OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Experts Debate if AI Could Kill Us All

5 sources · updated 2026-09-27
Left 0% Center 100% Right 0%
0 left · 3 center · 0 right

What happened

Pamela Eyring, president of the Protocol School of Washington, told Fox Business that overreliance on artificial intelligence could replace workplace “social intelligence” and that automating aggressively while neglecting human interaction is “dangerous.” Richard Corcoran, president of New College of Florida, told Fox News Digital that AI “could be a great thing, and it could be a very dangerous thing,” depending on “how we manage it” as students use the tools to learn. Sarah Soule, dean of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, told Business Insider that frontier AI labs are competing with universities for faculty, saying “I won’t lie, I worry about this,” as Stanford GSB professors Andrew Hall and Chad Jones were on leave this year and OpenAI chief economist Aaron Chatterji was on leave from Duke University. Stanford, which allows tenured faculty two years of unpaid leave to join the private sector every seven years, entered an enterprise agreement with Anthropic over the summer giving students, faculty, and staff access to Claude. Soule said Stanford’s AI-related research costs are rising and future spending is “super hard to forecast.”
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 5 articles

4 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 4 of 4
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Pamela Eyring, Sarah Soule, Kristin Harlan, Richard Corcoran, Daniel Kokotajlo and Jacob Coxon
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 4
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 4
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 26, 09:09 UTC by Fox Business, naming its source.
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage never reports the warning that overreliance on AI is replacing workplace social intelligence, covering instead a contest for professors between universities and AI labs. Stanford's business-school dean is described as worrying about faculty leaving for frontier labs. That account never mentions workers preferring a chatbot to a colleague. Right-leaning coverage omits that talent drain and frames AI's human cost as deteriorating communication at work. Right-leaning coverage labels automating past human contact "dangerous" for clients and revenue. Left-leaning coverage never applies that frame to the workplace, locating the risk instead in universities that cannot match lab budgets. The coverage never cites a measured loss of clients. Has any employer tracked whether chatbot-first teams keep fewer customers than teams that still pick up the phone?
Bottom line

You can read Business Insider on Stanford professors leaving for AI labs and never learn that Fox Business aired a protocol expert's warning that companies risk losing clients if AI replaces social intelligence.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Eyring said companies that automate without considering people will lose clients and money official statementin Fox Business · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Job applicants submitted AI-created resumes that still contained fill-in-the-blank brackets individual casein Fox Business · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Eyring said chatbots do not dispute users and treat even weak ideas as great official statementin Fox Business · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Remote work eliminated many informal water-cooler conversations where employees tested ideas or got casual coaching contextin Fox Business · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage frames the AI boom as a structural contest universities are already struggling to match: labs with “enormous computing resources, data, and coming IPOs” now offer faculty a chance to “shape a technology with enormous economic and social consequences” and share in its financial upside. Soule argues academia still uniquely offers “the freedom to do what you want to do and to take a very long time to do it,” which she suspects “won’t be the case at the frontier labs.” On money and compute, she said she does not “have a good answer” and that “most deans and most college presidents are really worried about this issue, because it’s really daunting to think about.” Stanford officials, rather than treating industry leaves as “zero-sum losses,” called those relationships “complementary to Stanford’s academic mission, not separate from it.”
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage frames the same expansion as a human-skills problem. Eyring says workers turn to chatbots because “It doesn’t dispute us. It’s so nice to us,” which she fears will cost “our people skills and, more importantly, our relationships,” even though employers still need people who can “close a billion, a multi-billion dollar deal.” She called unbalanced automation “dangerous,” arguing firms “are going to lose clients and that’s where you lose money” if they “go full steam ahead and not take into consideration the people,” and concluded: “Don’t let artificial intelligence replace our social intelligence. The best investment is in your people.” Corcoran likewise says universities must “teach those critical thinking skills” and “soft skills,” using New College’s senior thesis as the test: AI “can help you draft that document” but “cannot help you defend it standing before three professors.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is institutional: labs can already outcompete universities for people and compute, and Soule’s admission that she has no answer for soaring, hard-to-forecast research costs—alongside faculty already on industry leave—is evidence that the academic side of skill formation is under strain. The right’s strongest argument is behavioral: Eyring’s claim that AI’s lack of pushback, layered onto remote-work isolation, can atrophy the interpersonal skills that still win clients is backed by failures she cites, including AI-written résumés that still contain “fill in the blank” brackets, and by Corcoran’s point that a tool that can draft cannot stand in for a live defense. The unresolved tension is whether the main workplace-AI risk is a resource and talent drain from the institutions that train people, or the atrophy of social and critical skills among the people who remain.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.