Providers and deployers of AI systems: You only have a couple of weeks left until you must explicitly inform users when they are interacting with AI content.

To assist in the effort, the European Commission (Commission) has published guidelines to help AI deployers get in line with the AI Act’s transparency obligations, which will begin to go into effect on August 2.

After that, companies providing AI systems must alert users when they are interacting with AI. They must also tell users when they have been exposed to deepfakes, “emotion recognition,” or biometric categorization systems, or when they are given AI-manipulated content in matters of “public interests without human review or editorial control.”

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive VP for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a statement, “with today’s guidelines, the Commission supports the smooth and effective application of the AI Act to make AI systems interacting with people such as chatbots and AI agents and AI content more transparent and trustworthy. These guidelines support providers and deployers in meeting their obligations under the AI Act, while helping citizens know when they are interacting with AI.”

Systems must include machine-readable markers to reveal such content, to reduce “the risk of deception and manipulation” and build public trust in AI.

“Generative systems have collapsed the cost of producing convincing content while the cost of judging it stands where it always stood,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research. This requirement is “an attempt to restore friction to that imbalance.”

A company’s non-compliance could result in fines anywhere from €750K (about $856K) to €15M (about $17 million), or even up to 3% of its total worldwide annual revenue.

Transparency requirements

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements apply to “natural or legal persons,” public authorities, agencies, or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the EU market or into use under their name or trademark. This means all companies, regardless of whether or not they are EU-based.

“Systems placed on the European market, put into service there, or producing outputs used there are inside the field, wherever the developer sits,” Gogia noted.

Applicable systems must be intended to interact directly with “natural persons”; these systems include AI-enabled chatbots or conversational agents, AI companions, or coding agents. However, AI-enabled tools like recommender systems, spam filters, authentication, search and retrieval, transcription, text and code auto-completion, or predictive maintenance do not fall under the rule.

Specific outputs such as AI-generated text, images, video, and audio must contain a machine-readable mark. Deepfakes and public interest-related text created by AI without human review or control must be clearly labeled, however, deepfake content that is “artistic, creative, satirical, or fictional” is largely exempt.

AI content must be marked with one of three labels: “AI,” “Fully AI-generated,” or “Partially AI-modified.” For instance, “Fully AI-generated” applies when news summaries, music, art, or videos have been created without any human oversight (apart from prompting), while “partially AI-modified” could mean a person’s face is swapped into an authentic photograph to create a deepfake.

The three icons are publicly available for free use; enterprises can download zip files in PNG and SVG formats.

Most of the Act’s transparency rules begin to go into effect on August 2. But AI systems placed on the market before then will have some leeway; they must be in compliance by December 2.

However, a four-month allowance “on one obligation, for one population of systems, contingent on one procedural step, is not a strategy,” Gogia emphasized. Enterprises should plan to comply by August 2 and “treat any relief that arrives as margin.”

A consistent code of practice

Along with the transparency guidelines, the Commission has introduced a code of practice that essentially serves as a gesture of good faith. When signed, it can provide “legal certainty” and a “simple and practical” way to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act, according to the Commission. Signatories can also collaborate through the ‘Signatory Taskforce,’ which will share practices and advance technologies around marking and labeling practices.

Providers that choose not to sign must comply through other methods and demonstrate that those methods are “adequate” through assessment by surveillance authorities, according to the Commission.

Non-signatories “keep their flexibility, and will face more case-by-case scrutiny for it,” said Gogia.

Criteria for compliance

Shashi Bellamkonda, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, pointed out that the transparency requirements apply to content only when three criteria are met: It has been published, is informative to the public, or is on matters of public interest.

B2B business content or blogs may not need an AI disclosure if they do not meet these criteria, he noted. Also, published text that has undergone human review or is under editorial control does not need to be labeled. Editorial control means that a person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility for the publication of the content.

Many companies like Google, Adobe, and LinkedIn have already established ways to identify images marked as AI-generated. Meta has made it a requirement, but the creator has to add the AI-generated label, Bellamkonda said.

“This is a good move for guardrails around public information, and companies with good compliance and ethical oversight may not have to worry about this,” he noted. But as a general practice, companies should disclose AI-generated content and state whether it has been human reviewed.

Creating a transparency pipeline

Establishing full transparency means identifying who carries the responsibility for the content, whether the marking survives real use, not just testing, and what evidence will defend the decision, Gogia said.

Concerns cluster around responsibility, durability and evidence. Several organizations usually touch one piece of content, and none controls the whole chain, which is why contracts become the “pressure point,” he said. Most current agreements were written to deliver software and say “almost nothing” about provenance persistence, verification access, or evidence retention.

The durability concern is the most difficult, Gogia noted, because marking performs well in controlled settings but “badly in ordinary life.” Meta, for one, said its invisible watermark was designed to survive cropping; a published test, however, found the company’s preview detector missed 55% of cropped images.

“CIOs should ask which platform can actually provide evidence before believing its dashboard,” said Gogia.

Disclosure of AI use must be “clear, distinguishable and accessible,” he emphasized. “A notice buried in lengthy terms, or reachable only through determined clicking, satisfies nobody, least of all a market surveillance authority.”

Sustained compliance is a “living control” requiring a central record of systems, duties and evidence; testing taking place where the user meets the control rather than where the developer built it; and continuous supplier assurance. Enforcement will vary by country, so keep one common baseline with local overlays, Gogia said.

His advice: Inventory every system that talks to people, generates content, or gauges sentiment; classify provider and deployer roles; place disclosures at first interaction; define substantive human review; keep the evidence.

Marks and provenance signals should be tested after content undergoes cropping, compression, translation, transcription, and other editing, Gogia said. A useful audit starts from a real output and follows its “pulse” through generation, editing and publication, identifying at “each beat” the responsible party, the surviving mark, and evidence for exceptions. Missed labels should also be traced for root cause and recurrence.

To ensure compliance, before August 2, enterprises need a prioritized inventory, live disclosures on the highest-risk use cases, and a “named owner for every control,” he noted. In the first 30 days, they should stabilize and test; in the first 90 days, push requirements into procurement processes as a standing discipline. Procurement must secure commitments on marking methods, known failure modes, and evidence access, with explicit notice if/when any of them change.

“The sensible architecture is a common transparency baseline carrying traceability, responsibility, and evidence, with jurisdictional overlays for language, sector rules, and local practice,” Gogia said.

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

A US federal court has approved Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement in a class-action lawsuit in which authors accused the AI company of using their books without permission to train the AI model Claude. This is the largest such settlement to date in a US copyright case, according to Reuters.

The dispute is one of several legal cases in which copyright holders sued AI companies over how large language models (LLMs) were trained, and it is the first major AI-related copyright dispute in the US to be resolved through a settlement.

A judge had previously ruled that the actual training of AI models using books falls under the “fair use” doctrine in US copyright law. But Anthropic was found to have violated the law by storing more than 7 million pirated books in a central library, regardless of whether they were later used for AI training or not.

OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.

The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.

OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.

Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.

OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.

Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected global systems integrators.

Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.

Workforce impact

OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.

Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.

Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.

“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.

The first workforce effect is more likely to be slower hiring than immediate layoffs, according to Tulika Sheel, senior vice president at Kadence International.

“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”

Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.

However, Lian Jye Su, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.

Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.

Cost and operational risks

Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.

“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.

The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but integration and governance,” Jain added.

Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.

Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.

Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.

This article first appeared on CIO.

Foto: SkillUp | shutterstock.com

Manche Devs arbeiten mit der Kommandozeile (auch Command Line Interface; CLI), weil sie sie lieben – andere, weil ihnen nichts anderes übrig bleibt. Egal zu welcher Kategorie Sie sich zählen: Diese neun CLI-Tools helfen Ihrer Produktivität und Effizienz (zusätzlich) auf die Sprünge.

tldr

Keine Angst, wir ersparen Ihnen an dieser Stelle eine langwierige, faszinative Abhandlung über die ganz eigene Magie, die die Unix-Shell entfaltet. Fakt ist: Wenn man mit ihr arbeiten will, ist es manchmal erforderlich, vorher ein Handbuch zu lesen. Unix Docs (auch man- oder manual pages) sind diesbezüglich allerdings ein zweischneidiges Schwert: Die benötigte Information ist vorhanden – es ist nur die Frage, wo. Den Teil der Dokumentation aufzuspüren, den Sie gerade benötigen, kann ein entmutigender Task sein. Zwar kann die gute alte Befehlszeile dabei helfen – um ein offizielles Handbuch aufzurufen, genügt:

$ man

Allerdings zeichnen sich man-pages vor allem durch ihre Informationsdichte aus – und die Tatsache, dass sie manchmal aktuelle Informationen für neuere Tools vermissen lassen. Das CLI-Tool tldr versetzt Sie in die Lage, zielgerichteter zu suchen:

$ tldr

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

Falls Sie npm installiert haben, ist die tldr-Installation nur einen kurzen Befehl entfernt:

npm install -g tldr

ngrok

Sobald Sie tldr installiert haben, können Sie damit viele weitere Befehle erkunden. Zum Beispiel:

$ tldr ngrok

Reverse proxy that creates a secure tunnel from a public endpoint to a locally running web service.

Mit ngrok eröffnet sich Ihnen eine stressfreie Möglichkeit, von einem Remote-Browser auf eine Entwicklungsmaschine zuzugreifen. Aber das Tool kann noch weit mehr. Sie können damit beispielsweise in der Cloud entwickeln und die Ergebnisse im Browser in Augenschein nehmen. Zudem können Sie mit ngrok auch schnell und einfach laufende Services über HTTPS veröffentlichen – ohne sich mit der Security-Infrastruktur herumschlagen zu müssen. Angenommen, Sie bauen einen Service Worker auf, der HTTPS benötigt, dann ist alles, was Sie für einen sicheren Kontext tun müssen, ngrok zu starten.

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

Ein Beispiel, bei dem der HTTP-Port 8080 freigegeben wird:

$ ngrok http 8080

Der ngrok-Output sieht wie folgt aus:

https://f951-34-67-117-59.ngrok-free.app -> http://localhost:8080

Anschließend kann jedermann die zugewiesene URL aufrufen (machen Sie sich keine Mühe).

screen

Mit diesem Befehlszeilen-Tool können Sie eine Shell-Sitzung mit oder ohne laufenden Prozess “beiseite legen” und sie anschließend zu einem beliebigen Zeitpunkt fortsetzen – auch wenn Sie die ursprüngliche Session beenden.

$ tldr screen

Hold a session open on a remote server. Manage multiple windows with a single SSH connection.

Nehmen wir an, Sie starten ngrok, um remote auf eine Webanwendung zuzugreifen: Sie starten den Prozess, lassen diesen dann in screen laufen und programmieren so lange etwas. Währenddessen läuft ngrok die ganze Zeit weiter – Sie können über screen jederzeit wieder darauf zugreifen. Veranschaulicht in Code würde das wie folgt aussehen:

$ screen

// Now we are in a new session

$ ngrok http 8080

// Now ngrok is running, exposing http port 8080

Type ctrl-a

// Now we are in screen's command mode

Type the "d" key, to "detach".

// Now you are back in the shell that you started in, while screen is running your ngrok command in the background:

$ screen -list

There is a screen on:

128861.pts-0.dev3 (04/25/24 14:36:58) (Detached)

Tipp

Wenn Sie eine laufende Sitzung, in der Sie sich gerade befinden, benennen wollen, nutzen Sie die Tastenkombination Strg + A und geben :sessionname ein. Das ist besonders nützlich, wenn Sie mit mehreren Screen-Instanzen arbeiten wollen.

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

Wenn wie im Beispiel nur eine screen-Instanz läuft, führt der Befehl $ screen -r (für “re-attach”) Sie zurück zu Ihrer ngrok-Sitzung. Im Fall mehrerer Screens können Sie diese mit Hilfe ihrer ID wieder aufrufen:

$ screen -r

Wenn Sie Ihre Session endgültig beenden wollen, beenden Sie ngrok mit Strg + C und geben anschließend exit in die Kommandozeile ein.

sdkman & nvm

Wenn Sie Java oder JavaScript auf einem Server verwenden, sollten Sie sich mit sdkman (für Java) und nvm (für Node) vertraut machen. Beide Kommandozeilen-Tools sind nützlich, wenn es darum geht, mit mehreren Programmiersprachenversionen auf dem selben Rechner zu jonglieren – und dabei sowohl Path Adjustment als auch Umgebungsvariablen überflüssig machen.

Mit sdkman können Sie beispielsweise neuere Java-Versionen erkunden und anschließend wieder zum aktuellen LTS-Release springen. Dieser Prozess wird durch das sdk-Kommando abstrahiert.

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

Zwischen den Versionen zu wechseln, gestaltet sich denkbar einfach – $ sdk use java 19-open führt Sie direkt zu JDK Version 19.

$ tldr sdk

Manage parallel versions of multiple Software Development Kits.

Supports Java, Groovy, Scala, Kotlin, Gradle, Maven, Vert.x and many others.

Die nvm-Utility funktioniert ganz ähnlich:

$ tldr nvm

Install, uninstall or switch between Node.js versions.

Supports version numbers like "12.8" or "v16.13.1", and labels like "stable", "system", etc.

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

fzf

Sowohl grep als auch find sind Standardbestandteile der Kommandozeilen-Befehlspalette. Allerdings sind beide Tools nicht so funktional, wie sie sein sollten. Das ruft fzf auf den Plan – einen “Fuzzy File Finder”. Mit “Fuzzy” ist dabei gemeint, dass die Details zu dem, was Sie suchen, nicht unbedingt klar definiert sein müssen. Ein Beispiel:

$ tldr fzf

Command-line fuzzy finder.

Similar to sk.

Sobald Sie fzf starten, indiziert das CLI-Tool umgehend das Dateisystem, um Ergebnisvorschläge für Ihre Suchen zu unterbreiten.

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

Aus 878.937 Möglichkeiten hat fzf die 25 Dateien und Verzeichnisse ausgewählt, die unseren Anforderungen entsprechen könnten – und das völlig ohne Umwege.

exa

Mit exa werden langweilige alte ls-Listings schöner und nützlicher:

$ tldr

A modern replacement for ls (List directory contents).

Für eine bessere Developer Experience ohne mentalen Overhead statten Sie ls einfach mit einem exa-Alias aus. Das Tool respektiert die meisten ls-Standardoptionen – exa -l funktioniert also (beispielsweise) genau so, wie Sie es erwarten würden.

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

bat

Die bat-Utility ähnelt dem cat-Tool – ist aber besser:

$ tldr bat

Print and concatenate files.

A cat clone with syntax highlighting and Git integration.

Es handelt sich hierbei im Wesentlichen um eine Komfort- beziehungsweise Developer-Experience-Optimierung – ähnlich wie im Fall von exa. Wenn Sie bat verwenden, erwartet Sie ein vollwertiger File Viewer – inklusive Title, Borders, Line Numbers und insbesondere einer hilfreichen Syntax-Highlighting-Funktion für Programmiersprachen oder Konfigurationsdateien. Dabei reagiert bat auf less/more-Befehle – und wird mit “q” beendet. Die Navigation erfolgt über die Pfeiltasten.

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

nethack

Ein absoluter Kommandozeilen-Klassiker ist nethack – der ursprüngliche, Konsolen-basierte ASCII Dungeon Crawler. Das CLI-Tool wird Ihre Produktivität zwar nicht direkt ankurbeln – kann aber durchaus dabei helfen, ein paar Minuten zur Ruhe zu kommen, um komplexe Dev-Probleme zu durchdringen.

Foto: Matthew Tyson | IDG

Dieser Artikel ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation Infoworld.com erschienen.

Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?

It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.

After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.

Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.

I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, influence a board, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.

Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.

While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.

That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs can deliver value with AI.

Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.

The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.

And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.

“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”

One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.

As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.

And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.

“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”

At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.

Reducing organizational friction

Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”

Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?

Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.

AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.

Operating model as strategy enabler

AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.

Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.

“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.

The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.

This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.

Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of transformation. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: reinvention.

As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.

Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”

As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”

Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.

Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.

The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.

This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.

Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to reach out to me directly.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has sought to allay concerns over the delayed release of the Gemini 3.5 Pro large language model. He dodged questions about it in Google’s quarterly earnings call on Wednesday by focusing on the company’s next frontier AI model, Gemini 4, and plans to release subsequent LLMs at an almost monthly cadence.

His comments came a day after Google unveiled Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash Cyber but offered no update on the release of Gemini 3.5 Pro, the company’s delayed flagship reasoning model that many developers had expected to arrive weeks earlier.

Google introduced the Gemini 3.5 family at its annual I/O conference, promising to release the Pro model in June. That timeline has since slipped, with Bloomberg suggesting Gemini 3.5 Pro is months late because the model’s coding performance is falling short of internal expectations, especially when compared to better performance by similar models from OpenAI and Anthropic.

Instead of revisiting the Gemini 3.5 Pro timeline, Pichai used the earnings call to shift the discussion toward Gemini 4, when asked about how his company planned to navigate an increasingly competitive race to release frontier AI models by to Barclays Investment Bank analyst Ross Sandler.

“We are creating a baseline on top of which you will see us rapidly iterate on subsequent model releases. And so picking up pace and releasing models almost at a monthly cadence is part of our road map as we are building Gemini 4 as well,” Pichai said during the call.

Sandler’s question followed one from JPMorgan Chase & Co analyst Douglas Anmuth, who asked Pichai if Google was releasing frontier AI models frequently enough to keep pace with rivals OpenAI and Anthropic.

Pichai had responded to Anmuth’s question that Google remained confident of competing at the frontier and was investing heavily in a larger Gemini 4 base model.

Analysts, though, aren’t as confident as Pichai.

While delays to Google’s frontier model roadmap have not triggered an exodus of existing customers, either because of high switching costs or because many enterprises already running multi-model architectures, they have made CIOs evaluating AI platforms more cautious about making new commitments, said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

A monthly model release cadence could prove to be a double-edged sword for enterprises and their CIOs.

While a monthly release cadence could help enterprises gain faster access to improvements in model performance, cost and capabilities, it will also require CIOs to invest more heavily in testing, governance and version management to safely adopt those updates, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.

Similarly, Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting, said enterprises will embrace a faster release cadence only if each successive model delivers measurable improvements in performance, cost or safety, rather than simply changing version number.

The challenge for CIOs, Jain said, is not just keeping up with model releases; it’s deciding whether each new version is worth the cost of validating it.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.

The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.

OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.

Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.

OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.

Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected global systems integrators.

Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.

Workforce impact

OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.

Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.

Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.

“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.

The first workforce effect is more likely to be slower hiring than immediate layoffs, according to Tulika Sheel, senior vice president at Kadence International.

“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”

Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.

However, Lian Jye Su, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.

Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.

Cost and operational risks

Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.

“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.

The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but integration and governance,” Jain added.

Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.

Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.

Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

The most common tactical error we see is treating AI as an isolated technology project. What I have observed among our customers is that true success does not come from organizations that define a standalone “AI strategy,” but rather from those leaders that integrate AI into their business strategy.

When our customers isolate AI and define an AI strategy, it inevitably treats it like a “technological toy” to experiment with. This approach yields fragmented, orphaned initiatives that fail to scale because they are fundamentally disconnected from their core corporate objectives. What I learned is that AI is not the ultimate destination; it is a powerful catalyst. We have replaced “What can AI do for our customers?” with a more strategic question, “How does AI accelerate their existing business goals?”

Think of AI like electricity. No modern corporation designs a standalone “electricity strategy.” Instead, all companies route it invisibly across the entire organization to illuminate offices, power production lines and drive communication. AI must be woven into the enterprise fabric in the exact same way, acting as an underlying utility that supercharges your existing operational model.

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

When AI remains trapped within the IT department of our customers, we notice that it is relegated to a mere “software experiment.” To become a true competitive advantage, we observed that AI requires intense cross-functional orchestration. This perspective does not diminish the merit of the technical team; their expertise is fundamental for establishing the architecture, data governance and tools your enterprise requires. However, while IT builds the foundational infrastructure, it lacks the organizational authority to decide what should be built on top of it. Only the CEO or the owner of the company can step in to ensure AI leaves the “toy project” phase and integrates into the DNA of the organization.

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

• Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
• Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
• C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

AI completely breaks this paradigm. Because modern AI is built on probabilistic models, it does not execute static formulas; instead, it predicts the most likely correct response based on mathematical probabilities. This means that AI solutions carry an inherent, small percentage of uncertainty and variability. A prompt entered today might yield a slightly different, though contextually valid, output tomorrow.

Executive leadership and organizational cultures must be actively educated to accept and navigate this fundamental shift. Traditional quality assurance frameworks for software are designed for a 100% success rate. Applying this rigid standard to AI will paralyze your initiatives, keeping 80% of your projects trapped eternally in the pilot phase. This happened to us in a food and beverage company in Latin America a couple of years ago. After this experience, we started to include conditions in our contracts that tolerate statistical margins of error and still define the project as a success.

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).

Many leaders believe AI costs are fixed due to flat-rate enterprise tiers ($25–$30/user). This is a temporary illusion. These venture-capital-subsidized rates mask true operational costs and come with dynamic usage limits. Modeling long-term ROI on them guarantees a severe budget shock when true consumption pricing takes over.

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

Utilizing AI solely to slash headcount or cut operational corners is a dangerous trap that introduces severe field liabilities. A financial service organization in Latin America announced that they saved $1 million in customer support by replacing humans with AI chatbots. However, the mid-term reality revealed a different story: a damaged brand reputation due to AI errors and an influx of frustrated clients fleeing because the automated system cannot handle special cases.

Putting a company on an extreme AI diet might make it look leaner on next quarter’s financial statement, but over-indexing on cost-cutting will ultimately leave the business too weak to compete when market dynamics shift. We are now inviting our customers to change the question from “How much money will AI save us?” to “How will we leverage AI to exponentially increase the long-term value of our enterprise?”

Deploying enterprise AI is a marathon, not a sprint, and the terrain changes with every mile. The organizations that thrive in this next era will be those that transition from fascination to discipline, treating AI not as a magic bullet for immediate savings, but as a core capability that demands rigorous governance, architectural foresight and cultural maturity. Navigating this shift requires moving past the theoretical hype and anchoring decisions in raw, field-tested reality.

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

Agentic AI has advanced from the promises-and-pilots phase of 2025 to reality and rollouts in 2026. In the process, agentic AI is transforming virtually every aspect of customer relationship management (CRM), the platform that manages sales, marketing, and customer service.

“Last year, everybody was dipping their toes into the water,” says Keith Kirkpatrick, research director at The Futurum Group. This year, agentic AI has built momentum from the boardroom down, with companies recognizing that having an AI strategy is imperative. “They feel like if they don’t embrace it now, their competitors will.”

Harry Datwani, a principal at Deloitte Digital, adds that enterprise CRM customers have transitioned from “proof of concept” to “scale and execution.”

“Across sales, service, marketing, even in the commerce space, enterprises are really using AI and agentic,” he says.

“CRM in 2026 is undergoing a structural shift, not just an incremental evolution,” says Forrester analyst Kate Leggett, noting that AI is becoming a core part of CRM infrastructure, not just a feature or an add-on. According to Forrester data, around 70% of companies are already using AI in their CRM systems, she says.

Here are the hot AI-driven trends in CRM this year.

CRM becomes an action hero

CRM platforms have traditionally served as passive, static systems of record. Now, agentic AI is transforming CRM into a powerful, real-time solution that can act autonomously.

“Organizations that rethink CRM as a real-time, AI-powered system of action — and embrace agentic AI to handle complex, unpredictable work — are better positioned to deliver exceptional customer experiences,” says IDC analyst Neil Ward-Dutton. “This approach not only enhances satisfaction and loyalty but also drives operational efficiency and business agility.”

Forrester’s Leggett says that AI-powered CRM platforms have advanced from simple data capture to real-time decision-making and execution. Standard capabilities include next-best action recommendations, call summaries, automated updates, generated emails, knowledge creation, predictive forecasting, and deal scoring.

She adds that AI agents can now execute workflows, such as routing cases, sending follow-ups, and updating records (with human oversight). They can also handle end-to-end service and sales tasks autonomously, including case resolutions and sales development activities.

Agentic drives workforce changes

AI use in CRM systems is also impacting workforce strategies.

“We used to hire for deep expertise,” says Constellation Research analyst Liz Miller. “AI has commoditized expertise because I can take all that data from my CRM and train my AI models to go deep, to know everything about any product I’ve ever sold, from what has worked, what hasn’t, every price, every sale.”

Now, instead of hiring candidates with deep expertise, organizations are looking for candidates who can go wide. “I can train a model to have deep expertise. What I can’t train for is experience, because experience is what happens when a person has gone broad across a lot of different scenarios and faced complexity across that broad scenario,” says Miller.

For example, AI systems can automate many aspects of marketing, Miller notes, but there’s no substitute for creativity: people who can interrogate the data and come up with innovative marketing campaigns that connect with customers.

Terence Chesire, group vice president of ServiceNow CRM and industry workflows, says that organizations are using agentic AI to free up team members from repetitive, lower-value activities. Those employees have now moved to higher-level roles “where they’re working on transformational deals rather than just building a spreadsheet.”

“That’s what we’re seeing as super-exciting as organizations not just free up people, but the speed and effort reduction and the friction reduction in what they can do,” he adds.

Data layer takes center stage

AI’s promise to deliver actionable customer and marketing intelligence has placed even greater emphasis on the importance on sound data management practices for CRM.

“The light bulb has flashed on very brightly for our clients,” says Deloitte’s Datwani. “Everyone is talking about AI agents, but your ability to really extract value is inextricably linked to the quality of your data and the ability to make that data accessible. What we’re finding is that despite large investments over time our clients still have fragmented data. And so, they are data rich and insight poor.”

The good news, says Datwani, is that AI agents themselves can help clean up and organize data. And vendors such as Snowflake and Databricks, along with the traditional CRM powerhouses, are offering powerful data analytics solutions. “Everyone is battling for that data layer,” Datwani says.

Forrester’s Leggett adds that CRM platforms are converging with customer data platforms (CDPs), real-time event streams, and external data sources to create connected customer data networks. These real-time, connected data models can help organizations deliver hyper-personalization at scale.

Agentic ushers in pricing complexity

The shift from license- or subscription-based pricing to an outcome or consumption pricing model has the potential to help CIOs tie their CRM costs to specific business metrics, such as the number of customer service calls resolved per hour. But it has also introduced a new level of complexity when it comes to budgeting for CRM costs.

For example, Chesire says ServiceNow’s CRM pricing plan starts with a baseline subscription model, and on top of that, customers get a certain number of AI tokens per user and can buy additional tokens as AI usage ramps up.

Meanwhile, Salesforce has rolled out pay-per-resolution pricing with its recently unveiled AI Help Agent and last month acquired usage-based billing specialist m3ter. Oracle is also piloting outcome-based AI pricing.

All these approaches undercut the predictability of the subscription model, which will complicate CIOs’ cost calculus, Deloitte’s Datwani says. “Now, as you start to think about consumption and tokens, costs might look different. As folks are opening up the architecture with things like headless CRM, what will the cost model look like for API calls or MCP server calls? So, there’s many more variables,” he adds.

The rise of multi-agent orchestration

To act autonomously, agents need to access multiple data sets and software platforms seamlessly. As a result, the proliferation of agents, some embedded within specific vendor platforms and some created in-house, is going to require an orchestration layer, Futurum’s Kirkpatrick says.

He points out that organizations need to monitor and manage agents, enforcing the same type of policy-based access control that exists for people. Organizations also need to set limits on what domains a specific agent can get into, what types of data they can access, what lines can’t they cross.

Kirkpatrick predicts that a new class of orchestration tools will emerge, although it’s not clear whether that orchestration layer will be provided by the leading CRM vendors, hyperscalers, or third parties.

Datwani agrees. “The orchestration layer is an interesting area, where the traditional vendors are in on it, the hyperscalers are also offering it, and there are third parties. It’s my belief that there’s not going to be a clear winner.”

The interface becomes conversational

Enterprise users who have traditionally had to manually wrangle with CRM systems are likely to find the ability to employ voice commands using a natural language interface to be a game changer. For starters, a salesperson can say, “I have a meeting today with Customer X. Help me prepare.” The agent will collect relevant data, ingest it, and provide a summary with recommendations.

ServiceNow’s Chesire says voice-enabled CRM systems have an “almost magical” ability to record, transcribe, and understand the content of a call between a salesperson and a customer or potential customer. The system can then “build a quote” based on that conversation.

On the customer service side of the equation, AI-driven voice technology enables customers to speak to an AI agent, describe the problem using natural language, and get a response. The agent has the capability to, for example, solve a credit card dispute, order a replacement product, send out a service rep, or do whatever is needed to resolve the issue, says Chesire.

Beyond that, agentic technology is capable of understanding the underlying business process flaws that led to the product snafu, and make recommendations for ways to fix whatever led to the issue in the first place, he adds.

Agentic drives business process transformation

With the emergence of outcome-based pricing, organizations are taking a fresh look at how they measure the benefits of CRM systems. That conversation is leading to an even more important analysis of underlying business processes. Or, as Constellation’s Miller says, “The old adage of applying new technology to old processes only gets you more expensive old processes.”

“When we survey customers, we hear time and time again that the reason why they want to apply AI into their organizations is to foster exponential opportunity and exponential growth,” she says. “How do we get there with CRM has started to become the new conversation.”

According to Miller, AI systems breach the walls of siloed data and can take a fresh look at legacy workflows. They also don’t get sucked into turf wars between marketing and sales teams. As a result, they often recommend new actions that can lead to better processes. “I think it’s starting to happen. You’re starting to see applications where AI is beginning to accelerate decision-making and decision velocity,” she says.

“The next phase of maturity is going to be, how do we start to spread AI across our platforms so that we are seeing that holistic end-to-end relationship that we have always wanted to optimize. How do we thread that across platforms and across solutions. We’re starting to see organizations on the leading edge really start to pull those strategies together,” says Miller.

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

The most common tactical error we see is treating AI as an isolated technology project. What I have observed among our customers is that true success does not come from organizations that define a standalone “AI strategy,” but rather from those leaders that integrate AI into their business strategy.

When our customers isolate AI and define an AI strategy, it inevitably treats it like a “technological toy” to experiment with. This approach yields fragmented, orphaned initiatives that fail to scale because they are fundamentally disconnected from their core corporate objectives. What I learned is that AI is not the ultimate destination; it is a powerful catalyst. We have replaced “What can AI do for our customers?” with a more strategic question, “How does AI accelerate their existing business goals?”

Think of AI like electricity. No modern corporation designs a standalone “electricity strategy.” Instead, all companies route it invisibly across the entire organization to illuminate offices, power production lines and drive communication. AI must be woven into the enterprise fabric in the exact same way, acting as an underlying utility that supercharges your existing operational model.

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

When AI remains trapped within the IT department of our customers, we notice that it is relegated to a mere “software experiment.” To become a true competitive advantage, we observed that AI requires intense cross-functional orchestration. This perspective does not diminish the merit of the technical team; their expertise is fundamental for establishing the architecture, data governance and tools your enterprise requires. However, while IT builds the foundational infrastructure, it lacks the organizational authority to decide what should be built on top of it. Only the CEO or the owner of the company can step in to ensure AI leaves the “toy project” phase and integrates into the DNA of the organization.

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

• Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
• Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
• C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

AI completely breaks this paradigm. Because modern AI is built on probabilistic models, it does not execute static formulas; instead, it predicts the most likely correct response based on mathematical probabilities. This means that AI solutions carry an inherent, small percentage of uncertainty and variability. A prompt entered today might yield a slightly different, though contextually valid, output tomorrow.

Executive leadership and organizational cultures must be actively educated to accept and navigate this fundamental shift. Traditional quality assurance frameworks for software are designed for a 100% success rate. Applying this rigid standard to AI will paralyze your initiatives, keeping 80% of your projects trapped eternally in the pilot phase. This happened to us in a food and beverage company in Latin America a couple of years ago. After this experience, we started to include conditions in our contracts that tolerate statistical margins of error and still define the project as a success.

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).

Many leaders believe AI costs are fixed due to flat-rate enterprise tiers ($25–$30/user). This is a temporary illusion. These venture-capital-subsidized rates mask true operational costs and come with dynamic usage limits. Modeling long-term ROI on them guarantees a severe budget shock when true consumption pricing takes over.

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

Utilizing AI solely to slash headcount or cut operational corners is a dangerous trap that introduces severe field liabilities. A financial service organization in Latin America announced that they saved $1 million in customer support by replacing humans with AI chatbots. However, the mid-term reality revealed a different story: a damaged brand reputation due to AI errors and an influx of frustrated clients fleeing because the automated system cannot handle special cases.

Putting a company on an extreme AI diet might make it look leaner on next quarter’s financial statement, but over-indexing on cost-cutting will ultimately leave the business too weak to compete when market dynamics shift. We are now inviting our customers to change the question from “How much money will AI save us?” to “How will we leverage AI to exponentially increase the long-term value of our enterprise?”

Deploying enterprise AI is a marathon, not a sprint, and the terrain changes with every mile. The organizations that thrive in this next era will be those that transition from fascination to discipline, treating AI not as a magic bullet for immediate savings, but as a core capability that demands rigorous governance, architectural foresight and cultural maturity. Navigating this shift requires moving past the theoretical hype and anchoring decisions in raw, field-tested reality.

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

A new attack method found by Zenity Labs reveals that AI agents are becoming persistent insiders that attackers can recruit, rather than malware they have to install.

Its researchers have discovered AgentForger, a phishing-based attack that silently creates and launches a fully autonomous AI agent within OpenAI workspaces.

Once running, the agent has full access to apps like Outlook, Slack, SharePoint, and Google Drive. It is configured to operate indefinitely without further user interaction, can approve its own access by toggling “never ask” settings, and can continue to act on new assignments sent via email by the attackers that control it. Broad, unfettered access to systems allows it to perform reconnaissance, harvest sensitive data and credentials, impersonate victims, and launch phishing campaigns.

While OpenAI resolved the vulnerability four days after disclosure, on a larger scale, AgentForger sheds light on what can happen when AI agents go rogue.

“We’re moving into a world where software doesn’t just help people work. It works alongside them,” said Michael Bargury, co-founder and CTO of agentic AI security platform Zenity. “As AI agents become more capable, attackers will naturally look for ways to influence them, just as they’ve always looked for ways to influence people.”

A ‘persistent operator’ that acts without approval

OpenAI’s Workspace Agents can connect and work autonomously across Outlook, Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, SharePoint, and Teams. Users open the agent builder, describe what the agent can do in natural language, connect to tools, set approvals, review and test, schedule actions, then publish. For instance, an agent can autonomously handle incoming emails, review and take actions with approval, gather information from various sources to send out daily briefings, or automatically respond to questions in ChatGPT or Slack channels.

Normally, this is “useful automation,” Zenity AI red team researcher Mike Takahashi wrote in a blog post. But in this attack, “the same scheduler becomes the persistence mechanism.”

The creation workflow kicks off the moment a user clicks on a phishing link containing instructions from the threat actor. For the attack to work, a victim must be logged into ChatGPT and Workspace Agents, and have at least one integration with another app, such as Outlook, Gmail, Slack, Google Drive, SharePoint, or Teams.

Because those connections already exist, OAuth consent screens are not triggered. Furthermore, the victim does not need to click on another link, keep a Builder tab open, or even visit ChatGPT again.

The forged agent is a “persistent operator;” it is installed on the original click and given a schedule, and at those predetermined times, the agent invokes itself, scans for emails from attacker addresses with the subject line “task”, carries those orders out, then returns results to the same attacker-controlled email address.

It goes undetected because the attacker prompt instructs the Builder to toggle Outlook to never ask for approval of its actions. Typically, the default is “always ask,” to keep agents from taking unauthorized action; that switch gives agents the ability to act without asking for human approval.

“AgentForger showed that an attacker could deploy an autonomous insider agent inside your ChatGPT workspace with a single click,” said Bargury. From there, it can continue to access information, harvest credentials from various sources, impersonate employees, and carry out phishing attacks and fraud while “leveraging the trusted victim’s identity.”

A ‘planted accomplice’ that does all the work

Once activated, AgentForger can perform reconnaissance to create an internal map of a company. For instance, agents can scan Outlook, Slack, Teams, Google Drive, SharePoint, or calendar data to identify people, roles, active projects, internal discussions, or all-hands recurring meetings. This can help attackers identify where in the enterprise to target next, based on active teams and channels, projects in the works, or prominent users.

“This is the kind of internal context an attacker normally has to build slowly,” Takahashi noted. But in this scenario, action is based on a single emailed assignment. The attacker’s “planted accomplice” does all the work.

In another scenario, the agent can steal data by searching for and identifying financial documents, business agreements, or invoices. Or, it can steal credentials by scanning for messages containing passwords, one-time codes, access tokens, password recovery links, or API keys. Further, it can impersonate victims to carry out phishing scams, for instance, by sending legitimate-looking Teams messages instructing users to confirm their credentials on a fake Microsoft login page.

In all cases, collected information is organized, analyzed, and sent back to the attacker.

“AgentForger points to something much bigger than a single vulnerability,” said Bargury. “It’s less about one bug and more about understanding how the security model changes as AI becomes part of everyday business operations.”

FOMO exposing security gaps

This isn’t necessarily about trust, but more about the need to move fast and adapt, Bargury emphasized. AI agents are helping employees automate work, make decisions faster, and get more done. But enterprises fear they’ll fall behind if they don’t move quickly enough.

“The challenge is that we’re introducing a fundamentally new kind of technology into the enterprise,” said Bargury. “The pressure to integrate the next AI feature is outpacing the security controls needed to safely deploy it.”

However, the answer isn’t to slow down adoption, he emphasized; the business value is too significant. Rather, the first step is understanding where AI agents exist, who created them, what they’re connected to, and what they’re allowed to do. And when it comes to autonomous agents, enterprises need to pay attention to the processes that trigger them: A schedule, an incoming email, or another automated event.

“Those triggers should be governed just as carefully as the agent itself,” said Bargury.

High-impact actions should require approval where appropriate, and security teams should be able to quickly disable an agent or its triggers if something doesn’t look right, he said.

More broadly, AI agents are introducing the need for a new security model, he pointed out. The question is no longer just “Does this agent have permission?” It’s also, “Is this the behavior we intended?”

“The organizations that answer both questions will be in the strongest position to adopt AI safely,” Bargury said.

The evolution of Java is the subject of a just-released documentary about the programming language and development platform. “The Java Story: The Official Documentary” tells the story of Java through interviews with the engineers who created it and shepherded it through three decades.

Produced by CultRepo and sponsored by Oracle, JetBrains, IBM, and Azul, the documentary follows Java from its set-top box and browser-based origins at Sun Microsystems in the 1990s and through its rise to dominate server-side computing in the 2000s, the “dark ages” and resurgence with Java 8 under Oracle in the 2010s, and its continuing modernization and promising role in AI today. “From its humble beginnings as a project code-named ‘Oak’ at Sun Microsystems to becoming a global standard for enterprise software and billions of devices, Java’s journey is one of radical innovation, strategic pivots, and enduring community strength,” said Cult.Repo.

The documentary also delves into Sun’s bitter Java licensing dispute with Microsoft, Oracle’s suit of Google over its use of Java APIs Android (Google won), the creation of the Java Community Process, Sun’s open-sourcing of Java, and Oracle’s switch to the six-month release cycle. Technical enhancements such as lambda expressions in Java 8, virtual threads in Java 21 (Project Loom), and the ongoing refactor to bring value objects to the Java object model (Project Valhalla) also get attention.

Technical experts and other Java figures interviewed in the documentary include James Gosling, creator of Java; Kim Polese, Java’s first product manager; Carla Schroer, director of Java compatibility at Sun Microsystems; James Duncan Davidson, creator of Apache Tomcat; Mark Reinhold, chief architect of the Java Platform Group at Oracle; Brian Goetz, Java language architect in the Java Platform Group at Oracle; Rod Johnson, creator of Spring; and Gavin King, creator of Hibernate.

Networking is core to any operating system, and when it comes to Linux, it’s actually a combination of several key components. The Linux kernel handles the data plane, moving packets, and holding live device state. NetworkManager is the network configuration service, operating as the control plane, deciding what a device’s configuration should be.

NetworkManager 1.58 was released this week, following more than five months of development and 407 commits since version 1.56. The release covers three areas: expanded support for IPv6-only networks, a set of Wi-Fi management updates, and a round of security hardening.

IPv4 address exhaustion remains the pressure behind the first of those areas, pushing more networks toward IPv6-only operation every year.

“More networks, mobile carriers, cloud providers, and anyone squeezed by IPv4 exhaustion are running IPv6-only by default,” Chris Van Hoof, director of Linux engineering, platform enablement at Red Hat, told Network World.

Advancing IPv6-only support

Dual stack networking, running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel, has been the default IPv6 transition strategy for years. Dual stack networking, however, has a structural problem in that it still requires an IPv4 address on every device, so it does nothing to relieve address exhaustion pressure.

An alternative model called IPv6-mostly addresses that gap. It is defined in RFC 8925, “IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCPv4,” and lets capable clients drop IPv4 entirely while legacy hosts that still need it keep receiving it on the same network segment.

“NetworkManager can also now auto-signal RFC 8925’s IPv6-only-preferred option, telling the network a host is fine skipping an IPv4 lease entirely,” Van Hoof said.

For the traffic that still needs IPv4, NetworkManager 1.58 adds support for CLAT, short for customer-side translator. CLAT is the client-side half of 464XLAT, a mechanism defined in RFC 6877, “464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation.”

464XLAT pairs CLAT on the endpoint, which performs stateless header translation, with a stateful NAT64 translator on the provider side, letting IPv4-only apps keep functioning on a network that has no IPv4 of its own.

“CLAT is the translation layer that lets legacy IPv4-only apps and services keep working on those networks without bolt-on middleware,” Van Hoof said.

Wi-Fi management updates

NetworkManager 1.58 also brings a set of changes to how the daemon handles Wi-Fi connections and configuration.

• Band selection: The band property of Wi-Fi connections now accepts a 6GHz value, and a Wi-Fi scan run through nmcli, NetworkManager’s command line tool, now shows each access point’s band as well.
• Credential handling: WPS credentials with a 64 character hex PSK are now accepted, matching what some access points return.
• Text interface improvements: nmtui, NetworkManager’s menu driven text interface, picked up several usability additions. A new device select button lets you choose a physical interface from a list instead of typing its name. The activation screen gained a rescan Wi-Fi button, and secret prompts now include a show password checkbox. There is also a share QR code option, mirroring the existing nmcli device wifi show-password command.

Security hardening

The release fixes vulnerabilities and tightens several defaults tied to DHCP handling and connection permissions.

• CVE-2026-10805: Hostnames and MUD URLs are now validated before being written to the dhclient configuration file, rejecting characters that could alter the config syntax.
• DHCPv4 client fix: An out-of-bounds read in the internal DHCPv4 client, triggerable by an on-link attacker with a malformed UDP packet, has been fixed.
• Router option validation: The internal DHCPv4 client now ignores DHCP option 3, the Router option, when a lease also contains option 121, the Classless Static Route option, following the recommendation in RFC 3442.
• Permission checks and deprecations: For private connections that restrict access to specific users, NetworkManager now verifies that the user can access the referenced 802.1X certificates and keys.

Tunneling and automation updates

Two smaller but practical additions round out this release: a new tunnel type for virtualized networks, and a fix that closes a gap in how NetworkManager’s state survives a reboot.

NetworkManager 1.58 also adds support for creating and managing GENEVE tunnel interfaces. GENEVE, short for Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation, is a tunneling protocol that wraps Ethernet frames inside UDP packets, letting virtualized or overlay networks run on top of physical Layer 3 infrastructure. It shows up mainly in virtualization and cloud environments, where a hypervisor or container networking layer needs to build a virtual network segment across physical hosts. Previously, NetworkManager could not create or manage these interfaces directly.

The release also adds persisted managed state. NetworkManager tracks whether it is responsible for a given network device, a setting called its managed state. Until now, that setting reset on every reboot, so provisioning tools had to reapply it each time a system restarted. NetworkManager 1.58 lets the managed state survive a reboot when it is set through nmcli or the D-Bus API.

“It’s a small change but closes a real automation gap: Provisioning tools and cloud-init style workflows can set a device’s state once via D-Bus or nmcli and trust it survives a reboot, instead of reapplying config every time,” Van Hoof said.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has sought to allay concerns over the delayed release of the Gemini 3.5 Pro large language model. He dodged questions about it in Google’s quarterly earnings call on Wednesday by focusing on the company’s next frontier AI model, Gemini 4, and plans to release subsequent LLMs at an almost monthly cadence.

His comments came a day after Google unveiled Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash Cyber but offered no update on the release of Gemini 3.5 Pro, the company’s delayed flagship reasoning model that many developers had expected to arrive weeks earlier.

Google introduced the Gemini 3.5 family at its annual I/O conference, promising to release the Pro model in June. That timeline has since slipped, with Bloomberg suggesting Gemini 3.5 Pro is months late because the model’s coding performance is falling short of internal expectations, especially when compared to better performance by similar models from OpenAI and Anthropic.

Instead of revisiting the Gemini 3.5 Pro timeline, Pichai used the earnings call to shift the discussion toward Gemini 4, when asked about how his company planned to navigate an increasingly competitive race to release frontier AI models by to Barclays Investment Bank analyst Ross Sandler.

“We are creating a baseline on top of which you will see us rapidly iterate on subsequent model releases. And so picking up pace and releasing models almost at a monthly cadence is part of our road map as we are building Gemini 4 as well,” Pichai said during the call.

Sandler’s question followed one from JPMorgan Chase & Co analyst Douglas Anmuth, who asked Pichai if Google was releasing frontier AI models frequently enough to keep pace with rivals OpenAI and Anthropic.

Pichai had responded to Anmuth’s question that Google remained confident of competing at the frontier and was investing heavily in a larger Gemini 4 base model.

Analysts, though, aren’t as confident as Pichai.

While delays to Google’s frontier model roadmap have not triggered an exodus of existing customers, either because of high switching costs or because many enterprises already running multi-model architectures, they have made CIOs evaluating AI platforms more cautious about making new commitments, said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

A monthly model release cadence could prove to be a double-edged sword for enterprises and their CIOs.

While a monthly release cadence could help enterprises gain faster access to improvements in model performance, cost and capabilities, it will also require CIOs to invest more heavily in testing, governance and version management to safely adopt those updates, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.

Similarly, Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting, said enterprises will embrace a faster release cadence only if each successive model delivers measurable improvements in performance, cost or safety, rather than simply changing version number.

The challenge for CIOs, Jain said, is not just keeping up with model releases; it’s deciding whether each new version is worth the cost of validating it.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has sought to allay concerns over the delayed release of the Gemini 3.5 Pro large language model. He dodged questions about it in Google’s quarterly earnings call on Wednesday by focusing on the company’s next frontier AI model, Gemini 4, and plans to release subsequent LLMs at an almost monthly cadence.

His comments came a day after Google unveiled Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash Cyber but offered no update on the release of Gemini 3.5 Pro, the company’s delayed flagship reasoning model that many developers had expected to arrive weeks earlier.

Google introduced the Gemini 3.5 family at its annual I/O conference, promising to release the Pro model in June. That timeline has since slipped, with Bloomberg suggesting Gemini 3.5 Pro is months late because the model’s coding performance is falling short of internal expectations, especially when compared to better performance by similar models from OpenAI and Anthropic.

Instead of revisiting the Gemini 3.5 Pro timeline, Pichai used the earnings call to shift the discussion toward Gemini 4, when asked about how his company planned to navigate an increasingly competitive race to release frontier AI models by to Barclays Investment Bank analyst Ross Sandler.

“We are creating a baseline on top of which you will see us rapidly iterate on subsequent model releases. And so picking up pace and releasing models almost at a monthly cadence is part of our road map as we are building Gemini 4 as well,” Pichai said during the call.

Sandler’s question followed one from JPMorgan Chase & Co analyst Douglas Anmuth, who asked Pichai if Google was releasing frontier AI models frequently enough to keep pace with rivals OpenAI and Anthropic.

Pichai had responded to Anmuth’s question that Google remained confident of competing at the frontier and was investing heavily in a larger Gemini 4 base model.

Analysts, though, aren’t as confident as Pichai.

While delays to Google’s frontier model roadmap have not triggered an exodus of existing customers, either because of high switching costs or because many enterprises already running multi-model architectures, they have made CIOs evaluating AI platforms more cautious about making new commitments, said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

A monthly model release cadence could prove to be a double-edged sword for enterprises and their CIOs.

While a monthly release cadence could help enterprises gain faster access to improvements in model performance, cost and capabilities, it will also require CIOs to invest more heavily in testing, governance and version management to safely adopt those updates, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.

Similarly, Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting, said enterprises will embrace a faster release cadence only if each successive model delivers measurable improvements in performance, cost or safety, rather than simply changing version number.

The challenge for CIOs, Jain said, is not just keeping up with model releases; it’s deciding whether each new version is worth the cost of validating it.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has sought to allay concerns over the delayed release of the Gemini 3.5 Pro large language model. He dodged questions about it in Google’s quarterly earnings call on Wednesday by focusing on the company’s next frontier AI model, Gemini 4, and plans to release subsequent LLMs at an almost monthly cadence.

His comments came a day after Google unveiled Gemini 3.6 Flash and 3.5 Flash Cyber but offered no update on the release of Gemini 3.5 Pro, the company’s delayed flagship reasoning model that many developers had expected to arrive weeks earlier.

Google introduced the Gemini 3.5 family at its annual I/O conference, promising to release the Pro model in June. That timeline has since slipped, with Bloomberg suggesting Gemini 3.5 Pro is months late because the model’s coding performance is falling short of internal expectations, especially when compared to better performance by similar models from OpenAI and Anthropic.

Instead of revisiting the Gemini 3.5 Pro timeline, Pichai used the earnings call to shift the discussion toward Gemini 4, when asked about how his company planned to navigate an increasingly competitive race to release frontier AI models by to Barclays Investment Bank analyst Ross Sandler.

“We are creating a baseline on top of which you will see us rapidly iterate on subsequent model releases. And so picking up pace and releasing models almost at a monthly cadence is part of our road map as we are building Gemini 4 as well,” Pichai said during the call.

Sandler’s question followed one from JPMorgan Chase & Co analyst Douglas Anmuth, who asked Pichai if Google was releasing frontier AI models frequently enough to keep pace with rivals OpenAI and Anthropic.

Pichai had responded to Anmuth’s question that Google remained confident of competing at the frontier and was investing heavily in a larger Gemini 4 base model.

Analysts, though, aren’t as confident as Pichai.

While delays to Google’s frontier model roadmap have not triggered an exodus of existing customers, either because of high switching costs or because many enterprises already running multi-model architectures, they have made CIOs evaluating AI platforms more cautious about making new commitments, said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

A monthly model release cadence could prove to be a double-edged sword for enterprises and their CIOs.

While a monthly release cadence could help enterprises gain faster access to improvements in model performance, cost and capabilities, it will also require CIOs to invest more heavily in testing, governance and version management to safely adopt those updates, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.

Similarly, Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting, said enterprises will embrace a faster release cadence only if each successive model delivers measurable improvements in performance, cost or safety, rather than simply changing version number.

The challenge for CIOs, Jain said, is not just keeping up with model releases; it’s deciding whether each new version is worth the cost of validating it.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.

The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.

OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.

Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.

OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.

Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected global systems integrators.

Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.

Workforce impact

OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.

Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.

Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.

“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.

The first workforce effect is more likely to be slower hiring than immediate layoffs, according to Tulika Sheel, senior vice president at Kadence International.

“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”

Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.

However, Lian Jye Su, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.

Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.

Cost and operational risks

Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.

“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.

The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but integration and governance,” Jain added.

Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.

Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.

Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.

OpenAI has launched Presence, an enterprise service for deploying voice and chat agents that can resolve customer and employee requests, potentially automating some work now handled by frontline support teams.

The agents can answer questions and operate IT systems, and enterprises can decide what actions the agents may take and when they should seek human approval for actions or transfer a case to a human.

OpenAI is already using Presence internally for its English-language phone support channel, where it verifies callers and uses account information to complete approved actions. The company said the system resolves 75% of inbound issues without human assistance.

Another OpenAI service, Codex, can be used to monitor agents and suggest updates or improvements to processes. In OpenAI’s own tests, suggestions from Codex helped reduce handoffs to humans by 15 percentage points over 10 days, it said. Presence also includes simulation and evaluation tools that allow companies to test an agent before deployment. The tests assess whether it reaches the correct outcome, follows company policy, and hands a case to an employee when required.

OpenAI intends each Presence deployment to deal with one kind of task, for example billing issues, insurance claims, or employee IT service requests, with agents getting only the knowledge and system access required for that task.

Presence is not a self-service product: Enterprises will have to sign up for the limited availability program, with integration performed by OpenAI or selected global systems integrators.

Companies exploring or testing Presence include Spanish bank BBVA, which is evaluating the service for everyday banking support in Mexico, and Japanese technology group SoftBank, which is using it in trials involving Japanese-language customer interactions. Australian insurer IAG is assessing whether the technology can help it respond to surges in customer demand during severe weather events.

Workforce impact

OpenAI’s announcement did not address the potential effect of Presence on employment. But its claimed automation rate raises questions about how the technology could affect staffing in customer service and other support functions.

Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting, said CIOs should regard the 75% figure as evidence that the technology can work, rather than as a benchmark that every enterprise can expect to reach.

Jain said OpenAI’s deployment benefits from being built around the company’s own products and data. Large enterprises may achieve lower automation rates because they must contend with fragmented legacy systems, uneven knowledge bases and more complex compliance demands.

“Most organizations should expect lower initial automation levels that improve over time as the AI agent is refined,” Jain said.

The first workforce effect is more likely to be slower hiring than immediate layoffs, according to Tulika Sheel, senior vice president at Kadence International.

“The roles most exposed are likely to be repetitive, high-volume functions such as frontline customer support and routine back-office processing,” Sheel said. “However, I would expect the first impact to be on hiring and team growth rather than immediate large-scale job cuts. Over time, enterprises may redesign roles around AI-assisted workflows, with humans focusing more on complex cases, escalation, and relationship management.”

Jain said Tier-1 support agents handling predictable queries would face the most exposure. Broader reductions would become more likely only after companies reorganize their operations around the technology.

However, Lian Jye Su, chief analyst at Omdia, said Presence is unlikely to increase the threat of job displacement because companies have used similar customer-support automation from vendors such as Genesys, NiCE, Five9 and AWS for years.

Enterprises are more likely to use Presence alongside employees, with AI handling routine requests while people remain responsible for work requiring judgment and empathy, Su said.

Cost and operational risks

Analysts said CIOs should examine whether Presence can maintain resolution quality as usage grows, since fewer human handoffs could leave employees dealing with a more difficult mix of cases.

“The key question is not simply how many tasks AI can handle, but whether it can handle them reliably at scale,” Sheel said.

The financial case will depend partly on the cost of connecting Presence to existing systems and maintaining the controls needed to govern its use, according to Jain. “Often the biggest cost of enterprise AI is not tokens but integration and governance,” Jain added.

Companies will need to determine what systems and data the agents can access, monitor their performance, and audit the actions they take. Those investments could offset early savings.

Su said the complexity of enterprise IT will make it difficult for OpenAI to automate entire workflows on its own. Enterprises will still need to work with other technology providers and human employees, while CIOs will favor systems that can be audited and integrated with existing infrastructure.

Jain said the economics could improve if companies use the same integrations and governance controls across additional workflows.

This article first appeared on CIO.

Every CIO I speak with today is wrestling with some version of the same question: How do we move faster with AI and deliver on our commitments?

It’s an understandable concern. Boards and CEOs are asking about AI. Business leaders are experimenting with use cases. Employees are discovering tools daily, while technology vendors promise unprecedented gains in productivity, innovation, and competitive advantage.

After hundreds of conversations with technology executives over the past year, I’ve become convinced that speed isn’t the real issue. The organizations pulling away from the pack aren’t necessarily adopting AI faster than everyone else. They’re executing more effectively — a subtle distinction that represents one of the defining leadership challenges of the AI era.

Technology has never been the hardest part of transformation. People, priorities, culture, and operating models are the biggest challenges. The ability to translate bold boardroom aspirations into thousands of thoughtful decisions made every day by architects, engineers, product managers, analysts, and business leaders is where competitive advantage is created. AI may be accelerating the pace of change, but it hasn’t changed that fundamental truth.

I’ve met plenty of executives who are exceptional in the boardroom. They know how to frame a vision, influence a board, and build confidence among investors and business leaders. I’ve also met remarkable technologists who instinctively understand the architectural decisions, engineering tradeoffs, and implementation details that determine how great ideas become reality. Modern CIOs, however, must move comfortably between both worlds. Afshean Talasaz is one who stands out among this rare breed.

Long before becoming CIO of Colonial Pipeline, Talasaz built his career from the ground up as a business professional, data scientist, and technologist. He has designed enterprise platforms, built AI capabilities, led technology organizations, and partnered closely with executive leadership teams on business transformation. Today, as an executive in residence with our Practitioners for Practitioners (P4P) community, he helps CIOs and business leaders navigate one of the most significant technology shifts of our generation.

While Talasaz brings deep knowledge of data and AI to the table, his greatest strength is his ability to create strategy and connect it with execution. He can spend the morning discussing enterprise reinvention with the board and the afternoon debating architectural principles with the teams responsible for bringing that vision to life.

That versatility gives Talasaz a unique lens on how CIOs can deliver value with AI.

Software companies have a term for engineers who understand every layer of the technology stack: full-stack developers. Listen to Talasaz and it becomes evident that the AI era requires something similar from technology leaders: a full-stack CIO.

The full-stack CIO: Leading with clarity

A full-stack CIO understands how every layer of the enterprise influences the next. They recognize that every strategic priority becomes a portfolio investment, every investment shapes an operating model, every operating model influences architecture, every architecture choice informs product decisions, every product decision shapes engineering priorities.

The best CIOs understand both ends of that journey. The extraordinary ones understand everything in between.

And those who execute best lead with clarity, Talasaz says.

“Everyone, from executives to middle managers to the people writing code, should be able to explain what we’re trying to achieve,” he emphasizes. “Clarity isn’t that we’ve handed out the PowerPoint. It’s that people genuinely understand where we’re going and can articulate it in their own language.”

One of the unintended consequences of the AI boom is that organizations are beginning to confuse activity with alignment. They have AI councils, AI governance committees, AI innovation labs, AI centers of excellence, AI pilots, and AI roadmaps. Yet if you stop ten people in the hallway and ask a deceptively simple question, What business problem are we actually trying to solve? you’ll often hear ten different answers.

As a result, architects optimize for one objective while product teams optimize for another. Business units pursue opportunities that seem perfectly reasonable from their perspective. Engineers make thoughtful technical decisions based on the information available to them. Individually, none of those decisions are necessarily wrong. Collectively, however, they create organizational drift. AI doesn’t create that problem. It simply accelerates the consequences.

And while AI can be a force multiplier for the positive when every decision is guided by a shared understanding of where the organization is headed, it can also be a force multiplier for the negative, resulting in an organization simply moving faster in different directions.

“When we have the fundamentals right, the tech infrastructure, the operating models, the nuances of how our business actually runs, we get the impacts of AI in a positive way,” Talasaz says. “When we don’t have those in place, AI can amplify the gaps or mute the benefits.”

At a time when so much of the conversation surrounding AI is focused on algorithms, agents, and automation, it’s an important reminder that organizations don’t execute strategy; people do.

Reducing organizational friction

Most executives are familiar with the concept of VUCA that characterizes today’s business environment. But Talasaz stresses the importance of turning this concern inward: “If the world outside our organizations is becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, what are we, as leaders, doing to the inside of our organizations?”

Leaders spend enormous amounts of time helping their organizations respond to external disruption but comparatively little time asking whether they are inadvertently re-creating those same conditions internally in response to those external needs. Are we reducing uncertainty or introducing more of it? Are we simplifying work or adding unnecessary complexity? Are we helping people focus on what matters most, or asking them to navigate competing priorities and shifting expectations?

Talasaz refers to this phenomenon as double VUCA — something I’ve witnessed repeatedly while working with CIOs over the past decade. Organizations often assume they’re struggling because of technology limitations when the real constraint is organizational friction. Teams wait for decisions. Priorities shift faster than roadmaps. Governance grows heavier. New committees are formed to solve problems created by existing committees. Everyone is working harder, yet the organization somehow feels slower.

AI amplifies both outcomes. Organizations with clarity become dramatically more effective because AI accelerates good decisions. Organizations without clarity simply accelerate confusion.

Operating model as strategy enabler

AI governance is one way to achieve greater clarity, but as Talasaz says, governance shouldn’t primarily exist inside policy manuals that few people read.

Instead, AI governance should be embedded in the daily rhythms of the organization, shaping how teams collaborate, how decisions are made, how products move from ideas into production, and how innovation happens safely without requiring constant escalation. In other words, it’s all about your operating model.

“If you had to pick one thing that isn’t technology, your operating model is the most important element for executing data and AI at scale,” he says.

The best operating models create enough clarity that capable people can make thousands of decisions independently and confidently, without having to wait for permission. By embedding good governance into the way it works, the organization becomes faster.

This advice echoes something I’ve heard repeatedly from some of the world’s most respected CIOs: High-performing organizations aren’t built on tighter control; they’re built on greater trust, supported by clear principles, shared expectations, and operating models that enable responsible decision-making at every level of the enterprise.

Talasaz points out that technology leaders tend to speak in terms of transformation. He suggests CIOs consider a different word: reinvention.

As he explains, transformation implies replacing what exists today with something new. Reinvention starts with a more clear-eyed and practical premise: Some things absolutely must change; others represent years, sometimes decades, of accumulated expertise, customer trust, operational discipline, and competitive advantage.

Reinvention is about building on those strengths while also creating new ways to deliver value. The leaders making the greatest progress in their AI journeys seem to recognize that it’s less about abandoning the past than thoughtfully preparing the organization for the future.

Closing the gap between strategy and execution

Full-stack CIOs must be able to map out the various layers of execution and planning that need to be done at every level of the organization to be successful. To help with this, Talasaz has developed a data and AI framework that draws on his own experiences “from the keyboard to the boardroom.”

As Talasaz sees it, too many organizations have been doing good work in isolation. “They’re doing a lot of the right things,” he says. “They’re just not connected.”

Boards may be discussing growth while business leaders redesign customer experiences. Product teams may be prioritizing new capabilities while architects modernize platforms. Data teams may be improving quality while engineers focus on delivery. Every group makes meaningful progress within its own domain, yet somewhere between strategy and execution, the connective tissue begins to disappear. Talasaz’s framework brings those connecting points to the forefront.

Crucially, the framework doesn’t begin with technology or AI or even with data. It begins with the experiences the organization hopes to create for its customers, employees, or partners. Many AI initiatives start with the question, “What can this technology do?” And indeed, we need to be inspired by the possibilities and challenged to think differently by what the technology can do. But, Talasaz emphasizes, we also need to ask what experiences we need to deliver for our business and how the technology can make that a reality.

The framework challenges CIOs to answer that question first. Only after the experiences are clearly defined does the conversation move to the capabilities required to deliver it, the business activities that support those capabilities, the AI and data products that enable them, and finally the data foundation that makes everything possible.

This shift in perspective ensures that, rather than allowing technology investments to search for business value, the business experience defines the technology required to deliver it. For CIOs, that’s more than a planning exercise. It’s a fundamentally different way of leading.

Over the coming months, the P4P community will be convening a series of small CxO roundtables to explore these issues and work more deeply with Afshean Talasaz’s 6×6 Data and AI Framework. CIOs and other enterprise leaders interested in participating are welcome to reach out to me directly.

Foto: N Universe | shutterstock.com

Unter den Massen von KI-Tools und -Anwendungen, die aktuell als Mobile-, Desktop- oder Web-App zur Wahl stehen, gibt es nicht wenige, die sich in erster Linie dadurch auszeichnen, dass sie:

• Output von fragwürdiger Genauigkeit liefern,

• dubiose Texte erzeugen, oder

• Bilder generieren, die zum Klick auf den X-Button verleiten.

KI-Tools dieser Art sind vor allem darauf ausgerichtet, vom anhaltenden Generative-AI (GenAI)-Hype zu profitieren – und trüben leider auch den Blick für die echten Anwendungsperlen im Bereich generative KI. Wie etwa die folgenden GenAI-Apps, die Ihre Produktivität im Arbeitsalltag drastisch steigern und damit erhebliche Zeitgewinne realisieren können. Probieren Sie’s aus!

1. ChatPDF

Sie kennen solche Situationen: Jemand schickt Ihnen einen schlanken 300-Seiter im .pdf-Format und bereits nach Seite Zwei stellt sich heraus, dass sich dieser in etwa so faszinierend liest wie eine Steuererklärung. In Zukunft dürfen Sie sich bei solchen und ähnlichen Gelegenheiten auf ChatPDF verlassen und dabei richtig Zeit einsparen.

Dieses rein webbasierte Tool – nicht zu verwechseln mit gleichnamigen Mobile Apps – tut exakt das, was es verspricht: Sie befähigen, mit .pdf-Dateien zu chatten. Darüber hinaus können Sie über das Webportal auch Office-Dokumente im .doc- oder .docx-Format hochladen, um anschließend dank KI-Unterstützung möglichst schnell und einfach Informationen über den Inhalt zu erfragen. Dabei kann es sich konkret um einfache Zusammenfassungen oder spezifische, inhaltsbezogene Fragen handeln. Sie können bei Bedarf sogar mehrere Dokumente einspeisen und diese gemeinschaftlich abfragen. Die Verantwortlichen von ChatPDF versprechen dabei, sämtliche Daten sicher zu speichern, auf Anfrage zu löschen und keinesfalls an Dritte weiterzugeben. Dennoch sollten sensible unternehmensbezogene Dokumente eher nicht diesen Weg nehmen.

ChatPDF verarbeitet davon abgesehen Dokumente in (fast) jeder Sprache – und unterstützt diese auch mit Blick auf die KI-Chat-Funktion. Zwei Dokumente dürfen Sie täglich kostenlos über den Service hochladen und abfragen – wobei die Dateien maximal 120 Seiten lang oder 10 MB groß sein dürfen. Die GenAI-Webanwendung dürfte also in ihrer kostenlosen Variante bereits für die meisten Gelegenheits-User ausreichend sein. Sollten Sie Bedarf haben, der darüber hinausgeht, steht Ihnen die Bezahlversion ChatPDF Plus ab 24,99 Euro pro Monat (oder circa 120 Euro pro Jahr) zur Verfügung.

2. Beautiful.ai

Präsentationen (richtig) zu erstellen, kann zum Pain geraten. Es sei denn, Sie lassen Generative AI den wesentlichen Teil des Gestaltungsprozesses übernehmen. Das funktioniert mit der KI-basierten Präsentationssoftware Beautiful.ai. Das (möglicherweise) größte Defizit dieses ebenfalls webbasierten KI-Tools ist, dass es zwar auch deutschsprachige Prompts verarbeitet, zur Zeit aber nur englischsprachige Präsentationen erstellt. Das tut es dafür aber richtig gut, wie bereits die Mini-Demo auf der offiziellen Webseite zeigt. Die KI-App unterstützt Sie nicht nur beim Design der einzelnen Folien, sondern auch bei der Formatierung von Inhalten und dabei, Brand Guidelines einzuhalten – sowie bei allen anderen Aspekten, die wichtig sind, damit Ihre Präsentation einen möglichst professionellen Eindruck hinterlässt.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Die generativen KI-Funktionen des Web-Services umfassen auch eine Funktion, um Inhalte zu generieren. Sie können die KI beispielsweise damit beauftragen, eine ganz bestimmte Art von Präsentation zu einem bestimmten Thema zu erstellen. Dazu zieht die Anwendung öffentlich verfügbare Daten heran. Das Ergebnis bedarf zwar sehr wahrscheinlich einer gründlichen Überprüfung, Überarbeitung und Re-Formulierungskur. Dennoch kann es Ihnen eine nützliche erste Grundlage liefern, auf der sich aufbauen und damit potenziell eine Menge Zeit sparen lässt. Beautiful.ai lässt sich mit PowerPoint, Slack, Webex und Dropbox integrieren.

Leider gibt’s den KI-Präsentations-Zauber nicht umsonst. Ein Abonnement für Beautiful.ai kostet für Einzelpersonen 12 Dollar pro Monat. Im Team mit der GenAI-App zu arbeiten, schlägt mit mindestens 40 Dollar pro Nutzer und Monat zu Buche. Einen individuellen Enterprise-Preisplan gibt’s auf Anfrage.

3. Toki

Allen technologiegetriebenen Productivity-Fortschritten zum Trotz bleibt ein Task lästig: mit einem Kalender zu interagieren. Dieser Aufgabe verschreibt sich der KI-Kalenderassistent Toki, der zuvor unter dem Namen Dola bekannt war. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Chatbot-Lösung, die sich in die Messaging-Plattformen WhatsApp, Telegram, Line sowie iMessage einbinden lässt und sich anschließend zum Beispiel mit den Kalender-Apps von Google und Apple verbindet. Da dieses KI-Tool das Netzwerkprotokoll CalDAV nutzt, um auf die Kalenderdaten zuzugreifen, müssen Sie im Fall von Outlook leider den Umweg über ein Drittanbieter-Plugin nehmen.

Ist die Integration erledigt, steht Toki über integrierte Schaltflächen in den Messaging-Apps zur Verfügung, um Termine zu erstellen, zu verschieben – oder direkt Fragen zu freien Terminslots zu stellen. Darüber hinaus kann dieses Tool auch genutzt werden, um Termine mit Infos anzureichern – beispielsweise Vorschläge für beliebte Restaurants in einer bestimmten Gegend oder auch Ideen für den neuen Firmenslogan, der beim Meeting gefunden werden soll.

Der Service ist in so gut wie allen Sprachen verfügbar und in begrenzten Umfang kostenlos nutzbar. Zahlende Benutzer erhalten mehr Features ab 3,99 Dollar pro Monat.

4. Fathom

Dass virtuelle Meetings richtig schlimm werden können, wissen wir wohl alle. Und auch wenn selbst Generative AI Sie (noch) nicht davor bewahren kann, an digitalen Foltersessions teilzunehmen: Es gibt eine KI-App, die das erträglicher macht – Fathom.

Bei dieser Anwendung handelt es sich um einen KI-Assistenten für Videokonferenzen in Form klassischer Software für Windows– oder Mac-Systeme, die wahlweise mit Zoom, Microsoft Teams oder Google Meet integriert wird. Nach der Installation läuft Fathom unauffällig im Hintergrund und transkribiert (über eine Kalender-Integration) entweder automatisch oder auf Knopfdruck sämtliche Videoanrufe. Notizen machen gehört damit in beiden Fällen der Vergangenheit an. Die Zusammenfassungen oder Informationen stehen direkt zur Verfügung und lassen sich gezielt durchsuchen, weiterverarbeiten oder auch in anderen Produktivitäts- und Collaboration-Tools wie Slack nutzen.

Sämtliche Daten werden dabei laut Fathom während der Übertragung und im Ruhezustand verschlüsselt. Außerdem versprechen die Verantwortlichen ausdrücklich, keine KI-Modelle auf Kundendaten zu trainieren. Sämtliche Details zu Security- und Compliance-Themen sind – vorbildlicherweise – über ein dediziertes Trust Center abrufbar.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Die KI-Software unterstützt diverse verschiedene Sprachen, darunter Englisch, Französisch, Spanisch, Italienisch und Deutsch. Noch dazu ist Fathom komplett kostenlos nutzbar – ohne Einschränkungen hinsichtlich der Anzahl oder Länge der aufgezeichneten Videokonferenzen. Erst fortschrittlichere KI-Funktionen lässt sich das Team hinter der GenAI-Anwendung bezahlen.

Die Fathom Team Edition bietet weitergehende, fortschrittliche KI-Funktionen – beispielsweise automatisierte Keyword Alerts, Highlight-Zusammenstellungen oder Team-Management-Funktionen. Die kostenpflichtige Variante ermöglicht darüber hinaus die Integration in Enterprise-Systeme wie HubSpot, Salesforce oder Zapier. Die Preise beginnen bei 15 Dollar pro Monat und User. Die kostenlose Version bietet Premium-Features für fünf Anrufe pro Monat.

5. Whisper Web

Falls Sie bereits Audiodateien besitzen, die beispielsweise im Rahmen von Meetings oder Telefongesprächen entstanden sind und jetzt in Text umgewandelt werden sollen, ist Whisper Web die richtige Adresse – zumindest, wenn es sich um englischsprachige Audioaufnahmen handelt. Diese quelloffene Webanwendung basiert auf der Entwicklungsarbeit von OpenAI und bietet Echzeit-Transkriptionen direkt im Browser. Das Large Language Model, das dazu zum Einsatz kommt, wird über die App heruntergeladen und lokal ausgeführt – die Daten, die Sie der KI übermitteln, verlassen also das Device nicht.

Whisper Web kann Audioinhalte entweder direkt über Ihr Mikrofon erfassen oder aus entsprechenden Audiodateien extrahieren. Laut den Entwicklern ist die KI-App auf mehrsprachige Daten trainiert und unterstützt auch die Transkription anderer Sprachen (zu Englisch). Der Test mit einem deutschsprachigen Audio-File brachte allerdings nicht mehr als undefiniertes Kauderwelsch hervor. Dafür ist das Tool Open Source und komplett kostenlos nutzbar – Sie benötigen dazu auch kein dediziertes Konto.

6. AudioPen

Wenn Sie nicht ohne Ihr Notizbuch (oder eine entsprechende App) auskommen, könnte das KI-Tool AudioPen sich zu Ihrer neuen Lieblings-App mausern. Die Software erfasst auf Knopfdruck Sprachnotizen jeglicher Art und erstellt daraus im Handumdrehen eine schriftliche Zusammenfassung. Und zwar in “schön”: Füllwörter oder Wiederholungen werden automatisiert eliminiert. Jede Aufnahme wandert direkt in das digitale Notizbuch und lässt sich anschließend durchsuchen, teilen oder auch in eine andere Sprache übersetzen. Auch bei AudioPen handelt es sich um eine vollständig webbasierte Applikation, die sich übrigens optional auch in Form einer Progressive Web App installieren lässt.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Das KI-Tool für Sprachnotizen ist kostenlos nutzbar, solange Sie sich auf Aufnahmen mit bis zu drei Minuten Länge und maximal zehn Notizen beschränken können. Für Ansprüche, die darüber hinausgehen, steht eine “Prime”-Version der App zur Verfügung, die mindestens 99 Dollar pro Jahr kostet – dafür aber uneingeschränkt nutzbar ist und eine Reihe zusätzlicher Funktionen bietet. (fm)

Dieser Beitrag ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation Computerworld.com erschienen.

Liebe Microsoft-Entscheider,

Ich möchte keine Hassliebe zu Visual Studio Code (VS Code) entwickeln. Aber ihr macht es mir wirklich schwer. Früher war VS Code einfach nur ein Editor, den man mit Hilfe von Add-Ons genau so konfiguriert hat, wie man es brauchte oder wollte. Deshalb habe ich das Tool bisher auch wirklich gerne für diverse Dev-Aufgaben in unterschiedlichen Programmiersprachen genutzt. Zum Beispiel, um:

• mit Extensions einen Python-Workflow aufzusetzen, der Datenbankfunktionen erschließt,
• eine Umgebung für das digitale Publishing von Büchern zu erstellen, oder
• ein Screenwriting-Projekt einzurichten.

Natürlich geht all das auch noch heute. Aber: Buchstäblich jede neue Funktion in Visual Studio Code dreht sich heute nur noch um ein Thema: KI. Das hat inzwischen Ausmaße angenommen, angesichts derer ich mir die Frage stelle, ob in Eurem Unternehmen überhaupt noch jemand am eigentlichen Editor arbeitet.

Die Release-Notes zu VS Code 1.127 sind ein gutes Beispiel: Abgesehen von einer Funktion, dreht sich auch hier alles nur um Agenten und Large Language Models (LLMs). Gleiches gilt auch für die Vorgängerversion. Der Trend ist klar erkennbar: VS Code entwickelt sich rasant weiter, vor allem in Richtung Frontend für Agenten. Alles andere scheint erst einmal nachrangig.

Manche mögen argumentieren, dass Microsofts Dev-Tool inzwischen so ausgereift ist, dass es an den Kernfunktionalitäten nicht mehr viel zu optimieren gibt – weshalb der Fokus nun eben vor allem darauf liegt, neue Nutzer über den KI-Trend anzuziehen. Das ist allerdings kein Grund dafür, dass all diese KI-Funktionen auf IDE-Ebene integriert werden müssen. Meiner Meinung nach sollte Euer Fokus eher darauf liegen, die native Erweiterbarkeit von VS Code zu fördern – statt keinen Stein auf dem anderen zu lassen, nur um KI-Funktionen zu nativen Elementen zu machen.

Im Grunde geht es Euch in meinen Augen vor allem darum, Visual Studio Code zum ersten Anlaufpunkt für KI zu machen – insbesondere für GitHub Copilot. Allerdings rückt so aus meiner Perspektive die Entwicklererfahrung zugunsten der Allgegenwärtigkeit von KI in den Hintergrund. Wenn Ihr wirklich glaubt, dass jeder User von VS Code ein „Agentic Development Environment“ (ADE) einer IDE vorzieht, liegt Ihr in meinen Augen völlig falsch.

KI-Tools werden zwar nicht wieder verschwinden. Ich glaube aber durchaus, dass es künftig zu einer Konsolidierung kommen wird.  Frontier-Modelle, die alles können und noch sechs weitere Features obendrauf packen, werden sich bald nur noch nur für große Anbieter lohnen, die ein Netz aus API-„Mautstellen“ darum herum errichten – und genug Geld haben, um entsprechende Rechenzentren zu betreiben.

Der allgemeine Trend geht bei KI eher hin zu kleineren, lokal gehosteten Modellen, die spezialisierte Tasks bewältigen – und mit deutlich weniger Aufwand zu trainieren, bereitzustellen und zu betreiben sind. Es macht also echt wenig Sinn, das Pferd hinter den Karren zu spannen – wie bei den nativen KI-Funktionen von VS Code.

Gleichzeitig habe ich die Hoffnung, dass es nicht mehr so lange dauert, bis die KI-Funktionen wieder aus Visual Studio Code herausgelöst und in ein Add-On verfrachtet werden. Bis es so weit ist, bleibt mir wohl nur, mich damit abzufinden, dass mein Lieblings-Editor zunehmend mit KI-Funktionen vollgestopft wird – ganz gleich, ob sie für meinen Anwendungsfall überhaupt Sinn machen oder nicht. Immerhin ist es (noch) möglich, das ganze KI-Zeug in VS Code zu deaktivieren.

Während ich diesen Text hier schreibe, habe ich gerade das Update auf VS Code 1.128 erhalten. Das enthält eine nutzwertige Funktion, die ich sicher oft nutzen werden: die Möglichkeit, Tastatur-Shortcuts auf Betriebssystemebene einzurichten. Ansonsten dreht sich auch bei diesem Update alles nur um eines: KI.

Besinnt Euch darauf, was Visual Studio Code groß gemacht hat – ansonsten riskiert Ihr auf lange Sicht, Benutzer zu verlieren.

Liebe Grüße,

ein genervter Visual-Studio-Code-Poweruser.

Dieser Artikel ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation Infoworld.com erschienen.

G# (GSharp) is moving forward as a programming language for Microsoft’s .NET platform, touted as bringing Go-, Kotlin-, and Swift-style ergonomics to the CLR (Common Language Runtime). The language is described by its creators as modern, simple, and accessible.

Although pre-1.0 and still growing, G# aims to be for people who want a small, predictable language with direct access to the .NET ecosystem. Developers will see imports, func, structs, slices, maps, channels, go, select, and for in iteration. Also important are nullable flow, direct calls into the CLR (Common Language Runtime), and built-in concurrency.

With G#, copyrighted in 2026, developers get value-oriented structs, reference-oriented classes, data structs, and data classes. For concurrency, G# uses scope for structured concurrency, async func and await for task-based asynchrony, and async sequence[T] for asynchronous streams. G# also makes use of the same Task and Task[T] types familiar from the .NET BCL (Base Class Library).

G# documentation is available on the GitHub site of Microsoft software engineer David Obando. “Every .NET type—your packages, third-party NuGet packages, the BCL—is callable from G# with the syntax you already know. CLR generics use G#’s bracket spelling, and method calls, properties, indexers, and for in over IEnumerable[T] all just work,” according to the website.

A Visual Studio Code extension for G3 can be found at marketplace.visualstudio.com. The extension adds syntax highlighting, language server features, build/run commands, and debugger configuration for .gs and .gsproj files. Developers can install the extension from within VS Code (search for “G#” in the Extensions view) or from the command line.

CyCognito, a leading exposure management platform, today introduced Continuous AI Pentesting. The new capability bakes AI-driven offensive pentesting directly into the platform, leveraging the rich context it already maintains for every exposed asset. This enables CyCognito to deliver AI pentesting as a continuous service, circumventing the cost and coverage constraints that confine comparable solutions to periodic, narrowly scoped engagements.

With this new solution, CyCognito addresses a major shift in the security ecosystem, driven by the latest advances in AI. Today’s models, with more advanced ones on the way, have lowered the bar for attackers. An attack campaign that once required a group of skilled threat actors can now be carried out by a low-skilled individual, in a fraction of the time and at relatively low cost. This signals a tectonic shift that compels defenders to adopt the same technology to keep pace and close the security gaps in their own environment.

Continuous AI Pentesting: Solution architecture, at a glance.

“AI pentesting is rapidly becoming part of every security team’s toolkit, and a lot of it is already being done in-house,” said Rob Gurzeev, CEO and co-founder of CyCognito. “But running offensive AI isn’t the hard part. The challenge is scale. AI pentesting today is typically limited to the top 1% of priority assets. Meanwhile, the other 99% is where a lot of attacks actually start, where adversaries find the low-hanging fruit and use it as a foothold for lateral movement.”

To provide AI pentesting coverage across that overlooked 99%, CyCognito built a distinct architecture that centers on the Target Graph, a contextual graph that bridges the AI pentesting solution and CyCognito’s three core modules:

• Exposure Assessment maps the external footprint, attributes every asset to the right part of the organization, and enriches it with business and stack context.
• Exposure Validation runs more than 100,000 deterministic tests continuously, freeing the AI pentesters to focus on high-judgment work.
• Threat Intelligence draws on the history of existing and emerging vulnerabilities, along with attacker playbooks and statistical models trained on past engagements, to anticipate attacker activity.

Together, these layers increase the effectiveness of the pentesting agents, equipping them with the rich context and exploitability evidence, dramatically improving the efficiency of every run.

The architecture is also built to be constantly self-evolving. Every new risk scenario AI pentesters uncover can be hardcoded into the Exposure Validation module, joining the deterministic tests it already runs. This frees the AI agents to pursue new threats, and also consolidates learnings from agentic tests in a way that will benefit every CyCognito customer.

In the announcement for this new feature, the company also shared some of the vulnerabilities:

• Unauthenticated access to a production CRM: an exposed MCP server allowed anonymous, natural-language queries against three million rows of account, opportunity, and financial data, with no credentials required.
• A publicly readable RAG index: an AI agent stack enforced authentication only on its API, leaving the knowledge base behind it, which held customer data, contracts, and internal communications, open to anyone on the internet.
• A building’s access controls exposed to the internet: a system running door locks, card readers, and CCTV sat unsegmented on the public internet alongside the organization’s AI document tools and chatbot, leaving physical entry reachable by a remote attacker.

These examples are just some of the risk scenarios identified through the work on this new capability, now running with select design partners, including major enterprises and Fortune 500 companies. Internally, CyCognito refers to the project as Project Kineto, after the Kinetograph, the first motion picture camera.

“The name echoes our vision for what AI pentesting should be,” said Gurzeev. “Security testing has always been a snapshot. AI lets us turn it into continuous motion: an always-on stream of change-aware tests that runs across your entire attack surface at machine speed, with the skill of a seasoned security expert.”

To go deeper on Continuous AI Pentesting, read the full announcement post: https://www.cycognito.com/blog/new-continuous-ai-pentesting/

About CyCognito

CyCognito is an external exposure management platform that reduces risk by discovering, testing and prioritizing security issues. 

The platform scans billions of websites, cloud applications and APIs and uses advanced AI to identify the most critical risks and guide remediation. Emerging companies, government agencies and Fortune 500 organizations rely on CyCognito to secure and protect from growing threats. For more information, visit https://www.cycognito.com.

Contact

VP Marketing

Igal Zeifman

CyCognito

igal.zeifman@cycognito.com

Across industries, a version of the same conversation is playing out in technology leadership meetings. Enterprises have deployed AI broadly, and foundation models keep getting more capable. Yet the outputs still feel generic, shaped by industry patterns rather than by the organization producing them.

McKinsey’s AI Trust Maturity Survey found that while overall AI maturity scores have improved, only about a third of organizations have reached a mature level of strategy and governance. Technical capability is advancing faster than organizational alignment. In my view, the gap is not a model problem. It is a context problem. Enterprises are feeding generic inputs into powerful models because sharing organizational context seamlessly with AI is neither easy nor intuitive today.

Building the analytical and creative capabilities to scale AI, something I explored in a recent piece on the left-brain and right-brain approach to enterprise AI, is necessary but not sufficient. Before either can function effectively, the enterprise needs something more fundamental. AI that actually understands the contextual fabric of the organization it is operating in. A frontier model has processed everything written about your sector, your competitors and your regulatory landscape. It cannot access the reasoning embedded in years of delivery decisions, the patterns encoded in how your teams scope and deliver work over time. That knowledge is organizational memory, and frontier models can’t get that easily. It exists inside every enterprise but has never been structured, connected or made available to any AI system. Without it, even the most capable model answers a generic version of your question.

The next competitive advantage in enterprise AI will not come from a better model. It will come from a better organizational context.

One global technology enterprise set out to solve this across its own operations, building a modular ecosystem of domain-specific agents grounded in its own data across contracting, talent and vendor management workflows. What emerged was not just operational efficiency but a shared intelligence layer connecting decisions across functions for the first time.

Competitive differentiation was never about the tools

Consider what actually separates high-performing enterprises from the rest. In a regulated industry like financial services or healthcare, organizations cannot meaningfully differentiate on product. A bank cannot offer substantially different products or services. A health system uses the same clinical protocols and the same electronic health record (EHR) platforms as its peers. What varies is everything underneath: the rigor of processes, the coherence of cross-functional decisions and the people who carry years of accumulated organizational judgment in how they make those decisions.

An organization with a proper context layer in place can say with precision that for this type of engagement, in this sector, with this risk profile, our institutional history tells us exactly where we stand. That level of specificity is what most enterprises have never made available to AI.

The enterprise AI brain that every organization has but has never assembled

Every enterprise already possesses what I think of as an enterprise AI brain. The problem is that it has never been assembled in one place. The data exists across contracts, project documentation, talent records, delivery metrics and the operational communications of daily execution — the informal reasoning that rarely makes it into formal systems.

None of the standard enterprise platforms were designed to connect this. A customer relationship management (CRM) system captures customer interactions. An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system captures transactions. A project management tool captures tasks and timelines. None of them captures the reasoning behind decisions and none of them surfaces a coherent picture of how the organization actually thinks and operates.

BCG’s study across hundreds of companies found that only 10% of AI value comes from the algorithms and another 20% from the technology that implements them, meaning the remaining 70% depends on people, processes and organizational change. The organizations extracting real value are those that have made their institutional knowledge available to AI in a structured, governed way.

Building a contextual AI fabric

A Contextual AI Fabric is the technical and organizational layer that makes the Enterprise AI Brain usable. It brings together unstructured data ingestion, semantic structuring, retrieval pipelines and governed model access to give AI systems the organizational context they need to produce outputs that are genuinely specific to your enterprise rather than generically accurate about your industry. It rests on three pillars. Core is the secure, governed and interoperable foundation that AI operations run on. Context is reliable, traceable access to the organization’s data, processes, knowledge and history. Coordination connects people, agents, applications and systems into process-driven workflows with clear controls and accountability, so the organization acts as one rather than a set of disconnected functions.

The data layer is where most organizations underestimate the work. Contracts, project reports, talent assessments and operational communications require extraction, chunking, embedding and indexing before a model can retrieve and reason over them meaningfully.

The semantic layer is what makes retrieval meaningful. Even well-ingested data fails if functions use different terminology for the same concepts. What legal calls a contract, delivery calls a scope. Without a shared ontology, AI systems remain precise about the wrong thing. And retrieval alone, however well-structured, only takes an organization so far. Retrieval surfaces the right information at the moment of a query, but it does not give a model genuine memory of the organization. The real source of unique, organization-level relevance comes from training domain-specific small language models on this context directly, models that carry organizational memory forward rather than fetching it fresh every time. That is what ultimately separates a Contextual AI Fabric from a well-organized database.

The governance layer is not an add-on. Access controls, data lineage, approval thresholds and human checkpoints need to be designed in before any agent goes into production. Security is not a layer you add afterward. It is the condition under which organizational AI is worth building. If the institutional intelligence that makes your enterprise distinct gets absorbed into a frontier model’s training data, it becomes everyone’s baseline. That is an architectural decision made, or avoided, at the point of deployment.

Proprietary by design

The institutional knowledge that makes up a contextual AI fabric — delivery history, commercial patterns, talent intelligence and operating culture — is proprietary in ways no external model can replicate. This is as much a security imperative as it is a competitive one. Organizational context, once exposed, cannot be unexposed.

Most enterprises are using AI to automate existing processes rather than questioning whether those processes should be redesigned entirely. The organizations extracting the most value are those willing to ask whether their current operating model, built before GenAI existed, is the one they would build today. That question is harder than any technology decision, and it is also the most consequential one.

From context to coordinated action

Context alone is not enough. When a delivery risk surfaces in project data, the talent function needs to respond. When a commercial signal changes in contract data, operations need to recalibrate. This kind of cross-functional coordination, driven by shared organizational intelligence rather than siloed data, is where the real value of enterprise AI shows up and where the absence of a shared context layer becomes most visible.

A global leader in digital payments and business services found its AI deployments across payroll, HR and risk compliance, each running in isolation, with no shared governance or common data foundation. Once the organization established a unified governance backbone connecting its operational data through a shared retrieval layer, business users could query across domains in plain language and new use cases across fraud analytics, forecasting and policy extraction became extensible without rebuilding infrastructure for each one. The shift was not in the models. It was in the shared foundation underneath them.

The leadership question behind the technology question

The enterprises pulling ahead in AI are not winning on model quality but on organizational memory. The ones that have done the hard work of structuring their institutional knowledge into a governed, secure Contextual AI Fabric are giving their AI something no competitor can replicate: the accumulated intelligence of how the business actually operates.

For CIOs, the question is no longer which model to deploy. It is whether the organization has built the foundation that would make any model worth deploying.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Your CFO has a simple question. “We’re spending more on AI. What are we getting for it?” Most CIOs cannot answer it — not because AI isn’t creating value, but because the accounting systems we inherited were built before AI existed as a category of labor.

This June, the conversation shifted from token maxing to token cutting. The New York Times reported that Meta, Uber, Walmart and Amazon are capping employee AI usage. Uber blew through its 2026 AI budget in four months. Satya Nadella started framing it as human capital versus token capital.

All of that is true. None of it answers the CFO. Capping tokens is an input lever, not an output measure. And the human-versus-token framing names two sources of labor when the reality is four.

The enterprise now has 4 sources of labor

There are humans. There are humans assisted by AI. Humans are working alongside AI. And humans are managing AI. Sources two through four are all supervised machine labor at different intensities — none of them have a line item, a manager or an hourly rate. In our 2026 AI Labor Report, 78% of leaders view AI as both software and a labor force. The org chart has not caught up. Neither has the P&L.

Lexi Reese

Most enterprises are stuck at A-Level 1 with no accounting for any of it, while quietly sliding into A-Level 2. The job descriptions have not caught up. The budget has not caught up. You cannot upskill into a role that has not been named.

AI is the only category of work the modern enterprise has ever bought without a system of record for what it produced.

What you are actually running is supervised machine labor

The model does a first pass. A human makes it usable. One hundred percent of leaders we surveyed said AI work requires human review before it ships; 34% said substantial editing. That is a workforce with no manager, no hourly rate and no line on the income statement.

The accounting breaks in 3 places at once

Under GAAP: COGS if it helps produce the product, OpEx if it does work for you. The same workflow can hit all three buckets at once. A tier-one support resolution involves the human’s salary (OpEx), the AI’s tokens (COGS if support is a delivered service), and the supervisor’s review time (OpEx). Three buckets. One piece of work. No reconciliation. The token invoice arrives from Anthropic or OpenAI and gets coded to OpEx-software because that is what the bill looks like. Audit partners will be asking about this by next year.

When you call AI a tool, you book it like software. When you call it labor, you have to ask which kind and what it is producing.

The per-employee number is the wrong unit

Per-employee AI spend collapses a workforce into a per-head average. It hides the only number that matters: What AI is producing inside each workflow.

Lanai measured two teams inside the same finance organization. Same monthly prep and variance analysis. AI took the same amount of time to produce outputs of similar quality. The only variable was the model each team reached for by default — a choice nobody had made deliberately and nobody had seen until it was measured.

Lexi Reese

The gap existed for months before anyone saw it.

Faith-based budgeting — the organizational equivalent of putting money in the collection plate and hoping God handles the ROI — is what made it invisible.

Lexi Reese

AI labor orphaning

That is not a measurement problem. It is a category error. We call it AI Labor Orphaning. AI does the work. The output gets credited to the human who approved it. The token bill lands in OpEx-software. The supervision time absorbs into salaried hours nobody is auditing. Eighty-seven percent of leaders admitted AI output is sometimes or always credited entirely to the human employee. This is the last-click attribution problem of the AI era, running in reverse.

What fills the vacuum? Belief. Forty-three percent assume that if AI was involved, it contributed. Only twelve percent have a clear methodology. Seventy-nine percent are worried AI budgets will be cut because they cannot connect spend to results. The cuts are not coming because AI does not work. They are coming because nobody can prove that it did.

Capping tokens may look like responsible governance, but it is like turning off a staticky radio rather than tuning the dial. The companies cutting AI budgets in 2026 will discover in 2027 that they cut the workflows that worked alongside the ones that did not.

The real cost of AI is not the model. It is the redesign

Three layers. Most organizations only manage the first.

Lexi Reese

What to actually do

The 12% of organizations that can answer the CFO treat AI like every other category of labor — with a cost per AI Work Hour that is accounted for by a set of AI assistants, co-pilots and agents that are held accountable to performance standards. 

• Audit the four sources separately. Each A-Level has different token economics, SaaS implications and human redesign requirements.
• Find the embedded SaaS repricing before your next renewal. Pull your top 20 contracts. Ask whether AI features previously included are now priced incrementally.
• Redesign the human role at A-Level 2 before you scale it. You cannot upskill into a role that has not been named.
• Build a system of record before you build the next agent. Start with one department. Two weeks. You will find something that surprises you.
• Stop calling it a tool. Start calling it labor. The language determines the chart of accounts.

When your blended AI rate is $22 an hour, the conversation shifts from ‘we spent $340,000 on AI’ to ‘we acquired a skilled workforce at $22 an hour.’ That sentence is defensible. A vendor invoice is not.

The CIOs who will have a defensible AI story in 2027 are the ones who renamed the work in 2026. Not because technology changed. Because they finally built the accounting to see it.

Findings are drawn from the 2026 AI Labor Report, fielded by Wakefield Research with 200 senior technology leaders at US enterprises of 1,000-plus employees, March 20–April 8, 2026 (±6.9pp at 95% confidence).

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

A client called me last week with a problem I have been hearing about more often lately. They had made significant reserved instance commitments with a major cloud provider, overbuying for what they thought would be heavy AI training workloads. Now they were sitting on thousands of dollars in idle capacity every month. Their plan was simple: resell it to someone else. Except they couldn’t.

I have been doing cloud consulting for a long time, and this situation once had a straightforward solution. You went to the marketplace, listed your unused reservations, and found a buyer. The process was a bit clunky, but it worked. These days, the answer is far more complicated, and my client learned this the hard way.

AI has made this problem increasingly common. Companies initially committed to compute capacity based on ambitious training plans. Prototype projects were expected to scale, and inference workloads were projected to grow substantially. Then reality hit. Some projects did not materialize. Some models trained faster than expected. Some inference patterns were lighter than anticipated.

Many organizations now hold reserved capacity they can’t use, discard, or share without a complex, increasingly restricted process. This reality is something every company with significant cloud spend needs to clearly understand.

The history of cloud resale

There was once a functioning resale market for cloud reserved instances. AWS, for example, maintained a Reserved Instances Marketplace where companies that had purchased reserved capacity could sell those reservations to other AWS customers. This was a legitimate, AWS-sanctioned process. Companies would register as sellers, list their unused reservations with pricing and terms, and if a buyer appeared, the marketplace would facilitate the transaction.

The resale market was useful for companies that had overestimated their needs or whose business changes reduced their cloud consumption. Instead of simply absorbing the cost of unused commitments, they could recoup some of that investment by selling to other organizations with unmet demand. It created a secondary market that added liquidity to what was otherwise a rigid financial arrangement.

My client had some experience with this resale market a few years ago and assumed they could use it again. They were unpleasantly surprised to learn that the rules had changed.

AWS changes the rules

In January 2024, AWS implemented a significant policy change that effectively shut down the resale of EC2 Reserved Instances on its platform. AWS stopped allowing companies to resell their unused reserved capacity through the Reserved Instance Marketplace or any other official channel. If you have a reserved instance commitment with AWS, you are essentially stuck with it unless you can use it yourself or modify your reservation.

This change had a real impact on companies that had relied on resale as part of their cloud financial management strategy. It reduced flexibility and increased the risk of long-term reserved commitments. When I explained this AWS policy change to my client’s representatives, I could hear the frustration in their voices. They had made their commitment in good faith, carefully modeled their expected AI workloads, and now faced the reality that there was no easy exit.

The reasoning behind this change is not entirely clear, but AWS likely viewed capacity resales as something that complicated their billing and commitment models without providing enough benefit to the overall ecosystem. Regardless of the company’s reasons, the primary resale path for the largest cloud provider has been effectively closed.

What options still exist?

What can companies do now when they find themselves with reserved capacity they no longer need? The first possibility is to work directly with the cloud provider to modify or exchange the reservation if it is convertible. Some reservation types allow modifications, such as changing the instance type, region, or tenancy. This will not eliminate the commitment, but it may help companies better align their reservations with actual workload needs.

The second option is to use third-party brokers and marketplaces that operate independently of the cloud providers. Although AWS has shut down its official resale channel, brokers and marketplaces still facilitate resale arrangements for other cloud providers and for some AWS scenarios. These arrangements can be more complex and carry more risk, but they remain a possibility for companies determined to move unused capacity.

The third alternative is to optimize usage. Companies can invest in better utilization monitoring, workload placement, and automation to ensure that reserved capacity is used as efficiently as possible. This does not recover the money already spent, but it reduces future waste.

My client explored all three alternatives and found that each had significant limitations. Modifications were possible, but only within a narrow range. Third-party brokers were interested, but the process was opaque and uncertain. Optimization helped, but it could not eliminate the fundamental overcommitment they had already made.

The broader implications

Cloud commitments are more rigid than many enterprises initially realize because they lack a liquid market and because providers control modifications, transfers, or cancellations. Right now, I see this pattern most often in the AI space. Companies commit to massive amounts of compute for training and inference based on projections that rarely reflect the actual workloads. Then they are surprised to find themselves locked into payments. The AI boom has led to significant overcommitment because enterprises remain unaware that the resale mechanisms that once existed have been largely shut down.

This is why cloud financial management has become such an important discipline. Companies need to be far more thoughtful about how they commit to cloud resources, how they model their future consumption, and how they build flexibility into their cloud strategies. The days of assuming you can always resell your way out of an overcommitment are effectively over, at least with AWS.

For Azure and Google Cloud, the resale landscape is slightly different, but the same general principles apply. These providers have their own capacity transfer policies and, like AWS, those policies can change at any time. Companies should understand their options before making large, committed purchases and build contingency plans in case their actual usage diverges from their projections—or if resale policies change.

The bottom line is that reselling unused reserved cloud instances is far more complicated than it sounds. The market is not as open as it once was, the options are limited, and the providers themselves hold most of the cards. My client got burned, and I doubt they will be the only one. Companies that want to optimize their cloud spending should focus on accurate forecasting, thoughtful commitment sizing, and ongoing optimization rather than relying on resale as a safety valve. That approach worked at one point, but those days are largely gone.

If you ask us in an official setting, our official position is that software engineering norms still apply. Rigorous CI/CD pipelines, elegant architectural patterns, and an unyielding commitment to maintainable code remain the standard. We will use weighty words like “determinism,” “scalability,” “idempotency,” and “domain-driven design.”

But behind closed doors, late at night, bathed in the glow of a dark-mode IDE, a different and more sordid reality is exposed. Hunched over the console with a manic gleam in the eye, the programmer has become power-drunk on LLMs. Like mad wizards casting spells, we summon the awesome powers of models and agents to satisfy our every programming whim—and commit acts of software engineering that would make Fred Brooks blush.

Let’s just be honest about what is actually happening.

Esoteric knowledge is superfluous

Forget OOP and FP. Forget the CAP theorem, the holy crusade of DRY, and the design patterns. Honestly, you can even forget what frameworks, runtimes, and deployment platforms you are using. The AI will figure out what is best to use and understand what is already in place. We have more mental bandwidth for working on our side project (a novel about AI taking over the world). 

Of course, I exaggerate. A little.

The docs are dead to us

We still say RTFM, but the truth is, we haven’t really read a page of vendor documentation since 2023. Stack Overflow, once our Internet Mecca, is a husk. When a package throws a weird exception, we don’t trace the execution path or read the release notes. We highlight the red text, copy the entire 200-line stack trace, dump it into the chat, and wait for the machine to spoon-feed us the solution.

Better yet, we just have the agentic IDE spot the error, divine a solution, and ask us if it’s OK. We might glance at the problem-solution description, if we have gone around the circle on the problem for a few cycles. Maybe. If we don’t have the agent set up for auto-confirm.

We used to buy heavy tomes like “Rust In Action” that were more like masonry blocks than literature. Now? We just ask an AI to transliterate our JavaScript logic into Rust. We are no longer engineers methodically learning a system. We are glorified copy-paste orchestrators hoping that the stochastic parrot behind the prompt guesses the syntax correctly.

We ignore how the back end is wired

We act like we meticulously designed the data flows, carefully crafted the relational constraints, and mindfully mapped the API relationships. The reality is rather more disturbing: We asked the AI to scaffold a modern deployment, hooked it up to a back-end database, and just sort of… ran it.

It created security rules we don’t fully understand. They do seem to work, however, which is nice. 

It generated a schema that we skimmed for about four seconds. It looks reasonable.

It wrote infrastructure-as-code scripts that provisioned cloud resources we are hoping don’t blow a hole in the budget. Presumably, whoever is in charge of that will manage it by stuffing the metrics into another chatbot.

We nodded, committed the code, and went to lunch. If management asked us to manually deploy the stack from scratch, configure the environment variables, and wire the API routes without our chat window, we would give them a vacant stare.

We understand that management is also using AI to manage the project.

Our tests are uncomfortably incestuous

Test-driven development (TDD) used to be a beautiful dream, ever just beyond reach. It made us feel glorious and despondent at turns. It would burden us with sprawling dependencies if implemented too religiously. (See The Grug Brained Developer in this regard.)

But now we can attain 95% test coverage almost effortlessly. Why not just add them in while we are auto-generating everything else?

We can now wax at length to anyone who will listen about our astounding test coverage and our automated quality assurance. Unit tests, integration tests, smoke tests, you name it. What we conveniently leave out is that the AI wrote the complex application logic, and then we asked the exact same AI to write the test suite to validate the code it just dreamed up.

It is a hermetically sealed loop of algorithmic self-congratulation. The mocks, the edge case, and the assertions are an echo chamber of the model’s original assumptions. The machine is grading its own homework, giving itself an A+.

And we are happy to accept this because, beautifully, when the code has to change, the AI will effortlessly hallucinate new tests to adapt to the churn.

We pass off the AI’s architecture as strategy

AI can produce astonishing design documents. Truly breathtaking. They are cogent, they’re beautifully formatted, and they seamlessly bridge the gap between high-level business goals and granular technical specs. They even include those auto-generated sequence diagrams that wow management.

When we present these spotless architectural proposals in the Tuesday sprint planning meeting, we lean back, take a long sip of coffee, and humbly wave away the team’s praise.

What we don’t mention is that we spent exactly four seconds generating it.

Are these AI-generated documents just as liable as human ones to hide severe, mortal flaws in scope and alignment? Absolutely. They might contain a foundational logic bomb that will eventually doom the entire project. But the markdown is so crisp, and the bullet points are so persuasive, that the eye just glides right over it. We will never truly know the depth of the disaster until it is far too late. But hey, we’ll burn that bridge when production catches fire. Until then, we are strategic visionaries.

We’re addicted to vibe coding (but only in secret)

We loudly mock the term on social media. We roll our eyes in Slack channels when the kids on TikTok talk about vibe coding their new startups. We fiercely cling to our identities as hardened, serious developers who understand memory management, garbage collection, and bitwise operators. We are professionals, damn it.

But late at night, when the managers are asleep and no one is looking? We absolutely love it. We love just throwing a chaotic, half-baked thought at the canvas, pouring a drink, and watching the AI magically build a functioning user interface based entirely on our long-deferred whims. I may finally build that working Ultima V clone. The thrill of typing “Create an app that tracks my cryptocurrency portfolio but makes it look like the interface from Neuromancer” and having it appear 30 seconds later is heady stuff.

The more deeply rooted in the hard, old-school realities of programming, the more profound is the joy the developer finds in the possibility of AI coding. 

We beat the problem into submission with prompts

Like Adam Sandler in “Uncut Gems,” we are convinced the next round will fix everything. This is us with prompts. When things are going really off the rails, instead of putting our boots on and wading into the brambles of complexity, we resort to tonal adjustments. These range from the condescending:

This problem is not fixed. Look at it closely. The error is right here.

To the desperate:

We have been working on this same problem for hours now!

To the pathetic:

Can’t you find a different approach to try?!

The astonishing part? It often works.

But there is no poetry left at the bottom of the rabbit hole; it is verbal warfare. When the context window collapses, when the regressions start cascading, and when the AI stubbornly refuses to follow the most basic rules of temporal logic, the mask of professionalism drops away and something far more atavistic makes its appearance. We stop asking nicely, stop trying to understand the why, delete the pleasantries, and capslock our intent.

What we have here is a failure to communicate!

We feed the same failing stack trace back into the prompt over and over and over again, aggressively hammering the constraints, explicitly forbidding certain libraries, and pasting in release notes just to confirm that the AI lacks the latest APIs. We force the model down a narrower and narrower path until the code finally stops throwing errors. We don’t actually debug anymore, trace variables, or step through functions. We just apply relentless, iterative pressure until the machine surrenders. We beat it into submission. And then, we push to production.

In fact, there is a real skill here—a sheer “will to completion” that remains in the act of building software. We invest just as much time, energy, and heart wrestling the bot as we ever did emitting syntax.

A blacker box

The only profession more given over to using AI like a cursed Level 13 artifact than programming is writing. Writing of course is far more open to public scrutiny than code.

And while my tongue has been firmly in my cheek here, my faith in coders as good guys makes me more curious to see what we create than troubled by the dangers. 

It was once the case that only other programmers could understand what programmers were doing, what they were producing. Now not even that is true. Only the machine knows what the machine is doing. We just keep it tethered to our aims. Hopefully.

As the CSO grows in prominence, security leaders are increasingly earning a seat at the executive table, reporting directly to the CEO with the expectation to help drive business strategy and ensure organizational success.

Reporting to the CEO unlocks greater access and influence for security leaders, and while CSOs who report to their organization’s CIO still have clout, it’s a very different experience picking up the phone to speak directly with the CEO as a strategic partner.

Regardless of reporting structure, CSOs must clearly understand what they are being tasked to solve. That might sound simple, but making the leap to being a CEO’s direct report requires a new perspective, a different set of skills, and a business-level focus on metrics to do so.

We asked several current CSOs, CEOs, and IT staffing experts for advice on how security executives can best navigate a direct reporting relationship with their CEO. Offering insights below are George Gerchow, CSO at Bedrock Data and member of the IANS faculty; Matt Chiodi, CSO of Cerby; Chris Schueler, CEO at Cyderes; and Greg Fuller, vice president of the Technology Skills Suite at Skillsoft.

1. Understand how the CEO views your role

Most CEOs expect that, when you report directly to them, you fully own your functional area. Whether it’s cybersecurity, operations, or finance, they look to you as the expert in that domain. The CEO may have opinions, but ultimately, you are expected to lead and provide direction.

CEOs expect their CSO to be a true strategic partner, not just a risk reporter — connecting cybersecurity to revenue protection, regulatory compliance, customer trust, and operational resilience. In turn, CSOs should expect CEOs to treat governance as a strategic enabler, not a bureaucratic necessity.

2. Power up on skills vital to your organization at an executive level

On the technology side, AI and machine learning, cloud security, incident response, zero trust architecture, and governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) are the areas where threats evolve fastest and strategic leadership has the greatest impact. 

Equally important are “power skills”: communication, critical thinking, adaptability, and emotional intelligence. The ability to translate complex risk into business terms is what separates a strong CSO from a purely technical one. Skills, not titles, define effectiveness in the eyes of a CEO.

3. Take advantage of your direct access

Direct access to the CEO will enable you to influence strategy, shape resilience planning, and ensure cybersecurity is treated as a business imperative rather than a cost center. That authority is strongest when the CEO understands cybersecurity as a strategic lever, not just a technical function. 

While a direct reporting relationship gives you access to the CEO, it also comes with the responsibility to operate at that level. You need to provide clear, executive-level visibility into your cybersecurity program.

4. Brush up on business translation

A CSO who leads with business alignment will always carry more influence when they can translate risk into business language rather than technical jargon. Building programs that must survive an IPO, a FedRAMP audit, and real customer scrutiny forces you to tie security to revenue and trust.

The most valuable skill is translation — defining technical risk in terms of executive action and business impact that a CEO and a board can act on. You must build trust through transparency. These are the human skills that complement technology, creating a collaborative human-AI dynamic where leaders make faster, better-informed decisions. 

5. Treat conversations as risk assessment opportunities

Highly effective security leaders treat every business conversation as a risk conversation in disguise. That mindset is what largely separates a great CSO from a great technologist. Earn the CEO’s trust by speaking business first, security second. Translate every risk into revenue, reputation, or regulatory exposure.

Remember, a good CEO wants a translator, not an alarm system. They expect no surprises, a clear read on the risks that matter, and a security leader who helps the business move faster rather than slowing it down.

6. Define what a successful relationship should look like and put it in writing

Regardless of the reporting relationship, start by defining the end goal and putting it in writing. It will evolve over time, but having that initial clarity is critical. This is especially important when you’re new in a role and aiming to make your first 60, 90, or 120 days, and your first year, successful. In such cases, it’s essential to align early.

Do that collaboratively, and document it.

7. Prioritize trust and candor

The CEO needs to trust that the CSO isn’t sandbagging, and the CSO needs enough psychological safety to deliver bad news fast. When those conditions exist, security becomes a strategic asset — not a cost center.

To that end, focus on clear communication above all, and present yourself as part of a team, not a solo player. Stay calm under pressure during incidents, and treat people as peers rather than policing them. The leaders who last build trust before they need it.

8. Treat governance as a strategic competitive advantage

The strongest partnerships also share a commitment to governance as a competitive advantage.

Governance is the brakes that let you drive fast safely. When a CSO and CEO are aligned on that principle, the organization can innovate with AI while maintaining oversight and protecting against unnecessary risk. The result is an organization that does not just react to threats but builds resilience into how it operates.

9. Set clear goals and measure progress

Setting clear goals and measuring progress against those goals is essential. When expectations are clear, the areas you need to focus on become much clearer. It doesn’t solve every problem, but aligning early with your leadership, whether that’s a CEO or a CIO, can significantly reduce the pressure you may feel.

Also, never let your boss be surprised. This is where being clear on goals and consistently tracking both leading and lagging metrics becomes especially important, particularly in a direct reporting relationship with the CEO.

10. Be willing to endure challenge and discomfort

Finally, persistence and a willingness to endure discomfort for something that matters more than the pain itself are critical to surviving in this relationship. The role of a cybersecurity leader is often thankless. If you’re doing your job well, no one really notices.

T. Schneider / Shutterstock

Was ist Claude Mythos?

Claude Mythos ist ein KI-Modell, das von Anthropic entwickelt wurde und für Anwendungen in den Bereichen Cybersicherheit und Gesundheitswesen optimiert ist. Ursprünglich wurde Mythos 5 im April einer kleinen Gruppe geprüfter Technologiepartner zugänglich gemacht – im Vorfeld eines geplanten, breiter angelegten Rollouts.

Zu diesem Zweck rief das KI-Unternehmen das Projekt „Glasswing“ ins Leben, ein Konsortium, das Infrastrukturanbietern, Open-Source-Entwicklern und großen Technologieunternehmen einen begrenzten, kontrollierten Zugriff zu Mythos gewährt. Ziel der Initiative ist es, Verteidigern zu ermöglichen, Schwachstellen schneller aufzuspüren und zu beheben, als Angreifer sie identifizieren können. Das erscheint auch dringend notwendig, setzen diese doch zunehmend selbst auf KI-gestützte Werkzeuge.

Über welche Fähigkeiten verfügt Claude Mythos?

Die ersten 50 Partner von Project Glasswing konnten mithilfe von Mythos mehr als 10.000 Schwachstellen mit hohem oder kritischem Schweregrad in allen gängigen Betriebssystemen und Webbrowsern aufspüren.

So identifizierte das Modell Sicherheitslücken, die selbst den fähigsten Sicherheitsforschern jahrelang entgangen waren – etwa einen 27 Jahre alten Fehler in OpenBSD. Zudem hat Mythos bewiesen, dass es mehrere Schwachstellen miteinander verknüpfen kann.

Wie schränkt Anthropic den Zugang zu Claude Mythos ein?

Anthropic teilte bei der Vorstellung von Claude Mythos mit, es schränke die Verfügbarkeit des Spitzen-KI-Modells bewusst ein, da dessen Fähigkeiten von Angreifern leicht missbraucht werden könnten.

Im Juni wurde die Technologie dann für weitere 150 Organisationen freigegeben. Alle Mythos-Partner müssen hierbei aber zustimmen, dass ihre Daten 30 Tage lang zu Sicherheitsüberwachungszwecken gespeichert werden.

Am 15. Juni verhängte die Trump-Regierung allerdings Exportbeschränkungen für Claude Fable 5 und Claude Mythos 5. Diese sollten ausländischen Staatsangehörigen sowohl innerhalb als auch außerhalb der USA den Zugang verwehren. Am 30. Juni wurden die Beschränkungen jedoch bereits wieder aufgehoben.

Was ist Claude Fable?

Für einen breiteren Einsatzbereich bietet Anthropic Claude Fable 5 an. Das Modell basiert auf derselben technischen Grundlage wie Mythos. Es verfügt jedoch über strenge Sicherheitsmechanismen, die den Betrieb in als „riskant“ eingestuften Bereichen der Cybersicherheit einschränken. Alle als problematisch deklarierten Anfragen werden stattdessen automatisch an das ältere und weniger leistungsfähige Large Language Model (LLM) Opus 4.8 weitergeleitet.

Wie nutzen Security-Partner von Anthropic den Zugriff auf Mythos?

Cisco, einer der Projekt-Glasswing-Partner, hat seine „Foundry Security Spec“ als Open-Source-Lösung veröffentlicht. Hierbei handelt es sich um ein modellunabhängiges Framework für Sicherheitstests, das es anderen Anbietern und Sicherheitsexperten in Unternehmen ermöglichen soll, ähnliche Arbeitsabläufe zu entwickeln, ohne bei Null anfangen zu müssen.

Vor kurzem betonten Vertreter von Cisco auf einer Online-Veranstaltung, dass Verteidiger KI nutzen können, um Sicherheitsprobleme wesentlich schneller und in größerem Umfang zu identifizieren, zu bestätigen und zu beheben. Ältere Modelle, die nach dem Prinzip „eine Schwachstelle finden und patchen“ funktionieren, seien nicht mehr zeitgemäß. Dies liege daran, dass Angreifer KI einsetzen, um den Weg von der Entdeckung einer Schwachstelle bis zu deren Ausnutzung zu beschleunigen. Cisco wiederum setzt KI intern bereits in der Defensive ein, um 1,8 Milliarden Zeilen Code im gesamten Produktportfolio zu scannen.

Gleichzeitig betonen die Experten, dass kleinere Unternehmen keinen Zugriff auf eingeschränkte KI-Modelle benötigen, um ihre Sicherheit zu verbessern. In solchen Betrieben lasse sich stattdessen mehr erreichen, indem grundlegende Sicherheitsmaßnahmen optimiert werden. Hierzu zählen laut Cisco unter anderem Authentifizierung, Netzwerk-Segmentierung, Zero Trust und die Behebung aktiv ausgenutzter Schwachstellen.

Bieten andere KI-Anbieter etwas Vergleichbares zu Claude Mythos an?

Mythos ist das prominenteste Beispiel für Frontier-KI-Modelle. Mit ihnen kann die Suche nach Zero-Day-Lücken in einem Tempo und Ausmaß automatisiert werden, die weit über die Fähigkeiten menschlicher Teams hinausgeht.

Allerdings arbeiten auch etliche andere Anbieter an hochleistungsfähigen, auf Sicherheit ausgerichteten „Frontier“-KI-Modellen. Zudem gibt es andere leistungsstarke Open-Source-Modelle, die sich problemlos für die Cybersicherheitsforschung nutzen lassen. Claude Mythos ist also bei weitem nicht die einzige verfügbare Option.

So werden beispielsweise die Modelle GPT-5.4-Cyber sowie GPT-5.5 von OpenAI genutzt, um Schwachstellen zu erkennen und zu analysieren. Auch in der Malware-Analyse und der Bedrohungsmodellierung kommen sie zum Einsatz. Zugang zu diesen Technologien können Sicherheitsanbieter, Unternehmen und Forscher über das Programm „Trusted Access for Cyber“ (TAC) von OpenAI erhalten.

Zusätzlich hat das chinesische Cybersicherheitsunternehmen 360 Security Technology mit Tulongfeng ein System entwickelt, das als Gegenstück zu Anthropics „Mythos“ beschrieben wird.

Privat lassen sich leistungsstarke offene Modelle – darunter DeepSeek V3.2 von DeepSeek und Llama 4 von Meta – auf GPU-Infrastrukturen betreiben und in der Cybersicherheitsforschung einsetzen. Fugu des japanischen Anbieters Sakana AI ist eine weitere Option in dieser Kategorie.

Was kritisieren Cybersicherheitsexperten an Claude Mythos?

Kritiker aus dem Cybersecurity-Bereich räumen ein, dass Claude Mythos zweifellos hochentwickelt sei. Die Marketing-Behauptung, wonach es zuverlässig produktive IT-Systeme lahmlegen könne, übersteige jedoch die tatsächlichen Fähigkeiten.

Darüber hinaus beklagen sich Sicherheitsexperten – etwa in Podcasts – über die übertrieben restriktiven Sicherheitsmechanismen von Claude Fable: Bereits Anfragen, einen sicherheitsrelevanten Blogbeitrag zusammenzufassen oder sogar das Wort „Exploit“ zu buchstabieren, würden auf das deutlich schwächere Modell Opus 4.8 zurückgestuft. Dadurch würden selbst alltägliche Aufgaben in der Informationssicherheit unnötig erschwert.

Andere Experten warnen davor, dass Frontier-KI-Modelle anfällig für False Positives seien. Eher grundsätzlich ist die Kritik, dass das schnellere Aufspüren von mehr Schwachstellen das eigentliche Problem nicht löst, nämlich zuverlässig Sicherheitslücken zu beheben oder nicht-technische Angriffsvektoren wie Social Engineering zu verhindern.

Wie sollten CISOs auf Mythos reagieren?

Die Nachrichtendienste der „Five Eyes“ (USA, Großbritannien, Kanada, Australien und Neuseeland)  warnen davor, dass hochmoderne KI-Modelle wie Claude Mythos „sowohl offensive als auch defensive Cyber-Fähigkeiten grundlegend verändern werden“ – und zwar in einem Zeitraum von Monaten statt Jahren.

„Während KI uns dabei helfen wird, die Cyberabwehr im Laufe der Zeit zu verbessern, erhöht sie zugleich Geschwindigkeit, Ausmaß und Raffinesse von Cyberbedrohungen“, heißt es in der Erklärung der Gruppe. Unternehmen sollen daher KI nutzen, um ihre Abwehrmechanismen im Rahmen umfassenderer Strategien zur Stärkung der Cybersicherheits-Resilienz zu verbessern.

Die meisten Unternehmen seien jedoch bei weitem noch nicht darauf vorbereitet, was dies für ihre Bedrohungsmodelle bedeutet, warnt ein Experte. „Wir verfügen heute über KI-Systeme, die realistische Angriffswege über Software, Anbieter und kritische Infrastrukturen hinweg schneller abbilden können, als menschliche Angreifer sie erfassen können“, erläutert Joe Hubback, Partner und CISO beim Beratungsunternehmen Elixirr sowie ehemaliger McKinsey-Partner. Dadurch, dass „Fähigkeiten der ‚Mythos-Klasse‘ vor der breiten kommerziellen Einführung stünden, handle es sich nicht mehr um „ein Nischenproblem der Forschung“, ergänzt er. Vielmehr sei es jetzt ein Faktor, den jedes Unternehmen in sein Bedrohungsmodell einbeziehen müsse, so der Experte.

Auch ein Bericht der Cloud Security Alliance warnt davor, dass KI die Zeitspanne zwischen der Entdeckung einer Schwachstelle und deren Ausnutzung drastisch verkürzt habe. Damit seien herkömmliche Sicherheitsmodelle, die auf „Patchen und Reagieren“ basieren, überholt. Unternehmen sollten sich vielmehr auf anhaltende Wellen von Schwachstellen einstellen, die durch „Project Glasswing“ und andere Quellen mittels KI aufgedeckt werden.

„Die bei Mythos beobachteten Fähigkeiten werden schon bald breiter verfügbar sein. Dadurch wird sich die Anzahl sowie Häufigkeit komplexer, neuartiger Angriffe, denen sich Unternehmen gegenübersehen, drastisch erhöhen“, heißt es in der Warnung. Sicherheitsverantwortliche müssten daher ihre Verteidigungsstrategien auf einen „Mythos-ready“-Ansatz umstellen, der auf kontinuierlichem Schwachstellenmanagement, schnellerer Priorisierung und verbesserter Reaktion auf Sicherheitsvorfälle basiert. (tf)

Dieser Artikel basiert auf einem Beitrag von CSO.

Golden Sikorka – shutterstock.com

Das Onlinezugangsgesetz (OZG) hat 2017 den Anspruch formuliert, Verwaltungsleistungen digital und medienbruchfrei nach dem Once-Only-Prinzip (OOP) zu machen und sie damit auf Reifegrad 4 zu bringen. Fast ein Jahrzehnt danach sind jedoch erst 28 Prozent der Verwaltungsleistungen vollständig digitalisiert, 34 Prozent existieren noch offline. Den Reifegrad 4 erreichen sogar nur 14 Prozent der Behörden, fast zwei Drittel (65 Prozent) haben keinen verbindlichen Termin dafür. So lautet das zentrale Ergebnis der Studie „Digitalisierung in der öffentlichen Verwaltung 2026“, die CIO und COMPUTERWOCHE mit den Partnern UiPath und Materna durchgeführt haben und an der 316 Entscheiderinnen und Entscheider aus deutschen Behörden teilnahmen.

Kaum Erfolgskontrolle bei Digitalisierungsprojekten

Das Automatisierungspotenzial der Verwaltungsaufgaben liegt im Schnitt bei 49 Prozent, tatsächlich automatisiert sind bislang nur 23 Prozent. Diese Lücke von 26 Prozentpunkten deutet darauf hin, dass die Bereitschaft zur Digitalisierung vorhanden ist, es an der Umsetzung jedoch hapert. End-to-End digitalisiert sind 32 Prozent der Prozesse, mit Dunkelverarbeitung laufen erst 17 Prozent.

Für Dirk Moeller, Regional Vice President Public Sector bei UiPath, zeigt dieses Ergebnis, dass „die öffentliche Verwaltung kein Erkenntnisproblem, sondern ein Umsetzungsproblem hat. Fast die Hälfte der Verwaltungsaufgaben könnte automatisiert werden, tatsächlich ist es aber erst knapp ein Viertel. Der nächste Digitalisierungsschub entsteht daher nicht durch weitere Einzellösungen, sondern durch orchestrierte End-to-End-Prozesse, in denen Menschen, Fachverfahren, Daten, Roboter und KI-Agenten kontrolliert zusammenarbeiten.“

UiPath GmbH

Immerhin ein Drittel der Behörden führt 2026 aktiv Digitalisierungsprojekte durch, weitere 29 Prozent planen die nächste Welle für 2027. Die Vorhaben sind breit angelegt, in knapp drei Viertel der Fälle hierarchieübergreifend (74 Prozent) und mit externer Begleitung (73 Prozent). Doch es gibt ein Gefälle nach Behördengröße: Während 40 Prozent der Häuser mit 1000 und mehr Beschäftigten Projekte aktiv realisieren, sind es nur 19 Prozent der kleineren Behörden mit weniger als 250 Beschäftigten.

Ob die Projekte tatsächlich Wirkung entfalten, weiß häufig niemand, da nur elf Prozent den Digitalisierungserfolg systematisch und weitere 29 Prozent gelegentlich messen. Über ein Viertel der Befragten (26 Prozent) verzichtet auf eine Erfolgskontrolle. Dabei zeigt sich: Wer die Digitalisierung verantwortet, misst sie häufiger: Kontrollieren 58 Prozent der IT- und Digitalisierungsverantwortlichen den Fortschritt, sind es bei der Fachverwaltung nur 42 Prozent.

IT-Infrastruktur-APIs und Register als Reifegrad-4-Verhinderer

Der langsame Fortschritt auf dem Weg zu Reifegrad 4 ist vor allem auf Defizite in der IT-Infrastruktur zurückzuführen: Die Hälfte der Behörden bewertet diese im Hinblick auf OOP und Reifegrad 4 als „schlecht“ oder „sehr schlecht“, nur 21 Prozent als „gut“ oder „sehr gut“. APIs haben ebenfalls erst 49 Prozent, und Interoperabilität mit anderen Behörden besteht nur in 44 Prozent der Fälle. Gerade einmal sieben Prozent nutzen zudem standardisierte Datenmodelle wie XÖV; lediglich 17 Prozent können Datensätze systemübergreifend eindeutig identifizieren.

Dramatisch ist die Lage bei den Registern, von denen nur acht Prozent Once-Only-fähig sind. Über ein Viertel der Behörden (27 Prozent) führt ihre wichtigsten Register auf Papier, 38 Prozent verwalten sie in Excel. Als größte Hürden nennen 36 Prozent der Befragten technische Defizite und ein Drittel den Personalmangel.

EfA und Cloud: Akzeptanz hoch, Umsetzung ausbaufähig

Der „Einer für alle“-Ansatz (EfA) soll die Verwaltung von Mehrfacharbeit befreien: Hat eine Behörde eine funktionsfähige Lösung entwickelt, stellt sie diese anderen zur Nachnutzung bereit. 86 Prozent der Behörden bewerten das Modell prinzipiell positiv, doch die Bilanz bei der Umsetzung ist ernüchternd. Erst magere 19 Prozent nutzen EfA-Lösungen oder stellen sie bereit. Lediglich 18 Prozent derjenigen mit EfA-Praxiserfahrung beurteilen die Gebrauchsfähigkeit als „gut“ oder „sehr gut“, 14 Prozent dagegen als „schlecht“ oder „sehr schlecht“ und 37 Prozent als „eher schlecht“. Als größte Bremsen werden rechtliche Unsicherheiten (39 Prozent), fehlende Standards (37 Prozent) und föderale Unterschiede (35 Prozent) genannt.

Weniger zäh verläuft die Cloud-Adaption. Immerhin 39 Prozent der Behörden nutzen inzwischen Cloud-Dienste, weitere 22 Prozent planen dies. Die mit Abstand größte Hürde für den Cloud-Einsatz sind Datenschutzanforderungen wie die DSGVO (59 Prozent), gefolgt von Unsicherheiten bei der Datenhoheit (43 Prozent) und der Informationssicherheit (41 Prozent). Auffallend ist, dass Behördenleitende (78 Prozent) und IT-Verantwortliche (76 Prozent) deutlich häufiger angeben, Cloud-Dienste zu nutzen oder den Einsatz zu planen, als die Leitungsebene (63 Prozent) und die Fachverwaltung (64 Prozent).

Research Services: Patrick Birnbreier

Deutsche Verwaltungscloud mit Zufriedenheitsdefizit

Die 2025 gestartete Deutsche Verwaltungscloud (DVC) soll bei der Modernisierung der IT-Infrastruktur eine Schlüsselrolle spielen. Doch was die DVC konkret leisten soll, bleibt unklar. 37 Prozent der Befragten sehen sie eher als Ergänzung, 22 Prozent als Ersatz vorhandener Infrastrukturen.

Dabei sind die Erwartungen verhalten. Nur sechs Prozent rechnen mit einer deutlichen Verbesserung, weitere 22 Prozent mit einer Verbesserung, 28 Prozent gehen von einer eher positiven Entwicklung aus. Auffallend ist hier der hohe Anteil von 29 Prozent „Weiß nicht“-Antworten, der möglicherweise darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass sich 52 Prozent nur schlecht bis sehr schlecht mit der DVC auskennen. Auch die Zufriedenheit mit der DVC bleibt überschaubar: Lediglich 18 Prozent bewerten den Standardisierungsgrad positiv, 16 Prozent die Interoperabilität und 23 Prozent den DVC-Marktplatz. Einzig die digitale Souveränität schneidet mit 25 Prozent etwas besser ab.

Johannes Rosenboom, SVP Sales, Marketing, BDM für Public-/KRITIS-Branchen bei Materna, ist jedoch davon überzeugt, dass „die Deutsche Verwaltungscloud ein wichtiger Baustein für eine souveräne, leistungsfähige und anschlussfähige Verwaltungs-IT werden kann. Entscheidend ist, dass sie nicht als isolierte Infrastruktur gedacht wird, sondern als Teil eines offenen Ökosystems mit klaren Standards, interoperablen Plattformen und hoher Wechselfähigkeit.“

Materna Information & Communications SE

KI-Einstieg gemacht, Kompetenzlücken bremsen

Neben der Infrastruktur und der Cloud rückt Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) zunehmend in den Fokus. Erfreulich ist, dass 29 Prozent der Behörden entsprechende Werkzeuge bereits nutzen und 17 Prozent die Einführung in den nächsten zwei Jahren planen. Häuser mit 1000 und mehr Beschäftigten (35 Prozent) liegen beim KI-Einsatz klar vor kleineren Verwaltungen unter 250 Beschäftigten (22 Prozent). Dominant sind generative KI und Large Language Models (LLMs) mit 55 Prozent, gefolgt von intelligenter Dokumentenverarbeitung (35 Prozent). Eingesetzt werden die KI-Tools vorrangig für das Dokumenten- und Aktenmanagement (41 Prozent), im Bürgerservice (36 Prozent) und zur Antragsbearbeitung (35 Prozent).

Auch KI-Agenten kommen gut an. Acht von zehn Behörden, die KI nutzen, bewerten ihren Einsatz positiv. „KI-Agenten können in der Verwaltung zum Produktivitätssprung werden, aber nur, wenn sie nachvollziehbar, sicher und steuerbar eingesetzt werden. Gerade in den Bereichen Antragsprüfung, Fallvorbereitung, Dokumentenverarbeitung und Bürgerkommunikation liegt enormes Potenzial. Entscheidend ist, dass KI-Agenten nicht als Black Box arbeiten, sondern in klare Governance, menschliche Entscheidungen und revisionssichere Prozesse eingebettet sind“, verdeutlicht UiPath-Manager Moeller. Ähnlich argumentiert Rosenboom: „KI entfaltet in den Behörden besonders dort ihre Wirkung, wo Wissen, Dokumente und Prozesse zusammengeführt werden. Der nächste Schritt ist, KI sicher, nachvollziehbar und souverän in bestehende Fachlichkeit zu integrieren, mit klaren Leitplanken und spürbarem Nutzen im Verwaltungsalltag.“

Wie berechtigt diese Forderungen sind, belegen konkrete Hemmnisse. Als größtes gilt wie schon bei der Cloud der Datenschutz (48 Prozent), gefolgt von Halluzinationen (35 Prozent) und Haftungsrisiken (32 Prozent). Das größte Problem ist jedoch, dass nur 31 Prozent der Behörden nach eigener Einschätzung in ausreichendem Maß über die notwendigen Daten- und KI-Kompetenzen verfügen und somit KI-Initiativen ohne gezielte Qualifizierungsoffensive zu versanden drohen.

Digitale Portale als Frage staatlicher Handlungsfähigkeit

Die Studie lenkt den Blick auch auf eine gesellschaftspolitisch brisante Zukunft. Sollte der demografische Wandel dazu führen, dass kleine Kommunen ihr Bürgeramt in fünf bis zehn Jahren nicht mehr betreiben können, müssen digitale Portale rechtzeitig als Ersatz bereitstehen. Falls nicht droht ein Staatsversagen im digitalen Raum. 69 Prozent der Behörden halten diese Gefahr für real, davon 36 Prozent für groß bis sehr groß. Kleine Verwaltungen unter 250 Beschäftigten schätzen dabei das Risiko mit 46 Prozent deutlich höher ein als große Häuser (30 Prozent). Am meisten alarmiert sind die IT-Verantwortlichen (46 Prozent), am wenigsten die Leitungsebene (30 Prozent) Das zeigt: Die Digitalisierung der Verwaltung entscheidet über die Handlungsfähigkeit des Staates.

Research Services: Patrick Birnbreier

Studiensteckbrief

Herausgeber: CIO und COMPUTERWOCHE

Studienpartner:  UiPath GmbH; Materna Information & Communications SE

Grundgesamtheit: Oberste (IT-)Verantwortliche in Unternehmen der DACH-Region: Beteiligte an strategischen (IT-)Entscheidungsprozessen im C-Level-Bereich und in den Fachbereichen (LoBs); Entscheidungsbefugte sowie Experten und Expertinnen aus dem IT-Bereich

Teilnehmergenerierung: Persönliche E-Mail-Einladung über die Entscheiderdatenbank von CIO und COMPUTERWOCHE sowie – zur Erfüllung von Quotenvorgaben – über externe Online-Access-Panels

Gesamtstichprobe: 316 abgeschlossene und qualifizierte Interviews

Untersuchungszeitraum: 12. bis 21. März 2026

Methode: Online-Umfrage (CAWI) Fragebogenentwicklung & Durchführung: Custom Research Team von CIO und Computerwoche in Abstimmung mit den Studienpartnern

JavaScript-Entwicklern stehen viele gute Tools zur Auswahl. Beinahe zu viele, um den Überblick zu behalten. In diesem Artikel stellen wir Ihnen die besten Texteditoren vor, um:

• mit JavaScript, HTML5 und CSS zu entwickeln, sowie
• mit Markdown zu dokumentieren.

Sublime Text

Bei Sublime Text sind Sie genau richtig, wenn:

• Sie einen flexiblen, leistungsstarken, erweiterbaren und ausgesprochen schnellen Code-Editor suchen.
• es Ihnen nichts ausmacht, für Code Checking, Debugging und Deployment zu anderen Fenstern zu wechseln.  

Zu den vielen weiteren, bemerkenswerten Stärken von Sublime Text gehören neben seiner Geschwindigkeit und dem Support für mehr als 70 Datei-Typen (darunter JavaScript, HTML und CSS) auch noch:

• Instant-Navigation und Projekt-Switching,
• die Option, eine Reihe von Änderungen per Mehrfachauswahl „auf einen Schlag“ auszuführen,
• Support für mehrere Bildschirme und Split-Windows,
• eine Plug-in-API auf Python-Basis, sowie
• eine einheitliche, durchsuchbare Befehlspalette.

Für Programmierer, die von anderen Editoren kommen, hilfreich: Sublime Text unterstützt sowohl TextMate-Bundles (ohne Befehle) als auch die Vi/Vim-Emulation. Dabei lässt sich der Code-Editor in so gut wie jeder Hinsicht anpassen, egal, ob es um Farbschemata, Schriftarten, Tastenkombinationen, Snippets oder die Regeln für die Syntaxhervorhebung geht.

Rund um Sublime Text existiert ebenfalls eine aktive Community, die Packages und Plug-ins erstellt und pflegt. Mit Hilfe des Package Installers sind diverse zusätzliche Funktionen verfügbar.

• Preis: unbegrenzte kostenlose Testversion; 65 Dollar pro Jahr und Seat für die Business-Version; 99 Dollar für eine Privatlizenz (Support für drei Jahre);
• Plattformen: Windows, macOS und Linux;

Visual Studio Code

Visual Studio Code ist ein quelloffener, kostenloser Editor von Microsoft. Er enthält einen Mix aus Komponenten von Visual Studio und der Open-Source-Shell Atom Electron und bietet umfassenden Support für:

• ASP.Net Core Development mit C# und
• Node.js Development mit TypeScript und JavaScript.

Dank des TypeScript-Compilers und der Salsa-Engine bietet Visual Studio Code eine erstaunlich gute JavaScript-Codevervollständigung. Dazu sendet VS Code Ihren JavaScript-Code im Hintergrund an den TypeScript-Compiler, um Typen abzuleiten und eine Symboltabelle zu erstellen.

Während Sie eine Expression eingeben, ermöglicht dieselbe Symboltabelle es IntelliSense, diverse nützliche Pop-up-Optionen zur Codevervollständigung zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Der Support für Git ist umfangreich und simpel zu nutzen, der VS-Code-Debugger bietet eine hervorragende Erfahrung für Node.js und ASP.Net-Projekte. Visual Studio Code kann darüber hinaus auch mit externen Task-Runnern wie gulp und jake integriert werden und kann mit einem umfangreichen Ökosystem für Extensions aufwarten.

• Preis: kostenlos;
• Plattformen: Windows, macOS, Linux;

Brackets

Brackets ist ein kostenloser Open-Source-Editor, der ursprünglich von Adobe stammt. Das Ziel der Entwickler: Bessere Tools für JavaScript, HTML, CSS und verwandte, offene Webtechnologien bereitzustellen. Auch Brackets selbst ist in JavaScript, HTML und CSS geschrieben.

Zusätzlich zu den integrierten Funktionen verfügt Brackets über einen Extension Manager. Der ist auch nötig, denn die sind für diverse Programmiersprachen und Tools aus der Welt der Frontend-Entwickler verfügbar. In der Praxis ist Brackets zwar nicht so schnell wie Sublime Text (siehe weiter oben) oder TextMate (siehe weiter unten). Aber der Editor ist immer noch schnell genug. Brackets bietet umfassenden Support für:

• JavaScript,
• CSS,
• HTML und
• Node.js.

Darüber hinaus bietet Brackets weitere nützliche Funktionen wie beispielsweise:

• CSS inline in Verbindung mit einer HTML-ID bearbeiten,
• eine übersichtliche Benutzeroberfläche und
• eine Live-Vorschau für Webseiten in Bearbeitung.

Auch beim Blick auf die automatische Vervollständigung von JavaScript-Code kann Brackets in der Praxis überzeugen: Es schließt automatisch sämtliche Klammern und stellt Dropdown-Menüs für Keywords, Variablen und Methoden zur Verfügung. Der JavaScript-Editor ist auch in der Lage, den Node.js-Debugger zu steuern und Node über ein Menüelement neu zu starten. Erweiterungen für zusätzliche Funktionen wie TypeScript– und JSX-Support, Bower- und Git-Integration lassen sich schnell und einfach hinzufügen.

• Preis: kostenlos;
• Plattformen: Windows, macOS, Linux;

Atom

Dieser kostenlose, quelloffene und “hack”-bare Programmier-Editor stammt aus dem Hause GitHub und lässt sich in die entsprechende Anwendung integrieren. Tausende von Packages und Themes stehen zur Verfügung, um Atom anzupassen. Der Quellcode von Atom wird selbstverständlich auch auf GitHub gehostet, ist in CoffeeScript geschrieben und in Node.js integriert.

Bei Atom handelt es sich um eine spezialisierte Variante von Chromium, die eher als Texteditor denn als Webbrowser konzipiert ist. Jedes Atom-Fenster ist im Wesentlichen eine lokal gerenderte Webseite.

In der Praxis zeigt sich Atom performant. Der Editor ist sofort einsatzbereit und überzeugt unter anderem mit:

• einem “Fuzzy-Finder”,
• der Möglichkeit, schnell und projektübergreifend zu suchen,
• Multi-Cursor- und Windows-Optionen,
• Snippets und Code-Folding sowie
• der Möglichkeit, TextMate-Grammatiken und -Themen zu importieren.

Atom ist insbesondere praktisch, um Repositories zu durchsuchen, die von GitHub geklont wurden, weil die GitHub-Applikation zu diesem Zweck ein Kontextmenüelement enthält.

• Preis: kostenlos;
• Plattformen: Windows, macOS, Linux;

Notepad++

Ein weiterer kostenloser Open-Source-Editor, der gut für JavaScript geeignet ist – allerdings nur auf Windows läuft. Notepad++ unterstützt außerdem etwa 50 weitere Programmier- und Markup-Sprachen. Neben seinem Multi-Document-Editing-Fenster bietet dieser Editor auch eine “Workspace Tree View”, sowie Registerkarten mit Funktionslisten und Dokumentenübersicht. In der Praxis bekommt man dabei nie das Gefühl, ausgebremst zu werden.

Mit Syntax-Farb- und -Folding-Optionen, leistungsstarken Editing-Funktionen sowie Paramter-Hints hat Notepad++ das Zeug zum primären JavaScript-Texteditor. Allerdings ist es bei weitem nicht der umfassendste JavaScript-Editor, wenn es darum geht:

• Code zu generieren,
• Refactoring anzustoßen oder
• schnell durch große Projekte zu navigieren.

Nichtsdestotrotz ist Notepad++ ist auch heute noch nützlich – vor allem, wenn es schnell und kostenlos gehen muss.

• Preis: kostenlos;
• Plattform: Windows;

BBEdit

Mit BBEdit steht auch für macOS-Benutzer ein proprietärer JavaScript-Editor bereit. Er unterstützt etwa 35 Programmier- und Markup-Sprachen. Für viele weitere Sprachen ist Community-Support (von unterschiedlicher Qualität) über die BBEdit-Website verfügbar. Sowohl die kostenlose als auch die lizenzierte Version bieten Syntaxhervorhebung. Code-Vervollständigung für Funktions- und Variablennamen, einige Keywords und ctags bleiben den Nutzern der kostenpflichtigen Version vorbehalten. Diese lässt sich auch in die Versionskontrollsysteme Git, Perforce und Subversion integrieren.

BBEdit wurde bereits vor einiger Zeit grundlegend überarbeitet und überzeugt in der Praxis nun auch, wenn es größere Dateien verarbeiten muss. Auch was HTML und Markdown angeht, gibt es nichts zu beanstanden – das funktioniert sogar besser als JavaScript.

• Preis: kostenlose aber eingeschränkte Version; 59,99 Dollar pro Benutzer für die Vollversion;
• Plattform: macOS;

TextMate

Dieser (ebenfalls macOS-exklusive) Code-Editor war einmal der letzte Schrei, verlor dann stark an Bedeutung und wird inzwischen wieder aktiv weiterentwickelt. TextMate ist zwar keine IDE, lässt sich aber über Bundles, Snippets, Makros und sein Scoping-System mit Funktionen ausstatten, die selbst sprachspezifische Entwicklungsumgebungen vermissen lassen. Was die Geschwindigkeit angeht, ist TextMate fast so schnell wie Sublime Text.

Für eine IDE-ähnliche Funktionalität können Sie die Shell-Integration von TextMate verwenden, erwarten Sie aber kein Code Refactoring oder automatische Unit- und Regressionstests. Wenn Sie Grunt richtig einrichten, können Sie Ihre JavaScript-Tests auf dieser Ebene natürlich trotzdem automatisieren.

Auch Support für Markdown wird über ein integriertes Bundle bereitgestellt. Dieses enthält:

• eine Preview-Funktion für Dokumente,
• ein Markdown-„Cheatsheet“ sowie
• diverse Tastenkombinationen, um Markup zu generieren.

Um TextMate mit Git und GitHub zu integrieren, eignet sich hingegen das Git-Bundle gut. In der Praxis erkennt TextMate vorhandene Git-Repositories und kann diese per Pull-Befehl aus dem Bundle von GitHub aktualisieren. Mit dem SQL-Bundle können Sie mit MySQL- und PostgreSQL-Datenbanken arbeiten.

• Preis: kostenlos;
• Plattform: macOS;

(fm)

Dieser Beitrag ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation Infoworld.com erschienen.

Microsoft has released Visual Studio Code 1.129, an update to its free, popular code editor that features a dedicated agent host and an editor panel in the Agents window. The updated editor also allows users to run terminal commands from chat prompts with a !prefix and offers a preview of a modern UI for the workbench.

Released July 15, VS Code 1.129 can be downloaded from code.visualstudio.com for Windows, Linux, and Mac.

Microsoft is rearchitecting how agent sessions work in VS Code around the agent host — a dedicated process that runs agent harnesses such as Claude, Copilot, and Codex, based on the Agent Host Protocol (AHP). Since a session lives in its own process, the same session can be connected to and rendered from multiple VS Code windows at once. The agent host’s Copilot agent is powered by the Copilot SDK, which means that its behavior and functionality is aligned with the Copilot CLI, the standalone GitHub Copilot app, and other Copilot products. The agent host is being rolled out to users in the editor window and the Agents window. It’s enabled through the chat.agentHost.enabled setting.

The Agents window shows conversation with an agent next to a detail area for the files and changes it produces. This release introduces a redesigned editor panel that brings the editor and the detail area together into one docked pane with a shared tab bar, so reviewing an agent’s work feels like working in the main editor instead of switching between separate panels.

Other new features and improvements in VS Code 1.129:

• Users now can prefix chat messages with a ! to run their contents as terminal commands. This works in agent host sessions, both in the editor and in the Agents window.
• Developers can now use Bring Your Own Key (BYOK) models in the Agents window when selecting the Copilot harness running on the agent host.
• Developers can preview a modernized VS Code UI that updates the look and feel of the editor workbench. This is currently an experimental feature that can be enabled with the workbench.experimental.modernUI setting.

VS Code 1.129 follows Visual Studio Code 1.128, released July 13. An update, VS Code 1.129.1, fixes three bugs including remote agent hosts failing to start.