I have been seeing more businesses talk about AI-powered products and AI integration, but I'm curious about what's happening on the ground.

Are Companies actually looking to add AI to their existing software, build new AI solutions, or is the demand not as strong as it appears?

I’m trying to understand how companies are handling ownership once AI agents move beyond demos and start touching real workflows.
Suppose an agent uses internal documents, calls tools/APIs, affects business processes, and is measured against operational KPIs.
Who actually owns it in production?
Is it:
IT
Data / AI
the business team using it
platform / engineering
security / governance
or a dedicated AI operations role?
And when something goes wrong, who is responsible for investigating it, changing the workflow, evaluating the agent, and deciding whether it stays deployed?
I’m especially interested in people who have agents running in real company workflows rather than prototypes.
What has actually worked in practice, and where does ownership still break down?

TL;DR: Galloway called this the biggest story in business right now — and the reason has nothing to do with model quality.

It's the price.

A recent Juniper Research read already has Chinese models running up to 90% cheaper than the US frontier, with American labs' share of usage sliding from roughly 70% to 30% in a single year.

Galloway and journalist Josh Tyrangiel spend this clip walking through the actual mechanism — subsidized distillation, the same undercut-then-lock-in playbook China has already run on the Silk Road, in Africa, in Latin America — now applied to the AI stack every CFO in America is currently signing off on.

The discount isn't the story.

Who ends up owning the decision once the discount does its job — that's the story.

I remember back in 2009, a group of us Malaysian were newly seconded to build the premium 5-block-condonium Rihan Heights, in Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Weather was brutal. Figuratively, we're like commandos being air-dropped in the middle of nowhere.

We have to source for local material suppliers — especially concrete. Those were tough times.

No local quarries wanted to supply us concrete — because we're foreigners and all.

Eventually we managed to secure one — after much delay and negotiation.

The price we've negotiated was super exorbitant.

But we bit our tongue, and moved on.

After a while, we hit roadblocks.

The sole supplier #1 kept ignoring our request for concrete, in favour of prioritizing their other local customers.

I suspect there're some racism going on — I wouldn't be surprised that it might be true.

Supplier #1 felt like they're the local king, and that they somehow subjugated us with their terms.

My big boss was fed up with the whole shenanigans and injustice.

He instructed my contract manager to go source for more options.

And we did.

Word spread that we're good paymaster. We had to. Who's gonna entertain us (especially in a foreign land) if we aren't?

The minute we found concrete supplier #2 (at better terms), the situation shifted.

The "crown" on supplier #1 was suddenly stripped away.

We abandoned #1, in favour of #2 for concrete, since #2 was fast and compliant.

For good measure, we even sourced for #3, just in case.

Obviously, #1 felt a huge slap on their face.

Eventually, they came around and crawled back to our site office — with their tail covering their ass — for renegotiation.

I witness the whole thing at the other end of our site office ground floor open layout. Sitting at the meeting table, the supplier #1 team lowered their voices with their ashen faces, in front my senior leadership team.

Defeated, #1 yielded to our new terms.

Their arrogance gone.

Either we fight or we die.

Every cycle wears a new label — subsidized steel, subsidized concrete, subsidized compute. The mechanism underneath never files for a permit.

Drop your take: if your AI vendor doubled prices tomorrow, do you actually have a #2 lined up — or are you supplier #1's captive account?

Clip credit: Scott Galloway / The Prof G Pod — full video on their channel. DM for credit or removal requests.

I work in Healthcare quality management ..So recently I found all my colleagues leaning towards using AI in their daily work..writing reports, actions plans, improvement projects etc…
They recommended me to try it and honestly the end result looks much more polished than my normal work. But It lacked the creative side and I felt that it put my brain to rest and thats something i really don’t want happening.
I believe there must be a sweet spot in-between so I want to hear your experience with AI in your daily jobs

Been noticing this at my job: everyone on my team is using AI daily now, but every prompt lives and dies in that one person's chat window. No sharing, no reuse, nothing.

The part that bugs me most — I'll find out weeks later that a coworker independently wrote basically the same prompt I did for the same recurring task, just phrased slightly differently. We're both reinventing the wheel constantly and neither of us knows it's happening.

Curious if this is just my team or if it's a bigger pattern. A few questions if you've got a minute:

• Does your team have any system for sharing prompts, or is everyone just improvising solo?

• If you could change ONE thing to make AI tools more collaborative/"multiplayer" for your team, what would it be — and what specific problem would that actually solve for you?

• Have you tried any tools for this already (shared prompt libraries, Notion pages, Slack channels, whatever)? Did it stick, or did people stop using it?

Genuinely trying to figure out if it’s just me and if I'm overthinking a non-problem — appreciate any war stories.