ARTY delivers strong tech exposure with 83% allocation to AI leaders, but volatility and valuations test investor conviction | That’s TradingNEWS

TradingNEWS Archive
8/30/2025 8:54:36 PM

Musk has been parading around in his AI clothes for a while now. With the amount he screams and shouts about AI, you’d think he invented it. Of course, like everything else Musk peddles, he had nothing to do with its invention or development, except for underpaying and overworking his engineers and being an awful, overpromising PR man. However, people aren’t just noticing that Musk’s clothes are non-existent — they are also starting to point and laugh at his skid marks and the “I Love the Nazi Man” tattoo down his back. Why? Because he just can’t seem to get his AI up and working. And there is no little blue pill to remedy this situation.

Take, for example, Tesla’s hilariously crap Robotaxi rollout. The media at large is only just cottoning on to it being a huge PR stunt.

I have gone on ad nauseam about why Tesla’s self-driving cars are completely inadequate, so if you want to know the details, read my previous article here. But the helicopter view is that, unlike other autonomous vehicles, Tesla’s system has zero redundancy or safety nets and requires a nearly 100% accurate AI — which categorically can’t exist — to be even remotely safe.

Tesla is painfully aware of this fatal flaw, with Tesla engineers whistleblowing their concerns about it to the media (read more here) and the DOJ opening an investigation (read more here). So I, along with countless other commentators, was pretty damn relieved to find out that Tesla’s Robotaxis had safety drivers. There was even mention of remote workers being able to take control of the car and drive it safely in the case of a critical disengagement.

But this kind of system isn’t impressive enough for Musk. Any Uber or Lyft driver with a Tesla who wastes their money on FSD can do the exact same thing. There is no social or investor kudos to be gained for Tesla or Musk here. And here is a hint: Musk doesn’t make money from Tesla sales. After all, his $50 billion pay packet (which is now less, thanks to Musk tanking Tesla’s valuation) was the equivalent of him getting $10,000 for every Tesla ever sold! Tesla makes substantially less profit from every car sold than that.

So, what do you do if you have bet your entire company’s valuation on autonomous technology that you simply can’t deliver on?

Fudge it.

Tesla put the safety driver in the passenger seat! Because, look, it’s a self-driving car — there is no one in the driver’s seat!

This is a dangerous move that offers no benefit other than optics.

Rather than being able to properly take over the car and drive it to safety, the only thing these safety drivers could do was press a button to bring the vehicle to a stop. Which, as anyone with a driving licence will tell you, is not always the safest option! Particularly when you consider that Robotaxis have been spotted driving into lanes of oncoming traffic.

Yet, this bafflingly shite decision wasn’t really reported on. Or at least it wasn’t until a video surfaced a few days ago that showed FSD failing and a safety driver being forced to exit the vehicle in the middle of traffic to take the driver’s seat and regain control. (watch it here).

This shows just how wildly dangerous Tesla’s Robotaxis are.

The safety driver had to take a serious risk to take control of the car. Not only that, but this incident suggests there are no remote operatives capable of taking over when things go wrong. That has been a core safety feature of all developing self-driving ride-hailing services, such as Waymo and Cruise, since day one and is routinely used to keep passengers safe. The fact that this is absent for Robotaxis, which Tesla already know have a far, far higher critical disengagement rate than any other self-driving ride-hailing service, could easily be seen as insanely negligent.

Musk is comfortable putting other people — not just the safety driver, but paying passengers and the public — in danger, all for a crappy PR stunt to cover up how bad his self-driving system actually is. And the media at large, as well as public consensus, are beginning to catch up to this horrifying fact.

However, Musk’s AI woes go far, far deeper than that.

A new survey from WalkMe, an SAP company, reveals a striking paradox in the modern workplace: The employees who use AI the most—top executives and Gen Z workers—are also the least likely to receive official guidance, training, or company approval for their use. The findings from the 2025 AI in the Workplace survey suggest that a phenomenon dubbed “AI shame” is taking hold. The annual survey polled 1,000 working U.S. adults who use AI in their jobs to understand the reality of AI adoption. Nearly half of all workers surveyed (48.8%) admitted to hiding their use of AI on the job to avoid judgment. This discomfort is particularly pronounced at the top, with 53.4% of C-suite leaders confessing they conceal their AI habits, despite being the most frequent users.x`Almost half (45%) of workers admit to pretending to know how to use an AI tool in a meeting to avoid scrutiny, while 49% have hidden their use of AI to avoid judgment. This trend is even more pronounced among Gen Z, with 55.5% pretending to understand AI tools and 62% hiding their use.

What makes Gen Z anxious about AI

Gen Z workers show both enthusiasm and anxiety regarding AI. A notable 62.6% of Gen Zers have used AI to complete work but then pretended it was their own, the highest rate among any generation. Over half (55.4%) have feigned understanding of AI in meetings.Despite this widespread use—89.2% of Gen Z employees use AI at work — they report receiving the least amount of support. Only 6.8% have received extensive, time-consuming AI training, and 13.5% received none at all. This lack of formal guidance has led 89.2% of them to use tools not provided or sanctioned by their employers.“Companies are not educating enough about this whole thing,” said Sharon Bernstein, WalkMe’s Chief Human Resources Officer, in an interview with Fortune. She noted that companies are failing to facilitate the use of AI tools or guide their employees effectively.

AI ‘Class Divide’ and Productivity Dilemma

The survey also points to an “AI class divide,” where access to training and guidance increases with rank. Only 3.7% of entry-level employees receive substantial training, compared to 17.1% of C-level executives. This leaves the most frequent users, junior and younger staff, to navigate the new technology on their own, risking a growing knowledge gap.While 80% of employees believe AI has boosted their productivity, a significant number are struggling. Almost 60% confessed to spending more time trying to manage AI tools than it would have taken to do the work themselves.Gen Z is particularly affected by this paradox:* 65.3% say AI slows them down, the highest among all age groups.* 68% feel pressure to produce more work because of it.* Nearly one in three are deeply anxious about AI’s impact on their jobs.This disconnect between corporate hype and on-the-ground reality fits into a broader picture of chaotic AI implementation. For instance, a recent MIT study found a staggering 95% failure rate for generative AI pilot programs at large enterprises, suggesting a significant gap between the theory of AI and its practical application.