Anthropic's India expansion marks a shift from global scale to sovereign-aware AI, building trust, data residency, and deeper enterprise integration.
The post Data residency in AI: Geopolitical, regulatory, enterprise risk appeared first on CoinGeek.
As 50,000 attendees descend on Salesforce's Dreamforce conference this week, the enterprise software giant is making its most aggressive bet yet on artificial intelligence agents, positioning itself as the antidote to what it calls an industry-wide "pilot purgatory" where 95% of enterprise AI projects never reach production.
The company on Monday launched Agentforce 360, a sweeping reimagination of its entire product portfolio designed to transform businesses into what it calls "agentic enterprises" — organizations where AI agents work alongside humans to handle up to 40% of work across sales, service, marketing, and operations.
"We are truly in the agentic AI era, and I think it's probably the biggest revolution, the biggest transition in technology I've ever experienced in my career," said Parker Harris, Salesforce's co-founder and chief technology officer, during a recent press briefing. "In the future, 40% of the work in the Fortune 1000 is probably going to be done by AI, and it's going to be humans and AI actually working together."
The announcement comes at a pivotal moment for Salesforce, which has deployed more than 12,000 AI agent implementations over the past year while building what Harris called a "$7 billion business" around its AI platform. Yet the launch also arrives amid unusual turbulence, as CEO Marc Benioff faces fierce backlash for recent comments supporting President Trump and suggesting National Guard troops should patrol San Francisco streets.
The stakes are enormous. While companies have rushed to experiment with AI following ChatGPT's emergence two years ago, most enterprise deployments have stalled before reaching production, according to recent MIT research that Salesforce executives cited extensively.
"Customers have invested a lot in AI, but they're not getting the value," said Srini Tallapragada, Salesforce's president and chief engineering and customer success officer. "95% of enterprise AI pilots fail before production. It's not because of lack of intent. People want to do this. Everybody understands the power of the technology. But why is it so hard?"
The answer, according to Tallapragada, is that AI tools remain disconnected from enterprise workflows, data, and governance systems. "You're writing prompts, prompts, you're getting frustrated because the context is not there," he said, describing what he called a "prompt doom loop."
Salesforce's solution is a deeply integrated platform connecting what it calls four ingredients: the Agentforce 360 agent platform, Data 360 for unified data access, Customer 360 apps containing business logic, and Slack as the "conversational interface" where humans and agents collaborate.
Perhaps the most significant strategic shift is the elevation of Slack — acquired by Salesforce in 2019 for $27.7 billion — as the primary interface for Salesforce itself. The company is effectively reimagining its traditional Lightning interface around Slack channels, where sales deals, service cases, and data insights will surface conversationally rather than through forms and dashboards.
"Imagine that you maybe don't log into Salesforce, you don't see Salesforce, but it's there. It's coming to you in Slack, because that's where you're getting your work done," Harris explained.
The strategy includes embedding Salesforce's Agentforce agents for sales, IT service, HR service, and analytics directly into Slack, alongside a completely rebuilt Slackbot that acts as a personal AI companion. The company is also launching "Channel Expert," an always-on agent that provides instant answers from channel conversations.
To enable third-party AI tools to access Slack's conversational data, Salesforce is releasing a Real-Time Search API and Model Context Protocol server. Partners including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Perplexity, Writer, Dropbox, Notion, and Cursor are building agents that will live natively in Slack.
"The best way to see the power of the platform is through the AI apps and agents already being built," Rob Seaman, a Salesforce executive, said during a technical briefing, citing examples of startups "achieving tens of thousands of customers that have it installed in 120 days or less."
Beyond Slack integration, Salesforce announced major expansions into voice-based interactions and employee service. Agentforce Voice, now generally available, transforms traditional IVR systems into natural conversations that can update CRM records, trigger workflows, and seamlessly hand off to human agents.
The IT Service offering represents Salesforce's most direct challenge to ServiceNow, the market leader. Mudhu Sudhakar, who joined Salesforce two months ago as senior vice president for IT and HR Service, positioned the product as a fundamental reimagining of employee support.
"Legacy IT service management is very portals, forms, tickets focused, manual process," Sudhakar said. "What we had a few key tenets: conversation first and agent first, really focused on having a conversational experience for the people requesting the support and for the people providing the support."
The IT Service platform includes what Salesforce describes as 25+ specialized agents and 100+ pre-built workflows and connectors that can handle everything from password resets to complex incident management.
Customer results suggest the approach is gaining traction. Reddit reduced average support resolution time from 8.9 minutes to 1.4 minutes — an 84% improvement — while deflecting 46% of cases entirely to AI agents. "This efficiency has allowed us to provide on-demand help for complex tasks and boost advertiser satisfaction scores by 20%," said John Thompson, Reddit's VP of sales strategy and operations, in a statement.
Engine, a travel management company, reduced average handle time by 15%, saving over $2 million annually. OpenTable resolved 70% of restaurant and diner inquiries autonomously. And 1-800Accountant achieved a 90% case deflection rate during the critical tax week period.
Salesforce's own internal deployments may be most telling. Tallapragada's customer success organization now handles 1.8 million AI-powered conversations weekly, with metrics published at help.salesforce.com showing how many agents answer versus escalating to humans.
Even more significantly, Salesforce has deployed AI-powered sales development representatives to follow up on leads that would previously have gone uncontacted due to cost constraints. "Now, Agentforce has an SDR which is doing thousands of leads following up," Tallapragada explained. The company also increased proactive customer outreach by 40% by shifting staff from reactive support.
Given enterprise concerns about AI reliability, Salesforce has invested heavily in what it calls the "trust layer" — audit trails, compliance checks, and observability tools that let organizations monitor agent behavior at scale.
"You should think of an agent as a human. Digital labor. You need to manage performance just like a human. And you need these audit trails," Tallapragada explained.
The company encountered this challenge firsthand when its own agent deployment scaled. "When we started at Agentforce at Salesforce, we would track every message, which is great until 1,000, 3,000," Tallapragada said. "Once you have a million chats, there's no human, we cannot do it."
The platform now includes "Agentforce Grid" for searching across millions of conversations to identify and fix problematic patterns. The company also introduced Agent Script, a new scripting language that allows developers to define precise guardrails and deterministic controls for agent behavior.
Underlying the agent capabilities is significant infrastructure investment. Salesforce's Data 360 includes "Intelligent Context," which automatically extracts structured information from unstructured content like PDFs, diagrams, and flowcharts using what the company describes as "AI-powered unstructured data pipelines."
The company is also collaborating with Databricks, dbt Labs, and Snowflake on the "Universal Semantic Interchange," an attempt to standardize how different platforms define business metrics. The pending $8 billion acquisition of Informatica, expected to close soon, will expand metadata management capabilities across the enterprise.
Salesforce's aggressive AI agent push comes as virtually every major enterprise software vendor pursues similar strategies. Microsoft has embedded Copilot across its product line, Google offers agent capabilities through Vertex AI and Gemini, and ServiceNow has launched its own agentic offerings.
When asked how Salesforce's announcement compared to OpenAI's recent releases, Tallapragada emphasized that customers will use multiple AI tools simultaneously. "Most of the time I'm seeing they're using OpenAI, they're using Gemini, they're using Anthropic, just like Salesforce, we use all three," he said.
The real differentiation, executives argued, lies not in the AI models but in the integration with business processes and data. Harris framed the competition in terms familiar from Salesforce's founding: "26 years ago, we just said, let's make Salesforce automation as easy as buying a book on Amazon.com. We're doing that same thing. We want to make agentic AI as easy as buying a book on Amazon."
The company's customer success stories are impressive but remain a small fraction of its customer base. With 150,000 Salesforce customers and one million Slack customers, the 12,000 Agentforce deployments represent roughly 8% penetration — strong for a one-year-old product line, but hardly ubiquitous.
The company's stock, down roughly 28% year to date with a Relative Strength rating of just 15, suggests investors remain skeptical. This week's Dreamforce demonstrations — and the months of customer deployments that follow — will begin to provide answers to whether Salesforce can finally move enterprise AI from pilots to production at scale, or whether the "$7 billion business" remains more aspiration than reality.
May Habib, co-founder and CEO of Writer AI, delivered one of the bluntest assessments of corporate AI failures at the TED AI conference on Tuesday, revealing that nearly half of Fortune 500 executives believe artificial intelligence is actively damaging their organizations — and placing the blame squarely on leadership's shoulders.
The problem, according to Habib, isn't the technology. It's that business leaders are making a category error, treating AI transformation like previous technology rollouts and delegating it to IT departments. This approach, she warned, has led to "billions of dollars spent on AI initiatives that are going nowhere."
"Earlier this year, we did a survey of 800 Fortune 500 C-suite executives," Habib told the audience of Silicon Valley executives and investors. "42% of them said AI is tearing their company apart."
The diagnosis challenges conventional wisdom about how enterprises should approach AI adoption. While most major companies have stood up AI task forces, appointed chief AI officers, or expanded IT budgets, Habib argues these moves reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI represents: not another software tool, but a wholesale reorganization of how work gets done.
"There is something leaders are missing when they compare AI to just another tech tool," Habib said. "This is not like giving accountants calculators or bankers Excel or designers Photoshop."
Habib, whose company has spent five years building AI systems for Fortune 500 companies and logged two million miles visiting customer sites, said the pattern is consistent: "When generative AI started showing up, we turned to the old playbook. We turned to IT and said, 'Go figure this out.'"
That approach fails, she argued, because AI fundamentally changes the economics and organization of work itself. "For 100 years, enterprises have been built around the idea that execution is expensive and hard," Habib said. "The enterprise built complex org charts, complex processes, all to manage people doing stuff."
AI inverts that model. "Execution is going from scarce and expensive to programmatic, on-demand and abundant," she said. In this new paradigm, the bottleneck shifts from execution capacity to strategic design — a shift that requires business leaders, not IT departments, to drive transformation.
"With AI technology, it can no longer be centralized. It's in every workflow, every business," Habib said. "It is now the most important part of a business leader's job. It cannot be delegated."
The statement represents a direct challenge to how most large organizations have structured their AI initiatives, with centralized centers of excellence, dedicated AI teams, or IT-led implementations that business units are expected to adopt.
Habib framed the shift in dramatic terms: "A generational transfer of power is happening right now. It's not about your age or how long you've been at a company. The generational transfer of power is about the nature of leadership itself."
Traditional leadership, she argued, has been defined by the ability to manage complexity — big teams, big budgets, intricate processes. "The identity of leaders at these companies, people like us, has been tied to old school power structures: control, hierarchy, how big our teams are, how big our budgets are. Our value is measured by the sheer amount of complexity we could manage," Habib said. "Today we reward leaders for this. We promote leaders for this."
AI makes that model obsolete. "When I am able to 10x the output of my team or do things that could never be possible, work is no longer about the 1x," she said. "Leadership is no longer about managing complex human execution."
Instead, Habib outlined three fundamental shifts that define what she calls "AI-first leaders" — executives her company has worked with who have successfully deployed AI agents solving "$100 million plus problems."
The new leadership mandate, according to Habib, is "taking a machete to the complexity that has calcified so many organizations." She pointed to the layers of friction that have accumulated in enterprises: "Brilliant ideas dying in memos, the endless cycles of approvals, the death by 1,000 clicks, meetings about meetings — a death, by the way, that's happening in 17 different browser tabs each for software that promises to be a single source of truth."
Rather than accepting this complexity as inevitable, AI-first leaders redesign workflows from first principles. "There are very few legacy systems that can't be replaced in your organization, that won't be replaced," Habib said. "But they're not going to be replaced by another monolithic piece of software. They can only be replaced by a business leader articulating business logic and getting that into an agentic system."
She offered a concrete example: "We have customers where it used to take them seven months to get a creative campaign — not even a product, a campaign. Now they can go from TikTok trend to digital shelf in 30 days. That is radical simplicity."
The catch, she emphasized, is that CIOs can't drive this transformation alone. "Your CIO can't help flatten your org chart. Only a business leader can look at workflows and say, 'This part is necessary genius, this part is bureaucratic scar tissue that has to go.'"
When AI handles execution, "your humans are liberated to do what they're amazing at: judgment, strategy, creativity," Habib explained. "The old leadership playbook was about managing headcount. We managed people against revenue: one business development rep for every three account executives, one marketer for every five salespeople."
But this liberation carries profound challenges that leaders must address directly. Habib acknowledged the elephant in the room that many executives avoid discussing: "These changes are still frightening for people, even when it's become unholy to talk about it." She's witnessed the fear firsthand. "It shows up as tears in an AI workshop when someone feels like their old skill set isn't translated to the new."
She introduced a term for a common form of resistance: "productivity anchoring" — when employees "cling to the hard way of doing things because they feel productive, because their self-worth is tied to them, even when empirically AI can be better."
The solution isn't to look away. "We have to design new pathways to impact, to show your people their value is not in executing a task. Their value is in orchestrating systems of execution, to ask the next great question," Habib said. She advocates replacing career "ladders" with "lattices" where "people need to grow laterally, to expand sideways."
She was candid about the disruption: "The first rungs on our career ladders are indeed going away. I know because my company is automating them." But she insisted this creates opportunity for work that is "more creative, more strategic, more driven by curiosity and impact — and I believe a lot more human than the jobs that they're replacing."
The final shift is from optimization to creation. "Before AI, we used to call it transformation when we took 12 steps and made them nine," Habib said. "That's optimizing the world as it is. We can now create a new world. That is the greenfield mindset."
She challenged executives to identify assumptions their industries are built on that AI now disrupts. Writer's customers, she said, are already seeing new categories of growth: treating every customer like their only customer, democratizing premium services to broader markets, and entering new markets at unprecedented speed because "AI strips away the friction to access new channels."
"When execution is abundant, the only bottleneck is the scope of your own ambition," Habib declared.
Habib didn't leave IT leaders without a role — she redefined it. "If tech is everyone's job, you might be asking, what is mine?" she addressed CIOs. "Yours is to provide the mission critical infrastructure that makes this revolution possible."
As tens or hundreds of thousands of AI agents operate at various levels of autonomy within organizations, "governance becomes existential," she explained. "The business leader's job is to design the play, but you have to build the stadium, you have to write the rule book, and you have to make sure these plays can win at championship scale."
The formulation suggests a partnership model: business leaders drive workflow redesign and strategic implementation while IT provides the infrastructure, governance frameworks, and security guardrails that make mass AI deployment safe and scalable. "One can't succeed without the other," Habib said.
For CIOs and technical leaders, this represents a fundamental shift from gatekeeper to enabler. When business units deploy agents autonomously, IT faces governance challenges unlike anything in enterprise software history. Success requires genuine partnership between business and IT — neither can succeed alone, forcing cultural changes in how these functions collaborate.
To ground her arguments in concrete business impact, Habib described working with the chief client officer of a Fortune 500 wealth advisory firm during recent market volatility following tariff announcements.
"Their phone was ringing off the hook with customers trying to figure out their market exposure," she recounted. "Every request kicked off a multi-day, multi-person scramble: a portfolio manager ran the show, an analyst pulled charts, a relationship manager built the PowerPoint, a compliance officer had to review everything for disclosures. And the leader in all this — she was forwarding emails and chasing updates. This is the top job: managing complexity."
With an agentic AI system, the same work happens programmatically. "A system of agents is able to assemble the answer faster than any number of people could have. No more midnight deck reviews. No more days on end" of coordination, Habib said.
This isn't about marginal productivity gains — it's about fundamentally different operating models where senior executives shift from managing coordination to designing intelligent systems.
Habib's arguments arrive as many enterprises face AI disillusionment. After initial excitement about generative AI, many companies have struggled to move beyond pilots and demonstrations to production deployments generating tangible business value.
Her diagnosis — that leaders are delegating rather than driving transformation — aligns with growing evidence that organizational factors, not technical limitations, explain most failures. Companies often lack clarity on use cases, struggle with data preparation, or face internal resistance to workflow changes that AI requires.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Habib's presentation was her willingness to acknowledge the human cost of AI transformation — and insist leaders address it rather than avoid it. "Your job as a leader is to not look away from this fear. Your job is to face it with a plan," she told the audience.
She described "productivity anchoring" as a form of "self-sabotage" where employees resist AI adoption because their identity and self-worth are tied to execution tasks AI can now perform. The phenomenon suggests that successful AI transformation requires not just technical and strategic changes but psychological and cultural work that many leaders may be unprepared for.
Habib closed by throwing down two gauntlets to her executive audience.
"First, a small one: get your hands dirty with agentic AI. Don't delegate. Choose a process that you oversee and automate it. See the difference from managing a complex process to redesigning it for yourself."
The second was more ambitious: "Go back to your team and ask, what could we achieve if execution were free? What would work feel like, be like, look like if you're unbound from the friction and process that slows us down today?"
She concluded: "The tools for creation are in your hands. The mandate for leadership is on your shoulders. What will you build?"
For enterprise leaders accustomed to viewing AI as an IT initiative, Habib's message is clear: that approach isn't working, won't work, and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI represents. Whether executives embrace her call to personally drive transformation — or continue delegating to IT departments — may determine which organizations thrive and which become cautionary tales.
The statistic she opened with lingers uncomfortably: 42% of Fortune 500 C-suite executives say AI is tearing their companies apart. Habib's diagnosis suggests they're tearing themselves apart by clinging to organizational models designed for an era when execution was scarce. The cure she prescribes requires leaders to do something most find uncomfortable: stop managing complexity and start dismantling it.
China is on track to dominate consumer artificial intelligence applications and robotics manufacturing within years, but the United States will maintain its substantial lead in enterprise AI adoption and cutting-edge research, according to Kai-Fu Lee, one of the world's most prominent AI scientists and investors.
In a rare, unvarnished assessment delivered via video link from Beijing to the TED AI conference in San Francisco Tuesday, Lee — a former executive at Apple, Microsoft, and Google who now runs both a major venture capital firm and his own AI company — laid out a technology landscape splitting along geographic and economic lines, with profound implications for both commercial competition and national security.
"China's robotics has the advantage of having integrated AI into much lower costs, better supply chain and fast turnaround, so companies like Unitree are actually the farthest ahead in the world in terms of building affordable, embodied humanoid AI," Lee said, referring to a Chinese robotics manufacturer that has undercut Western competitors on price while advancing capabilities.
The comments, made to a room filled with Silicon Valley executives, investors, and researchers, represented one of the most detailed public assessments from Lee about the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the world's two AI superpowers — and suggested that the race for artificial intelligence leadership is becoming less a single contest than a series of parallel competitions with different winners.
At the heart of Lee's analysis lies a fundamental difference in how capital flows in the two countries' innovation ecosystems. American venture capitalists, Lee said, are pouring money into generative AI companies building large language models and enterprise software, while Chinese investors are betting heavily on robotics and hardware.
"The VCs in the US don't fund robotics the way the VCs do in China," Lee said. "Just like the VCs in China don't fund generative AI the way the VCs do in the US."
This investment divergence reflects different economic incentives and market structures. In the United States, where companies have grown accustomed to paying for software subscriptions and where labor costs are high, enterprise AI tools that boost white-collar productivity command premium prices. In China, where software subscription models have historically struggled to gain traction but manufacturing dominates the economy, robotics offers a clearer path to commercialization.
The result, Lee suggested, is that each country is pulling ahead in different domains — and may continue to do so.
"China's got some challenges to overcome in getting a company funded as well as OpenAI or Anthropic," Lee acknowledged, referring to the leading American AI labs. "But I think U.S., on the flip side, will have trouble developing the investment interest and value creation in the robotics" sector.
Lee was explicit about one area where the United States maintains what appears to be a durable advantage: getting businesses to actually adopt and pay for AI software.
"The enterprise adoption will clearly be led by the United States," Lee said. "The Chinese companies have not yet developed a habit of paying for software on a subscription."
This seemingly mundane difference in business culture — whether companies will pay monthly fees for software — has become a critical factor in the AI race. The explosion of spending on tools like GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT Enterprise, and other AI-powered productivity software has fueled American companies' ability to invest billions in further research and development.
Lee noted that China has historically overcome similar challenges in consumer technology by developing alternative business models. "In the early days of internet software, China was also well behind because people weren't willing to pay for software," he said. "But then advertising models, e-commerce models really propelled China forward."
Still, he suggested, someone will need to "find a new business model that isn't just pay per software per use or per month basis. That's going to not happen in China anytime soon."
The implication: American companies building enterprise AI tools have a window — perhaps a substantial one — where they can generate revenue and reinvest in R&D without facing serious Chinese competition in their core market.
Where Lee sees China pulling ahead decisively is in consumer-facing AI applications — the kind embedded in social media, e-commerce, and entertainment platforms that billions of people use daily.
"In terms of consumer usage, that's likely to happen," Lee said, referring to China matching or surpassing the United States in AI deployment. "The Chinese giants, like ByteDance and Alibaba and Tencent, will definitely move a lot faster than their equivalent in the United States, companies like Meta, YouTube and so on."
Lee pointed to a cultural advantage: Chinese technology companies have spent the past decade obsessively optimizing for user engagement and product-market fit in brutally competitive markets. "The Chinese giants really work tenaciously, and they have mastered the art of figuring out product market fit," he said. "Now they have to add technology to it. So that is inevitably going to happen."
This assessment aligns with recent industry observations. ByteDance's TikTok became the world's most downloaded app through sophisticated AI-driven content recommendation, and Chinese companies have pioneered AI-powered features in areas like live-streaming commerce and short-form video that Western companies later copied.
Lee also noted that China has already deployed AI more widely in certain domains. "There are a lot of areas where China has also done a great job, such as using computer vision, speech recognition, and translation more widely," he said.
Perhaps Lee's most striking data point concerned open-source AI development — an area where China appears to have seized leadership from American companies in a remarkably short time.
"The 10 highest rated open source [models] are from China," Lee said. "These companies have now eclipsed Meta's Llama, which used to be number one."
This represents a significant shift. Meta's Llama models were widely viewed as the gold standard for open-source large language models as recently as early 2024. But Chinese companies — including Lee's own firm, 01.AI, along with Alibaba, Baidu, and others — have released a flood of open-source models that, according to various benchmarks, now outperform their American counterparts.
The open-source question has become a flashpoint in AI development. Lee made an extensive case for why open-source models will prove essential to the technology's future, even as closed models from companies like OpenAI command higher prices and, often, superior performance.
"I think open source has a number of major advantages," Lee argued. With open-source models, "you can examine it, tune it, improve it. It's yours, and it's free, and it's important for building if you want to build an application or tune the model to do something specific."
He drew an analogy to operating systems: "People who work in operating systems loved Linux, and that's why its adoption went through the roof. And I think in the future, open source will also allow people to tune a sovereign model for a country, make it work better for a particular language."
Still, Lee predicted both approaches will coexist. "I don't think open source models will win," he said. "I think just like we have Apple, which is closed, but provides a somewhat better experience than Android... I think we're going to see more apps using open-source models, more engineers wanting to build open-source models, but I think more money will remain in the closed model."
On robotics, Lee's message was blunt: the combination of China's manufacturing prowess, lower costs, and aggressive investment has created an advantage that will be difficult for American companies to overcome.
When asked directly whether the robotics race was already over with China victorious, Lee hedged only slightly. "It's not over, but I think the U.S. is still capable of coming up with the best robotic research ideas," he said. "But the VCs in the U.S. don't fund robotics the way the VCs do in China."
The challenge is structural. Building robots requires not just software and AI, but hardware manufacturing at scale — precisely the kind of integrated supply chain and low-cost production that China has spent decades perfecting. While American labs at universities and companies like Boston Dynamics continue to produce impressive research prototypes, turning those prototypes into affordable commercial products requires the manufacturing ecosystem that China possesses.
Companies like Unitree have demonstrated this advantage concretely. The company's humanoid robots and quadrupedal robots cost a fraction of their American-made equivalents while offering comparable or superior capabilities — a price-to-performance ratio that could prove decisive in commercial markets.
Despite his generally measured tone about China's AI development, Lee expressed concern about one area where he believes the global AI community faces real danger — not the far-future risk of superintelligent AI, but the near-term consequences of moving too fast.
When asked about AGI risks, Lee reframed the question. "I'm less afraid of AI becoming self-aware and causing danger for humans in the short term," he said, "but more worried about it being used by bad people to do terrible things, or by the AI race pushing people to work so hard, so fast and furious and move fast and break things that they build products that have problems and holes to be exploited."
He continued: "I'm very worried about that. In fact, I think some terrible event will happen that will be a wake up call from this sort of problem."
Lee's perspective carries unusual weight because of his unique vantage point spanning both Chinese and American AI development. Over a career spanning more than three decades, he has held senior positions at Apple, Microsoft, and Google, while also founding Sinovation Ventures, which has invested in more than 400 companies across both countries. His AI company, 01.AI, founded in 2023, has released several open-source models that rank among the most capable in the world.
For American companies and policymakers, Lee's analysis presents a complex strategic picture. The United States appears to have clear advantages in enterprise AI software, fundamental research, and computing infrastructure. But China is moving faster in consumer applications, manufacturing robotics at lower costs, and potentially pulling ahead in open-source model development.
The bifurcation suggests that rather than a single "winner" in AI, the world may be heading toward a technology landscape where different countries excel in different domains — with all the economic and geopolitical complications that implies.
As the TED AI conference continued Wednesday, Lee's assessment hung over subsequent discussions. His message seemed clear: the AI race is not one contest, but many — and the United States and China are each winning different races.
Standing in the conference hall afterward, one venture capitalist, who asked not to be named, summed up the mood in the room: "We're not competing with China anymore. We're competing on parallel tracks." Whether those tracks eventually converge — or diverge into entirely separate technology ecosystems — may be the defining question of the next decade.
In a competitive hiring environment, the ability to find exceptional talent that isn’t necessarily knocking down your door is hugely desired and not always easy to attain. That’s why so many companies these days are turning to AI-powered talent acquisition and management startups to help them mine for exceptional candidates.
One such startup, Findem, has secured $51 million in equity and debt funding, the company tells Crunchbase News exclusively.
The raise includes a $36 million Series C led by SLW (Silver Lake Waterman) with participation from Wing Venture Capital, Harmony Capital and Four Rivers Group, as well as $15 million in growth financing from JP Morgan. The financing brings Findem’s total funding since its 2019 inception to $105 million, with $90 million of that being equity, per the company.
Redwood City, California-based Findem’s mission is simple, even if its methods are not. It aims to transform how businesses “identify, attract and engage top talent.”
The startup uses what it calls 3D talent data (out of a dataset developed out of 1.6 trillion data points) that it combines with AI to automate “key parts of the talent lifecycle.” And those parts include building “top-of-funnel” pipelines of interested candidates, executive search and analyzing workforce and labor markets.
In an interview with Crunchbase News, co-founder and CEO Hari Kolam said that Findem’s user base surged by “about 100x” in the last 12 months and that the company is experiencing 3x year-over-year growth. Its enterprise customer base increased by 3x over the last year.
It has a user base of more than 12,000 customers, including from Adobe, Box, Medallia, Nutanix and RingCentral, Kolam said.
Currently, Findem operates under a SaaS business model, charging per seat. As it expands its agentic abilities, the company plans to add an outcome-based model as well, according to Kolam. It is not yet profitable.
Findem is just one of more than a dozen startups at the intersection of AI and recruitment globally that have raised venture capital in 2025. As of early September, global startup investment for startups in the HR, recruitment and employment categories totaled around $2.3 billion, per Crunchbase data. That puts funding on track for a year-over-year gain, even as investment remains at a fraction of the levels hit during the market peak, as charted below.
Watching Findem’s platform in action provides better insight into just how it helps companies zero in on the specific talent for which they’re searching.
Say a startup wants to hire a software engineer who has worked at a company from its early days until it raised a Series C funding round. But it also wants that engineer to have a GitHub profile that it can view. Or, say a company wants to hire competitive coders who have seen a successful exit, or a CFOs who drove a company from a negative operating margin to a positive one.
Findem’s software will allow you to filter for all those desired attributes.
The startup says it’s able to help companies recruit so specifically because its 3D data combines people and company data over time into a format suitable for AI analysis. It claims that the “continuously enhanced” 3D dataset is “exponentially larger and more factual” than traditional sources of candidate data, making it a powerful tool for deep insights and automated workflows.
Using the combination of the data and AI, Findem creates 3D profiles, also dubbed “enriched” profiles, for every candidate it helps surface. The goal of the profiles is to provide “a detailed and factual view” of an individual’s “professional journey and impact,”
So just where does all this data come from? Findem says it continuously leverages a language model to generate that 3D data from more than 100,000 sources that are chronologically gathered (from earliest to latest).
Those sources include LinkedIn, GitHub, Doximity, WordPress, personal websites, the U.S. Census Bureau, company funding announcements and IPO details, business models, more than 300 million patents and publications, over 5 million open datasets and ML projects, and over 200 million open source code repositories.
It also pulls applicant profile information from applicant tracking systems such as Workday, BambooHR, Bullhorn, Greenhouse, Jobvite and Lever, among others.
This comprehensive data pull is what helps set Findem apart, in Kolam’s view. Some other hiring tools rely on one-dimensional data from resumes or LinkedIn profiles, which, he argues, “give only a snapshot of someone’s career … without the context that reveals true potential.” Kolam contends that it takes “extensive manual effort” to verify and interpret the data.
“Just looking at a resume on paper really doesn’t come close to telling the whole story of how really qualified a candidate could be, or if they can really fit the criteria that a particular employer is looking for,” Kolam maintains.
Findem is primarily focused on North American customers who have users across the globe. It’s also expanding into Europe. The company has a second headquarters in Bangalore, India.
Kolam declined to reveal Findem’s valuation, saying only that it was “a significant up round and more than 2x” compared to its valuation when it raised a $17 million-plus Series B extension in December 2023.
Shawn O’Neill, managing partner at SLW, told Crunchbase News via email that his firm first got to know Kolam before Findem raised its Series B and then “tracked the company’s trajectory for some time.”
‘’What drew us to Findem wasn’t just the technology, it was the traction,” he said. “The team has achieved strong commercial momentum while tackling one of the most persistent challenges in HR — connecting data, insight and human potential in a way that actually drives business outcomes.”
But the technology didn’t hurt.
In O’Neill’s view, Findem’s main differentiator is its “data advantage … in a market where most companies are simply wrapping LLMs.”
“The depth and breadth of their 3D profiles and web-scale dataset are unlike anything else in the market,” he said. “The UX is excellent, but the magic is really in how the platform leverages that data — it makes finding and understanding people effortless. We use it ourselves and see the power firsthand.”
Illustration: Dom Guzman
Anthropic launched a new capability on Thursday that allows its Claude AI assistant to tap into specialized expertise on demand, marking the company's latest effort to make artificial intelligence more practical for enterprise workflows as it chases rival OpenAI in the intensifying competition over AI-powered software development.
The feature, called Skills, enables users to create folders containing instructions, code scripts, and reference materials that Claude can automatically load when relevant to a task. The system marks a fundamental shift in how organizations can customize AI assistants, moving beyond one-off prompts to reusable packages of domain expertise that work consistently across an entire company.
"Skills are based on our belief and vision that as model intelligence continues to improve, we'll continue moving towards general-purpose agents that often have access to their own filesystem and computing environment," said Mahesh Murag, a member of Anthropic's technical staff, in an exclusive interview with VentureBeat. "The agent is initially made aware only of the names and descriptions of each available skill and can choose to load more information about a particular skill when relevant to the task at hand."
The launch comes as Anthropic, valued at $183 billion after a recent $13 billion funding round, projects its annual revenue could nearly triple to as much as $26 billion in 2026, according to a recent Reuters report. The company is currently approaching a $7 billion annual revenue run rate, up from $5 billion in August, fueled largely by enterprise adoption of its AI coding tools — a market where it faces fierce competition from OpenAI's recently upgraded Codex platform.
Skills differ fundamentally from existing approaches to customizing AI assistants, such as prompt engineering or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), Murag explained. The architecture relies on what Anthropic calls "progressive disclosure" — Claude initially sees only skill names and brief descriptions, then autonomously decides which skills to load based on the task at hand, accessing only the specific files and information needed at that moment.
"Unlike RAG, this relies on simple tools that let Claude manage and read files from a filesystem," Murag told VentureBeat. "Skills can contain an unbounded amount of context to teach Claude how to complete a task or series of tasks. This is because Skills are based on the premise of an agent being able to autonomously and intelligently navigate a filesystem and execute code."
This approach allows organizations to bundle far more information than traditional context windows permit, while maintaining the speed and efficiency that enterprise users demand. A single skill can include step-by-step procedures, code templates, reference documents, brand guidelines, compliance checklists, and executable scripts — all organized in a folder structure that Claude navigates intelligently.
The system's composability provides another technical advantage. Multiple skills automatically stack together when needed for complex workflows. For instance, Claude might simultaneously invoke a company's brand guidelines skill, a financial reporting skill, and a presentation formatting skill to generate a quarterly investor deck — coordinating between all three without manual intervention.
Anthropic is positioning Skills as distinct from competing offerings like OpenAI's Custom GPTs and Microsoft's Copilot Studio, though the features address similar enterprise needs around AI customization and consistency.
"Skills' combination of progressive disclosure, composability, and executable code bundling is unique in the market," Murag said. "While other platforms require developers to build custom scaffolding, Skills let anyone — technical or not — create specialized agents by organizing procedural knowledge into files."
The cross-platform portability also sets Skills apart. The same skill works identically across Claude.ai, Claude Code (Anthropic's AI coding environment), the company's API, and the Claude Agent SDK for building custom AI agents. Organizations can develop a skill once and deploy it everywhere their teams use Claude, a significant advantage for enterprises seeking consistency.
The feature supports any programming language compatible with the underlying container environment, and Anthropic provides sandboxing for security — though the company acknowledges that allowing AI to execute code requires users to carefully vet which skills they trust.
Early customer implementations reveal how organizations are applying Skills to automate complex knowledge work. At Japanese e-commerce giant Rakuten, the AI team is using Skills to transform finance operations that previously required manual coordination across multiple departments.
"Skills streamline our management accounting and finance workflows," said Yusuke Kaji, general manager of AI at Rakuten in a statement. "Claude processes multiple spreadsheets, catches critical anomalies, and generates reports using our procedures. What once took a day, we can now accomplish in an hour."
That's an 8x improvement in productivity for specific workflows — the kind of measurable return on investment that enterprises increasingly demand from AI implementations. Mike Krieger, Anthropic's chief product officer and Instagram co-founder, recently noted that companies have moved past "AI FOMO" to requiring concrete success metrics.
Design platform Canva plans to integrate Skills into its own AI agent workflows. "Canva plans to leverage Skills to customize agents and expand what they can do," said Anwar Haneef, general manager and head of ecosystem at Canva in a statement. "This unlocks new ways to bring Canva deeper into agentic workflows—helping teams capture their unique context and create stunning, high-quality designs effortlessly."
Cloud storage provider Box sees Skills as a way to make corporate content repositories more actionable. "Skills teaches Claude how to work with Box content," said Yashodha Bhavnani, head of AI at Box. "Users can transform stored files into PowerPoint presentations, Excel spreadsheets, and Word documents that follow their organization's standards—saving hours of effort."
For enterprise IT departments, Skills raise important questions about governance and control—particularly since the feature allows AI to execute arbitrary code in sandboxed environments. Anthropic has built administrative controls that allow enterprise customers to manage access at the organizational level.
"Enterprise admins control access to the Skills capability via admin settings, where they can enable or disable access and monitor usage patterns," Murag said. "Once enabled at the organizational level, individual users still need to opt in."
That two-layer consent model — organizational enablement plus individual opt-in — reflects lessons learned from previous enterprise AI deployments where blanket rollouts created compliance concerns. However, Anthropic's governance tools appear more limited than some enterprise customers might expect. The company doesn't currently offer granular controls over which specific skills employees can use, or detailed audit trails of custom skill content.
Organizations concerned about data security should note that Skills require Claude's code execution environment, which runs in isolated containers. Anthropic advises users to "stick to trusted sources" when installing skills and provides security documentation, but the company acknowledges this is an inherently higher-risk capability than traditional AI interactions.
Anthropic is taking several approaches to make Skills accessible to users with varying technical sophistication. For non-technical users on Claude.ai, the company provides a "skill-creator" skill that interactively guides users through building new skills by asking questions about their workflow, then automatically generating the folder structure and documentation.
Developers working with Anthropic's API get programmatic control through a new /skills endpoint and can manage skill versions through the Claude Console web interface. The feature requires enabling the Code Execution Tool beta in API requests. For Claude Code users, skills can be installed via plugins from the anthropics/skills GitHub marketplace, and teams can share skills through version control systems.
"Skills are included in Max, Pro, Teams, and Enterprise plans at no additional cost," Murag confirmed. "API usage follows standard API pricing," meaning organizations pay only for the tokens consumed during skill execution, not for the skills themselves.
Anthropic provides several pre-built skills for common business tasks, including professional generation of Excel spreadsheets with formulas, PowerPoint presentations, Word documents, and fillable PDFs. These Anthropic-created skills will remain free.
The Skills announcement arrives during a pivotal moment in Anthropic's competition with OpenAI, particularly around AI-assisted software development. Just one day before releasing Skills, Anthropic launched Claude Haiku 4.5, a smaller and cheaper model that nonetheless matches the coding performance of Claude Sonnet 4 — which was state-of-the-art when released just five months ago.
That rapid improvement curve reflects the breakneck pace of AI development, where today's frontier capabilities become tomorrow's commodity offerings. OpenAI has been pushing hard on coding tools as well, recently upgrading its Codex platform with GPT-5 and expanding GitHub Copilot's capabilities.
Anthropic's revenue trajectory — potentially reaching $26 billion in 2026 from an estimated $9 billion by year-end 2025 — suggests the company is successfully converting enterprise interest into paying customers. The timing also follows Salesforce's announcement this week that it's deepening AI partnerships with both OpenAI and Anthropic to power its Agentforce platform, signaling that enterprises are adopting a multi-vendor approach rather than standardizing on a single provider.
Skills addresses a real pain point: the "prompt engineering" problem where effective AI usage depends on individual employees crafting elaborate instructions for routine tasks, with no way to share that expertise across teams. Skills transforms implicit knowledge into explicit, shareable assets. For startups and developers, the feature could accelerate product development significantly — adding sophisticated document generation capabilities that previously required dedicated engineering teams and weeks of development.
The composability aspect hints at a future where organizations build libraries of specialized skills that can be mixed and matched for increasingly complex workflows. A pharmaceutical company might develop skills for regulatory compliance, clinical trial analysis, molecular modeling, and patient data privacy that work together seamlessly — creating a customized AI assistant with deep domain expertise across multiple specialties.
Anthropic indicates it's working on simplified skill creation workflows and enterprise-wide deployment capabilities to make it easier for organizations to distribute skills across large teams. As the feature rolls out to Anthropic's more than 300,000 business customers, the true test will be whether organizations find Skills substantively more useful than existing customization approaches.
For now, Skills offers Anthropic's clearest articulation yet of its vision for AI agents: not generalists that try to do everything reasonably well, but intelligent systems that know when to access specialized expertise and can coordinate multiple domains of knowledge to accomplish complex tasks. If that vision catches on, the question won't be whether your company uses AI — it will be whether your AI knows how your company actually works.
One year after emerging from stealth, Strella has raised $14 million in Series A funding to expand its AI-powered customer research platform, the company announced Thursday. The round, led by Bessemer Venture Partners with participation from Decibel Partners, Bain Future Back Ventures, MVP Ventures and 645 Ventures, comes as enterprises increasingly turn to artificial intelligence to understand customers faster and more deeply than traditional methods allow.
The investment marks a sharp acceleration for the startup founded by Lydia Hylton and Priya Krishnan, two former consultants and product managers who watched companies struggle with a customer research process that could take eight weeks from start to finish. Since October, Strella has grown revenue tenfold, quadrupled its customer base to more than 40 paying enterprises, and tripled its average contract values by moving upmarket to serve Fortune 500 companies.
"Research tends to be bookended by two very strategic steps: first, we have a problem—what research should we do? And second, we've done the research—now what are we going to do with it?" said Hylton, Strella's CEO, in an exclusive interview with VentureBeat. "All the stuff in the middle tends to be execution and lower-skill work. We view Strella as doing that middle 90% of the work."
The platform now serves Amazon, Duolingo, Apollo GraphQL, and Chobani, collectively conducting thousands of AI-moderated interviews that deliver what the company claims is a 90% average time savings on manual research work. The company is approaching $1 million in revenue after beginning monetization only in January, with month-over-month growth of 50% and zero customer churn to date.
Strella's technology addresses a workflow that has frustrated product teams, marketers, and designers for decades. Traditional customer research requires writing interview guides, recruiting participants, scheduling calls, conducting interviews, taking notes, synthesizing findings, and creating presentations — a process that consumes weeks of highly-skilled labor and often delays critical product decisions.
The platform compresses that timeline to days by using AI to moderate voice-based interviews that run like Zoom calls, but with an artificial intelligence agent asking questions, following up on interesting responses, and detecting when participants are being evasive or fraudulent. The system then synthesizes findings automatically, creating highlight reels and charts from unstructured qualitative data.
"It used to take eight weeks. Now you can do it in the span of a couple days," Hylton told VentureBeat. "The primary technology is through an AI-moderated interview. It's like being in a Zoom call with an AI instead of a human — it's completely free form and voice based."
Critically, the platform also supports human moderators joining the same calls, reflecting the founders' belief that humans won't disappear from the research process. "Human moderation won't go away, which is why we've supported human moderation from our Genesis," Hylton said. "Research tends to be bookended by two very strategic steps: we have a problem, what's the research that we should do? And we've done the research, now what are we going to do with it? All the stuff in the middle tends to be execution and lower skill work. We view Strella as doing that middle 90% of the work."
One of Strella's most surprising findings challenges assumptions about AI in qualitative research: participants appear more honest with AI moderators than with humans. The founders discovered this pattern repeatedly as customers ran head-to-head comparisons between traditional human-moderated studies and Strella's AI approach.
"If you're a designer and you get on a Zoom call with a customer and you say, 'Do you like my design?' they're always gonna say yes. They don't want to hurt your feelings," Hylton explained. "But it's not a problem at all for Strella. They would tell you exactly what they think about it, which is really valuable. It's very hard to get honest feedback."
Krishnan, Strella's COO, said companies initially worried about using AI and "eroding quality," but the platform has "actually found the opposite to be true. People are much more open and honest with an AI moderator, and so the level of insight that you get is much richer because people are giving their unfiltered feedback."
This dynamic has practical business implications. Brian Santiago, Senior Product Design Manager at Apollo GraphQL, said in a statement: "Before Strella, studies took weeks. Now we get insights in a day — sometimes in just a few hours. And because participants open up more with the AI moderator, the feedback is deeper and more honest."
The platform also addresses endemic fraud in online surveys, particularly when participants are compensated. Because Strella interviews happen on camera in real time, the AI moderator can detect when someone pauses suspiciously long — perhaps to consult ChatGPT — and flags them as potentially fraudulent. "We are fraud resistant," Hylton said, contrasting this with traditional surveys where fraud rates can be substantial.
A major focus of the Series A funding will be expanding Strella's recently-launched mobile application, which Krishnan identified as critical competitive differentiation. The mobile app enables persistent screen sharing during interviews — allowing researchers to watch users navigate mobile applications in real time while the AI moderator asks about their experience.
"We are the only player in the market that supports screen sharing on mobile," Hylton said. "You know, I want to understand what are the pain points with my app? Why do people not seem to be able to find the checkout flow? Well, in order to do that effectively, you'd like to see the user screen while they're doing an interview."
For consumer-facing companies where mobile represents the primary customer interface, this capability opens entirely new use cases. The founders noted that "several of our customers didn't do research before" but have now built research practices around Strella because the platform finally made mobile research accessible at scale.
The platform also supports embedding traditional survey question types directly into the conversational interview, approaching what Hylton called "feature parity with a survey" while maintaining the engagement advantages of a natural conversation. Strella interviews regularly run 60 to 90 minutes with nearly 100% completion rates—a duration that would see 60-70% drop-off in a traditional survey format.
Strella enters a market that appears crowded at first glance, with established players like Qualtrics and a wave of AI-powered startups promising to transform customer research. The founders themselves initially pursued a different approach — synthetic respondents, or "digital twins" that simulate customer perspectives using large language models.
"We actually pivoted from that. That was our initial idea," Hylton revealed, referring to synthetic respondents. "People are very intrigued by that concept, but found in practice, no willingness to pay right now."
Recent research suggesting companies could use language models as digital twins for customer feedback has reignited interest in that approach. But Hylton remains skeptical: "The capabilities of the LLMs as they are today are not good enough, in my opinion, to justify a standalone company. Right now you could just ask ChatGPT, 'What would new users of Duolingo think about this ad copy?' You can do that. Adding the standalone idea of a synthetic panel is sort of just putting a wrapper on that."
Instead, Strella's bet is that the real value lies in collecting proprietary qualitative data at scale — building what could become "the system of truth for all qualitative insights" within enterprises, as Lindsey Li, Vice President at Bessemer Venture Partners, described it.
Li, who led the investment just one year after Strella emerged from stealth, said the firm was convinced by both the technology and the team. "Strella has built highly differentiated technology that enables a continuous interview rather than a survey," Li said. "We heard time and time again that customers loved this product experience relative to other offerings."
On the defensibility question that concerns many AI investors, Li emphasized product execution over patents: "We think the long game here will be won with a million small product decisions, all of which must be driven by deep empathy for customer pain and an understanding of how best to address their needs. Lydia and Priya exhibit that in spades."
The founders point to technical depth that's difficult to replicate. Most competitors started with adaptive surveys — text-based interfaces where users type responses and wait for the next question. Some have added voice, but typically as uploaded audio clips rather than free-flowing conversation.
"Our approach is fundamentally better, which is the fact that it is a free form conversation," Hylton said. "You never have to control anything. You're never typing, there's no buttons, there's no upload and wait for the next question. It's completely free form, and that has been an extraordinarily hard product to build. There's a tremendous amount of IP in the way that we prompt our moderator, the way that we run analysis."
The platform also improves with use, learning from each customer's research patterns to fine-tune future interview guides and questions. "Our product gets better for our customers as they continue to use us," Hylton said. All research accumulates in a central repository where teams can generate new insights by chatting with the data or creating visualizations from previously unstructured qualitative feedback.
Perhaps more important than displacing existing research is expanding the total market. Krishnan said growth has been "fundamentally related to our product" creating new research that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
"We have expanded the use cases in which people would conduct research," Krishnan explained. "Several of our customers didn't do research before, have always wanted to do research, but didn't have a dedicated researcher or team at their company that was devoted to it, and have purchased Strella to kick off and enable their research practice. That's been really cool where we've seen this market just opening up."
This expansion comes as enterprises face mounting pressure to improve customer experience amid declining satisfaction scores. According to Forrester Research's 2024 Customer Experience Index, customer experience quality has declined for three consecutive years — an unprecedented trend. The report found that 39% of brands saw CX quality deteriorate, with declines across effectiveness, ease, and emotional connection.
Meanwhile, Deloitte's 2025 Technology, Media & Telecommunications Predictions report forecasts that 25% of enterprises using generative AI will deploy AI agents by 2025, growing to 50% by 2027. The report specifically highlighted AI's potential to enhance customer satisfaction by 15-20% while reducing cost to serve by 20-30% when properly implemented.
Gartner identified conversational user interfaces — the category Strella inhabits — as one of three technologies poised to transform customer service by 2028, noting that "customers increasingly expect to be able to interact with the applications they use in a natural way."
Against this backdrop, Li sees substantial room for growth. "UX Research is a sub-sector of the $140B+ global market-research industry," Li said. "This includes both the software layer historically (~$430M) and professional services spend on UX research, design, product strategy, etc. which is conservatively estimated to be ~$6.4B+ annually. As software in this vertical, led by Strella, becomes more powerful, we believe the TAM will continue to expand meaningfully."
The founders describe their mission as "democratizing access to the customer" — making it possible for anyone in an organization to understand customer perspectives without waiting for dedicated research teams to complete months-long studies.
"Many, many, many positions in the organization would like to get customer feedback, but it's so hard right now," Hylton said. With Strella, she explained, someone can "log into Strella and through a chat, create any highlight reel that you want and actually see customers in their own words answering the question that you have based on the research that's already been done."
This video-first approach to research repositories changes organizational dynamics around customer feedback. "Then you can say, 'Okay, engineering team, we need to build this feature. And here's the customer actually saying it,'" Hylton continued. "'This is not me. This isn't politics. Here are seven customers saying they can't find the Checkout button.' The fact that we are a very video-based platform really allows us to do that quickly and painlessly."
The company has moved decisively upmarket, with contract values now typically in the five-figure range and "several six figure contracts" signed, according to Krishnan. The pricing strategy reflects a premium positioning: "Our product is very good, it's very premium. We're charging based on the value it provides to customers," Krishnan said, rather than competing on cost alone.
This approach appears to be working. The company reports 100% conversion from pilot programs to paid contracts and zero churn among its 40-45 customers, with month-over-month revenue growth of 50%.
The Series A funding will primarily support scaling product and go-to-market teams. "We're really confident that we have product-market fit," Hylton said. "And now the question is execution, and we want to hire a lot of really talented people to help us execute."
On the product roadmap, Hylton emphasized continued focus on the participant experience as the key to winning the market. "Everything else is downstream of a joyful participant experience," she said, including "the quality of insights, the amount you have to pay people to do the interviews, and the way that your customers feel about a company."
Near-term priorities include adding visual capabilities so the AI moderator can respond to facial expressions and other nonverbal cues, and building more sophisticated collaboration features between human researchers and AI moderators. "Maybe you want to listen while an AI moderator is running a call and you might want to be able to jump in with specific questions," Hylton said. "Or you want to run an interview yourself, but you want the moderator to be there as backup or to help you."
These features move toward what the industry calls "agentic AI" — systems that can act more autonomously while still collaborating with humans. The founders see this human-AI collaboration, rather than full automation, as the sustainable path forward.
"We believe that a lot of the really strategic work that companies do will continue to be human moderated," Hylton said. "And you can still do that through Strella and just use us for synthesis in those cases."
For Li and Bessemer, the bet is on founders who understand this nuance. "Lydia and Priya exhibit the exact archetype of founders we are excited to partner with for the long term — customer-obsessed, transparent, thoughtful, and singularly driven towards the home-run scenario," she said.
The company declined to disclose specific revenue figures or valuation. With the new funding, Strella has now raised $18 million total, including a $4 million seed round led by Decibel Partners announced in October.
As Strella scales, the founders remain focused on a vision where technology enhances rather than eliminates human judgment—where an engineering team doesn't just read a research report, but watches seven customers struggle to find the same button. Where a product manager can query months of accumulated interviews in seconds. Where companies don't choose between speed and depth, but get both.
"The interesting part of the business is actually collecting that proprietary dataset, collecting qualitative research at scale," Hylton said, describing what she sees as Strella's long-term moat. Not replacing the researcher, but making everyone in the company one.
Login