Exclusive: Ex-Netflix communication chief joins AI startup Sierra
Rachel Whetstone has joined Sierra, the AI startup founded by former Salesforce CEO and current OpenAI chair Bret Taylor and former Google executive Clay Bavor, Axios exclusively reports.
Why it matters: Whetstone previously led communications for four of the fastest growing companies of the past 40 years. She will be tasked with positioning Sierra to disrupt the customer service space.
Catch up quick: Whetstone most recently served as chief communications officer at Netflix, but exited late last year following an organizational restructuring.
Before joining Netflix in 2018, Whetstone oversaw communications for then-Facebook's WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger products. She also oversaw policy and communications at Uber and Google.
Whetstone started her career in British politics.
Details: Whetstone joined the the startup on March 3 and will oversee all communications.
Sierra, which builds custom AI agents for enterprise customer service, recently raised $175 million at a $4.5 billion valuation.
What she's saying:"I've been fascinated by AI since first hearing Larry Page talk about it at Google nearly 20 years ago," Whetstone told Axios.
"In my conversations with Bret and Clay, I've been inspired by their intensity and integrity, appreciated their sense of humor and excited about helping brands create great experiences their customers love — versus the 'oh god' feeling most of us have today when interacting with companies."
Between the lines: This is Whetstone's first time working for a startup and as a team of one.
"It's about how comms can help create a strong brand for a new company in a busy space, generate interest and excitement from potential customers and future employees, and build momentum for the business," she said.
Then it's about finding "new and interesting ways to repeat that message over and over again," she added."Repetition never spoils the prayer."
What she's watching: How companies, brands and founders are navigating the fragmented media landscape.
"There's a lot of debate about going direct vs via "traditional" media and I think you have to do both well. Otherwise, you'll miss out on opportunities to drive conversation about your brand and shape the debate," Whetstone said.
What's next: Sierra recently introduced "supervisor agents"that would oversee the primary AI agent and ensure it's providing factual information aligned with company policy, the co-founders told Ina Fried at Axios' AI+ Summit in San Francisco.
Whetstone will be tasked with explaining how more AI agents can support and safeguard against other AI agents.
More on Axios:
Sierra, co-founded by OpenAI chair Bret Taylor, raises $175 million
Exclusive: These tech executives want to support AI agents with more AI
Workplace chat's future: more AI agents, fewer humans
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Private sector wages should not be the business of Government
For far too long, British politicians have created laws and systems that outsource decisions to the courts. All of this has been done with the best intentions, but too little consideration has been given to the unintended consequences, and the outcomes have been perverse. Thanks to a spate of absurd rulings, including the Albanian criminal allowed to stay in the UK partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets, many are aware of the impact on efforts to control our borders. But the problem is much broader, impacting everything from planning to energy. Increasingly, tribunal judgments are even telling businesses what they should pay their workers. If that sounds crazy, it's because it is. All jobs are different; all people are different too. In theory, setting pay is hard, because the pros and cons of different roles depend on individual preferences. In practice it's easy. You don't have to sit down and work out a weighted aggregate of a job's different pros and cons to different people; the market does that for you. You can start hiring, and you'll find out pretty quickly how much you need to pay to fill a role. This is so obvious that it almost isn't worth saying. But it's not what our laws say. The Equality Act, passed in 2010, mandates 'equal pay for equal work', doubling down on the Equal Pay Act of 1970. But what is 'equal work'? According to the Equality Act, it isn't where two people do the same job. It's not even where two people do similar jobs. In fact, the Equality Act says, the only way to tell if two jobs are 'equal' is to conduct a 'job evaluation study'. Rather than letting the job market determine fair pay, bureaucrats and judges use a host of arbitrary criteria to decide what a role is worth. What does that look like in practice? Last August, a six-year case concluded against the retailer Next. The company was sued by three women, current and former workers, who insisted that store staff (mostly women) should be paid as much as warehouse workers (slight majority male). Any of the store staff could have moved to the warehouse if they wanted more money. In fact, Next were desperate for them to – the company had a recruitment drive for the warehouse among store employees. But very few people wanted those roles because working on the shop floor was pleasant and working in the warehouse was not. One of the women who brought the case admitted that she would only have considered moving to the warehouse for 'a lot more money.' Incredibly, Next lost. The court decided the two roles should be paid the same. The same thing is happening to Asda. And Birmingham council was effectively bankrupted by an equal pay claim brought by (mostly female) cleaners complaining they weren't paid as much as the (mostly male) binmen. We should be grateful anyone is willing to do work that's backbreaking, dirty or dangerous. They deserve to be paid fairly; often more than people who don't want to do that. But now bureaucrats have come in to fix what isn't broken and insist that what is fair is actually unfair. This undermines our economy and it needs to stop. Katie Lam is the Conservative MP for Weald of Kent Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The benefits system is out of control
The decision to axe the winter fuel payment for most pensioners must rank among the most ill-judged policies introduced by a Chancellor in recent times, and there is strong competition for that accolade. Rachel Reeves made the decision shortly after taking office because she said it was necessary to help plug a £22 billion 'black hole' she had discovered in the nation's finances. Her argument might have had some merit had she not then blown much of the savings on pay rises for train drivers and public sector workers. The juxtaposition of help for Labour's union allies while pensioners shivered rapidly became toxic for the Government, generating one of the fastest reversals of support for any new administration. In the end, with Reform advancing in the polls – and pledging to restore the payment – Sir Keir Starmer ordered a screeching U-turn which the Government maintains is possible because the economy is doing so well, as if anyone believes that. Now, instead of around 1.5 million older people on pensioner credit receiving the payment, it will be paid to about nine million OAPs with an income below £35,000. Why this figure has been chosen is as much a mystery as other 'cliff edge' sums that abound in our overly complex tax and benefit system. Indeed, this U-turn just makes it even more convoluted. Everyone will receive the payment but it will then be clawed back from an estimated two million people earning more than the £35,000 threshold via PAYE or a tax return. In other words, yet more red tape will be imposed to make a quarter of pensioners return an allowance that began life in 1997 as a universal benefit. Although many better-off pensioners often said they did not need the money, and many gave it to charity every Christmas, at least it was straightforward. To some extent so was limiting it to people on pensioner credit, since that is already linked to income. But what is now proposed is a dog's breakfast, with opt-outs and other implications still to be resolved. Tomorrow, Ms Reeves will unveil her spending plans for the next four years. She is being urged to get a grip on the rapidly expanding benefits budget; but if this experience is to be our guide, there is little chance that it will ever be reined in. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Was Jim Cramer Right About Meta Platforms, Inc. (META)?
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) stands against other stocks that Jim Cramer discusses. A viewer asked if Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) still had technological upside, particularly under CEO Mark Zuckerberg's leadership. In that older segment, Cramer expressed strong long-term optimism, suggesting Meta was investing in something bigger than the public could yet see. He responded with: 'I think there is. I mean, I think that they're going to be in competition in something we don't know yet. They're buying too many of the Nvidia cards for me to think they're just going to continue to be just Instagram and Facebook and WhatsApp. I think there's much more in store for us and I think you got to stay long that stock. It is not an expensive stock.' Cramer was right to call it an inexpensive stock. It's now up +39.66% since those comments. Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) is a technology company that owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and is investing heavily in AI and virtual reality platforms like the Metaverse. When asked about the stock again recently, Cramer gave his blessing to buy it, saying: 'I like your thinking very much. I think Meta's having a great quarter. I also think that they are without a doubt the best advertising bet. What happens if he actually starts, Mark Zuckerberg starts to want to, let's say, monetize WhatsApp? Do you know how much that darn thing's worth? I think you got horse sense. Good level to buy.' A team of developers working in unison to create the company's messaging application. Overall, META ranks 6th on our list of stocks that Jim Cramer discusses. While we acknowledge the potential of META as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
