarks: energy infrastructure. "China is now building new energy projects at 10 times the rate of the U.S.," he said, "and if this continues, it will inevitably lead to China having 10 times the AI capability of the U.S., whether we like it or not."

This observation connects to a theme raised by multiple speakers at the TED AI conference: that computing power — and the energy to run it — has become the fundamental constraint on AI development. If China can build power plants and data centers at 10 times the rate of the United States, it could simply outspend American competitors in training ever-larger models and running them at ever-greater scale.

Lee noted this dynamic carries "very real national security implications for the U.S." — though he did not elaborate on what those implications might be. The comment appeared to reference growing concerns in Washington about technological competition with China, particularly in areas like AI-enabled military systems, surveillance capabilities, and economic competitiveness.

Despite the United States currently hosting several times more AI computing power than China, Lee warned that "this lead is growing" for now but could reverse if energy infrastructure investments continue at current rates.

What worries Lee most: not AGI, but the race itself

Despite his generally measured tone about China's AI development, Lee expressed concern about one area where he believes the global AI community faces real danger — not the far-future risk of superintelligent AI, but the near-term consequences of moving too fast.

When asked about AGI risks, Lee reframed the question. "I'm less afraid of AI becoming self-aware and causing danger for humans in the short term," he said, "but more worried about it being used by bad people to do terrible things, or by the AI race pushing people to work so hard, so fast and furious and move fast and break things that they build products that have problems and holes to be exploited."

He continued: "I'm very worried about that. In fact, I think some terrible event will happen that will be a wake up call from this sort of problem."

Lee's perspective carries unusual weight because of his unique vantage point spanning both Chinese and American AI development. Over a career spanning more than three decades, he has held senior positions at Apple, Microsoft, and Google, while also founding Sinovation Ventures, which has invested in more than 400 companies across both countries. His AI company, 01.AI, founded in 2023, has released several open-source models that rank among the most capable in the world.

For American companies and policymakers, Lee's analysis presents a complex strategic picture. The United States appears to have clear advantages in enterprise AI software, fundamental research, and computing infrastructure. But China is moving faster in consumer applications, manufacturing robotics at lower costs, and potentially pulling ahead in open-source model development.

The bifurcation suggests that rather than a single "winner" in AI, the world may be heading toward a technology landscape where different countries excel in different domains — with all the economic and geopolitical complications that implies.

As the TED AI conference continued Wednesday, Lee's assessment hung over subsequent discussions. His message seemed clear: the AI race is not one contest, but many — and the United States and China are each winning different races.

Standing in the conference hall afterward, one venture capitalist, who asked not to be named, summed up the mood in the room: "We're not competing with China anymore. We're competing on parallel tracks." Whether those tracks eventually converge — or diverge into entirely separate technology ecosystems — may be the defining question of the next decade.

Anthropic launched a new capability on Thursday that allows its Claude AI assistant to tap into specialized expertise on demand, marking the company's latest effort to make artificial intelligence more practical for enterprise workflows as it chases rival OpenAI in the intensifying competition over AI-powered software development.

The feature, called Skills, enables users to create folders containing instructions, code scripts, and reference materials that Claude can automatically load when relevant to a task. The system marks a fundamental shift in how organizations can customize AI assistants, moving beyond one-off prompts to reusable packages of domain expertise that work consistently across an entire company.

"Skills are based on our belief and vision that as model intelligence continues to improve, we'll continue moving towards general-purpose agents that often have access to their own filesystem and computing environment," said Mahesh Murag, a member of Anthropic's technical staff, in an exclusive interview with VentureBeat. "The agent is initially made aware only of the names and descriptions of each available skill and can choose to load more information about a particular skill when relevant to the task at hand."

The launch comes as Anthropic, valued at $183 billion after a recent $13 billion funding round, projects its annual revenue could nearly triple to as much as $26 billion in 2026, according to a recent Reuters report. The company is currently approaching a $7 billion annual revenue run rate, up from $5 billion in August, fueled largely by enterprise adoption of its AI coding tools — a market where it faces fierce competition from OpenAI's recently upgraded Codex platform.

How 'progressive disclosure' solves the context window problem

Skills differ fundamentally from existing approaches to customizing AI assistants, such as prompt engineering or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), Murag explained. The architecture relies on what Anthropic calls "progressive disclosure" — Claude initially sees only skill names and brief descriptions, then autonomously decides which skills to load based on the task at hand, accessing only the specific files and information needed at that moment.

"Unlike RAG, this relies on simple tools that let Claude manage and read files from a filesystem," Murag told VentureBeat. "Skills can contain an unbounded amount of context to teach Claude how to complete a task or series of tasks. This is because Skills are based on the premise of an agent being able to autonomously and intelligently navigate a filesystem and execute code."

This approach allows organizations to bundle far more information than traditional context windows permit, while maintaining the speed and efficiency that enterprise users demand. A single skill can include step-by-step procedures, code templates, reference documents, brand guidelines, compliance checklists, and executable scripts — all organized in a folder structure that Claude navigates intelligently.

The system's composability provides another technical advantage. Multiple skills automatically stack together when needed for complex workflows. For instance, Claude might simultaneously invoke a company's brand guidelines skill, a financial reporting skill, and a presentation formatting skill to generate a quarterly investor deck — coordinating between all three without manual intervention.

What makes Skills different from OpenAI's Custom GPTs and Microsoft's Copilot

Anthropic is positioning Skills as distinct from competing offerings like OpenAI's Custom GPTs and Microsoft's Copilot Studio, though the features address similar enterprise needs around AI customization and consistency.

"Skills' combination of progressive disclosure, composability, and executable code bundling is unique in the market," Murag said. "While other platforms require developers to build custom scaffolding, Skills let anyone — technical or not — create specialized agents by organizing procedural knowledge into files."

The cross-platform portability also sets Skills apart. The same skill works identically across Claude.ai, Claude Code (Anthropic's AI coding environment), the company's API, and the Claude Agent SDK for building custom AI agents. Organizations can develop a skill once and deploy it everywhere their teams use Claude, a significant advantage for enterprises seeking consistency.

The feature supports any programming language compatible with the underlying container environment, and Anthropic provides sandboxing for security — though the company acknowledges that allowing AI to execute code requires users to carefully vet which skills they trust.

Early customers report 8x productivity gains on finance workflows

Early customer implementations reveal how organizations are applying Skills to automate complex knowledge work. At Japanese e-commerce giant Rakuten, the AI team is using Skills to transform finance operations that previously required manual coordination across multiple departments.

"Skills streamline our management accounting and finance workflows," said Yusuke Kaji, general manager of AI at Rakuten in a statement. "Claude processes multiple spreadsheets, catches critical anomalies, and generates reports using our procedures. What once took a day, we can now accomplish in an hour."

That's an 8x improvement in productivity for specific workflows — the kind of measurable return on investment that enterprises increasingly demand from AI implementations. Mike Krieger, Anthropic's chief product officer and Instagram co-founder, recently noted that companies have moved past "AI FOMO" to requiring concrete success metrics.

Design platform Canva plans to integrate Skills into its own AI agent workflows. "Canva plans to leverage Skills to customize agents and expand what they can do," said Anwar Haneef, general manager and head of ecosystem at Canva in a statement. "This unlocks new ways to bring Canva deeper into agentic workflows—helping teams capture their unique context and create stunning, high-quality designs effortlessly."

Cloud storage provider Box sees Skills as a way to make corporate content repositories more actionable. "Skills teaches Claude how to work with Box content," said Yashodha Bhavnani, head of AI at Box. "Users can transform stored files into PowerPoint presentations, Excel spreadsheets, and Word documents that follow their organization's standards—saving hours of effort."

The enterprise security question: Who controls which AI skills employees can use?

For enterprise IT departments, Skills raise important questions about governance and control—particularly since the feature allows AI to execute arbitrary code in sandboxed environments. Anthropic has built administrative controls that allow enterprise customers to manage access at the organizational level.

"Enterprise admins control access to the Skills capability via admin settings, where they can enable or disable access and monitor usage patterns," Murag said. "Once enabled at the organizational level, individual users still need to opt in."

That two-layer consent model — organizational enablement plus individual opt-in — reflects lessons learned from previous enterprise AI deployments where blanket rollouts created compliance concerns. However, Anthropic's governance tools appear more limited than some enterprise customers might expect. The company doesn't currently offer granular controls over which specific skills employees can use, or detailed audit trails of custom skill content.

Organizations concerned about data security should note that Skills require Claude's code execution environment, which runs in isolated containers. Anthropic advises users to "stick to trusted sources" when installing skills and provides security documentation, but the company acknowledges this is an inherently higher-risk capability than traditional AI interactions.

From API to no-code: How Anthropic is making Skills accessible to everyone

Anthropic is taking several approaches to make Skills accessible to users with varying technical sophistication. For non-technical users on Claude.ai, the company provides a "skill-creator" skill that interactively guides users through building new skills by asking questions about their workflow, then automatically generating the folder structure and documentation.

Developers working with Anthropic's API get programmatic control through a new /skills endpoint and can manage skill versions through the Claude Console web interface. The feature requires enabling the Code Execution Tool beta in API requests. For Claude Code users, skills can be installed via plugins from the anthropics/skills GitHub marketplace, and teams can share skills through version control systems.

"Skills are included in Max, Pro, Teams, and Enterprise plans at no additional cost," Murag confirmed. "API usage follows standard API pricing," meaning organizations pay only for the tokens consumed during skill execution, not for the skills themselves.

Anthropic provides several pre-built skills for common business tasks, including professional generation of Excel spreadsheets with formulas, PowerPoint presentations, Word documents, and fillable PDFs. These Anthropic-created skills will remain free.

Why the Skills launch matters in the AI coding wars with OpenAI

The Skills announcement arrives during a pivotal moment in Anthropic's competition with OpenAI, particularly around AI-assisted software development. Just one day before releasing Skills, Anthropic launched Claude Haiku 4.5, a smaller and cheaper model that nonetheless matches the coding performance of Claude Sonnet 4 — which was state-of-the-art when released just five months ago.

That rapid improvement curve reflects the breakneck pace of AI development, where today's frontier capabilities become tomorrow's commodity offerings. OpenAI has been pushing hard on coding tools as well, recently upgrading its Codex platform with GPT-5 and expanding GitHub Copilot's capabilities.

Anthropic's revenue trajectory — potentially reaching $26 billion in 2026 from an estimated $9 billion by year-end 2025 — suggests the company is successfully converting enterprise interest into paying customers. The timing also follows Salesforce's announcement this week that it's deepening AI partnerships with both OpenAI and Anthropic to power its Agentforce platform, signaling that enterprises are adopting a multi-vendor approach rather than standardizing on a single provider.

Skills addresses a real pain point: the "prompt engineering" problem where effective AI usage depends on individual employees crafting elaborate instructions for routine tasks, with no way to share that expertise across teams. Skills transforms implicit knowledge into explicit, shareable assets. For startups and developers, the feature could accelerate product development significantly — adding sophisticated document generation capabilities that previously required dedicated engineering teams and weeks of development.

The composability aspect hints at a future where organizations build libraries of specialized skills that can be mixed and matched for increasingly complex workflows. A pharmaceutical company might develop skills for regulatory compliance, clinical trial analysis, molecular modeling, and patient data privacy that work together seamlessly — creating a customized AI assistant with deep domain expertise across multiple specialties.

Anthropic indicates it's working on simplified skill creation workflows and enterprise-wide deployment capabilities to make it easier for organizations to distribute skills across large teams. As the feature rolls out to Anthropic's more than 300,000 business customers, the true test will be whether organizations find Skills substantively more useful than existing customization approaches.

For now, Skills offers Anthropic's clearest articulation yet of its vision for AI agents: not generalists that try to do everything reasonably well, but intelligent systems that know when to access specialized expertise and can coordinate multiple domains of knowledge to accomplish complex tasks. If that vision catches on, the question won't be whether your company uses AI — it will be whether your AI knows how your company actually works.

One year after emerging from stealth, Strella has raised $14 million in Series A funding to expand its AI-powered customer research platform, the company announced Thursday. The round, led by Bessemer Venture Partners with participation from Decibel Partners, Bain Future Back Ventures, MVP Ventures and 645 Ventures, comes as enterprises increasingly turn to artificial intelligence to understand customers faster and more deeply than traditional methods allow.

The investment marks a sharp acceleration for the startup founded by Lydia Hylton and Priya Krishnan, two former consultants and product managers who watched companies struggle with a customer research process that could take eight weeks from start to finish. Since October, Strella has grown revenue tenfold, quadrupled its customer base to more than 40 paying enterprises, and tripled its average contract values by moving upmarket to serve Fortune 500 companies.

"Research tends to be bookended by two very strategic steps: first, we have a problem—what research should we do? And second, we've done the research—now what are we going to do with it?" said Hylton, Strella's CEO, in an exclusive interview with VentureBeat. "All the stuff in the middle tends to be execution and lower-skill work. We view Strella as doing that middle 90% of the work."

The platform now serves Amazon, Duolingo, Apollo GraphQL, and Chobani, collectively conducting thousands of AI-moderated interviews that deliver what the company claims is a 90% average time savings on manual research work. The company is approaching $1 million in revenue after beginning monetization only in January, with month-over-month growth of 50% and zero customer churn to date.

How AI-powered interviews compress eight-week research projects into days

Strella's technology addresses a workflow that has frustrated product teams, marketers, and designers for decades. Traditional customer research requires writing interview guides, recruiting participants, scheduling calls, conducting interviews, taking notes, synthesizing findings, and creating presentations — a process that consumes weeks of highly-skilled labor and often delays critical product decisions.

The platform compresses that timeline to days by using AI to moderate voice-based interviews that run like Zoom calls, but with an artificial intelligence agent asking questions, following up on interesting responses, and detecting when participants are being evasive or fraudulent. The system then synthesizes findings automatically, creating highlight reels and charts from unstructured qualitative data.

"It used to take eight weeks. Now you can do it in the span of a couple days," Hylton told VentureBeat. "The primary technology is through an AI-moderated interview. It's like being in a Zoom call with an AI instead of a human — it's completely free form and voice based."

Critically, the platform also supports human moderators joining the same calls, reflecting the founders' belief that humans won't disappear from the research process. "Human moderation won't go away, which is why we've supported human moderation from our Genesis," Hylton said. "Research tends to be bookended by two very strategic steps: we have a problem, what's the research that we should do? And we've done the research, now what are we going to do with it? All the stuff in the middle tends to be execution and lower skill work. We view Strella as doing that middle 90% of the work."

Why customers tell AI moderators the truth they won't share with humans

One of Strella's most surprising findings challenges assumptions about AI in qualitative research: participants appear more honest with AI moderators than with humans. The founders discovered this pattern repeatedly as customers ran head-to-head comparisons between traditional human-moderated studies and Strella's AI approach.

"If you're a designer and you get on a Zoom call with a customer and you say, 'Do you like my design?' they're always gonna say yes. They don't want to hurt your feelings," Hylton explained. "But it's not a problem at all for Strella. They would tell you exactly what they think about it, which is really valuable. It's very hard to get honest feedback."

Krishnan, Strella's COO, said companies initially worried about using AI and "eroding quality," but the platform has "actually found the opposite to be true. People are much more open and honest with an AI moderator, and so the level of insight that you get is much richer because people are giving their unfiltered feedback."

This dynamic has practical business implications. Brian Santiago, Senior Product Design Manager at Apollo GraphQL, said in a statement: "Before Strella, studies took weeks. Now we get insights in a day — sometimes in just a few hours. And because participants open up more with the AI moderator, the feedback is deeper and more honest."

The platform also addresses endemic fraud in online surveys, particularly when participants are compensated. Because Strella interviews happen on camera in real time, the AI moderator can detect when someone pauses suspiciously long — perhaps to consult ChatGPT — and flags them as potentially fraudulent. "We are fraud resistant," Hylton said, contrasting this with traditional surveys where fraud rates can be substantial.

Solving mobile app research with persistent screen sharing technology

A major focus of the Series A funding will be expanding Strella's recently-launched mobile application, which Krishnan identified as critical competitive differentiation. The mobile app enables persistent screen sharing during interviews — allowing researchers to watch users navigate mobile applications in real time while the AI moderator asks about their experience.

"We are the only player in the market that supports screen sharing on mobile," Hylton said. "You know, I want to understand what are the pain points with my app? Why do people not seem to be able to find the checkout flow? Well, in order to do that effectively, you'd like to see the user screen while they're doing an interview."

For consumer-facing companies where mobile represents the primary customer interface, this capability opens entirely new use cases. The founders noted that "several of our customers didn't do research before" but have now built research practices around Strella because the platform finally made mobile research accessible at scale.

The platform also supports embedding traditional survey question types directly into the conversational interview, approaching what Hylton called "feature parity with a survey" while maintaining the engagement advantages of a natural conversation. Strella interviews regularly run 60 to 90 minutes with nearly 100% completion rates—a duration that would see 60-70% drop-off in a traditional survey format.

How Strella differentiated in a market crowded with AI research startups

Strella enters a market that appears crowded at first glance, with established players like Qualtrics and a wave of AI-powered startups promising to transform customer research. The founders themselves initially pursued a different approach — synthetic respondents, or "digital twins" that simulate customer perspectives using large language models.

"We actually pivoted from that. That was our initial idea," Hylton revealed, referring to synthetic respondents. "People are very intrigued by that concept, but found in practice, no willingness to pay right now."

Recent research suggesting companies could use language models as digital twins for customer feedback has reignited interest in that approach. But Hylton remains skeptical: "The capabilities of the LLMs as they are today are not good enough, in my opinion, to justify a standalone company. Right now you could just ask ChatGPT, 'What would new users of Duolingo think about this ad copy?' You can do that. Adding the standalone idea of a synthetic panel is sort of just putting a wrapper on that."

Instead, Strella's bet is that the real value lies in collecting proprietary qualitative data at scale — building what could become "the system of truth for all qualitative insights" within enterprises, as Lindsey Li, Vice President at Bessemer Venture Partners, described it.

Li, who led the investment just one year after Strella emerged from stealth, said the firm was convinced by both the technology and the team. "Strella has built highly differentiated technology that enables a continuous interview rather than a survey," Li said. "We heard time and time again that customers loved this product experience relative to other offerings."

On the defensibility question that concerns many AI investors, Li emphasized product execution over patents: "We think the long game here will be won with a million small product decisions, all of which must be driven by deep empathy for customer pain and an understanding of how best to address their needs. Lydia and Priya exhibit that in spades."

The founders point to technical depth that's difficult to replicate. Most competitors started with adaptive surveys — text-based interfaces where users type responses and wait for the next question. Some have added voice, but typically as uploaded audio clips rather than free-flowing conversation.

"Our approach is fundamentally better, which is the fact that it is a free form conversation," Hylton said. "You never have to control anything. You're never typing, there's no buttons, there's no upload and wait for the next question. It's completely free form, and that has been an extraordinarily hard product to build. There's a tremendous amount of IP in the way that we prompt our moderator, the way that we run analysis."

The platform also improves with use, learning from each customer's research patterns to fine-tune future interview guides and questions. "Our product gets better for our customers as they continue to use us," Hylton said. All research accumulates in a central repository where teams can generate new insights by chatting with the data or creating visualizations from previously unstructured qualitative feedback.

Creating new research budgets instead of just automating existing ones

Perhaps more important than displacing existing research is expanding the total market. Krishnan said growth has been "fundamentally related to our product" creating new research that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

"We have expanded the use cases in which people would conduct research," Krishnan explained. "Several of our customers didn't do research before, have always wanted to do research, but didn't have a dedicated researcher or team at their company that was devoted to it, and have purchased Strella to kick off and enable their research practice. That's been really cool where we've seen this market just opening up."

This expansion comes as enterprises face mounting pressure to improve customer experience amid declining satisfaction scores. According to Forrester Research's 2024 Customer Experience Index, customer experience quality has declined for three consecutive years — an unprecedented trend. The report found that 39% of brands saw CX quality deteriorate, with declines across effectiveness, ease, and emotional connection.

Meanwhile, Deloitte's 2025 Technology, Media & Telecommunications Predictions report forecasts that 25% of enterprises using generative AI will deploy AI agents by 2025, growing to 50% by 2027. The report specifically highlighted AI's potential to enhance customer satisfaction by 15-20% while reducing cost to serve by 20-30% when properly implemented.

Gartner identified conversational user interfaces — the category Strella inhabits — as one of three technologies poised to transform customer service by 2028, noting that "customers increasingly expect to be able to interact with the applications they use in a natural way."

Against this backdrop, Li sees substantial room for growth. "UX Research is a sub-sector of the $140B+ global market-research industry," Li said. "This includes both the software layer historically (~$430M) and professional services spend on UX research, design, product strategy, etc. which is conservatively estimated to be ~$6.4B+ annually. As software in this vertical, led by Strella, becomes more powerful, we believe the TAM will continue to expand meaningfully."

Making customer feedback accessible across the enterprise, not just research teams

The founders describe their mission as "democratizing access to the customer" — making it possible for anyone in an organization to understand customer perspectives without waiting for dedicated research teams to complete months-long studies.

"Many, many, many positions in the organization would like to get customer feedback, but it's so hard right now," Hylton said. With Strella, she explained, someone can "log into Strella and through a chat, create any highlight reel that you want and actually see customers in their own words answering the question that you have based on the research that's already been done."

This video-first approach to research repositories changes organizational dynamics around customer feedback. "Then you can say, 'Okay, engineering team, we need to build this feature. And here's the customer actually saying it,'" Hylton continued. "'This is not me. This isn't politics. Here are seven customers saying they can't find the Checkout button.' The fact that we are a very video-based platform really allows us to do that quickly and painlessly."

The company has moved decisively upmarket, with contract values now typically in the five-figure range and "several six figure contracts" signed, according to Krishnan. The pricing strategy reflects a premium positioning: "Our product is very good, it's very premium. We're charging based on the value it provides to customers," Krishnan said, rather than competing on cost alone.

This approach appears to be working. The company reports 100% conversion from pilot programs to paid contracts and zero churn among its 40-45 customers, with month-over-month revenue growth of 50%.

The roadmap: Computer vision, agentic AI, and human-machine collaboration

The Series A funding will primarily support scaling product and go-to-market teams. "We're really confident that we have product-market fit," Hylton said. "And now the question is execution, and we want to hire a lot of really talented people to help us execute."

On the product roadmap, Hylton emphasized continued focus on the participant experience as the key to winning the market. "Everything else is downstream of a joyful participant experience," she said, including "the quality of insights, the amount you have to pay people to do the interviews, and the way that your customers feel about a company."

Near-term priorities include adding visual capabilities so the AI moderator can respond to facial expressions and other nonverbal cues, and building more sophisticated collaboration features between human researchers and AI moderators. "Maybe you want to listen while an AI moderator is running a call and you might want to be able to jump in with specific questions," Hylton said. "Or you want to run an interview yourself, but you want the moderator to be there as backup or to help you."

These features move toward what the industry calls "agentic AI" — systems that can act more autonomously while still collaborating with humans. The founders see this human-AI collaboration, rather than full automation, as the sustainable path forward.

"We believe that a lot of the really strategic work that companies do will continue to be human moderated," Hylton said. "And you can still do that through Strella and just use us for synthesis in those cases."

For Li and Bessemer, the bet is on founders who understand this nuance. "Lydia and Priya exhibit the exact archetype of founders we are excited to partner with for the long term — customer-obsessed, transparent, thoughtful, and singularly driven towards the home-run scenario," she said.

The company declined to disclose specific revenue figures or valuation. With the new funding, Strella has now raised $18 million total, including a $4 million seed round led by Decibel Partners announced in October.

As Strella scales, the founders remain focused on a vision where technology enhances rather than eliminates human judgment—where an engineering team doesn't just read a research report, but watches seven customers struggle to find the same button. Where a product manager can query months of accumulated interviews in seconds. Where companies don't choose between speed and depth, but get both.

"The interesting part of the business is actually collecting that proprietary dataset, collecting qualitative research at scale," Hylton said, describing what she sees as Strella's long-term moat. Not replacing the researcher, but making everyone in the company one.