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.

Here in this high-tech era of 2026, keeping important info backed up and synced should be effortless and something that just happens on its own, automatically, without any actual thought or ongoing human effort.

In many areas of our digital life, that mercifully does Just Work™ in exactly that way. Fire up an email in most modern mail services, and you can stop at any point and find your in-progress draft in that same app on any other device. The same applies to any file you’re finessing within Google Drive or other cloud storage services or document you’re dawdling over in Docs.

One area where seamless syncing somehow still doesn’t occur, though, is in the domain of downloaded documents on Android. If someone sends you a PDF or a Word file and you save it to your phone, that file exists in an archaic-seeming silo — only locally, on that one gadget. And that, of course, means (a) you can’t access it from any other device, and (b) if you misplace your phone or move into a new one at some point along the way, the file will be left behind in time and entirely unavailable.

Well, take a moment to join me in celebration: Amidst all the Gemini gobbledegook that no one asked for (and that often falls somewhere between “pointless” and “actively counterproductive”), Google’s giving us a major upgrade to Android’s backup capabilities right now. It’s a simple-seeming switch buried in your system settings, and it’s up to you to find and activate it.

Once you do, though, those once-orphaned documents on your Android device’s local storage will be perpetually synced and protected, automatically, without any ongoing thought or effort.

All you’ve gotta do is find and flip that one new switch.

[Don’t let yourself miss an ounce of Android Intelligence. Join my free weekly Android Intelligence newsletter and get one new thing to try in your inbox every Friday!]

The Android backup lowdown

So, for a quick bit of pertinent context on this: Android’s backup systems have actually come a really long way over the years.

‘Twas a time, y’see, when little to nothing about you would sync and carry over automatically from one Android device to another. Years ago — back in the ancient-seeming prehistoric era of the early 2010s — Android enthusiasts in the know would rely on community-created third-party apps for everything from remembering and resyncing downloaded apps to restoring data from within those apps and onward. And reconfiguring your system preferences would be a whole time-consuming song and dance every single time you reset a device or moved into a new one, as little to nothing would automatically carry over.

Most of that stuff is now effortless and automatic. And, thanks to apps like Google Messages, Calendar, Drive, and Docs, many other areas of important data are also synced on their own at the app level — outside of any system mechanisms.

Locally stored files, however, have remained an awkward omission. To this day, anything you download on any Android device exists only on that one device and isn’t synced or backed up anywhere. The only way that happens is — in a blast-from-the-past twist — if you go out of your way to find and set up a third-party app to handle the heavy lifting.

That brings us to today. Right now, as we speak, Google’s in the midst of sending out a quiet under-the-hood update that (brace yourself…) adds in the option to automatically sync and back up any documents on your device as a native part of Android’s backup setup.

See?

The option is on its way to all devices running 2018’s Android 9 release and higher. (If you’re still using a phone with an Android version older than that, you’re now a whopping eight years out of date, and you have much bigger problems.)

Once the added option is present and available for you, you’re literally lookin’ at 10 seconds to find and activate it.

Lemme show ya how.

Android’s document backup addition

I promise: This couldn’t be much simpler.

No matter what kind of Android device is in front of you, just head into your system settings and open the section called “Accounts and backup,” “Back up or copy data,” or something along those same lines. (The exact wording can vary based on who made your device and when it was released or last updated.)

Either tap the line labeled “Google Backup” or look for an option to “Back up data” via Google Drive. You should then either see a series of options for different areas of available backup right then and there — or, depending on your device, you might have to tap a line labeled “Other device data” (or something similar) to find the full list of possibilities.

However you get there, once you’re lookin’ at that list, you’ll see a newly added line for “Documents” if this latest under-the-hood update has reached you.

And from there, all that’s left is to tap it and enable the switch to include that in your automated backups from that moment forward.

If you aren’t seeing the option yet, don’t panic. Google always sends these under-the-hood updates out bit by bit over time, so the change probably just hasn’t reached your device quite yet. As long as you’re running Android 9 or higher, it’ll get there. Set yourself a reminder to check back once a week or so. Odds are, you’ll see it pretty soon.

Notably, all documents synced in this way are always encrypted for security, and they’re kept in your personal (or, depending on the nature of your account, perhaps company-connected) Google Drive storage. That does mean they’ll count against your overall Google storage total, so keep an eye on your Drive storage total to make sure you’re in solid shape and look to the Google One storage hub if you ever want some simple suggestions for freeing up space.

Speaking of other Google services: If you ever want to keep other types of locally stored non-document files from an Android device synced and available elsewhere, you can easily rely on Google Photos for syncing screenshots and other images — after enabling sync in general, be sure to look in the app’s “Collections” areas to find the “On this device” folder and then flip the toggle to “Backup all device folders” (or get more nuanced and open specific individual on-device folders if you want to sync some but not all of those areas) — and you can still turn to those aforementioned third-party apps for broader syncing of anything else imaginable.

But with documents now being handled automatically and natively, that’s one big worry now out of your hair. Just note that the onus will fall on you to find and flip the switch and actively opt in to the feature on each and every Android device you’re using.

Take 10 seconds to do that, though, and you’ll have one less void in your Android data arena. And you don’t need Gemini to tell you that that can only be a good thing.

Get practical Android knowledge in your inbox every Friday with my free Android Intelligence newsletter — one new thing to try each week, straight from me to you.

A new version of Python’s native package management tool, pip, will remove a limitation that has frustrated Python developers for years. If you wanted to install the dependencies for a given package, but not install the package itself, you were stuck. Either you had to extract the dependency list from the package and install it by hand, or you had to build the whole package anyway.

Why was this a problem? Sometimes, you want only the dependencies for a package—for instance, as a way to create a separate environment for testing or another project. If you’re making source distributions via CI, some requirements might be needed to make the source distribution but aren’t actually included in it (e.g., Cython). You would need to install these requirements somewhere—apart from the project itself—to perform the build step.

A dependencies-only install mode for packages is a long-requested feature. Developer James O’Claire found many examples of such requests, along with various workarounds. Most of those involved third-party solutions of some sort.

Now, a new feature set to land in pip version 26.2 will fix this problem from the inside. The command pip install --only-deps will install only the dependencies for a given package. Note that it will not install build dependencies for the package, but only runtime dependencies.

Note that you can accomplish this with existing third-party tools. For instance, uv sync --no-install-project has the same behavior. But having this functionality right inside pip means you don’t have to turn to external tooling—or ugly hacks—to solve the problem. This may be an example of how third-party projects like uv (a superfast Python package installer) are inspiring native Python features where they make sense.

pip 26.2 is scheduled to be released by the end of July 2026.

Leadership wants to scale AI. Budgets are tripling. Adoption is up.

Then the CFO asks the question every board now asks: which of these initiatives is actually profitable?

Most organizations cannot answer that question, not because they lack visibility into cost, but because the cost data they have was never designed to produce that answer.

Applying lessons learned from managing cloud spend won’t be a fix for the AI and ROI quandary. True, cloud taught a generation of CFOs that billing without business context is noise. So to get cloud ROI, they stitched two data sources together: cost data plus business data. AWS reveals which account, which region, which tag, which resource. Merge in customer and product mappings on top and the ROI of the cloud spend comes into focus.

But AI is harder. It requires three data sources: cost, business, and telemetry—the automatic collection of data from disparate sources that helps to clarify the whole picture of what happened and why. An executive or engineering lead can have AI invoices and customer revenue. But they have no way to connect them to business value. The token count on the OpenAI invoice does not specify which customer triggered which call, which feature it served, or whether the prompt produced a business outcome. That data does not exist in the provider’s billing.

AI providers won’t fix this problem

The situation is not likely to change anytime soon because AI providers are not in the business of attributing an enterprise’s costs to that enterprise’s customers. Instead, AI providers are in the business of selling tokens. The granularity they expose is the granularity their billing systems require, not the granularity a CFO requires.

Not convinced? Compare what AWS gives you to what an AI provider gives you.

AWS billing exposes resource IDs, account hierarchies, region, SKU, tag metadata, usage by the minute. Every dollar can be attributed to a workload, a team, a customer segment if it was tagged correctly. The data is rich enough that mature FinOps teams built unit economics on top of it years ago.

An AI provider invoice gives you tokens consumed by model, with optional grouping by API key. That is the resolution. No request-level attribution. No customer ID. No feature mapping. No prompt outcome. No retry identification. Multi-step agent workflows collapse into a token count. Imagine a large bank receives a multi-million dollar AI invoice each month. But it has no visibility into what parts of the business were responsible for what parts of the cost so cannot allocate them.

If an enterprise wants to know what AI cost drove which customer or feature, it has to capture that data itself, inside an application, before the call leaves it. 

Three required sources

Building AI ROI measurement requires three data sources, stitched together in a single model.

1. Cost data, normalized across providers. Every AI provider delivers cost differently. OpenAI invoices in one taxonomy, Anthropic in another, fine-tuning vendors and inference platforms each in their own. Cloud GPU costs sit in AWS or Azure billing. Vector database costs land in Pinecone or Snowflake invoices. None interoperate by default. Normalization is necessary but not sufficient. It will put all your AI costs in one schema. It does not tell you what they produced.
2. Application-layer telemetry. This is the source most organizations are missing, and the one that makes AI ROI structurally different from cloud ROI. It requires instrumenting AI calls inside your application across six categories: request-level tracing tied to a customer or session ID; feature attribution tied to the product surface that triggered the call; agent-step capture for multi-step workflows; retry and fallback identification so recovery costs don’t get attributed to primary calls; model selection logging that records which model was chosen and why; and outcome capture that ties each call to whether it produced business value. None of this data exists in the provider’s billing. All of it has to be captured at the moment the call is made and stored in a system that can be stitched to the cost data.
3. Business data. Revenue, customer segments, product hierarchies, and feature usage. The same business data already feeding your CRM and analytics stack, mapped to the customers and features the telemetry layer attributes calls to.

Stitched together, the three sources produce the unit economics every AI investment decision now requires: cost per customer interaction, margin per feature, profitability per agent workflow, ROI per model choice. None of these can be calculated from billing data alone. None can be calculated from telemetry alone. They require all three sources, modeled together in a way that maps cost to outcome.

Why agentic AI makes this urgent

Single-call inference is the easy case. One request, one cost, one customer, one outcome.

Agentic workflows are different. An agent decomposes a task into multiple steps. Each step calls a model. Some steps fall back to a different model when the first fails. Some steps retry on a poor result. Some steps invoke external tools that themselves cost money. A single user request can produce dozens of inference calls across multiple providers, with the cost compounding in ways the provider invoice cannot disaggregate.

If telemetry does not capture agent-step granularity, no one will know which steps are profitable. Aggregate costs will show up three weeks later in the invoice. By then, the workflow has been running at scale, customers are onboarded, and unprofitable paths have been retried thousands of times.

When agents make the calls, the volume of cost-generating events without business context attached grows by an order of magnitude. The window for instrumenting this before it becomes unmanageable is closing.

What changes when the three sources come together

Once the three sources are stitched together, the AI investment conversation changes.

Five different ways to build the same AI capability stop looking equivalent. They converge on adoption metrics and diverge by 10x on cost. The team picks the approach that delivers a similar business outcome at one-fifth the cost, because the team can finally see the difference. Product teams design features with margin awareness from the architecture phase, not from the post-launch budget review. Engineering teams choose model architectures with cost-per-outcome data alongside latency and quality. Leadership evaluates AI initiatives the way they evaluate any other capital allocation: on unit economics, not on the engagement chart. Aggregated invoices track the cost per customer interaction. Engagement metrics reveal margin per feature. Gut-instinct model selection is checked against real cost-per-outcome model selection results. 

Within seconds, everyone can see which AI features are profitable, which should scale, and which should be killed. This is the insight everyone is looking for and companies that achieve it will optimize the benefits of AI.

The build trap

AI costs are compounding now. The board is not waiting 18 months for an internal project to reach production.

The temptation to build it anyway has never been sharper. AI coding tools have changed what a small engineering team can ship in a quarter. The instrumentation layer looks tractable. The cost normalization looks like a weekend project. The semantic model feels like something a senior engineer could draft over a sprint.

It is a trap. Three reasons.

Volume is the first. A production AI footprint generates millions of telemetry events per hour, and that volume scales with agentic adoption. Real-time ingestion, correlation, and attribution at that scale is not the same problem as vibe coding a prototype in an afternoon. It is a permanent operational system that has to be right every minute of every day.

The vendor landscape is the second. Cost data arrives in delayed billing windows from providers with non-interoperable schemas. Schemas change without notice. New AI providers enter the landscape monthly, each with its own taxonomy and metering. The system is not built once. It is maintained against a moving target that moves faster than most internal release cycles.

The third is what the first two add up to: this is business-critical infrastructure. The CFO and the board are going to make capital allocation decisions on the data this system produces. When schema drift goes unnoticed for two weeks, when an agent telemetry stream stops correlating to a vendor that quietly changed its billing API, the cost of being wrong is not a sprint of cleanup. It is a quarter of misallocated capital.

The build-vs.-buy question for engineering leaders has changed. It’s not “can we build this?” The honest answer is yes. The real question is whether the marginal hour of your strongest engineers is best spent stitching cost data to telemetry to business outcomes, or building the AI products that produce the revenue the cost data is measuring.

The capability is reproducible in weeks. The choice is whether to spend the next 18 months building it, or the next 18 months acting on it.

—

New Tech Forum provides a venue for technology leaders—including vendors and other outside contributors—to explore and discuss emerging enterprise technology in unprecedented depth and breadth. The selection is subjective, based on our pick of the technologies we believe to be important and of greatest interest to InfoWorld readers. InfoWorld does not accept marketing collateral for publication and reserves the right to edit all contributed content. Send all inquiries to doug_dineley@foundryco.com.

Während öffentliche Bauprojekte im Schwabenland gerne mal bis zu 20 Jahre dauern, wie etwa Stuttgart 21, sind die schwäbischen Unternehmer dagegen fixer und zukunftsorientiert. Knapp fünf Jahre benötigte die Schwarz Gruppe vom ersten Spatenstich bis zur Eröffnung ihres neuen Campus für 5.500 Mitarbeiter der IT-Sparte Schwarz Digits.

Im schwäbischen Unterland, nördlich von Heilbronn in Bad Friedrichshall,  bündelt das Unternehmen nun auf einer Fläche von 15,5 Hektar in fünf terrassenartig gestaffelten Gebäuden seine digitalen Aktivitäten. Ein Engagement, das auch die Politik zur Eröffnung würdigte.

Nur ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein?

So sparte Nicole Hoffmeister-Kraut, Wirtschaftsministerin von Baden-Württemberg, nicht mit Lob: Mit diesem High-Tech-Campus werde das Land zum „digitalen Herzschlag Europas“. Das Projekt beweise eindrucksvoll, dass im Südwesten die digitale Infrastruktur für ein freies und souveränes Europa maßgeblich mitgestaltet werde.

Die Sache hat allerdings einen Haken, so sehr das Engagement der Schwarz Gruppe in Sachen Digitaler Souveränität und technologischer Unabhängigkeit zu begrüßen ist: Im globalen Vergleich ist das nur der berühmte Tropfen auf dem heißen Stein.  So beschäftigt AWS weltweit etwa 225.000 Mitarbeiter und Google Cloud kommt auf zirka 54.000 Beschäftigte.

Unabhängigkeit leben

Ob Schwarz Digits mit der Großinvestition nun wirklich den  Grundstein für die technologische Unabhängigkeit eines ganzen Kontinents gelegt hat, mag dahingestellt bleiben. Sicher ist zumindest, dass die Schwarz Gruppe auf dem neuen Campus ihr Technologie-Ökosystem für sich selbst und Kunden entwickeln will. Schwarz-Digits-Kunden sind beispielsweise Bosch und die Polizei Baden-Württemberg.

Im Zentrum der Bestrebungen steht der sogenannte souveräne Technologie-Stack. Hier werden Lösungen in den Bereichen Cloud, Cyber Security, Data, KI sowie Communication und Workspace entwickelt. „Am neuen Campus wird technologische Unabhängigkeit zur gelebten Realität“, erklärte Christian Müller, CEO von Schwarz Digits, während der Eröffnung. Man wolle Unternehmen und öffentlichen Institutionen die uneingeschränkte Datenhoheit zurückgeben. So werde man digitale Souveränität nicht mehr nur verwalten, sondern aktiv aus dem europäischen Rechtsraum heraus mitbestimmen.

Activity-based Working

Dazu soll auf dem Campus an europäischen Alternativen zu den US-Tech-Riesen gearbeitet – egal, ob eigene Cloud, Cybersicherheit für Medizin und Militär oder KI Made in Germany. So hat Müller denn auch ehrgeizige Ziele: „Stack-It wird der führende, souveräne Hyperscaler Europas werden. Das ist das Ziel, was wir haben. Und ein ganz klares Signal nicht nur in der Region, sondern nach Deutschland und Europa.“

Doch auch in anderer Hinsicht setzt der Campus Maßstäbe. Das architektonische Konzept setzt konsequent auf „Activity-based Working“. Lichtdurchflutete Arbeitswelten und über 500 spezialisierte Besprechungs- und Kreativräume sollen die Zusammenarbeit fördern.

Beruf und Familie

Für die Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie sorgt eine betriebseigene Kindertagesstätte mit rund 280 Plätzen. Hinzu kommen Wäscheservice und Postcenter. Und im Campus-Restaurant mit rund 1.000 Sitzplätzen im Innen- und 400 im Außenbereich (Terrasse) stehen täglich 18 Menülinien zur Auswahl. Zudem zeigt ein Kochroboter sein Können. Neben klassischen Kaffeeküchen gibt es auf dem Campus noch 20 Marktplätze. Sie verfügen jeweils über individuelle Landesthemen und sind als erweiterte Begegnungs- und Verweilzone gestaltet.

Auch ökologisch muss sich der Standort nicht verstecken. Fast die Hälfte des Geländes besteht aus Grünflächen, die als „grüne Mitte“ das Herzstück des Campus bilden. Über 3.000 Bäume und Sträucher wurden hier gepflanzt. Die Energieversorgung erfolgt ressourcenschonend über Photovoltaikanlagen und Blockheizkraftwerke. Zudem wurde in Zusammenarbeit mit der Deutschen Bahn und dem Land ein eigenes Verkehrskonzept entwickelt, das auf umweltfreundliche ÖPNV-Verbindungen sowie Rad- und Gehwege setzt.

Dazu, was der High-Tech-Hotspot gekostet hat, macht die Schwarz Gruppe keine Angaben.

For many engineering teams, AI adoption means individual engineers write code faster while overall team velocity remains stagnant. Individual speed and team speed are produced by different things, and AI has mostly accelerated the first but not the second.

The step from individual AI adoption to team advantage is one many organizations haven’t taken yet, but it’s the step where real ROI lives. Make the leap and every individual gain starts compounding into something the whole team feels.

Faster individuals, but the same team pace

A developer with a good AI assistant can produce more and produce faster, but ten developers all doing that, each in their own way, with their own tools and their own context, don’t add up to a team that is ten times better. More often they add up to a team moving faster in ten different directions.

The speed stays with the person who created it. The reasoning, context, and decisions that the rest of the team would need to build on that speed gets lost.

These three structural problems explain why:

Problem #1: Context evaporates at scale

An engineer spends an hour with an AI agent working through a hard design decision. They land somewhere good. The code ships. But the reasoning, the alternatives they ruled out, and the constraints they discovered stay in a chat history nobody else will ever open. Six weeks later a teammate touches the same system, has no idea any of that thinking happened, and starts over.

You can’t prompt your way out of a context vacuum. Agents and teammates alike are only as good as the context they start with, and right now most of that context is being generated and immediately lost. The teams that pull ahead will be the ones that treat the reasoning around the work as something worth capturing.

Problem #2: Misalignment creates duplicative work

When individuals move fast in parallel without a shared source of truth, they start stepping on each other’s toes. Two people solve the same problem two different ways. An agent generates a change against a spec that quietly went stale last week. A confidently written pull request follows the wrong internal standard because the standard lived in someone’s head, not in the workflow.

This problem gets worse as more of the work becomes agent-driven. Agents overwrite each other. Specs drift out of date faster than anyone updates them. The faster the individual pieces move, the more expensive the collisions become.

Problem #3: Trust doesn’t scale

The quiet tax on AI-assisted work is review. If an individual developer can’t see how a piece of work was produced, what the intent was, what the agent was told, what standards it was working against, then they can’t confidently build on it. So, they re-check it, or rewrite it, or route around it. The individual saved an hour. The team spent two earning back the trust.

Trust transfers when intent is legible. When a teammate or a reviewer can see what was meant, what was decided, and what guardrails applied, they can accept the work and move on. When they can’t, every handoff becomes a re-litigation.

Turning adoption into advantage

The through-line across all three problems is the same. The value of AI at the team level does not live in the code any single person or agent produces. It lives in whether the intent and context around that work is captured, shared, and reusable by everyone else, human and agent.

That reframes the leadership job. It’s not about driving more adoption, because your teams already handled that. It’s about building the connective layer that turns individual output into team capability.

The window is now

This matters more every month, because the individual productivity story is about to become an agent orchestration story. The organizations that turn individual adoption into team advantage now, while the habits are still forming, will be the ones whose agents actually compound.

See how engineering leaders are building the connective layer between individual AI adoption and team-level compound returns at jira.dev.

Here in this high-tech era of 2026, keeping important info backed up and synced should be effortless and something that just happens on its own, automatically, without any actual thought or ongoing human effort.

In many areas of our digital life, that mercifully does Just Work™ in exactly that way. Fire up an email in most modern mail services, and you can stop at any point and find your in-progress draft in that same app on any other device. The same applies to any file you’re finessing within Google Drive or other cloud storage services or document you’re dawdling over in Docs.

One area where seamless syncing somehow still doesn’t occur, though, is in the domain of downloaded documents on Android. If someone sends you a PDF or a Word file and you save it to your phone, that file exists in an archaic-seeming silo — only locally, on that one gadget. And that, of course, means (a) you can’t access it from any other device, and (b) if you misplace your phone or move into a new one at some point along the way, the file will be left behind in time and entirely unavailable.

Well, take a moment to join me in celebration: Amidst all the Gemini gobbledegook that no one asked for (and that often falls somewhere between “pointless” and “actively counterproductive”), Google’s giving us a major upgrade to Android’s backup capabilities right now. It’s a simple-seeming switch buried in your system settings, and it’s up to you to find and activate it.

Once you do, though, those once-orphaned documents on your Android device’s local storage will be perpetually synced and protected, automatically, without any ongoing thought or effort.

All you’ve gotta do is find and flip that one new switch.

[Don’t let yourself miss an ounce of Android Intelligence. Join my free weekly Android Intelligence newsletter and get one new thing to try in your inbox every Friday!]

The Android backup lowdown

So, for a quick bit of pertinent context on this: Android’s backup systems have actually come a really long way over the years.

‘Twas a time, y’see, when little to nothing about you would sync and carry over automatically from one Android device to another. Years ago — back in the ancient-seeming prehistoric era of the early 2010s — Android enthusiasts in the know would rely on community-created third-party apps for everything from remembering and resyncing downloaded apps to restoring data from within those apps and onward. And reconfiguring your system preferences would be a whole time-consuming song and dance every single time you reset a device or moved into a new one, as little to nothing would automatically carry over.

Most of that stuff is now effortless and automatic. And, thanks to apps like Google Messages, Calendar, Drive, and Docs, many other areas of important data are also synced on their own at the app level — outside of any system mechanisms.

Locally stored files, however, have remained an awkward omission. To this day, anything you download on any Android device exists only on that one device and isn’t synced or backed up anywhere. The only way that happens is — in a blast-from-the-past twist — if you go out of your way to find and set up a third-party app to handle the heavy lifting.

That brings us to today. Right now, as we speak, Google’s in the midst of sending out a quiet under-the-hood update that (brace yourself…) adds in the option to automatically sync and back up any documents on your device as a native part of Android’s backup setup.

See?

The option is on its way to all devices running 2018’s Android 9 release and higher. (If you’re still using a phone with an Android version older than that, you’re now a whopping eight years out of date, and you have much bigger problems.)

Once the added option is present and available for you, you’re literally lookin’ at 10 seconds to find and activate it.

Lemme show ya how.

Android’s document backup addition

I promise: This couldn’t be much simpler.

No matter what kind of Android device is in front of you, just head into your system settings and open the section called “Accounts and backup,” “Back up or copy data,” or something along those same lines. (The exact wording can vary based on who made your device and when it was released or last updated.)

Either tap the line labeled “Google Backup” or look for an option to “Back up data” via Google Drive. You should then either see a series of options for different areas of available backup right then and there — or, depending on your device, you might have to tap a line labeled “Other device data” (or something similar) to find the full list of possibilities.

However you get there, once you’re lookin’ at that list, you’ll see a newly added line for “Documents” if this latest under-the-hood update has reached you.

And from there, all that’s left is to tap it and enable the switch to include that in your automated backups from that moment forward.

If you aren’t seeing the option yet, don’t panic. Google always sends these under-the-hood updates out bit by bit over time, so the change probably just hasn’t reached your device quite yet. As long as you’re running Android 9 or higher, it’ll get there. Set yourself a reminder to check back once a week or so. Odds are, you’ll see it pretty soon.

Notably, all documents synced in this way are always encrypted for security, and they’re kept in your personal (or, depending on the nature of your account, perhaps company-connected) Google Drive storage. That does mean they’ll count against your overall Google storage total, so keep an eye on your Drive storage total to make sure you’re in solid shape and look to the Google One storage hub if you ever want some simple suggestions for freeing up space.

Speaking of other Google services: If you ever want to keep other types of locally stored non-document files from an Android device synced and available elsewhere, you can easily rely on Google Photos for syncing screenshots and other images — after enabling sync in general, be sure to look in the app’s “Collections” areas to find the “On this device” folder and then flip the toggle to “Backup all device folders” (or get more nuanced and open specific individual on-device folders if you want to sync some but not all of those areas) — and you can still turn to those aforementioned third-party apps for broader syncing of anything else imaginable.

But with documents now being handled automatically and natively, that’s one big worry now out of your hair. Just note that the onus will fall on you to find and flip the switch and actively opt in to the feature on each and every Android device you’re using.

Take 10 seconds to do that, though, and you’ll have one less void in your Android data arena. And you don’t need Gemini to tell you that that can only be a good thing.

Get practical Android knowledge in your inbox every Friday with my free Android Intelligence newsletter — one new thing to try each week, straight from me to you.

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.

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.