All News (Page 380)

Have you ever overpaid for a beer? Matt Cortland has, and it set him on a path to never repeat the mistake.

That is, for Cortland’s drink of choice: a pint of Guinness. After paying €7.80 (about $8.93) for Irish dry stout at a pub in Dublin earlier this month, the 37-year-old grew curious about the average cost of a pint across Ireland.

To his astonishment, the country’s Central Statistics Office had dropped price tracking of the nation’s most popular beer in 2011. That led Cortland to the wild idea of tracking the price himself.

Cortland—founder of an AI startup—turned to AI to lend him a hand, and a voice. He devised Rachel with AI voice generation platform ElevenLabs. Made as an homage to Rachel Duffy, the winner of the UK version of the reality TV show The Traitors and equipped with a Northern Irish accent, the voice-enabled AI agent made more than 3,000 calls across the island, inquiring about the price of a pint of Guinness.

“I was like, ‘Well can I just call every pub in Ireland and conversationally ask them with AI?,’” Cortland told Fortune. “I pulled the thread, and I just kept pulling the thread, and here we are.”

Using the data accrued from the thousands of phone calls, he then turned to Anthropic’s Claude to devise the “Guinndex,” which he calls a “living, breathing” consumer price index for a pint of Guinness across Ireland. It also allows bartenders and beer drinkers to contribute to, and modify prices. 

Now Cortland can see how his €7.80 pint weeks earlier matches up with the rest of Ireland. On Monday, the average price was about €6.01 (about $6.88) and the most common price was €5.50 ($6.30).  

Guinness parent company Diageo didn’t respond to Fortune’s requests for comment. Beer prices are independently set by pub owners across Ireland.

AI models are advancing at an increasingly rapid pace, surpassing benchmarks even the most sophisticated scientists deemed out of the realm of the machine. And while many shudder at the idea of an AI job apocalypse, others are leveraging the technology to answer complex questions. Some have even used it to sell their home.

And while OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Google President Ruth Porat think the technology will solve the world’s most complex issues like finding a cure for cancer, AI is also solving smaller, albeit still important, problems along the way.

Human-like voice AI

Rachel, Cortland’s AI agent, is one of a growing number of voice AIs that are appearing on the other end of your phone line. Data from voice AI firm Regal showed that customers are finding the AI as credible as humans.

Based on data from millions of calls with voice AI agents, people are taking 14% more time to chat with AI than they would with a human representative. They’re also giving 22% longer responses, sharing details they’d normally skip.

Cortland said he saw similar results. The conversations his AI had across Ireland showed that most didn’t realize they were communicating with AI. The transcripts of some of those conversations, reviewed by Fortune, make that clear.

“The cost of a pint of Guinness? Twenty-five pounds. But if you’re coming in for a wee drink, I’ll give it to you for a fiver,” a bartender at Doogies in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, told Rachel. 

“Listen, they’re normally 6.20 [euros], but if you can’t afford one, we’ll buy you one. We’ll look after you,” a bartender at Malzard’s Pub in Kilkenny, Ireland, told the AI.

While the Guinndex hasn’t yet led to a dramatic price shift, Cortland said he has already seen it yielding results. In one instance, he said a pub owner reportedly lowered the cost of his Guinness by 0.40 euros  and then updated the entry on the Guinndex himself.

He’s hoping to replicate the success of the Guinndex for other products, perhaps for prescription drugs in the U.S., where he is originally from, or even for a slice of pizza in New York City.

For Cortland, the level of transparency is essential in a market where he has seen prices fluctuate wildly, sometimes by nearly 2 euros, between pubs located literally 100 yards away from one another. 

“If you’re charging €11 for a pint of Guinness, that’s fair enough,” he said (the priciest pint in Ireland is €11, according to the Guinndex). “But people should know that information.”

Have you used AI to navigate a major life decision like buying a home, negotiating a deal, or doing something else with high stakes? I’d love to hear your story. Reach out to me at jake.angelo@fortune.com.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Elon Musk is known for his perennial feuds with powerful people, like with President Donald Trump, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. But his latest clash is with someone whose name you don’t know: the chancellor (now formerly) presiding over two lawsuits against Tesla. 

Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick is reassigning two cases involving Musk after the chancellor allegedly reacted in support of a LinkedIn post that criticized the Tesla founder.

Last week, Musk’s attorneys demanded that the Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor recuse herself from the cases. In a new letter released on Monday, McCormick denied the motion for recusal but stated she was reassigning the cases instead. “The motion for recusal rests on a false premise—that I support a LinkedIn post about Mr. Musk, which I do not in fact support,” read the letter. “The motion for recusal is denied. But the motion for reassignment is granted.”

This all stems from an alleged “reaction” to a post on LinkedIn. In a screenshot of the post—which now appears to be deleted, but was included in the lawyers’ original filing—a California-based jury consultant, Harry Plotkin, sarcastically apologized to Musk and his long-time lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan after a California jury ruled the X owner misled Twitter investors before buying the company in 2022. Plotkin, who does not appear to be involved in the Delaware lawsuit involving Tesla, worked as a jury consultant for the plaintiffs in the Pampena v. Musk case in California, according to Musk’s lawyers. 

“Sorry, Elon. Sorry, Quinn Emanuel. Thanks $2 billion for your help in this trial. It was a pleasure working against you,” Plotkin allegedly wrote in the LinkedIn post, according to the filing. “Congratulations to the trial team at Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, LLP and Bottini Law for standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world,” the post said. 

The chancellor, according to the filing, allegedly reacted to the post, and Musk’s lawyers alleged that’ was enough to get her thrown from the case. McCormick is presiding over two separate derivative cases including Musk. The first case involves a dispute over how much in legal fees the lawyers who won a case against Musk should be paid. The other is an ongoing case against the Tesla board of directors that alleges they paid themselves with excessive compensation packages.

In a motion filed last week, the lawyers shared a screenshot from March 23 that showed an account, which had the name “Katie McCormick” and included a profile picture of the chancellor, reacted with “support”—one of five LinkedIn reactions that include liking, celebrating, loving a post, or finding a post insightful or funny. 

Musk’s lawyers added that most people who reacted to the post used the “like” function and not “support.” The lawsuit alleges that later that day, McCormick deactivated her account. Musk’s lawyers cited several Delaware Supreme Court case laws that protect against judge bias in cases and when judges are obliged to recuse themselves. 

“In light of the Court’s recent public support of LinkedIn posts that create a perception of bias against Mr. Musk in these cases, recusal is necessary and warranted,” Musk’s lawyers wrote in the filing. 

McCormick denied the request to recuse herself but did agree to reassign the three cases involving Musk that she was presiding over on Monday.

In a letter to both the plaintiffs and Musk’s attorneys on Tuesday, McCormick wrote she does not support the post and denied having read the post, beyond a screenshot that was sent to her on March 23. 

“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally,” McCormick wrote in the letter. After seeing a screenshot on March 23 of the post and the alleged reaction, she reported the “suspicious activity to LinkedIn,” she wrote. When she later attempted to log in to the platform, she claimed her account was locked. Her letter also confirmed Musk’s lawyers’ filing in that she deactivated her account.

McCormick wrote she had planned to send the letter before Musk’s attorneys filed a motion for recusal. In the meantime, the chancellor placed the two shareholder cases on pause, Reuters reported. 

In another claim in the filing, Musk’s lawyers also alleged that a court staffer (whose LinkedIn profile allegedly said she worked from McCormick, according to the filing) liked a post that included a screenshot of an article about Musk’s testimony in the California case, in which he testified that he believed McCormick was biased against him. Musk’s lawyers argue this is further grounds for recusal. 

“The supportive reactions to those posts, by accounts under the control of the Court and a member of court staff, independently create a perception of bias in these cases that the Court supports the outcome in the Pampena case and would support a similar outcome for allegations made here,” Musk’s lawyers wrote in the filing. 

Tesla, Musk’s lawyers, and McCormick did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment. 

Not their first clash  

Musk and McCormick have been facing off for years over Tesla’s board of directors compensation, including Musk’s. In 2024, McCormick ruled in favor of Tesla shareholders who sued Musk over his $55 billion compensation, which they claimed was the product of sham negotiation with the board who was not independent of him. In 2022, the chancellor presided over Twitter’s lawsuit against Musk to complete his $44 billion purchase of Twitter after he attempted to back out. 

Musk’s lawyers argue that the pair’s history is particularly relevant due to McCormick’s history with Musk and ruling against his compensation packages. 

While the alleged comments from McCormick and her staff member only involve Musk in name, his lawyers argued that bias against him could affect his co-defendants and Tesla. They point to past rulings from McCormick, including the one regarding Musk’s compensation. The chancellor ordered Tesla to pay the plaintiff’s $345 million in legal fees because “[the] Plaintiff had to piece

together what transpired in a transaction process involving a close-knit group of

Musk loyalists.

“[W]e were unlikely to win the case in Delaware because the judge was extremely biased against me,” Musk said in a March 4 testimony in California. “This was, in fact, the same judge that struck my Tesla option grant that was subsequently overturned by the Delaware Supreme Court. So it’s accurate to say she was—that that judge was not favorably inclined to me. Not objective.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

On March 9, President Donald Trump picked up a phone call from CBS at his golf course in Doral, Florida, and said, “I think the war is very complete, pretty much.” 

“Iran has no navy, no communications, they’ve got no air force. Their missiles are down to a scatter. Their drones are being blown up all over the place, including their manufacturing of drones,” the president told the correspondent. 

That was one week after the war began, when only 3,000 targets were destroyed, and markets took Trump at his word, causing the price of oil to drop a whopping $13, all the way down to $91. 

A 50% surge in one month

Three weeks later, the war has no end in sight, and markets are so numb to the President’s Sunday evening/Monday morning habit of insisting peace talks are happening or walking back on previous threats to Iran in order to calm markets that they barely react to what he says anymore. Brent crude futures for May delivery climbed to their near peak in the futures market Sunday evening, before drifting down to $113 on Monday.

West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for American oil prices, rose to roughly $101 a barrel, as signs show that the gas crisis that has been roiling Asia—causing South Koreans to be told to take shorter showers, Thais to wear shorter sleeves to conserve energy, and the Philippines to distribute cash aid to motorcyclists slammed by higher fuel costs—is far from contained. The same supply disruptions driving those Asian measures are now pushing American gas prices to three-year highs. Brent has now soared more than 50% in March, putting it on track for the steepest monthly gain since the 1990 Gulf War.

The war is widening, not winding down

Meanwhile, all signs point to the war escalating on multiple fronts. Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels entered the war over the weekend after weeks of silence, launching cruise missiles and drones at Israel. The Pentagon is reportedly preparing for weeks of ground operations inside Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal, including a potentially devastating and dangerous mission to excavate Uranium from Iran. And in an early Monday post on Truth Social, Trump threatened to “blow up and completely obliterating” Iran’s power plants, oil wells, and Kharg Island export hub if a deal isn’t reached and the Strait of Hormuz isn’t immediately reopened. He told the Financial Times on Sunday that his preferred option would be to “take the oil.”

The consequences are already slamming American consumers. The national average gas price hit $3.99 on Monday, up from $2.98 in February, according to AAA—the highest since the crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The International Energy Agency has released 400 million barrels from strategic reserves to ease the shock, but prices have continued to climb.

Wall Street is now bracing for the inevitable second-order effects. Société Générale analysts wrote Monday that they expect “higher for longer” Brent prices, forecasting a base case of a Brent average $125 in April, with “credible spikes” toward $150 if the Bab el-Mandeb Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea is shut down by the now entering Houthi forces. 

Wall Street’s stagflation fears are growing

Analysts are currently agonizing over whether or not to “look through” the potential inflation shock from higher oil prices, as many cling to hopes that the Fed will cut rates. Inflation has “flatlined” at 3% for the past couple of years, Jim McCormick, Chief Global Macro Strategist at Citi, told Bloomberg TV, and now with the added risks from higher commodity prices, it’s looking like inflation could be “significantly higher in the coming months.”

Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell said during a Q&A at Harvard University on Monday that the Fed hadn’t lost sight of its 2% inflation target, but that the Fed’s tools have “no meaningful effect on supply shocks.” Meaning the Fed can’t rescue markets or consumers from rising gas prices or the resulting price hikes in groceries and other items. McCormick was clear that this was not an environment for investors to take on more risk. 

“The mix we’re looking at, which seems quite obvious now, is more stagflation,” he added. “Growth is going to be marked down as a result of this conflict; inflation is going to be marked up. It’s not great for bonds. It’s not great for equities. It’s a pretty bad mix for markets in general.”

On the sixth week of this conflict, there’s a bit of a ‘can’t do this anymore’ sense for investors, exhausted by the volatile up and down and waiting for the doomsday $200 oil projections to set in. Economist Ed Yardeni told clients over the weekend that this “fetal position” investors are retreating into is a sign that Trump is at least not bluffing about escalating the conflict.

“The fog of war is getting thicker because of the likelihood of U.S. boots on the ground (the ‘bog of war’),” he wrote.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Business leaders are alerting white-collar workers that the golden age of the knowledge economy is quickly ending thanks to AI, while blue-collar jobs will be in high demand. 

That’s what Chris Power, CEO of Hadrian, said in a recent interview with tech publication Sourcery at the Hill and Valley Forum. 

“All the white-collar jobs are going to get automated,” he predicted. “I think we’re going to see massive hyperinflation in blue-collar salaries.”

His firm, which does work for the defense sector, seeks to automate factories so that nonspecialized workers can become proficient in complex manufacturing industries. 

If forecasts from Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei are right, many white-collar workers could be out of work in as soon as 18 months.

At the same time, the AI infrastructure boom is fueling demand for blue-collar workers, like electricians. For some, the signs are clear that blue-collar work will offer a more secure future for America’s youth than the white-collar careers exposed to AI.

“Everyone, go tell your kids to quit college and university and go get a welding certification,” Power said. “The country needs you.”

Quitting college for blue-collar work?

For now, Power’s prediction of “massive hyperinflation” in blue-collar pay remains just that.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics listed the median pay for a welder at $51,000 in 2024, the latest year for which data is available. That’s lower than the median pay of roughly $60,000 for all workers in the U.S. the same year. 

What’s more, BLS estimated employment of welders, along with cutters, solderers, and brazers, will only grow 2% through 2034, slower than the average for all occupations.

Still, as the AI data center buildout explodes thanks to record-breaking investments, which will hit $700 billion this year alone, some blue-collar roles are rising in demand. There’s currently a dire shortage of electricians, and employment in the profession is expected to grow by 9% through 2034, well above the average growth for all occupations. 

The salaries are there to meet the demand. Construction workers at AI data centers, for example, are earning an average of about $81,100 annually, according to data from hiring platform Skillit. Even outside of the AI boom, other blue-collar careers are experiencing similar shortages, with a demand for about 250,000 shipbuilders in the U.S.

But while he touts blue-collar roles, Power revealed his company had “secretly” begun to automate some welding as part of its contract with the U.S. Navy. “Because there’s a lot of welding on submarines,” he said. 

Of course, robotic welding has existed since the 1960s, and the numbers show that this sort of automation hasn’t quite led to a significant decrease in demand for welders. Power said he can’t get enough welders in his own factories even with automation.

Aside from welding, the CEO sees another industry boom he finds tangentially related to machining and construction jobs: food.

“I think one of the greatest opportunities for private capital—apart from public-private investment alongside the Department of War—is to build Chick-fil-A’s and bars around all of our factories,” he said. “We need to eat so we can work harder for the country.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

French authorities are investigating a suspected link to Iran after thwarting a bomb attack outside a Bank of American building in Paris on the weekend, the interior minister said Monday.

The authorities suspect there could be a link to Iran due to similarities to other recent attempted attacks in Europe which a pro-Iran group claimed responsibility for, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said.

On Saturday morning, Paris police officers spotted two suspects carrying a shopping bag near the premises of the Bank of America in the 8th arrondissement of the French capital. Five suspects have been arrested, including two on Monday, and the national anti-terrorism prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into alleged terrorism-related offenses.

Authorities are making a “direct link” with Iran because the “modus operandi is in every respect similar to actions that have been carried out in the Netherlands and in Belgium,” Nuñez said on French radio RTL on Monday morning.

In those cases there were claims by a pro-Iranian group that “linked them to the conflict” in the Middle-East, he said.

The group, known on Telegram under the name Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, which translates as the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, also claimed responsibility for an attack last week in London, where four ambulances belonging to a Jewish charity were set on fire.

“Typically, intelligence services of this country (Iran) operate in this way: they use proxies, a series of subcontractors, often common criminals, to carry out highly targeted actions aimed at U.S. interests, the interests of the Jewish community, or Iranian opposition figures,” Nuñez said.

Nuñez said French authorities have stepped up security around key personalities and sites since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran on Feb. 28, including the personal protection of some figures from the Iranian opposition.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com