The AI bill is finally arriving — and it's revealing something most enterprise AI narratives have quietly skipped: the assumption that AI is automatically cheaper than the people it's replacing has never actually been tested. Dale and Nick work through the math, the real stories behind the headlines, and what any of it means for higher education.
[00:00] — Cold open: Mark Cuban's formula, the Uber budget crisis, and the question the whole episode is built around.
[01:23] — Hosts introduce the episode and frame it as a "detective" episode with no resolved answer yet.
[01:59] — Dale explains why a cluster of seemingly unrelated AI news — Uber, Microsoft, job losses, IPOs — is actually pointing in the same direction.
[02:23] — The AI conversation has been about capability for three years. A new question is entering the conversation: what does it actually cost?
[03:06] — Tokenomics explained: tokens as petrol, cheap per unit but consumed at scale far faster than organizations expected.
[03:52] — Token prices have fallen roughly 98% in three years, but cheaper tokens didn't reduce spending — they drove adoption of heavier, more expensive workflows (Jevons Paradox at work before it's named).
[04:41] — The math behind the claim that AI might not be cheaper than labor: eight agents at $300/day each versus one worker at $1,200/day.
[05:26] — Nick's pushback: the specific numbers aren't the point — what matters is that the cost threshold isn't zero, and that assumption has been baked into the narrative without being tested.
[05:45] — Sam Altman acknowledges AI budgeting has become a major corporate issue.
[06:12] — Uber case study: engineers love the tools, adoption exploded from ~35% to over 80%, 10% of live backend code now written by AI — and yet the company burned through its entire annual AI budget in four months.
[07:24] — A reported case (via Axios) of an unnamed company spending roughly $500 million on AI tokens in a single month.
[07:43] — Nick's read: this isn't a temporary accounting problem. It's a measurement problem that was always there, now made impossible to ignore by the size of the bills.
[08:26] — Scott Galloway's numbers: Salesforce on track to spend $300M on Anthropic tokens this year; Stripe's technical staff spending roughly $100,000 a day on AI. Meta and Amazon built internal token leaderboards that perversely incentivised consumption without output.
[09:42] — Microsoft enters: cancelling Claude Code licenses across major divisions and moving engineers to GitHub Copilot.
[10:20] — Why Microsoft's move isn't a retreat from AI — it's about owning the infrastructure rather than paying a rival's bill.
[11:01] — Nick's analogy: the difference between using electricity and owning the power station.
[11:25] — The MIT/NANDA GenAI Divide report: 95% of enterprise AI pilots produced no measurable P&L return.
[11:55] — Why that number isn't as bleak as the headline sounds: AI is creating value, organisations just aren't capturing enough of it to move the financial needle.
[12:21] — The shadow AI finding from the same report: only ~40% of organisations officially purchased AI subscriptions, yet ~90% of employees were using personal AI tools for work — and the unofficial users often appeared more productive than the official programs.
[13:10] — The value isn't in the license, it's in the person who figured it out at 11pm on a Tuesday because they had a problem to solve.
[13:31] — The people who spent years warning about AI destroying jobs have started changing their tone.
[13:53] — Jevons Paradox and the job displacement debate: Sam Altman says he's "delighted to be wrong," Dario Amodei has shifted his rhetoric — and the timing coincides with both companies filing for IPO.
[14:52] — The labour market data: no evidence of mass white-collar extinction yet, but entry-level and graduate pathways are being compressed.
[15:18] — Nick's pushback: "rocket shoes" are only useful if the graduate knows how to use them — and right now that's not evenly distributed. Universities should be solving for that rather than signing enterprise contracts.
[16:10] — The trillion-dollar elephant: Anthropic filed confidentially for IPO, briefly overtook OpenAI on valuation — at the exact moment companies are discovering AI costs more than budgeted.
[16:51] — Nick: capability question is largely settled for him. The thing that's become less clear is whether the economics work at the scale everyone assumed.
[17:17] — The Scott Galloway/bubble argument: even if valuations correct by 50-70%, the technology doesn't stop working. Students won't forget it. Faculty won't stop using it.
[17:40] — Nick's "black hat" moment: education isn't buying the stock, it's dealing with the consequences either way.
[18:26] — The key distinction for higher ed: financial questions are separate from capability questions. Ethan Mollick's point — even if AI stopped today, we haven't begun to understand its role in how we learn and work.
[18:44] — Where the whole conversation lands for higher education: universities making the same procurement mistakes as corporations — campus-wide licenses, institution-wide platforms, press releases — without reckoning with whether the ROI question is the right one.
[19:10] — The single educator who transforms a course with the right workflow versus the million-dollar platform that creates very little value. Both can be true simultaneously.
[19:31] — Closing argument: organisations investing in capability have a much better chance than organisations trying to solve AI through procurement.
🎙️ Adjunct Intelligence is the weekly briefing for higher-ed professionals who want AI as a cheat code—not a headache.
Every episode:
• Real tests of AI tools in education and professional workflows
• Fast, Monday-morning actions you can actually try
• Clear signal through the noise (no hype, no jargon)
👉 Subscribe on [YouTube] | [Apple Podcasts] | [Spotify]
👉 Share this with a colleague who still says “I’ll figure AI out later”
👉 Join the conversation on LinkedIn with #AdjunctIntelligence
Stay curious. Stay intelligent. Stay the human in the loop.
