The biggest change in AI over the past few years may not be the quality of the output. It may be the quality of the interaction. What happens when working with AI starts to feel less like prompting and more like conversation?

Pope Leo XIV's "Magnifica Humanitas" argues that AI is not morally neutral, that justice must shape these systems from the outset, and that human dignity is the non-negotiable standard. The Pope's first encyclical makes the case with considerable force.

Tony Blair's new essay on Labour's future is uncomfortable reading. Some question whether his voice still matters. But he has nothing left to protect, which is precisely why his argument – whatever you think of the man – deserves to be taken seriously.

Billable hours are becoming less useful as a yardstick. McKinsey's clients are demanding outcome-based fees. The same pressure is coming for communicators – sooner than many expect.

Deloitte. Sullivan & Cromwell. Now EY. Three organisations, three contexts, the same essential failure. At some point, the pattern becomes the story – and the story isn't about AI hallucinations.

AI fluency will matter in the workplace. But as AI-native graduates begin entering organisations in larger numbers, employers are starting to ask a deeper question: what skills become more valuable when technology can generate answers instantly?

As AI becomes more embedded in executive decision-making, a deeper question emerges: if a leader changes direction because AI suggests something different, who owns the decision? A reflection on judgement, accountability, and the communicator’s role.

King Charles's address to Congress was months in the making – a carefully crafted collaboration between Buckingham Palace, Downing Street and the Foreign Office. But the most interesting question isn't what he said. It's how the speech was made.