Conversations around AI safety reached a fever pitch this week. AI leaders shared manifestos, and policymakers are set to meet next week behind closed doors. As always, I found myself asking where the American people stand in the debate. How are they experiencing AI? Are they really as negative as some would have you believe? Is it making their lives better, and what if anything are they afraid of?
This week we launched the National AI Monitor, a unique new research initiative that objectively tracks if-and-how people are feeling the effects of AI in their daily lives. Incorporating quantitative and qualitative responses, it captures how Americans truly see AI today – as workers, customers, community members, investors, and stewards of the environment – and their expectations for the future.
So what did we learn? We see a public that is generally positive about the many ways AI can make their lives more fulfilling and more productive – a headline that runs contrary to recent reports. 57% of Americans say AI positively impacts them at work, compared to just 9% who say it affects them negatively. Positive qualitative responses most commonly cite productivity and quality gains (27%), efficiency and time savings (19%), and automating routine tasks (8%).
Conversely, there is very real anxiety around ensuring AI systems are safe and secure, protecting jobs in their communities, and, most notably, mitigating harm to the environment. On the last point, 23% of Americans say AI is positively impacting the environment, compared to 40% who say it is producing a negative impact.
We also learned that many Americans are not aware of any effects of AI on their economic wellbeing – 42% say it has had no effect on them as an investor. This is key. As I wrote in Forbes this week, capitalism does not survive on efficiency alone. It survives thanks to its social license. If people see the benefits of AI flowing to fewer and fewer people, they’re apt to stop believing in the underlying systems of capitalism and democracy on which AI’s future success depends. That is not a good outcome for anyone.
AI leaders and enterprise deployers should see this as a guide for how to build trust in AI’s future. People don’t want promises and pledges. They want concrete improvements in their daily lives. The National AI Monitor will be the benchmark by which that is measured.
Be well, Martin
56% of Americans say AI is having a positive effect on them right now, 21% say the effect is negative. Explore the rest of the findings here.
The Wall Street Journal reveals that many CEOs believe the AI apocalypse threat is a real problem, and are urging Trump to work with China for a global slowdown on development.
The New York Times looks at how AI is affecting the job market – not through job loss – but through stagnant wages and diminished hiring.
Axios reports that OpenAI has disclosed six new AI safety incidents, revealing that the Hugging Face hack was not an isolated incident.
CEO Daily reveals one of the major themes of Fortune’s latest Leaders Forum is CEO’s calling for businesses to avoid falling into the “efficiency trap” – bolting AI onto existing workflows rather than completely redesigning them.
Fortune released a report that the amount of Amazon workers on food stamps has tripled despite its record revenue.
Forbes reveals that America’s 400 richest people have only donated 4% of their wealth to charity.
Gallup reveals that workers’ fears about being replaced by technology in the near future continue to go up, matching our own polling that shows Americans get more pessimistic on AI as they think about the future.
September 16, 2026 New York, NY – AI innovators have made both bold promises and grave predictions about the ways AI will impact society, while companies continue to deploy the technology at scale and with increasing speed. Current research primarily measures public sentiment about AI in the abstract, which lacks actionable nuance for leaders aiming to understand real-time impacts of AI deployment on society at large.
Just Capital created the new National AI Monitor to consistently track whether and how people are seeing positive or negative effects of AI in their own lives. This monthly study aims to capture how Americans are experiencing AI today – as workers, customers, community members, investors, and stewards of the environment – and their expectations for the future. The study collects both quantitative and qualitative responses to surface the realities behind experience across demographics.
“AI is the most consequential issue of our time,” said Just Capital Founder Paul Tudor Jones II. “Understanding how the American people are experiencing it is critical to building public trust and making more informed decisions on future deployment. This new Monitor from Just Capital is filling that essential need. Leaders across the AI labs, business, markets, government, and civil society can rely on it every month to give an unbiased, objective assessment of whether AI is living up to its promises or taking us down the wrong path.”
Just Capital CEO Martin Whittaker continued, “As always, our goal is to uplift the voice of the American public to help leaders make smarter, more responsible decisions. As frontier labs, corporate leaders, and policymakers work to bridge public trust and technological transformation, this research aims to help them deploy AI in ways that drive innovation and support an economy and society that works for all.”
“In this first edition, we see a general public that is generally positive about the many ways AI can make their lives more fulfilling and more productive,” Whittaker added. “At the same time, there is real concern around ensuring AI systems are safe and secure, protecting jobs in their communities, and, most notably, mitigating harm to the environment. Importantly, most Americans are not aware of any effects of AI on their investments or savings. This all appears to add up to greater skepticism around the impacts of AI on the future. For leaders trying to help Americans see themselves in the future AI-powered economy, this is your roadmap.”
Overall, positive experience outweighs negative.
The greatest positive effect was found in how AI is affecting people at work.
Customer experience is mixed, and the human touch is a top priority.
Many respondents are not sure how AI is impacting their communities to date.
The majority of Americans are not aware of whether they are experiencing financial gains from AI.
The environment was the only lens producing a net negative effect.
Americans are more pessimistic about AI as they think of their future.
The survey was conducted online within the United States by The Harris Poll on behalf of Just Capital from August 13-17, 2026 among 1,008 U.S. adults ages 18 and older. The sampling precision of Harris online polls is measured by using a Bayesian credible interval. For this study, the sample data is accurate to within +/- 3.5 percentage points using a 95% confidence level. This credible interval will be wider among subsets of the surveyed population of interest.
Respondents were asked seven questions: one on AI’s overall effect on the respondent to date, one for each of the five stakeholder groups in Just Capital’s framework (workers, customers, communities, the environment, and shareholders), and one forward-looking question on how optimistic respondents are about where AI is headed and how it may affect them. All questions use a five-point scale ranging from “very negative” to “very positive,” with “I don’t know” offered as an additional, non-forced option so that uncertainty is not recorded as a neutral rating. Every question except the final one is followed by an open-ended “why,” which is synthesized to identify what drives responses and to serve as a diagnostic on how effectively companies are deploying AI. Scores are calculated as the percentage of positive responses (“somewhat positive” and “very positive”) minus the percentage of negative responses (“somewhat negative” and “very negative”), producing a range from -100 to +100. “I don’t know” responses are excluded from the calculation rather than counted as neutral.
For complete survey methodology, including weighting variables and subgroup sample sizes, please contact Just Capital.
For media inquiries, please contact:
Evangeline DiMichele: edimichele@justcapital.com
Is public opposition to data centers as uniformly intense as it seems? Our latest polling suggests perhaps not.
It’s a critical issue. The flow of capital into building AI infrastructure is off the charts right now, and it’s fair to say the future of the US economy hinges to a large extent on there being a strong return on this investment. In May, Gallup put local opposition to data centers at 71%, apparently worse than any nuclear plant has ever polled. At that level, it’s hard to see how the AI build out can ever be successful.
Our most recent polling reveals a different picture: 47% opposed, 39% in favor, 13% undecided. Local ‘not in my backyard’ concerns don’t appear to be the main motivator. When we asked how people feel about a data center ten miles away the numbers barely shifted: 49% opposed, 37% in favor.
Interestingly, only 16% want AI development stopped outright. Forty-three percent want it slowed to only use existing data center capacity and 24% are happy to see it continue at full speed. Thirty-four percent of those opposed cite rising electricity and utility bills; 22% reference environmental impact. Perhaps most important of all, 51% of opponents say they could still change their minds. And the thing most likely to move them is direct participation in the upside.
For all those with a stake in seeing the U.S. lead the global AI race, these data points should be encouraging. Show people how they’ll benefit economically, alleviate electricity and environmental pressures, and tie it to initiatives that help tackle kitchen table affordability, employment, health and education concerns, and the path forward for data center developers becomes clearer.
I explore more of our research — and what a modern version of aligned corporate responsiveness could look like — in my latest piece for Forbes.
Be well,
Martin
This newsletter was written mostly by humans with a bit of help from AI.
69% of college students worry AI will make it harder to find a job, per a recent survey of 2,000 U.S. higher education students by Superhuman (formerly Grammarly). Read the full report here.
The Wall Street Journal explains how tech companies have actually spent $3 trillion more dollars on AI than they’re showing on their balance sheets.
Axios looks at how college students are changing their majors to try and find careers that are more insulated from the growth of AI.
Fortune speaks to Dario Amodei on the “crisis of trust” people are having with AI.
New research by Gallup reveals that only half of CHRO’s trust their managers to guide employees through an AI transition.
Harvard Business Review interviews Just Capital Chairman of the Board and current Verizon CEO Dan Schulman on business, the promises and pitfalls of AI, and more.
The AFL-CIO reveals that CEO pay has reached its highest levels ever while worker pay is falling.
Axios investigated new data on how Gen Z is feeling about the economy, the labor market, and more. Read the full piece here.
Companies today are desperately searching for growth, better margins, and market-beating returns, especially amid ongoing AI-driven transformation. Our latest research offers clues where to look.
We scored 767 companies over five years on how they treated their workers, their customers, their communities, their shareholders (on governance factors), and the planet, then evaluated what happened in subsequent years to their revenue growth, margins, and excess returns.
TL;DR: the results suggest that strong stakeholder performance can indeed presage future financial and market performance, but not always. It varies by industry, by stakeholder, and over time. When the connections were statistically significant, positive links beat negative ones by nearly two to one, with strong clusters around the twin goals of revenue growth and alpha.
The key to success at the individual company level appears to be knowing when, how, and where the stakeholder-financial performance connections occur, anticipating future shifts and executing better than others; precisely what the new Financial Opportunity feature in Just Intelligence facilitates. In technology, for example, the firms that invested most in communities, environment, and governance went on to grow fastest.
None of this was a surprise to Jen Huffstetler, Chief Sustainability Officer at HP Inc. — our top-ranked company of 2026 — who joined me for a conversation last week. Culture, trust, and innovation, she argued, are essentials for overall leadership today. At HP, whose stock is up over 30% YTD, culture is grounded in accountability – a feature that can be traced back to the firm’s founders. You can read the full summary of our conversation on LinkedIn.
In a volatile market obsessed with AI-driven growth, profitability and returns, the stakeholder model might offer more value than expected.
Be well,
Martin
P.S. Just Intelligence now contains additional AI-focused insights. Explore them here.
79% of investors feel AI should face significantly more regulation than social media has, alongside 78% of corporate leaders. Explore the data here.
NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang speaks to Axios about how AI is creating more jobs, pointing to how its use in radiology is creating demand for more radiologists.
Mark Zuckerberg writes an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal outlining his optimistic vision for an AI-driven future.
The New York Times looks at AI companies’ search for more electricians and plumbers for their data center build-outs, and how many are investing in the trades.
Inc. reveals that 55% of leaders regret AI-related layoffs, and more companies are hiring back roles they thought they could do without.
The Wall Street Journal looks at how after-tax wage growth has improved for low-income Americans, but those gains are likely being swallowed by rising gas prices and overall inflation.
Forbes takes a surprising look at why engineering majors are struggling to find jobs at higher-than-expected rates.
More companies than ever are turning to older and retired CEOs when their business is in need of stabilization. The Wall Street Journal has the story.
This chart comes from an Associated Press investigation on how the increase in food prices is affecting U.S. families, showing that prices have risen 33% since 2019.
SpaceX will begin trading this morning with what is projected to be the largest IPO on record. I tend to look at these historic moments through a just lens. What does the average American expect of a company worth trillions of dollars? And what do they think of a single person being worth $1 trillion?
We decided to take these questions to the public. The results are illuminating for anyone looking to build trust in this era of extreme wealth – and were more measured and nuanced than one might expect.
Only 10% of Americans said a trillion-dollar company’s first responsibility is to its shareholders. Fully 80% want these companies to pay their workers well, give employees a real stake in the business, and reinvest in the communities where they operate. Creating value for stakeholders ranked far ahead of philanthropy. No-one is asking companies for a handout. They’re asking them to give others a stake in their success.
When it comes to extreme personal wealth, a majority, 57%, said it is acceptable for a single individual to be worth a trillion dollars or more. In today’s climate of anti-capitalist backlash that might be a surprise. But it comes with a string attached. The largest group, 34%, called it acceptable only if the wealth was built responsibly and without exploiting others.
The public is savvy. It’s OK to be wildly successful financially provided it has been done in a way that widens access to opportunity and builds value for others rather than extracting from them.
Be well,
Martin
This newsletter was written mostly by humans with a bit of help from AI.
The Wall Street Journal spoke with over a dozen leading economists on the effect AI will have on companies, workers, the country at large, and more. As expected, opinions run the gamut.
Fortune reports on Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s comments that companies touting AI layoffs are creating their own regulatory demise, stating: “if you run around saying AI allowed you to fire two-thirds of your workforce…you might as well just go sign up for the Bernie Sanders manifesto.”
Axios looks at how AI is helping mask America’s literacy crisis – with nearly 160+ million Americans unable to read past a 6th grade level – and how it might continue to exacerbate the problem.
The New York Times looks at Trump’s idea for the government to take a stake in major AI corporations.
Courts have struck down President Trump’s $100,000 fee on H1-B visas. The Washington Post has the story.
Meta is launching America’s Workforce Academy, an initiative to fast-track more Americans into trades with a starting investment of $115 million.
CNBC looks at why 51% of U.S. adults believe that the American dream is out of reach for most people right now.
The Disruption Lab highlights the life and work of former Just Capital board member Dan Hesse, and the lesson that “If your system separates business from community, it will produce growth that doesn’t reach the people who need it most…because the architecture wasn’t built to connect them.”
Axios looks at how inflation has risen to its highest point in the last three years, and how it’s affecting families across the U.S.
Last week, Just Capital brought together some of the world’s most influential business leaders, philanthropists, and government officials at Nasdaq’s MarketSite for our 2026 Best of American Business Celebration — supported by sponsors Accenture, Bank of America, and many more.
The day was defined by candor with seven fireside chats moderated by leading media figures. The conversations occurred under Chatham House rules, so we cannot directly attribute quotes, but we’re sharing two themes that dominated the discussions.
One refrain we heard repeatedly was the importance of keeping humans in charge of AI systems. One organization said their ethos was “humans in the lead” not just humans in the loop. It’s a deceptively simple idea, but in a world racing to automate, it’s a radical one.
Speakers also emphasized that neither government nor business alone cannot absorb the disruption that’s coming. Addressing AI’s impact on workers will require public private partnership to fundamentally reimagine how value is defined, rewarded, and shared One speaker even mentioned how dealing with this impact will go beyond workforce issues, and will force us to rethink how America handles things like health insurance, childcare infrastructure, and the social safety net at large.
There was a pointed message to CEOs in the room about the choice before them: use these tools to help people do more and better work, or use them simply to reduce headcount. One speaker referenced NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s recent statement that leaders who laid off employees were “lacking imagination” in how AI tools could transform employee work, and it was clear the moral weight of how to handle this transition will define how history judges this generation of business leaders.On an optimistic note, there was general agreement that, with the right guardrails and widespread access, AI will provide significant value to society through innovations in healthcare, engineering, and education. Our latest polling shows that the American public agrees. Many leaders also believed that academia and nonprofits lack access to frontier models, which presents a structural problem that deprives these sectors of many of the technology’s gains if this continues.
On an optimistic note, there was general agreement that, with the right guardrails and widespread access, AI will provide significant value to society through innovations in healthcare, engineering, and education. Our latest polling shows that the American public agrees. Many leaders also believed that academia and nonprofits lack access to frontier models, which presents a structural problem that deprives these sectors of many of the technology’s gains if this continues.
If AI was the operational challenge in the room, the state of capitalism was the philosophical one.
Several leaders spoke with striking frankness about the erosion of public trust across the spectrum: in business, in capitalism, in the accessibility of the American dream, and in “brand America” abroad. It was clear that those in attendance were worried about the possibility of AI exacerbating these issues.
This concern was echoed from leaders across sectors – corporate leaders, investors, philanthropists, and policymakers. The idea that the very foundations on which markets depend is at risk was not an outlying perspective. It was a common thesis of the night.
There was also a belief that specific sectors were more vulnerable than others. One speaker drew a direct parallel between the major social media platform liability cases moving through the courts today and the first successful lawsuits against big tobacco, a flashpoint where public opinion decisively turns on one of the largest sectors of the American economy.
Leaders agreed that all of these issues could present an economic and social crisis soon.
In the end, the event left us debating profound questions: What kind of future do we want? How do we in this room shape it?
We at Just Capital believe in the power of markets and the private sector to advance society and build a better future for more people at scale. In an AI-powered future, the best of American business will continue to do just that.
Thank you to our insightful speakers and moderators, and thank you again to our sponsors!
