SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Pepsi " 38 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
It’s Too Late for Small Fixes at Pepsi
The problem may be bigger than a few weak brands. Pepsi needs to stop tinkering and consider more fundamental changes.
From Snack Bags to Sports Drink Sachets: How PepsiCo Shares Packaging Science Across Foods and Beverages
PepsiCo just lost the KFC US business—here's how much it could sting financially
Another loss for PEP.
KFC replacing Pepsi with Coca-Cola at 3,700 US restaurants after nearly four decades
KFC will replace Pepsi with Coca-Cola at all U.S. restaurants by spring 2027, ending a beverage partnership that lasted nearly four decades.
KFC to Ditch Pepsi for Coke in Thousands of Restaurants
The switch at thousands of U.S. restaurants deals a setback to PepsiCo as it struggles to revive sales of its signature soft drinks.
PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta: We would not split snacks and beverage business
Ramon Laguarta, chairman and CEO at PepsiCo, joins 'Squawk on the Street' to discuss the company’s latest earnings, how consumers are faring amid high inflation, and more.
PepsiCo beats earnings expectations, lowers guidance as it aims to stabilize North America business
PepsiCo stock pops following better than feared results.
PepsiCo to cut costs as weak N.America business hurts annual core profit forecast
Oct 8 (Reuters) - PepsiCo said on Thursday it would pursue additional cost cuts after lowering its annual core profit forecast due to sluggish demand for its snacks and beverages
PepsiCo to cut costs as weak N.America business hurts core profit forecast
Oct 8 (Reuters) - PepsiCo cut its annual core profit forecast on Thursday and said it would pursue additional cost cuts, warning that efforts to revive growth and profitability in its crucial North American business were taking longer than expected.
PepsiCo cuts annual core profit forecast as higher costs hurt margins
PepsiCo cut its annual core profit forecast on Thursday, as inflation-weary consumers pared spending on its snacks and beverages, particularly in North America, while higher input costs continued to pressure margins.
PepsiCo to cut costs as weak N.America business hurts annual core profit forecast
PepsiCo said on Thursday it would pursue additional cost cuts after lowering its annual core profit forecast due to sluggish demand for its snacks and beverages in North America and rising input costs.
FDA recalls Gatorade in Texas over unlisted food coloring
PepsiCo recalled over 120,000 cases of Gatorade in 37 states. Is Texas on the list?
Gatorade maker recalls 122,000 cases of popular sports drink across 37 US states
PepsiCo initiated class II recall of 28oz bottles last month over ‘undeclared’ yellow dyes, FDA notice says
PepsiCo, Monster challenge India 'energy drink' label ban citing business impact
PepsiCo and Monster Beverage have sued India's food regulator for banning their use of the "energy drink" label, non-public court filings show, escalating a regulatory fight that has jolted a sector expected to be worth $1.6 billion by 2028.
Why a food and drinks giant is betting big on crop science
At a multigeneration family farm in Alberta, drones and data are replacing guesswork—part of PepsiCo’s broader bet that healthier soil means a more resilient global supply chain
Should You Buy PepsiCo Stock Because Its International Business Keeps Accelerating?
PepsiCo (PEP) stock traded at $129.75 on September 18, the lowest price of its past 52 weeks. The worry is North America, where sales of snacks and drinks have disappointed. Yet the part of PepsiCo that sells outside the U.S. is growing faster and earning more on each sale. The share price appears to give that part little credit.
A sip of Pepsi keeps an 87-year-old farming
Eddie Brown remains active on the family farm, but he prepares the next generation to lead. It starts by passing on wisdom to his grandchildren.
The politics and possibilities of ‘AI could kill us all’
I found myself fielding a lot of questions from folks who don’t usually talk much about AI this week. They were mostly along the lines of “do you think AI is going to kill us all?” or “how worried should I be about this human extinction stuff?” Motivating this wave of existential anxiety was the highly dramatic resignation of now-former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon, who quit his job while publicly sharing his concerns about safety practices at the leading AI companies. More specifically, he declared that almost everyone at OpenAI and Anthropic, the leading AI labs, believes that there’s a decent chance the AI systems they’re producing could “kill us all” by the end of the decade, and the companies aren’t “acting responsibly.” Other AI safety researchers, including those still employed at Anthropic and OpenAI, all confirmed that yes, Coxon is correct, they’re all worried that their company’s products might prove fatal for the entire human race as well. Two more AI employees quit and joined the chorus. Now, the warning shot has been covered everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to WIRED to the Guardian. I understand why all this sounds scary, but my response to those who have asked, has generally been: No, you don’t need to worry that AI will kill go rogue and kill us all. But that does not mean we shouldn’t worry, period. Far from it. The companies building AI products are now among the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world. And they very much are building enormous engines of mass surveillance, extraction, and automation. They can and have allowed their AI systems to carry out felony hacks of other companies, provided the government with autonomously generated kill lists, and sold enterprise technology to firms around the world that is explicitly intended to replace jobs. But “AI” has done these things not because they have all-powerful minds of their own but, ultimately, because people have programmed, calibrated, and directed them to. In other words, it’s not AI we need to worry the most about. It’s the people and corporations working to profit from and gain power by deploying it. The technology is sophisticated, sure, and, especially in cybersecurity contexts, potentially disruptive to plenty of existing systems. But if we want to stop this predatory, profiteering, and extractive form of AI—and it’s worth noting that at this point, most people do—we absolutely can. A quick note/plea: I can only do all of this with the support of readers like you, so if you find value in independent, critical tech journalism and analysis, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I want to keep as much of this un-paywalled as absolutely possible, and I need your support to do so. Many thanks to all who continue to chip in, it’s very much appreciated. Onward. Subscribe First, some context: AI industry folks like Coxon have been discussing the prospect that AI will destroy humanity for years. Even before the beginning of the AI boom, many working in the industry, from the executive staff to the rank and file researchers, have obsessed over ‘x-risk’, or the possibility that AI will become sentient or semi-sentient and move one way or another to exterminate humanity. This is ostensibly why Elon Musk bankrolled OpenAI in the first place, and is the grounds for his lawsuit alleging OpenAI betrayed its charter by abandoning its nonprofit status to become a commercial enterprise. Many AI engineers and startup founders have calculated their own personal p(doom), or the probability that the tech product they are working on will initiate an actual humanity-extinguishing apocalypse. 10-25% p(doom)s are pretty common. (I wrote about a long weekend I spent among these folks at one of their top conferences here, to give you an idea of their ideas and belief systems.) Sam Altman himself drove the narrative of the imminent rise of a super-powerful AI, or artificial general intelligence, to prominence by declaring that the technology he was building posed an existential risk to humanity. This idea is in other words baked into the DNA of modern AI companies and into the products they engineer. It’s also why the industry is routinely accused, by myself and others, of “doom marketing,” ie, using such proclamations and framings to impart the sheer power of the technology behind your product onto investors, partners, consumers, and the state. Some ambient understanding of this tendency may have helped prevent the press from repeating the claim every time one of the x-risk folks made it over the years, including when they quit their jobs at AI companies while doing so. Yet Coxon’s AI x-risk alarm has broken containment, as they say, and has exposed the idea to the mainstream media once again. This has happened, I think, for a number of reasons. First, when AI CEOs were going around saying AI might kill everyone in 2023, their companies were well-capitalized, but not nearly to the extent they are today. They were more easily dismissed as eccentric geeks of the sort that Silicon Valley is supposed to produce. Now, not only do their products have much greater market saturation, but people are more aware of a) the often unethical ways the executives and companies comport themselves b) the other adverse impacts of AI that have already arrived, and c) the physical cost of building these systems, particularly when it comes to data centers. Finally, toss in the constant stream of headlines in 2026 about AI models going rogue or potentially upending the world’s infrastructure. [ ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) [ With the backlash to data centers, Flock and AI glasses, a mass opposition to big tech is underway. Silicon Valley is in denial. ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) Brian Merchant · Aug 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) As a result, general sentiment was already overwhelmingly skeptical of AI and its overlords, so the table was pretty well set for someone to come along and say ‘just a reminder, the companies that are building the product that promises to take your job and leave a data center in your neighborhood also think that it might exterminate the human race’ and get a strong reaction from the media and the public. The question is: Should we understand this stuff as hype, strategically fanned to feed already swelling valuations? Is it doom marketing? Genuine cause for alarm that the infrastructure that undergirds modern life is facing a novel threat vector? Or reason to be sincerely worried that AI companies are amassing too much power, and that their products are genuinely dangerous? The answer, I’m afraid, is “yes.” Let me try to untangle all of this a bit, because arguments over how to navigate this moment are extremely heated right now, as they are essentially arguments over how to approach the politics of AI at a moment where there may be a unique opening for action. Those sympathetic to AI alignment concerns and x risk arguments—which increasingly includes a faction on the left who want to shut down AI over safety concerns—argue that people who dismiss AI as all hype have their heads in the sand. Meanwhile, critics of the x-risk narrative—which I might note includes a cadre of investors and tech folks on the right, too—argue that it is hype and can be used to further inflate valuations or for pursuing regulatory capture. The challenge is that many feel that dismissing AI as just hype or purely marketing also diminishes the urgency of taking on the AI industry as the novel and threat to labor, civil society, and the public sphere it is; others that by accepting the industry’s own terms, we imbue it with undue power and enable it. But let’s be clear: Declarations that AI is so powerful it might end the world are a kind of marketing, and anyone who says otherwise is just as off base as those who say that’s all that it is. If you don’t think that these sub-trillion dollar companies have higher-ups who noticed that when their founders talked about super-powerful dangerous AI they got spikes in media interest and phone calls from investors, or that those founders didn’t notice that themselves, and lean into certain narratives to advantage their products, then I don’t know what to tell you. Not all marketing is a Pepsi ad campaign with a celebrity spokesperson. Yet confronting the AI industry should certainly be considered an urgent project. Do I share the x-riskers’ fear that out-of-control, super-intelligent AI agents might end the world? I do not. I’ve read a good deal of AI extinction literature over the last couple of years and I have not come across a credible, step-by-step documentation of how exactly AI might move from self-recursively improving AI to killing every single human on the planet. Most of what I’ve read seems predicated on a sort of reverse Ian Malcolmian logic: Eventually, it becomes smart enough and AI, uh, finds a way (to exterminate humanity). Are the AI companies also overstating and dramatizing what their products can do? Yes, pretty much all the time. They’re in a knife fight for market share and are trying to win customers and government contracts before their investors come knocking. And yet. They have concentrated enormous amounts of compute, have extensive data collection and surveillance capacities, have inserted themselves into the state in numerous capacities, including military kill chains, and they are being run by egomaniacal billionaires who are rushing to monopolize an entire new market. The way I think about their most recent frightening-seeming exploits is not as a “swarm of rogue AI agents building a new civilization” or whatever, but as corporations with a hitherto-unimaginable amount of compute at their disposal recklessly experimenting with automation programs, completely unafraid of any repercussions because we have been unwilling or unable to impose any on them. So I think we should welcome any newfound imperative to hold them accountable. I also think that ultimately, the AI critics, Pause AI folks, leftists, doomers, effective altruists, and, honestly, most of the public, want a lot of the same things: legitimate checks and limits on AI companies’ power, actual transparency into what the companies are doing, and for more of AI to be under public control. (Ultimately, a lot of what animates the x-risk fears are rooted in just that: a fear of losing control.) How we move towards all this, exactly, is the question of the day, and while there’s much to be argued over in terms of building a viable political platform to challenge the AI industry’s power, I do want to cast a vote against one particular approach. Not to pick on Chris here, as there are a lot of folks out there proposing stuff like this, and the policy ideas actually stem from AI safety groups. But not only would this be challenging to land politically (I can already hear the ‘China will beat us to AGI’ calls) and all but unworkable in practice, this approach is a) far too limiting, b) fails to address the current harms caused by AI and c) would likely only wind up serving Anthropic and OpenAI; it’s what regulatory capture looks like in action. Full model transparency is the floor for what should be on offer here. If these companies believe their products will kill us, the very least we deserve is to know how. It’s in the public interest. I would also argue we might get a lot of the way to stopping any currently envisioned robot apocalypse simply by forcing AI companies to assume liability, and to submit to the full brunt of the law. If Sam Altman were liable to be charged with a felony for approving the hack on Hugging Face1, if Google was forced to pay defamation fines each time it published a false and injurious AI Overviews, these companies might suddenly find cause to restrain their models’ output, and we might hear less about rogue AI. We would need to introduce new frameworks and available tools for tracking automated lawbreaking, to be sure, but I’d wager that little would frighten the AI companies more than actually being held accountable for what their products enable. To that end, Illinois has passed an AI liability law, which the industry fought tooth and nail, and Florida is considering one. The next steps would be towards moving AI under public control; again, it’s only reasonable, since everyone, not just AI insiders, should get a say over how a technology whose developers say might kill us is developed and deployed. Dismantling the whole industrial project as currently structured should be on the table, too, pending democratic input. But that’s for another post. For now, suffice to say that while I won’t be losing any sleep about an AI-enabled extinction event, Mr. Coxon and co. have given us an opportunity to underscore the urgency of the clear and present damage AI companies are doing, the extreme power they wield and the extent to which they hold themselves unaccountable, and the abundance of political capital there is out there for taking them on. Subscribe 1 Purely speculative! I do not know if he did or not.
Long Reads for the Long Weekend
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) Happy Fourth of July weekend! As has been a tradition of mine going back to the beginning of the EntStrategyGuy website, I’m sharing my favorite long reads of the last year, like I did in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024, and 2025. Let’s dive right in! Subscribe “Different Prices for the Same Ride: How Uber and Lyft Use AI to Get More Money Out of You“ by Derek Kravitz in Consumer Reports I don’t think surveillance pricing, like the kind described in this brilliant Consumer Reports article, is long for the world—it’s toxically unpopular—but we’ll see if either party takes on this issue. If I ran a political party focused on affordability, I would focus on a few pro-consumer and pro-market policies: Banning non-compete agreements. Ending surveillance pricing Eliminating junk fees (read more here...) Ensuring “right to repair” for consumer (and military!) products Capping excessive app store fees Stopping digital/algorithmic price-fixing tools. Preventing automatic subscription price increases. And more. If you want to fight inflation, there are a lot of great ways to do it quickly. Speaking of higher prices... “Secret Documents Show Pepsi and Walmart Colluded to Raise Food Prices Across the Economy“ by Matt Stoller in BIG Again, I think a political party should focus on lowering prices for consumers. And deals like this—Walmart making a deal/forcing Pepsi to offer the lowest prices at its stores and nowhere else—hypothetically lower prices at Walmart...but raise them everywhere else. “15 DUIs, still driving: California’s failure to take repeat drunk drivers off the road“ by Robert Lewis and Lauren Hepler in CalMatters CalMatters does terrific reporting in California, something the Golden State desperately needs more of, and this article is a great example of that. “PugLips: The next insanely popular thing you’ve never heard of…” by Simon Carless in Game Discover Co I thought that this parody article (and yes, it’s a parody, but I was definitely unsure at first) was hilarious and totally nailed how much tech/business journalism feels these days. Actually, three of my favorite articles this year were on hype in the video game industry, including Georg Zoller’s “The Video Game Industries Very Dark Night”—which I linked to recently and wrote a follow-up here—and Owen Mahoney’s “Derek Zoolander, Videogame Exec”. In particular, I like Mahoney’s focus on user experience as a guide to what trends will actually grab hold of customers. “The Matrix Lies“ by Evan Shapiro in Media War & Peace Evan Shapiro’s first person account of his experience with AI was hilarious. I think LLMs capabilities have significantly grown from last summer, and yet...my editor/researcher just had an abysmal experience using an LLM to do a quite basic task (which our LLM normally does each week) and the LLM made a mistake on every single data entry...along with seven different mistakes affecting twelve of the twenty or so entries, including mistakes that are explicitly spelled out in the prompt. That’s a brutal failure rate. Again, if you use AI/LLM for data collection, you need to take a lot of extra steps to verify and check the data. “Ghosts in the Balcony: A Cross-Country Trip to 58 Theaters Fighting to Survive“ by Matthew Frank in The Ankler I thought Matthew Frank’s pitch to head across America to visit theaters sounded insane aggressive at the time—at least it felt that way to someone a decade older than him; man, to be in your twenties again, am I right?—but I knew the result would be great. And it was, a terrific feature by a great young writer. Also, I loved Matthew’s recent article on who’s getting the precious few entry level jobs in Hollywood. (Hint: nepotism.) “Disney erased FiveThirtyEight“ and “Did Las Vegas get too greedy?” by Nate Silver in Silver Bulletin I love media history and analysis, and there’s no one better to get the history of FiveThirtyEight than from Nate Silver, who wrote about his personal experience in one of my favorite pieces from this year. I also loved Nate’s breakdown of what’s causing Vegas’ woes, but I’ll offer one criticism, summarized as “Might I suggest antitrust?” Many centrists/center-right/libertarian thinkers (Nate is self-described as the latter) often don’t consider consolidation or antitrust as factors in policy issues like housing, America’s military readiness, or, in this case, Las Vegas. Even if libertarians want to debunk antitrust/consolidation concerns, I’d love to read that debunking. In this case, Vegas is incredibly consolidated (though it also has been for a long time) and I’d have loved to read Nate at least contending with this factor, since he addresses almost every other potential factor for Vegas’ decline. “Why Microsoft’s Carbon Removal Pullback Is Such a Big Deal“ by Robinson Meyer in Heatmap News I’m a big supporter of carbon removal efforts, but this nascent industry faces a lot of headwinds, including this big move most recently. I think it’s clear that solar panels and batteries should be able to get the world to its carbon footprint goals, but effective carbon renewal remains necessary to prevent the worst impacts of global warming. “AI is killing the cheap smartphone“ by David Oks LLMs and AI will impact the world in ways we’re not ready for, and already, third world countries are seeing the prices of cheap cellphones skyrocket due to the cost of chips skyrocketing. This article by David Oks is a terrific breakdown. “100 Days of Madness: Netflix, Paramount, Warner and the Future of Hollywood“ by Wade Major at Hollywood Heretic Wade Major dove deep into Hollywood/streaming’s financials in this must read piece. Not that I agree with everything in this article (read my take on Warner Bros./Paramount here) but the analysis is top notch. I think many people discount how quality thinking, regardless of the argument/conclusion, will make you a better thinker. “Erased by the UFC: Frank Shamrock, The MMA GOAT of the 20th Century“ by Nate Wilcox in The MMA Draw Newsletter Growing up playing the UFC fighting game on the Dreamcast, Frank Shamrock was my favorite MMA fighter, and this history/tribute to him was great. Other Fun Reads “The Hardest Part Of History To Tell Is How It Felt“ by Craig Fehrman at Defector “Unmasking the Sea Star Killer“ by Craig Welch at bioGraphic “What Could Save the Industry? Fin-Syn“ by Richard Rushfield in The Ankler Alex Rollins Berg in Underexposed on movie bumpers, pillow shots, Disney trash cinema, cult films, and Casablanca. David H. Montgomery in YouGov’s The Surveyor on punctuation marks, condiments, dinosaurs, and comic strips and kids media. “How Medium finally pivoted its way to profitability“ and “Why the best journalists on YouTube are all former Vox employees“ by Simon Owens in Simon Owens’s Media Newsletter “It’s Not Just You, Netflix Shows Have Gotten Slightly Shorter: Here’s What the Data Says“ by Kasey Moore at What’s on Netflix “Numlock Awards: How Diane Warren became the biggest loser in Oscar history“ by Nathaniel Rakich and “Numlock Awards: The Oscar Bait era is over. The Oscar Chum era is here.” by Walt Hickey & Michael Domanico at Numlock Awards
How PepsiCo is shaking up business as usual
By committing to AI and embracing digital transformation, the food and beverage giant is driving growth in innovative ways
Is the world’s smallest Pepsi bottler also Oregon’s oldest business?
Adam Van Dusen opened a mercantile in Astoria in 1849. The sixth-generation of the family is still in business there today.
PepsiCo Q2 earnings expected to reflect weakness in North American snack business, delayed recovery
PepsiCo Inc (NASDAQ:PEP, XETRA:PEP) earnings outlook was trimmed by Bank of America analysts ahead of the company’s second quarter results, with softer-than-expected performance in its North American snacks business offsetting steadier international trends. The analysts lowered their fiscal...
Hershey names Pepsico vet as president of US business
Heather Hoytink will oversee the Reese’s maker’s confection, salty and protein portfolio when she takes over July 8.
Couple who sold to Pepsi for $2 billion says going into business with your romantic partner is ‘not for the weak’
Poppi’s husband-and-wife cofounders Stephen and Allison Ellsworth will be the first to tell you “there’s no such thing as balance.”
Seed Health hires Anisha Raghavan as first CMO
Consumer marketing veteran Anisha Raghavan said she wants to apply her experience from companies like Unilever and PepsiCo to grow the brand.
Gilts Become ‘Half-Hour Trade’ on Politics, HSBC’s Kettner Says
(Bloomberg) -- The UK’s fractious politics is making investors wary of long-term wagers in the country’s gilt markets, according to HSBC Holdings Plc’s Max Kettner.Most Read from BloombergAmbani’s Cola War With Coke, Pepsi Spurs Fridge Bonanza in IndiaNvidia’s CEO Joins Trump in China With AI in the SpotlightInside a Year of Chaos and Conflict at Kevin Hart’s Media CompanyMamdani Scraps Property Tax Hike, Counts Second-Home Revenue“I’d love to buy them because obviously long-end yields are so en
PepsiCo's Eugene Willemsen on meeting Chinese consumers' demand for experiential beverage experience
Eugene Willemsen, CEO of International Beverages at PepsiCo discusses emerging consumer trends in China and how the company uses AI to enhance operation efficiency.
Gatorade getting a rebrand targeting non-athletes
Sixty years after it invented sports drinks, Gatorade is making a surprising pivot: It’s no longer focusing primarily on athletes. PepsiCo, Gatorade’s parent company, says the brand wants to broaden
PepsiCo makes strides in re-energizing food business
Company will “continue to play offense” with one-two punch of value, innovation.
Despite Iran War’s Effects, PepsiCo Says Consumers Still Spending on Snacks
Executives at the food and drink giant announced a rise in sales of drinks and snacks but warned that “inflation will come.”
PepsiCo earnings beat estimates as North American food business improves
PepsiCo's quarterly earnings and revenue topped Wall Street's expectations.
Kanye West was booked as a festival headliner. Brands are now pulling their sponsorship
Pepsi and brewery company Diageo have withdrawn their sponsorship of the UK’s 2026 Wireless Festival after it was announced that Kanye West would headline the three-day event.
Mays Business School Names PepsiCo 2026 Partner of the Year - Mays Business School News
Texas A&M University’s Mays Business School has named PepsiCo its 2026 Partner of the Year. The recognition highlights a multi-year partnership that prepares students
The Killers to headline the Champions League final show
UEFA has officially confirmed that American band The Killers will headline the opening show at the 2026 UEFA Champions League final. The event, presented by Pepsi, will take place on Saturday, May 30 ...
MRN BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT: Refreshment Services Pepsi
On today’s Business Spotlight, Tim Schrage from Refreshment Services Pepsi joins Ron to talk about the recent shift in soda preferences among consumers. Lightly carbonated, no-sugar drinks like Alani are flying off the shelves, and he also introduces Poppi- a Shark Tank success that’s being called part of the next generation of sodas that are...
Super Bowl ads try to overcome tough times with health, caring and the usual laughs
There is plenty of silliness in this year’s commercials.
Delivra Health Brands Announces Appointment of New Director
Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - January 30, 2026) - Delivra Health Brands Inc. (TSXV: DHB) (OTCQB: DHBUF) ("Delivra Health", "Delivra" or the "Company"), a consumer packaged goods company uniquely positioned in the health and wellness sector, is pleased to announce the appointment today of John Barrett as a director of the board of directors of the Company (the "Board"). Mr. Barrett was previously a senior executive with Frito Lay and PepsiCo, and served as Chief Commercial...
Small Business Technology News: AI Use Cases From PepsiCo, Wells Fargo, Capital One, Tesla And Others
From safety to customer service to the manufacturing floor, large companies are rolling out internal AI systems to improve their operations and help - not replace- their employees.