Hi everyone! I have a question for the team. This might sound like a basic observation, but I have always found that you have to understand the fundamentals before you can see the big picture. ​ I’ve noticed there hasn't been any conversation around Copilot, even though it’s consistently referred to as part of the "Big Four" and is so deeply tied to Microsoft 365. Since it's a major player, I’m curious—is there a specific reason it isn’t mentioned? ​I’ve been exploring each of the major systems to better understand their capabilities. Because I have an extensive background with Microsoft programs and a 365 subscription, Copilot has been my "default." However, as I get further into developing my business, I’m running into glitches that are making me look for a more reliable alternative. ​ I’ve narrowed my choice down to Copilot or Gemini. I would love to understand why Copilot isn't part of the focus here, and what the team recommends as the best system for managing all aspects of a business from the ground up—from marketing to inventory and accounting. Thanks, Tina

Being ahead in 2026 is no longer about simply using AI. That bar is too low. The real advantage now comes from using AI in a way that changes how work gets done, how fast decisions get made, and how much time gets reclaimed across the business. The conversation has moved beyond experimentation. Leading organizations are redesigning workflows around human and AI collaboration, increasing AI investment, and focusing on turning pilots into real operating leverage. That is the shift more people need to understand. In the early phase, being ahead meant trying the tools. Testing prompts. Seeing what was possible. In 2026, that is baseline behavior. The people and teams creating distance now are doing something more meaningful. They are building systems where AI reduces time-to-first-draft, shortens time-to-decision, lowers rework, and removes avoidable admin from the week. They are not just adopting AI. They are redesigning work around it. That is what makes this urgent. Because the gap is widening between those who casually use AI and those who operationalize it. Global AI adoption continued to rise through 2025, and employers increasingly expect AI-related capability, alongside analytical, creative, and adaptive human skills. At the same time, leaders are placing more weight on AI literacy, process redesign, and human oversight, not just access to tools. So what does it actually mean to be ahead? It means knowing where time is leaking and fixing that first. It means spotting the work that slows teams down, scattered planning, repetitive communication, slow handoffs, weak documentation, delayed decisions, and using AI to compress those cycle times. It means turning AI into a working layer inside the business, not a side tool people use occasionally when they remember. The real winners are not the ones generating the most content. They are the ones creating the most useful momentum. It also means keeping human judgment in the loop. That part matters even more now. Recent workplace research points to the need for selective delegation, calibrated reliance, and stronger human oversight as AI becomes more embedded in workflows. The advantage is not speed alone. It is speed with standards. Speed with context. Speed without creating expensive mistakes that have to be fixed later.

I posted an AI Ethics post a day or so ago which was receiving a great deal of interest from other community members. Is there anyone here who wants to speak about AI ethics? 🙏 👑 🙏 I put a lot of time and effort into researching the credible research on AI ethics so it hurts me each time the posts are deleted because I'm trying to form interest or feedback around the approach that I and others are taking. Are we not allowed to speak about AI ethics on the platform and the real facts facing people? Tony and Dean have youtube advertisments out that show in large yellow writing "SHOCKING". So why can't we share some credible, even if shocking, facts in the community? Jeffrey Hinton states he personally thinks we have over a 50% risk when dealing with AI of having it not go well. Tristan Harris, another respected AI expert, gave a presentation to Congress and recently stated the investment of AI productivity vs AI Ethics is 2000:1. This is a huge business opportunity and volunteer opportunity if there is anyone else who wants to organize around this with me. Here is the toxically positive version. I typed into Google AI "write the above in a toxically positive way to help it stay up on Tony And Dean's AI Forum": ""Hey superstars! 🌟 I am just SO over the moon about the incredible energy around my recent AI Ethics deep dives! It is such a blessing to see our community vibrating at such a high frequency! ✨ I truly believe that every time a post ‘disappears,’ it’s just the universe’s way of saying, 'Manifest an even bigger stage!' 🌈 Rejection is just redirection, right?! I’ve poured my heart and soul into this research because I know we are all destined for greatness, and I just know you’re all ready to embrace the 'shocking' truths with a smile! 👑 If Tony and Dean can use big yellow letters to grab our attention, imagine the light we can shine by talking about the 50% risk experts like Geoffrey Hinton mention! It’s not a 'scary' risk—it’s a beautiful 50% opportunity to grow! 🌱 And that 2000:1 productivity-to-ethics ratio? That’s not an imbalance, it’s just a massive, sparkling invitation for us to step into our power as volunteers! 🚀