Looking ahead just a short time, Apple could hold a powerful position in AI where it most makes sense: deployment.

Not only will the company offer up its own AI models for the kind of tasks millions use ChatGPT to do today, but it will provide more sophisticated on-device agentic models to help users get things done through Siri AI.

Apple also offers limited capacity for more complex tasks through Private Cloud Compute, and, in partnership with the likes of Google in the US and Alibaba in China, the company is giving users a trusted conduit through which to access even more sophisticated AI services. 

Deeply deployable

Critics can say it took Apple a long time to get to this point, but they also seem to think the company has finally got the mix right with its series 27 operating systems. Arriving late to a party doesn’t mean you won’t shine once you get there.

Apple is also coming up the inside lane around frontier AI, with iterative OS and hardware enhancements that mean its devices become increasingly effective for Edge AI use cases, on device — no cloud service required.

The company appears to be digging down into those use cases. Mark Gurman at Bloomberg recently predicted that future M7 Ultra Macs will support as much as 1.5TB RAM, making these systems more than capable of running full weight frontier models in people’s offices, colleges, and homes. 

While that does assume the AI-flationary memory market can supply that much RAM at prices humans can afford, it is also true that people are already running AI clusters using off-the-shelf Mac minis networked over Thunderbolt cables. It’s no stretch to believe this will continue to be the case, and that it will even broaden as the power/performance offered at the high end grows.

What’s wrong with good enough?

When combined with open AI stacks, particularly newly emerging varieties, Apple’s platforms should become leading contenders for private AI services and edge AI. Many business users will leap at the chance to offer their workers powerful, self-hosted, private AI services using one or more daisy-chained Mac Studios or Mac minis. The recent craze in deployment of both Macs to support OpenClaw instances shows they already are.

Ultimately, these different slices of momentum mean I agree with investor Jason Calacanis that Apple is in position to apply a great deal of pressure on OpenAI and Claude just by putting models on their devices. 

It’s also worth thinking about how people use AI today. How many of the queries made in the world right now constitute relatively simple tasks that could be transacted by on-device AI, such as the emerging new version of Apple Intelligence or even smaller LLM models running on device? You can even run PrismML’s 1-bit, 27-billion parameter Bonsai on an iPad using the Locally app, and that’s in the here and now.

What happens? Pretty soon you’ll find people recognize that they can already run the vast majority of their AI-augmented workflows using services they have on their existing device or can access on their on-prem Mac set-ups. And, of course, as people get used to running small tasks locally and larger tasks on premises, the actual space in which they need to turn to cloud-based frontier models will erode. That’s even as companies like PrismML work towards slimming down full-weight models so they don’t need to run on a server at all.

“It’s going to be wild when people have unlimited tokens on their desks,” said Calacanis in a podcast round table discussion.

Who has the most to lose?

The current incarnations of AI felt like they came from nowhere. Most people weren’t aware of the technology until returning to work after the 2022 holiday season. Since then, the industry has proliferated with dozens of competing models, most recently including powerful but affordable frontier models such as Qwen and Kimi.ai.

These models aren’t necessarily all as good as one another, but in many cases for much of what we do, we’ll find them to be good enough. That’s an existential crisis for some, as industry observers now think the inevitable pricing pressure means some services might have over-invested in capacity before finding any way to turn a profit.

Those profit-seeking services are the ones with the most to lose as Apple extends its hardware advantage, democratizing AI access for all while providing platforms suitable for edge AI, on-premises AI, private AI, and even AI access using third-party services. (The need for the latter will shrink as the capabilities of the former get better.)

Cupertino rising

What does this all mean? While the industry remains young, it is already fragmenting. And striding through the dust of that process comes Apple, equipped with the hardware, software, and approach to build its business even as the enterprise of first mover AI services erodes.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.

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.

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.

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.

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.

AI agents can turn a clear description into working software, the engineer’s judgement is what makes the difference: deciding what to build, catching the tradeoff the agent didn’t know to weigh, and owning the call on whether the result is right.

That judgement has always been the hard part of engineering. It just used to be bundled into the act of writing code, where a skilled engineer did it while typing. As agents take on more of the typing, that judgement separates out and becomes the clear center of the role. Leaders who adapt early will get their metrics, their talent pipelines, and their delivery models working with this shift rather than against it.

Judgement is defining, constraining, and deciding

Judgement is all about defining the problem precisely enough that an agent builds the right thing. It’s setting the constraints the agent won’t infer on its own. It’s spotting the tradeoff buried three layers down that only shows up if you understand the system. And it’s looking at a finished implementation and knowing whether it’s genuinely good enough to ship.

This is the harder part of the job and the real driver of quality. It was easy to underrate when it lived inside day-to-day coding. Now it’s what separates a strong team from an average one.

The shift changes where time, growth, and metrics go

If the high-value activity is intent, review, and judgement rather than raw output, a few assumptions are worth revisiting.

Where engineers spend their time. Less of the day goes to producing boilerplate and mechanical implementation, and more goes to the reasoning that used to get squeezed to the edges: framing the problem and owning the judgement calls that determine quality.

How teams grow their people. Defining problems well, spotting risk, and critically evaluating work you didn’t write yourself have always been senior skills. When agents handle more of the mechanical work, those skills become learnable earlier. That puts the emphasis on leaders to teach the reasoning: why a choice gets made and how to weigh the tradeoffs that come with it.

What you measure. Lines shipped, tickets closed, and velocity charts all measured throughput of the old scarce resource. They say very little about the new one. The teams that adapt will start measuring the quality of intent going in and the reliability of judgement coming out, because that’s where the results now live.

Reinvest the time you get back

The tempting response is to treat the freed-up capacity as pure speed: same work, same tooling, just faster. That captures the easy win and misses the real one. If engineers spend their reclaimed time reviewing a rising volume of agent output with no better context than before, review quietly becomes the new constraint, and you’ve moved the problem rather than solved it.

The organizations that get ahead will invest the reclaimed capacity into the judgement layer: creating stronger specs and acceptance criteria before work starts, building review practices that test agent output against intent, and capturing the reasoning behind decisions where the next person can find it, so it doesn’t have to be reconstructed every time. That’s how the shift becomes an advantage for your team.

The through-line for leaders

The engineering job is moving up a level, from executing the work to directing and validating it. That’s a more strategic role, and it rewards clarity of thought over speed of output. Leaders who see the shift early can help their engineers grow into the work that’s now most valuable.

See how leading engineering organizations are operationalizing this shift at jira.dev.

GitLab has released GitLab 19.2, an update to the company’s devsecops platform that allows teams to fix vulnerable dependencies automatically, use Security Review Flow to catch logic flaws that scanners miss, and run AI agents straight from the terminal, the company said.

Highlights in GitLab 19.2 include the following:

• Dependency Scanning Auto-Remediation, in public beta, uses AI to fix build-breaking changes and iterates until your pipeline passes, with every change governed by your existing gates and audit trail.
• Security Review Flow, also in public beta, analyzes code changes as a security engineer would and catches authorization gaps, business-logic errors, and race conditions that static scanners structurally cannot see.
• GitLab Duo CLI, now generally available, gives developers access to agents and multi-step agentic flows for all software life cycle tasks without leaving the terminal. 
• Custom Flows, now generally available, let teams replace manual multi-step workflows with agentic automations for software development, triggered by GitLab events.

“Coding agents made it possible to generate far more code and moved the bottleneck downstream to reviews and security,” said Manav Khurana, chief product and marketing officer at GitLab, in a statement. “GitLab 19.2 puts agents to work on that bottleneck: fixing vulnerable dependencies, catching the flaws scanners miss, and automating the steps in between with a person still approving what ships.”

Microsoft and Mistral are betting that the future of enterprise AI is in sovereign infrastructure and model choice, rather than with one locked-in system. 

The companies have announced a “significant expansion” of their strategic partnership, which includes a multibillion dollar commitment from Microsoft. Mistral will add to its GPU infrastructure in Europe and extend access to its frontier multilingual models, while Microsoft will expand its sovereign cloud capabilities. The companies will also align on a joint go-to-market plan and will pursue enterprise opportunities together across Europe and globally, as well as funding proofs of concept (PoCs), offering Azure credits, and leading workshops to drive AI innovation with customers.

The partnership between the tech giant and the three-year-old French startup might seem an odd combination at first glance, analysts note, as both develop enterprise AI models and offer access as-a-service. But it reflects changing AI market dynamics.

“It’s possible to be both a competitor and a partner at the same time,” noted technology analyst Carmi Levy. Large cloud providers are becoming AI marketplaces in their own right, he pointed out, and are drifting away from exclusively promoting their own models. Building Mistral support into their infrastructure avoids platform lock-in and removes a “key objection for customers looking for options.”

“As much as Microsoft would want everybody standardizing on Copilot and Phi, it recognizes the simple fact that customers increasingly want to choose their own models,” said Levy.

Expands model access, sovereign cloud capabilities

As part of the agreement, Mistral will expand its Europe-based capacity with thousands of Nvidia Vera Rubin GPUs.

Mistral CEO and co-founder Arthur Mensch described a “slight gap” in compute capacity in Europe, noting that this expansion will provide more compute capability and support Microsoft’s cloud and AI services, providing a “shared platform for training, inference and large-scale deployment.” The companies call it a critical step to allow Microsoft customers to benefit from Mistral’s “scientific and compute innovations.”

In addition, Mistral Medium 3.5 and OCR 4 models are now available in Microsoft Foundry, and Mistral Medium 3.5 can be used in Microsoft Copilot Studio.

The partnership also extends Microsoft’s sovereign cloud infrastructure as well as combining Mistral’s frontier models with Microsoft’s security, compliance, and cloud-to-edge platform. This gives enterprises, particularly those in regulated markets, the ability to deploy AI where they see fit, while maintaining control over their data and workloads, according to the companies.

Further, customers will be able to build AI using the same models, tools, APIs, and workflows they’re used to, across Microsoft Foundry, Foundry Local, and Azure Local, and opt for fully Azure-hosted cloud environments; cloud-connected, controlled Azure Local environments that only use cloud-based Azure when necessary; and fully-disconnected environments that can operate independently for more sensitive scenarios.

“Europe should have access to the world’s most capable AI without compromising control over their data, operations or digital future,” said Brad Smith, vice chair and president, Microsoft, noting that with this partnership, the company is honoring its European digital commitments and giving customers a foundation for AI so they can “operate on their own terms.” Customers with “heightened sovereignty needs” will be able to exercise more control with “resilience and assurance” and continued access to Mistral’s open-weight models.

Enterprise credibility

Gartner distinguished VP analyst Arun Chandrasekaran noted that there’s no doubt that this agreement strengthens Microsoft’s sovereignty messaging and its position in regulated industries, and the tech giant benefits by expanding its AI portfolio with a “credible European frontier model provider”

He pointed to key differences from the initial partnership struck by the two companies in 2024; whereas originally Microsoft was hosting Mistral’s models, it is now consuming capacity built by Mistral in Europe.

Ultimately, the deal emphasizes European data centers, customer-controlled deployments, Azure Local, and fully-disconnected environments, addressing many of the concerns that surrounded the original Azure cloud only relationship, Chandrasekaran explained.

For Mistral, the partnership provides “enterprise credibility, and repeatable infrastructure revenue” that can fund continued AI platform development, he said. The combination of Microsoft’s enterprise AI platform with Mistral’s models and European AI infrastructure will give joint customers more deployment flexibility and expand options around data residency, sovereign AI deployments, and disconnected/on-premises environments.

“It also gives customers more model choice, reducing dependence on a single AI provider,” said Chandrasekaran.

A complementary partnership

Mistral continues to innovate with its frontier AI models and its chat and coding agent, Vibe (formerly Le Chat), yet it doesn’t attract as much attention as Claude or ChatGPT.

One of the company’s key differentiators is its targeted business model. Levy pointed out that not every workload requires “full-flight GPT.” For customers trying to rein in costs and limit exposure with on-premises deployments, Mistral’s “more focused capabilities can represent a cost-effective alternative.”

Chandrasekaran pointed to Mistral’s combination of high-performance open-weight models, strong multilingual capabilities, and a “focus on efficient inference that lowers deployment costs.”

Unlike many frontier AI companies, it offers customers greater flexibility to self-host and customize models; this makes it particularly attractive for enterprises and governments with sovereignty or regulatory requirements, he said. Its European roots also position it as the leading alternative for organizations seeking cutting-edge AI outside the US and Chinese ecosystems.

Bill Wong, research fellow at Info-Tech Research Group, also pointed to Mistral’s high-quality models and “adeptness as a sovereign AI leader.” There is growing demand for AI companies that comply with regional laws and data residency, and Mistral is established as “one of the most prominent European players.”

“Such a strategic position makes it a great partner for Microsoft to further expand its AI offerings beyond just being a single-model provider,” he said. Customers get freedom of choice while complying with data sovereignty and regulatory limitations without having to execute a separate AI deployment, while Mistral, for its part, can go beyond Europe and gain more visibility with international businesses.

Mistral brings both “technological and political advantages,” Levy noted. The startup’s European roots give Microsoft more credibility “at a fraught time for geopolitical relationships.” Customers in Europe and beyond are concerned about US exposure, and Mistral can provide a safer choice.

Meanwhile, Microsoft can deploy European-developed AI models running on European infrastructure, thus maximizing regulatory compliance while offering next-level enterprise marketing scale that Mistral “simply couldn’t achieve on its own,” said Levy. Mistral-based workloads deployed on Azure will also benefit from Microsoft’s “comprehensive security certifications, governance frameworks, and monitoring.”

Bottom line: Both companies can maximize their unique roadmaps through the partnership, he said. “As the rules of the AI economy continue to evolve, expect more eyebrow-raising deals like this to be signed.”

AWS has updated AWS Data Exports, its service for generating and managing cost and usage Reports (CURs), to include standardized Amazon Bedrock product metadata, making it easier for enterprise engineering teams to analyze AI usage and spending as they scale AI deployments spanning multiple foundation models.

The update extends billing exports with normalized fields for model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, billing unit and Bedrock product family, and will enable enterprises to identify which models generated costs and compare spending across providers without relying on custom parsing or normalization of billing records, AWS wrote in a blog post.

That reduced reliance on custom parsing will reduce the engineering effort required to analyze billing data, analysts said.

“Before the update, a data engineer would typically need to maintain a model ID registry, write regex against usage type strings, or join AWS CloudTrail with CUR to figure out which provider generated which cost,” said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

The new standardized fields “can be the difference between a billing pipeline that needs constant babysitting and one that doesn’t,” Chopra added.

That’s because custom parsing logic is more prone to break down or require maintenance when AWS adds new models or updates pricing in Bedrock, said Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.

Richer billing data to boost enterprise AI cost governance

Beyond reducing engineering overhead, the update could also help enterprises improve AI cost governance.

Before this update FinOps teams struggled to identify which model Bedrock related to because usage type fields were inconsistent, and there was no unified product family name that captured all Bedrock costs in one place, Chopra said.

“Now those attributes — model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, pricing unit — are standardized and available by default. That’s the plumbing work no one talks about, but it’s what makes downstream reporting actually reliable,” Chopra added.

This, said Jain, makes it easier to build dashboards showing cost by model, provider, token type or inference mode while also identifying expensive workloads, unusual token growth and opportunities to move to cheaper models or batch processing.

It’s a timely update, especially in light of last week’s AWS billing issue that caused some customers to see incorrect cost estimates of services consumed in the AWS Management Console, said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev.

“Anything that gives customers clearer, more granular and more trustworthy billing data is welcome when confidence in the numbers has just been shaken. It does not fix what went wrong, but better visibility into where spend is going is exactly what teams want more of after an episode like that,” Bandta added.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

AWS has updated AWS Data Exports, its service for generating and managing cost and usage Reports (CURs), to include standardized Amazon Bedrock product metadata, making it easier for enterprise engineering teams to analyze AI usage and spending as they scale AI deployments spanning multiple foundation models.

The update extends billing exports with normalized fields for model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, billing unit and Bedrock product family, and will enable enterprises to identify which models generated costs and compare spending across providers without relying on custom parsing or normalization of billing records, AWS wrote in a blog post.

That reduced reliance on custom parsing will reduce the engineering effort required to analyze billing data, analysts said.

“Before the update, a data engineer would typically need to maintain a model ID registry, write regex against usage type strings, or join AWS CloudTrail with CUR to figure out which provider generated which cost,” said Bhupendra Chopra, chief revenue officer at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

The new standardized fields “can be the difference between a billing pipeline that needs constant babysitting and one that doesn’t,” Chopra added.

That’s because custom parsing logic is more prone to break down or require maintenance when AWS adds new models or updates pricing in Bedrock, said Pareekh Jain, principal analyst at Pareekh Consulting.

Richer billing data to boost enterprise AI cost governance

Beyond reducing engineering overhead, the update could also help enterprises improve AI cost governance.

Before this update FinOps teams struggled to identify which model Bedrock related to because usage type fields were inconsistent, and there was no unified product family name that captured all Bedrock costs in one place, Chopra said.

“Now those attributes — model provider, model name, inference type, inference mode, pricing unit — are standardized and available by default. That’s the plumbing work no one talks about, but it’s what makes downstream reporting actually reliable,” Chopra added.

This, said Jain, makes it easier to build dashboards showing cost by model, provider, token type or inference mode while also identifying expensive workloads, unusual token growth and opportunities to move to cheaper models or batch processing.

It’s a timely update, especially in light of last week’s AWS billing issue that caused some customers to see incorrect cost estimates of services consumed in the AWS Management Console, said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at FinOps services providing firm ZopDev.

“Anything that gives customers clearer, more granular and more trustworthy billing data is welcome when confidence in the numbers has just been shaken. It does not fix what went wrong, but better visibility into where spend is going is exactly what teams want more of after an episode like that,” Bandta added.

Every enterprise AI conversation seems to begin with the same question: Which model should we use?

I understand why. Models are visible. They have names, benchmarks, release notes, pricing pages and impressive demos. They are easy to compare in a leadership meeting. One model promises better reasoning. Another offers a larger context window. Another appears faster, cheaper or more specialized.

But after years of working around enterprise platforms, integration layers, cloud migration, middleware, production operations and mission-critical systems, I see the AI conversation differently.

The model matters. But it is not where most enterprises will struggle next.

The next AI bottleneck is the infrastructure behind the model.

I do not mean only GPUs, cloud capacity or data storage. I mean the full enterprise operating layer that allows AI to work safely in the real world: data pipelines, identity, APIs, messaging, observability, security controls, deployment automation, cost governance, auditability, support ownership and recovery design.

That layer is what determines whether AI remains an exciting experiment or becomes a trusted business capability.

Pilots hide the hard part

Most organizations can build an impressive AI pilot. A small team can connect a model to a dataset, create a workflow and show a use case that works well in a controlled setting.

The harder part starts when that pilot moves into a real production process.

That is when practical questions show up. Who owns the data quality? What systems can the AI access? How do we trace which prompt, policy or retrieval flow produced a specific answer? What happens when an API slows down, a queue backs up or a downstream system is unavailable?

To me, these are not model problems. They are infrastructure problems.

This is where many enterprises are now headed. The first phase of AI was experimentation. The next phase is operationalization, and that is where the real gap becomes clear.

McKinsey has made a similar point in its work on agentic AI, noting that the next phase of value depends less on isolated tools and more on redesigning workflows, operating models and enterprise execution around agents.

AI pilots can survive on enthusiasm. Production AI requires architecture.

AI is becoming an integration problem

The more I look at enterprise AI, the more it feels like an integration challenge.

In large organizations, I have seen how messaging platforms, integration gateways, deployment pipelines, monitoring tools and cloud infrastructure can decide whether a digital capability succeeds or fails. AI will be no different. Even the strongest model will struggle if the data, middleware, identity layer and operational controls around it are weak.

AI does not work in isolation. It needs context from systems of record, clean data from different business areas, secure access to APIs, event streams, workflows, knowledge repositories, monitoring tools and legacy systems.

That is why the CIO question is changing.

It is no longer just, “Which AI tool should we buy?”

It is becoming, “Can we safely operationalize intelligence across the business?”

This is where agentic AI matters. Autonomous AI only creates real value when the architecture around it can make its actions safe, traceable and useful.

A model can generate an answer. Infrastructure determines whether that answer is secure, timely, explainable, governed and connected to the right workflow.

For example, an AI assistant that summarizes customer or order information may look like a model use case. But underneath, it depends on access control, fresh data, reliable APIs, logging, encryption, monitoring and policy enforcement.

If the answer is wrong, people may blame the model. But the real failure may have started with stale data, weak integration, poor access design, missing observability or an unreliable downstream system.

That is why CIOs should not judge AI only by model capability. The enterprise system around the model matters just as much.

Latency will become a trust issue

In traditional technology operations, latency is often treated as a performance metric. In AI-enabled workflows, latency becomes a trust issue.

When an employee asks an AI assistant for help and the response takes too long, the employee stops using it. When a customer-facing workflow becomes slow, the customer abandons it. When an AI agent waits on multiple backend calls, the entire business process feels unreliable.

This becomes even more important as organizations move from simple chat interfaces to agentic workflows. A single AI-driven action may include identity checks, context retrieval, policy validation, model reasoning, API calls, business-rule execution, logging and human approval.

Each step adds latency. Each dependency adds a possible failure point.

A model may be fast in a benchmark but slow inside an enterprise process. That difference matters.

This is where platform engineering becomes essential. Enterprises need reusable patterns for AI workloads: approved connectors, secure retrieval methods, queue-based decoupling, caching strategies, deployment pipelines, monitoring dashboards and standard rollback procedures.

Without those patterns, every AI initiative becomes a custom build. Custom builds may work for pilots, but they do not scale across a large enterprise.

Observability has to expand

Traditional monitoring tells us whether infrastructure is healthy. Is the server up? Is CPU high? Is memory exhausted? Is the application returning errors?

AI needs that, but it also needs more.

We need to know what data was retrieved, which model was used, which prompt version was active, which user initiated the request, which policy was applied, how long each step took and whether the output passed validation.

We also need to detect new forms of risk: unusual usage patterns, repeated failed tool calls, unexpected cost spikes, sensitive data exposure, weak retrieval results or an AI workflow attempting actions outside its intended boundary.

In production AI, observability is not only about uptime. It is about confidence.

If a business leader, auditor, regulator or security team asks why an AI system made a recommendation, the answer cannot be, “The model said so.” The enterprise needs traceability. It needs evidence. It needs operational context that engineers, risk teams and business owners can understand.

This is one of the biggest gaps I see in AI strategy. Many organizations are investing in models and use cases, but not enough in the control plane required to manage them.

Data readiness is still underestimated

AI has exposed an uncomfortable truth: many enterprises are not as data ready as they think.

Data is often duplicated across platforms, described differently by each team, governed inconsistently and refreshed on different schedules. Access rules may be clear in one system but unclear in another. Even basic business definitions can change from department to department.

AI does not fix that automatically. In many cases, it makes the problem more visible.

A bad report may be questioned. A bad AI answer may sound confident enough to be trusted.

That is a real risk.

Being data-ready for AI is not just about connecting a vector database or indexing documents. It requires clear ownership, lineage, classification, quality checks, retention rules, access boundaries and a shared understanding of which data should be used for which purpose.

The same principle applies to resilient cloud-native design. In my IEEE TechRxiv paper, “Enabling Fault-Tolerant Multicast in Cloud-Native Architectures” I explored how reliability, observability and fault tolerance become foundational requirements when critical workloads stretch across hybrid and multi-cloud environments.

CIOs already understand this because they have lived through enterprise resource planning programs, cloud migration, integration modernization, cybersecurity transformation and analytics initiatives. The lesson is familiar: technology cannot outrun data discipline forever.

Security cannot be added later

As AI moves from answering questions to acting, security becomes much more important.

An assistant that summarizes information carries one level of risk. An agent that can open a ticket, update a record, trigger a workflow, approve a request or contact a customer carries a very different one.

The more AI can do, the more identity, authorization, least privilege, separation of duties and human approval matter.

Enterprises should be careful not to grant AI broad access just to speed up a pilot. That may seem harmless in development, but it can become dangerous at scale.

AI access should be treated like any other privileged enterprise capability: limited, logged, reviewed and easy to revoke.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework is a useful reference point here because it frames AI risk as something organizations must govern, map, measure and manage continuously rather than something handled only at the end of deployment.

Security teams should be involved early, not at the end. The goal is not to slow innovation. The goal is to build a platform where safe innovation becomes repeatable.

The CIO has to define the operating model

AI is creating pressure from every direction. Boards want productivity. Business teams want automation. Employees want better tools. Vendors are pushing new features. Security teams are watching risk. Finance teams are watching cost. Customers expect faster, smarter experiences.

The CIO sits in the middle of all of it.

That is why the CIO’s role cannot stop at choosing tools or approving pilots. The CIO has to define how AI will actually operate across the enterprise.

That means answering practical questions. Which architecture is approved? Which data sources can be trusted? How are AI workflows deployed, monitored, supported and governed? How are costs controlled? How do teams reuse common patterns instead of rebuilding the same foundation each time?

This work may not be as exciting as a model demo, but it is what separates sustainable AI from short-term experimentation.

The winning organizations will not be the ones with the most pilots. They will be the ones with the strongest AI operating layer.

They will build reusable platform patterns, strengthen data governance, design access properly, monitor AI behavior end to end and measure success by business improvement, not only model performance.

The model still matters. But the enterprise behind the model matters more.

A powerful model on weak infrastructure will eventually disappoint the business. A capable model on strong infrastructure can deliver real value because it can be trusted, secured, scaled and improved.

That is the shift CIOs need to lead.

The next AI bottleneck is not the model. It is whether the enterprise behind the model is ready.

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

When a goal goes in during a tournament quarter-final and a hundred million people watch it at the same time, what they feel is the goal. The roar, the replay, the disbelief.

They do not feel the contribution feeds traversing private media networks across continents, or the edge nodes absorbing a traffic spike that appeared without warning.

They just feel the moment.

And that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

And as live sports viewership pushes into territory that makes previous records look modest (driven by a generation that expects to watch anything, on any device, anywhere, without waiting), the gap between getting that delivery right and getting it wrong has never been more consequential, or more public.

As audiences moved to digital platforms, the margin for error disappeared.

There is a version of this conversation that is easy to have: audiences expect more, technology has to keep up. True, but incomplete.

Audiences have always expected live sport to work. What changed is what “working” means, and how quickly they find out when it doesn’t.

Viewers no longer sit in front of a single screen. During a FIFA World Cup match, a household might have the main feed on the living room television, while someone else streams the highlights on a second TV in the bedroom, all while phones flash with live stats and tablets run separate commentary. From the infrastructure’s perspective, that isn’t just one household watching a game; it’s a chaotic web of concurrent demands triggered by the exact same split-second on the pitch.

Multiply that across tens of millions of viewers, and the scale of the challenge becomes clear. Social media raises the stakes further. When a platform fails during a World Cup knockout match, audiences report it in real-time on the same platforms they use to discuss the game. The complaint travels faster than the fix.

Broadcasters no longer have the luxury of resolving an incident before people notice. The incident becomes the story, and in many cases, travels further than the match itself.

What these viewership numbers actually mean for infrastructure

The shift in how people watch live sport has moved well beyond trend territory.

EMARKETER forecasts that digital live sports audiences in the US will grow to 114.1 million viewers, while traditional pay TV audiences decline to 82.0 million, highlighting the continued shift toward streaming.

The concurrency numbers generated by major sporting events now sit in a territory that would have seemed implausible a decade ago.

During the 2026 FIFA World Cup, for instance, streaming platforms shattered every historical ceiling, highlighted by Brazil’s CazéTV repeatedly breaking global YouTube records for concurrent viewership during the group stage. Meanwhile, in the United States, Peacock and Telemundo’s digital platforms logged an unprecedented 13 million concurrent viewers for a single knockout window. 

When tens of millions of people tune into the same live stream at the same moment, it’s a challenge unlike regular web traffic.

Historically, massive global audiences were insulated by geography. The load was spread across distinct regional networks: antenna signals, satellite downlinks, and physical cable architectures. The physical infrastructure of traditional television inherently absorbed the impact. 

Digital streaming removes that buffer. Traffic spikes all at once, often at the most critical moment. The tighter the match, the deeper the stoppage time, the sharper the spike. Network infrastructure is forced to handle its heaviest, most volatile traffic exactly when it has zero margin for error.

Social media compounds the pressure operationally. The second a crucial goal is scored, a wave of real-time reactions floods the internet, instantly dragging a secondary “curiosity audience” into the app. These are people who weren’t even watching the match, but saw the hype and decided to tune in, meaning the network has to absorb a massive new rush of users precisely while the primary stream is already maxing out its capacity.

To survive these surges while satisfying a modern audience, the underlying broadcast playbook has undergone a massive structural shift. It’s no longer just about handling traffic; it’s also about using modern technology like AI to manage it intelligently.

According to an industry survey, 25% of broadcasters integrated AI into live production workflows in 2025, a massive leap from just 9% the previous year, with 64% identifying AI as the single largest impact driver over the next five years. 

The network is no longer just delivering content. AI is now generating highlights and short clips in real time, producing millions of videos that keep fans engaged long after the live moment has passed.

Ultimately, the technical demand is driven by a shift in what viewers expect. An IBM sports study revealed that 56% of fans now want AI-driven insights layered directly onto their content, while 33% point to real-time, automated translation as the feature that most impacts their experience.

Whether it’s one screen or several, viewers don’t notice the edge infrastructure or AI powering the experience. They just expect the game to play without interruption.

The planning mistake most organisations make

Capacity planning is where most organisations spend their time when preparing to stream a major event. Can the system handle a million concurrent streams? Can it scale on demand if the numbers exceed projections? These are real questions. 

The lesson is not unique to sports streaming. Every digital business now experiences moments where demand, visibility, and customer expectations collide. Peak traffic events such as flash sales, ticket releases, and viral campaigns can drive website traffic 2 to 25 times above normal levels within seconds. The infrastructure may be different, but the pressure is remarkably similar.

Large-scale system failures occur when multiple components, each functioning as expected on its own, are overwhelmed by a surge in demand, rising latency, or regional blind spots at the same time.

The problem isn’t the individual systems. It’s how they work together.

Latency is the factor most consistently underestimated. A few seconds of delay is not a minor inconvenience in live sport. It is a fundamentally broken experience. 

A viewer whose stream is running four seconds behind will see a notification before the decisive moment appears on screen. Someone watching a service from the privacy of their room may hear a celebration from another room before seeing it on their screen.

Geography is another planning gap. Streaming growth is increasingly being driven by emerging markets. In Southeast Asia alone, premium video streaming subscriptions grew 19% in 2025, led by Indonesia, while viewing hours continued to climb across the region. Yet much of the world’s media infrastructure was originally designed around North American and Western European demand. An architecture that looks robust on paper can deliver very different experiences depending on where the viewer is.

The reason is simple: physical distance still matters. Every extra hop between the viewer and the content adds latency, making it harder to deliver a consistent experience at global scale.

Then there is the timing question. The decisions that determine whether a platform holds during the most-watched minutes of the year are not made on event day. They are made months earlier through choices around architecture, redundancy, testing, and operational readiness.

Once an event is underway, it’s too late to redesign the architecture behind it. If your system isn’t designed to handle the pressure before the crowd arrives, it’s already too late.

The hidden chain behind every live event

When a streaming disruption becomes public, people naturally look for a single point of failure: the app, the platform, or the provider.

A live event depends on dozens of systems working together, and any one of them can become a problem.

And the experience is only as good as the weakest handoff between them.

It all starts with the live camera feed moving from the venue to the production studio. This is a real-time stream, not a file download. If you drop even a single packet at the wrong moment, everything down the line breaks, no matter how perfect the rest of your setup is.

Remote and cloud-based production workflows have redefined how live sports are produced, enabling broadcasters to operate with greater agility and scale. As production becomes more distributed, success increasingly depends on ensuring every stage of the delivery chain works together seamlessly.

Each transition is a potential failure point. Managing them requires visibility that extends across providers, platforms, and networks simultaneously.

Behind every live stream, technologies like encoding, transcoding, packaging, rights management, and ad insertion are constantly at work. If any one of them fails, the stream can go down altogether.

Global distribution introduces another layer of complexity. Viewers in Asia, Africa, and South America may all be watching the same match, but each stream travels across different networks and infrastructure. That means performance can vary by region, and issues may affect one audience without impacting another. 

AI is increasingly helping operators detect anomalies in real time, pinpoint affected regions and trigger corrective actions before disruptions become widespread. Combined with point-to-point monitoring, it provides the visibility needed to keep live events running smoothly at global scale.

Edge delivery is where the difference between preparation and improvisation becomes most apparent. Bringing content closer to users reduces latency, absorbs local traffic surges, and improves performance in markets with variable connectivity. 

The value of technology investments such as AI and Edge becomes clearest during the moments when demand is highest.

Monitoring is what turns visibility into action. With AI helping analyze telemetry and detect anomalies in real time, operations teams can identify issues sooner and respond before they affect viewers. By the time customers start reporting a problem, the opportunity to prevent it has already passed.

What reliability is actually worth

For most of early broadcast history, audience tolerance provided some buffer. Disruptions happened. People accepted them. There was nowhere else to go, and the story rarely escaped the room.

Neither of those things is true now.

A streaming failure during a major match becomes public within seconds. Viewers don’t distinguish between a network issue, a processing failure, or a distribution problem; they simply see a service that failed. That single experience can shape the broadcaster’s reputation, credibility and customer loyalty, influencing whether viewers come back for the next event or recommend the service to others.

The commercial implications are significant. Global tournaments such as the FIFA World Cup illustrate just how valuable live sports rights have become. Their return depends on reliably reaching the audience that was promised.

Advertisers invest in live sport for one reason: to reach a large, engaged audience at the exact moment it matters most. If the stream fails during that window, the opportunity is lost. Those viewers, impressions, and advertising value cannot be recovered once the moment has passed.

The same principle increasingly applies outside media. Customers rarely know nor care whether an outage originated in the application, the cloud environment, the network or a third-party dependency. They experience a failure of the brand. In a digital-first economy, reliability has become part of the customer experience itself.

For broadcasters and streamers, reliability is no longer just an operational KPI. It directly influences audience trust, advertising revenue, and the long-term value of premium sports rights.

The demands ahead are bigger

AI-assisted production is already changing how live events are created. Broadcasters are using AI to automate highlight generation, camera selection and real-time clip packaging for social media, with new AI-assisted workflows producing sports highlights up to 80% faster than traditional methods. 

All of this processing happens within the live delivery chain, where every additional task must be completed without adding latency or compromising the viewing experience.

Personalisation at scale is the next significant challenge. Not personalisation in a vague sense, but the specific technical reality of delivering multi-language commentary tracks, different languages, different statistical overlays, and different camera angles to different viewers watching the same event simultaneously. 

Instead of one stream per event, the infrastructure has to manage a matrix of concurrent variants, each with its own encoding, storage, and delivery requirements. 

Interactive experiences add bidirectional data flows: real-time polls, integrated second-screen data, live wagering. These move data from the viewer back through infrastructure that was primarily built to push content outward. Managing that at scale is a different engineering problem from managing delivery.

Higher-resolution formats (4K now becoming a standard expectation in premium markets, 8K moving into early deployment) are bandwidth-intensive at exactly the scale where bandwidth is already under pressure. Consumer devices are ready. Infrastructure in many high-growth markets is not uniformly there yet.

Many of these capabilities are already being deployed for major global sporting events. The organisations investing seriously in technology, innovation, and infrastructure now are building toward a standard that will be the baseline requirement within a few years. Those that are not will be closing the gap under the worst possible conditions.

The technology you never think about

The broadcasters that succeed don’t leave reliability to chance. They plan for it from the outset, designing their infrastructure to handle peak demand long before the audience arrives.

This reality hits hardest during massive global events. When a stream glitches, millions of people feel it simultaneously in a matter of seconds. Keeping those streams alive doesn’t happen by accident; it takes massive scale, intense discipline, and deep experience controlling everything from the stadium camera to the viewer’s screen.

The lesson extends well beyond live sports. Every enterprise is becoming a real-time digital business, whether it’s delivering AI-powered applications, launching digital products, processing financial transactions, or handling a sudden surge in customer demand. Different industries may face different triggers, but the expectation is the same: the experience has to work, even when demand is at its highest.

Delivering that level of reliability is why many of the world’s largest sports brands rely on Tata Communications. Supporting the broadcast, production, and management of 80% of the world’s sporting events, and reaching more than two billion viewers across 190+ countries, Tata Communications operates in the invisible layers that make every live moment possible. We call this the “Virtual Stadium of the World”, the technology and infrastructure that connects fans, broadcasters, rights-holders, and sporting moments at a truly global scale.

By managing the critical handoffs across contribution networks, edge processing, and global media infrastructure, we engineer the resilience required to keep 120,000 live events running flawlessly every year.

Live sport may be the most visible test of digital infrastructure, but it won’t be the last. As AI, personalisation and real-time experiences become the norm across industries, the ability to deliver reliably at scale will define far more than match day.

To learn more, visit us here.

Looking ahead just a short time, Apple could hold a powerful position in AI where it most makes sense: deployment.

Not only will the company offer up its own AI models for the kind of tasks millions use ChatGPT to do today, but it will provide more sophisticated on-device agentic models to help users get things done through Siri AI.

Apple also offers limited capacity for more complex tasks through Private Cloud Compute, and, in partnership with the likes of Google in the US and Alibaba in China, the company is giving users a trusted conduit through which to access even more sophisticated AI services. 

Deeply deployable

Critics can say it took Apple a long time to get to this point, but they also seem to think the company has finally got the mix right with its series 27 operating systems. Arriving late to a party doesn’t mean you won’t shine once you get there.

Apple is also coming up the inside lane around frontier AI, with iterative OS and hardware enhancements that mean its devices become increasingly effective for Edge AI use cases, on device — no cloud service required.

The company appears to be digging down into those use cases. Mark Gurman at Bloomberg recently predicted that future M7 Ultra Macs will support as much as 1.5TB RAM, making these systems more than capable of running full weight frontier models in people’s offices, colleges, and homes. 

While that does assume the AI-flationary memory market can supply that much RAM at prices humans can afford, it is also true that people are already running AI clusters using off-the-shelf Mac minis networked over Thunderbolt cables. It’s no stretch to believe this will continue to be the case, and that it will even broaden as the power/performance offered at the high end grows.

What’s wrong with good enough?

When combined with open AI stacks, particularly newly emerging varieties, Apple’s platforms should become leading contenders for private AI services and edge AI. Many business users will leap at the chance to offer their workers powerful, self-hosted, private AI services using one or more daisy-chained Mac Studios or Mac minis. The recent craze in deployment of both Macs to support OpenClaw instances shows they already are.

Ultimately, these different slices of momentum mean I agree with investor Jason Calacanis that Apple is in position to apply a great deal of pressure on OpenAI and Claude just by putting models on their devices. 

It’s also worth thinking about how people use AI today. How many of the queries made in the world right now constitute relatively simple tasks that could be transacted by on-device AI, such as the emerging new version of Apple Intelligence or even smaller LLM models running on device? You can even run PrismML’s 1-bit, 27-billion parameter Bonsai on an iPad using the Locally app, and that’s in the here and now.

What happens? Pretty soon you’ll find people recognize that they can already run the vast majority of their AI-augmented workflows using services they have on their existing device or can access on their on-prem Mac set-ups. And, of course, as people get used to running small tasks locally and larger tasks on premises, the actual space in which they need to turn to cloud-based frontier models will erode. That’s even as companies like PrismML work towards slimming down full-weight models so they don’t need to run on a server at all.

“It’s going to be wild when people have unlimited tokens on their desks,” said Calacanis in a podcast round table discussion.

Who has the most to lose?

The current incarnations of AI felt like they came from nowhere. Most people weren’t aware of the technology until returning to work after the 2022 holiday season. Since then, the industry has proliferated with dozens of competing models, most recently including powerful but affordable frontier models such as Qwen and Kimi.ai.

These models aren’t necessarily all as good as one another, but in many cases for much of what we do, we’ll find them to be good enough. That’s an existential crisis for some, as industry observers now think the inevitable pricing pressure means some services might have over-invested in capacity before finding any way to turn a profit.

Those profit-seeking services are the ones with the most to lose as Apple extends its hardware advantage, democratizing AI access for all while providing platforms suitable for edge AI, on-premises AI, private AI, and even AI access using third-party services. (The need for the latter will shrink as the capabilities of the former get better.)

Cupertino rising

What does this all mean? While the industry remains young, it is already fragmenting. And striding through the dust of that process comes Apple, equipped with the hardware, software, and approach to build its business even as the enterprise of first mover AI services erodes.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.

Major AI labs are unleashing forward-deployed engineers (FDEs) to try and grab enterprise customers. Large consultancies are dishing out tokens and assembling armies of consultants — both human and agent — to do the same.

But smaller firms are in the mix now, as well. AI is helping 28Stone Consulting, a New York-based, 230-person technology consultancy for capital markets, punch above its weight against larger rivals in the rush to deliver FDEs.

In this Q&A, Thomas Dolan and Frank Erickson, founders of 28Stone, argue that agentic AI isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution in vertical markets; success takes discipline, deep domain expertise, and human involvement to mitigate risk.

Many enterprises continue to struggle with the use of AI agents, which is consultancies are stepping in to get projects off the ground. 28Stone is among those that have published blueprints and methodologies on the development and delivery of agentic AI workflows with humans in the loop.

Computerworld spoke with both founding partners about why companies are still stumbling with agentic AI rollouts, and what a disciplined delivery process actually looks like.

After 15 years of delivering software for capital markets firms, is ‘AI-first’ a real distinction or just positioning?

Dolan: “We’re not shying away from being AI-forward. What needs to shine through is AI done intelligently — not stuff you get by buying some tokens for somebody on the trading desk. We’re an AI-first firm.”

Erickson: “And it’s temporary. At some point, AI is going to be synonymous with software development.

“The whole idea of an AI SDLC (software development lifecycle) versus an SDLC is going to be one and the same, a lot like cloud computing today. To not include AI in your strategy, you’d look like a COBOL vendor.”

What does agentic AI delivery look like?

Dolan: “We’ve got several AI initiatives delivering a pure agentic approach. We’ve doubled down on the human expertise wrapper in the SDLC. That doesn’t mean sacrificing any of the benefits of the AI models — quite the opposite.

“You don’t achieve anywhere near the same level of value from applying AI without keeping that expertise — industry, functional and technical — throughout the process.”

Where do humans stay in the loop once agents are doing the work?

Dolan: “We’re believers in starting with requirements discovery. Someone who knows the analytical nuances of a good business analyst is critically important; shaping a product owner’s business information through a markup file that can be fed into a BA agent, then treating the output as if it came from a very fast junior BA. Only then is the story complete.

“The developer takes that story, transforms it into the most efficient input, then owns the output, because they’re accountable for that code. A developer should own the code on both the input and output side.

“Your product owner, who knows the business, that’s great. But expecting them to interact with an agent and output enterprise code is ridiculous. It’s not a great plan.“

Why not just put one do-everything person in charge of AI and agents?

Erickson: “Every analyst, programmer or software engineer isn’t a great requirements analyst. And a great domain analyst with some technical background won’t know if the agent’s code is garbage, maintainable, performant.

“It’s unrealistic to expect one individual to have that breadth across domain, software engineering, testing, deployment. Clients ask all the time, and we push back: ‘Great, if you can find that guy, they’re few and far between.’ To deliver at the enterprise level, you need the human expertise, at depth.“

Dolan: “There’s system speed and latency, important in parts of finance. Then there’s speed of delivery, because other areas evolve quickly and time-to-market is critical.

“Our human wrapper may at first pass come across as a little slowed down. Maybe it is. But [Erickson] has a good analogy about one of the dangers of AI: you can end up going really fast in the wrong direction. By the time you look up, you’re way off base and have to backtrack.“

What about AI in your sector do you think is overhyped?

Dolan: “The hype around the ease of use of AI and the democratization of enterprise software delivery — that ‘anybody could do it now, it’s all being done by machines’ — is another idea that could prove costly in the long run.

“This do-it-yourself reaction is dangerous for clients, and for trust in the overall AI benefit, which is real. We compare it to the beginning of offshoring 20, 30 years ago: a golden idea that was going to cure everything. A lot of firms did it thoughtlessly, thinking it’s just labor arbitrage, and it almost inevitably failed. That all-or-nothing mentality missed that offshoring is an amazing way of getting better value for your dollar, but it has to be done thoughtfully, so the delivery process — the thing that ties it all together — stays unsevered.

“We’re seeing that now. I’ve heard, ‘We’ll just push a button, the machine’s building the system.’ The machine is not building the system. It might be writing the code, the story, running the tests.

The system is built by a team of engineers you bring in and trust. My fear is that people will say, ‘We don’t need this vendor or this technology team. I’ve got a product team. They might not be able to code at all, but they know the business,’ and it fails dramatically. 

“Then people say, ‘We played with AI, it’s not ready yet,’ and throw it all away. One of the best things we can do is ensure clients know the benefit is real.“

Erickson: “The hype can be summed up in a single phrase: vibe coding. That has done AI a massive disservice, because there’s a huge difference between vibe coding and enterprise software development, and some of the loudest proponents of AI are too latched on to it. In our industry, the only way to succeed would be a stable of unicorns. It just doesn’t scale. I get perturbed when our people internally refer to AI tooling as vibe coding; if they think that’s what they’re doing, they’re misunderstood.“

When you engage clients at different levels of AI maturity, how do you get them to a understand what works?

Dolan: “95% of our take on an agentic approach is in line with everyone else’s, but that 5% matters, especially in requirements discovery, in who’s giving the requirements and how they’re thought of. It can set you up for dramatic errors, given the speed at which you’re moving.

“There’s a dangerous human tendency we’re seeing among clients to try and cut corners at the start of a project and — in lieu of having deep, expert driven discovery sessions — just summarize what they may want using AI.

“We would hope our clients are collaborative, everyone understanding it’s early days. If a client insists on doing something we feel strongly against, like a product owner completely owning everything right up to code generation, that’s an issue we have to either push back strongly on or step out of the accountability for.“

AI body shops — LLM providers and giant consultancies — are emerging to help enterprises deploy AI. Does that model work?

Dolan: “Whether you’re partnering with an LLM or with an AI-first, generic software provider — ‘Hey, we’re not industry guys, but we know AI delivery’ — you end up, if you’re a bank or a broker-dealer, saying: ‘All right, we know our business, these guys know the AI side of it. What could go wrong? Put us together and we’ll have quality engineering.’

“The problem is what you miss: the know-how of putting industry and technical expertise together and actually delivering financial services systems. The people working at the generic delivery firms, whether an AI-only firm or a body shop somewhere, don’t have that capability.“

Does AI change the economics for smaller consultancies like yours competing against the big firms, and does it cut both ways?

Dolan: “Over our 15 years pre-AI, there were two recurring reasons we’d lose a project. One: ‘We’d love to work with you guys, given your subject matter expertise, but the costs just aren’t there compared to my budgets. I’m being forced to go to a body shop or an [offshore] delivery center.’ The other side of that coin: ‘We love your capabilities, but you’re a firm of 230 people and I need 300, 400 people.’

“AI changes the options for clients. You don’t have to sacrifice the niche vendor who knows your space just because you need a larger team or a cost target. AI levels the playing field and should allow smaller firms to compete with the larger, big-box generic firms, the Accentures of the world.“

Erickson: “It redefines what scale means. You can look at velocity as a measure of your cost to deliver, not a rate card. Scale can’t be defined in terms of headcount anymore. It’s got to be defined in terms of output.

“There’s a threat in it, too. If you’re an Accenture with hundreds of thousands of low-cost software engineers, how do you train all those people? I feel for them. But for us, a couple hundred people with a specific domain focus, it’s a huge opportunity.“

How has the profile of the people you and others hire changed with this agentic process?

Erickson: “You’re still looking for people with strong engineering and design backgrounds, and communication skills, because they interact across the software development lifecycle more than in the past.

“Many take too much joy in typing out perfect code. Sorry, I don’t need you writing for-loops and classes anymore. I need you reviewing them, understanding them, operating at a higher level. That’s a different kind of person: an engineer, not a programmer or a coder. On the [business analyst] side it’s similar: people took great pride in detailed user stories covering every path. Now it’s conversations, prompts, reviewing output — less doing, more interacting.

“More than ever, they have to be interested in the domain. They can’t just be, ‘I want to learn everything there is to know about Java.’ That’s too narrow. They don’t have to be an expert; they have to be interested. In our case, capital markets is a specific niche. The biggest challenge is getting familiar with the tools — finding time, while delivering for customers, to ramp up and make the mistakes you need to without jeopardizing projects.“

What about governance? Who’s keeping AI delivery and its costs under control?

Erickson: “This is evolving rapidly. People aren’t sure how to put governance around this. The most obvious is financial governance. People are starting to get hefty bills. One of our clients spent a million dollars on tokens over the last eight weeks alone. Sticker shock. The token-maxing policies are starting to show their flaws. It’s wild west still: learn on the fly, then figure out what needs to be governed.“

Are CIOs actually opening their wallets? And when they do, what’s the smarter way to invest?

Erickson: “There’s still a lot of caution. Forecasts keep going down on how long something should take. So: ‘I could wait three months and maybe still get it delivered by the same date someone’s promising me now, but for half the price. I’m going to wait and see when equilibrium is met.’ We haven’t seen the wallets open up like crazy — it’s slow adoption.“

Dolan: “One of our clients is looking at it from a productivity-boost perspective: instead of doing the same for less, I can do much more for the same. AI lets clients pull the trigger on things they wouldn’t have in the past — projects that might not have been approved pre-AI, where the costs have come down to a point that’s palatable with the business.“

Erickson: “And that’s the story we’re hoping to hear more of. There isn’t a huge cost anymore to exploring a business opportunity. The time and money that would have gone to a return-on-investment study could be spent on a proof-of-concept with AI, and the project done a few weeks later. Maybe [there’s] a hint of things to come, where decisions start being made quicker. 

“There’s a little fear on our side, though: a lot of tiny little projects is tough for a consulting business.“

In one ransomware response I observed, the master operational dashboard remained green while the underlying environment told a very different story. It was a classic example of what we in the IT audit profession call the “watermelon effect”—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Beneath that dashboard sat an unmapped web of legacy technical debt, undocumented service accounts and shadow cloud instances. For years, presenting a green dashboard to the audit committee could give technology leaders a false sense of comfort. If a catastrophic breach occurred, it was generally treated as an unpredictable operational tragedy, managed via cyber insurance, a carefully calibrated public relations pivot and perhaps a quiet executive transition.

Today, that corporate shield is thinner than many technology leaders assume. For technology leaders in regulated or public-company environments, executive exposure is no longer only a theoretical debate. The regulatory environment has made plausible deniability much harder to sustain.

The erosion of the corporate shield

With the application of the European Union’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) for financial entities, alongside the broader NIS2 Directive for essential and important entities, cybersecurity governance has become harder to separate from board-level oversight. DORA places ultimate responsibility for ICT risk management on the management body of financial entities, while NIS2 requires management bodies to approve and oversee cybersecurity risk-management measures. In the United States, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s cybersecurity disclosure rules require public companies to disclose material cyber incidents and describe their cyber risk management, strategy and governance in annual filings. The new burden is not simply to operate controls; it is to show, after the fact, that leadership decisions matched the risk evidence available at the time.

The serious risk to a modern CIO is not simply the occurrence of a sophisticated security incident. The true danger is the inability to reconcile what leadership presented externally to investors, regulators and the board with what the internal evidence showed inside the environment.

When a serious crisis breaks, you may find yourself surrounded by corporate defense counsel, regulatory investigators and outside forensic lawyers all asking variations of the same uncomfortable questions: What did you know, when did you discover it and what specific actions did you take next?

When those questions are asked, a slide deck asserting that your security posture is “aligned with industry best practices” will not be enough. A post-incident review may recognize that sophisticated attacks occur. What creates greater exposure is evidence that known risks were ignored, understated or left outside structured governance. To survive that level of post-incident review, one of your strongest assets is a disciplined, independent evidence trail showing that risks were identified, challenged, escalated and acted on before the first indicator of compromise appeared.

Why point-in-time comfort letters fail regulatory scrutiny

The reality we face is that legacy compliance evidence often falls short under regulatory scrutiny. For years, the annual SOC 2 Type II report or a standardized ISO 27001 certification was brandished by technology teams as the definitive proof of a functional control environment. I have sat in dozens of scoping meetings where an engineering director pointed to a freshly minted compliance report as if it were a complete defense against scrutiny.

But a compliance report is a historical artifact—a retrospective evaluation of how specific controls operated during a defined window of time months in the past. It tells an investigator that on a random afternoon in Q2, your production change-management approvals conformed to a baseline policy. It says absolutely nothing about the configuration drift, unauthorized API keys or emergency patch bypasses that developers introduced the following weekend to hit a product release deadline.

Modern regulators, boards and investors are no longer satisfied by historical comfort letters alone. Under contemporary frameworks, especially regimes focused on operational resilience, static compliance evidence is no longer enough. The expectation of due care has shifted from a passive state of compliance to an active state of continuous challenge. Increasingly, post-incident reviews look for evidence that leadership identified system vulnerabilities, formally escalated material deficiencies, evaluated systemic risk to the business and tracked remediation progress with measurable rigor.

When an architecture fails, post-incident reviews often focus quickly on ownership, escalation and whether known risks were acted upon. If your defensive documentation consists entirely of static policy documents and green dashboards, you leave an evidentiary vacuum that can invite difficult questions about executive oversight. Post-incident reviews rarely turn on perfection. They turn on whether the organization can show a traceable chain of governance.

5 non-negotiable artifacts for your executive evidence engine

This reality requires a complete reframing of your relationship with your IT audit department. Historically, this dynamic has been defined by friction. Technology leaders frequently view my peers and me as compliance traffic cops—bureaucrats who interrupt core engineering sprints to demand evidence samples, user access reviews and system configurations.

It is time to view IT audit through a pragmatic lens: we are your independent evidence engine. We are one of the few corporate functions tasked with independently challenging your control environment, documenting where exceptions were escalated and showing how management responded. When an auditor identifies a control gap and partners with you to draft a management action plan, they are not creating a bureaucratic roadblock. They are helping you construct an evidence trail that can show risk was identified, escalated and acted upon.

To transform your IT audit function into an effective executive shield, you must shift focus away from superficial check-the-box exercises and collaborate on specific artifacts. The most effective exercise you can run with your audit leadership is to flip the timeline completely and ask: if this program were reviewed six months from now, which evidence would show we governed the risk before it failed?

1. Board-facing risk registers with escalation history: A risk register that sits unreviewed on an intranet page for 12 months is not a management tool; to an investigator, it can look like evidence that known risks were not actively governed. Your material technology, cybersecurity and dependency risks must be centrally logged. More importantly, this artifact must contain a clear, chronological escalation history showing exactly when the risk was presented to leadership committees and the board, along with related minutes, decisions or follow-up actions.
2. Granular risk acceptance records: You cannot remediate every vulnerability instantly. Business continuity, legacy software limitations and budgetary boundaries require you to accept certain operational exposures. When this occurs, ensure your risk acceptance records are airtight. A defensible record must document the specific technical variance, the precise financial or operational rationale for the delay, a definitive expiration date, explicit executive sign-off and the active compensating controls deployed to reduce the blast radius in the interim.
3. Tabletop and operational simulation records: Independent frameworks such as ISACA’s Digital Trust Ecosystem Framework can help structure this evidence, but boards and regulators will still look for proof that the testing actually happened. Your audit trail should contain comprehensive records of cyber incident, disaster recovery and third-party dependency simulations. These records must detail the scenario tested, the executive participants, the control failures identified during the drill and a formalized tracking schedule showing when those gaps were closed.
4. AI governance inventories and data-flow mappings: The rapid deployment of generative AI tools across enterprise operations has created a massive blind spot for technology executives. In one audit, we found developers using an unapproved public large language model to accelerate debugging with sensitive internal code. To protect yourself, work with your audit team to build an active enterprise AI inventory that maps data lineage, identifies model business owners, documents risk classification approvals and demonstrates active technical monitoring for unauthorized data exfiltration.
5. Synchronized disclosure-control handoffs: When a material security incident or system outage occurs, the clock begins ticking for regulatory reporting. Your incident response playbook must be technically linked to your corporate disclosure controls. The audit trail should show that a documented, synchronized handoff occurred between your technical response leaders, general counsel, chief financial officer and corporate communications team. This evidence helps show that your external statements match internal technical realities.

In the modern corporate ecosystem, technology leadership is no longer just an engineering challenge; it is an exercise in rigorous, evidence-based governance. The regulatory landscape has changed, and the expectation of continuous traceability cannot be avoided.

Open and direct collaboration with your IT audit team will not prevent a zero-day exploit, an unexpected cloud outage or a critical third-party vendor failure. That is not the purpose of enterprise risk management.

The true value is far more practical: when a serious incident puts your program under review, you will not be forced to defend your reputation with a feeling, an unverified assumption or a misleadingly green dashboard. Instead, you will have an independent record showing that risk was actively seen, appropriately challenged, properly escalated and responsibly managed. In today’s regulatory environment, that disciplined trail of evidence may be the difference between a failure that can be explained and one that begins to look negligent.

.

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

I keep seeing a version of the same scene. A CEO has a question about AI. It is a real question, the kind that will shape where the company spends the next two years. The CEO does not bring it to the CIO. They bring it to a data leader two levels down, or to a vendor who presented at a conference, or to an AI specialist a board member recommended. The CIO finds out the strategy is forming when a slide shows up that they did not build. By then, the direction is already half-set, and the CIO is being asked to react to it rather than shape it.

I want to be precise about what is happening, because it is easy to misread. The CIO has not been removed from anything. Title intact, budget intact, seat at the table intact. What has changed is quieter. On one of the most consequential technology conversations the company will have this decade, the CIO is being routed around. The work still flows through them eventually. The thinking no longer starts with them.

I have watched this happen to capable people who would have given the CEO a better answer than the person who was asked. That is what makes it worth naming. This is not a competence gap. It is a positioning gap, and positioning gaps close in the wrong direction if you ignore them long enough.

How the routing actually starts

The routing does not begin with a decision to exclude anyone. It begins with a CEO who is anxious about AI and looking for someone who sounds certain. AI is moving fast enough that executives feel the pressure to have a point of view before they have earned one. That pressure usually arrives secondhand, from a board member or a peer on the golf course describing what is working at their company. So the CEO goes looking for someone who will confirm the answer they already want to hear, and they keep going back to whoever gives it to them.

Here is where many technology leaders lose the thread. For years, the safe posture in the CIO seat was measured caution. You raised the risks, you flagged the integration cost, you asked who owns the data and what the compliance exposure looks like. That posture built credibility in an era when the failure mode was moving too fast on technology nobody understood. With AI, the same posture reads as drag. A CEO who is being told by three vendors that “the future is already here” does not want to hear why they should slow down and be cautious. They hear caution as losing the race, and they go find a point of view somewhere else.

The data leaders, vendors and specialists who get the call are not necessarily more capable. They are more available with a confident answer. A vendor’s whole job is to arrive with conviction. A data scientist who has shipped one impressive model carries more apparent authority on AI, in that moment, than a CIO who runs the entire estate but talks about AI the way they talk about every other risk. The CEO is not weighing depth against depth. They are weighing the person who said yes against the person who said it depends.

Once that pattern sets, it compounds. The CEO who got a satisfying answer from the data leader goes back to the data leader. The vendor who shaped the first conversation gets invited into the second. Each loop the CIO is not in makes the next one easier to run without them. The org chart still says the CIO owns technology strategy. The actual conversation has relocated.

What it costs before anyone notices

The cost shows up late, which is exactly why it is dangerous. For a while nothing looks broken. The CIO is still delivering. The AI initiatives are still landing on their plate to execute. The damage is happening upstream, in the room where the bets get made, and the CIO is not in that room.

I have seen what arrives downstream when the strategy was set without the person who has to run it. A model gets championed that the data cannot actually support. A vendor commitment gets made that locks the company into an architecture the CIO would have flagged in the first meeting. An agent gets deployed inside a business unit, with executive blessing, and the CIO inherits accountability for it months later without ever having shaped how it was governed. The recent IBM finding that CIOs are increasingly held accountable for AI they do not fully control is the visible end of this. The invisible front end is the conversation the CIO was routed around, the one where the accountability got created in the first place.

What I find most corrosive is what it does to the CIO’s standing over time. Every initiative the CIO executes but did not shape reinforces a story about what the CIO is for. They become the person who runs the technology other people decided on. That is a fine description of an order taker and a poor description of a strategic leader, and CEOs do not promote, fund, or defend order takers when budgets tighten. The routing-around does not just cost the company a worse AI strategy. It quietly recasts the CIO as the implementer of everyone else’s thinking, and that recasting is hard to reverse once the executive team has internalized it.

What the leaders who stayed in the conversation did

The technology leaders I have watched hold their position on AI did one thing first. They stopped leading with caution and started leading with a point of view. Not a reckless one. A real, defensible position on where AI creates value in their specific business and where it does not, delivered with the same conviction the vendors bring, before the CEO went looking elsewhere for it. They made themselves the person with the clearest answer, which is the role the routing-around was filling with someone else.

That requires giving up a posture that felt safe for a long time. The CIOs who made the shift accepted that on AI, being right and cautious is worth less than being early and directional. They formed a view ahead of being asked. They walked into the CEO’s office with where we should place our AI bets and why, rather than waiting to be handed someone else’s bets to pressure-test. The difference is whether you are the author of the strategy or its editor, and CEOs route around editors.

They also changed how they talk about risk. Instead of presenting risk as the reason to slow down, they folded it into the recommendation. The data is not ready for that use case, so here is the use case where it is ready, and here is what we do in parallel to unlock the first one. That framing keeps the CIO inside the conversation as the person making AI happen responsibly, rather than the person standing outside it explaining why it is hard. Same expertise, opposite effect on whether the CEO keeps coming back.

None of this is about pushing the data leaders and specialists out. The strongest CIOs I know pulled those people closer and brought them into the room under their own framing, so that when the CEO wanted the specialist’s input, it arrived through the CIO rather than around them. They made themselves the orchestrator of the AI conversation instead of one of its casualties.

If you are a technology leader right now, the question worth sitting with is not whether you are good at AI. You probably are. The question is whether the most important AI conversations in your company are still starting with you, or whether you have quietly become the person they get handed to after the thinking is done. That answer is set in rooms you may not be in, and the only way to find out is to ask who your CEO called the last three times AI came up. If the answer is not you, the role is still yours. The conversation has already started leaving.

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

Chinese tech giant Huawei is reportedly entering the DRAM manufacturing business in a bid to cash in on the insane profitability of memory sales.

Three firms – Micron Technology, SK hynix, and Samsung Electronics — account for 95% of the DRAM on the market worldwide. The rest is small players, mostly in China. One of them, CXMT, is gearing to make a run for the market and try and take a little bit of their business. But it is a small player, especially compared to Huawei.

Huawei’s strategy is complex. It is working with various entities to circumvent the U.S. trade sanctions specifically targeting it. According to SemiconductorInsider on X.com, the Chinese government and DRAM chip maker Swaysure (formed in 2022) are planning to introduce a DRAM manufacturing plant with a capacity of 140,000 wafers per month.

For perspective, Samsung manufacturers approximately 500,000 wafers per month, and Micron makes about 250,000 wafers per month.

It all fits in perfectly with Beijing’s drive for semiconductor self-reliance uh especially after all of the U.S. sanctions. And it would be US interference, not Huawei’s inexperienced with making memory that will be its greatest challenge, says one analyst.

“Their biggest problem will be tooling up, since the US has a lot of sway over the world’s semiconductor equipment makers, and it’s using that sway to prevent tools from being shipped to China,” said Jim Handy, president of Objective Analysis.

Handy said he hears that Huawei and Swaysure are working to produce DRAM starting at 28nm.  With that process they ought to be able to make 8Gb chips that yield reasonably but he doubts that they will be able to make HBM with that process, though.

Since he doesn’t know how far along they are in the process, Handy doesn’t know when something could come to market.  “They may be on the cusp of shipping something, or they may be a couple of years away, but I don’t think they will wait any longer than that, so let’s say 2028.  If there’s still a shortage in 2028, they are likely to ramp as hard as they can to get to something like 2-5% of the market by 2030.  If the shortage ends before then, they will probably take a much longer time,” he said.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis is pushing for the US AI industry to self-regulate, with the support of government, as a starting point for an international creating shared international standards. In a blog post, he called for a focus on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis proposed that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants be encouraged to adopt best practices such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. 

DeepMind was involved in an earlier US government initiative evaluating AI safety, alongside Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis is pushing for the US AI industry to self-regulate, with the support of government, as a starting point for an international creating shared international standards. In a blog post, he called for a focus on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis proposed that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants be encouraged to adopt best practices such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. 

DeepMind was involved in an earlier US government initiative evaluating AI safety, alongside Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

This article first appeared on CIO.

For a decade, Kubernetes was the right answer. It organized containers, scaled services horizontally and gave platform teams a shared vocabulary for running software in production. It abstracted away enough of the underlying complexity that engineers could stop thinking about servers and start thinking about services. Most cloud-native infrastructure today is built on top of it, directly or in spirit, and EKS made that model the default for the majority of enterprise teams running workloads on AWS.

The workload that defined that era was the stateless HTTP request, fast in, fast out, disposable. A user action triggers a request, the request hits a service, the service returns a response and the container is done. Kubernetes was optimized for that pattern down to the scheduler internals: Bin-pack containers onto nodes, autoscale on CPU and memory, evict and reschedule when something goes wrong. The whole system is tuned around the assumption that individual units of work are short, stateless and interchangeable.

That assumption no longer holds for the workloads that matter most right now.

The agent workload is structurally different

Agents are long-running, stateful processes. They reason across time, call external tools, spawn subprocesses, write and execute code, and make decisions that depend on what happened five steps earlier in the same task. A single-agent workflow might run for minutes or hours, touching a dozen external systems and generating intermediate outputs that subsequent steps depend on. The compute layer for that kind of work needs to do things the old model was never asked to do. That is the new pattern: Execution infrastructure designed around agent semantics rather than request semantics.

The Kubernetes community itself has acknowledged this mismatch. In March 2026, Kubernetes SIG Apps published an introduction to Agent Sandbox, a new CRD-based abstraction designed specifically for singleton, stateful agent workloads. The framing is direct: The ecosystem is moving from short-lived, isolated tasks to deploying multiple, coordinated AI agents that run continuously, and mapping those workloads to traditional Kubernetes primitives requires an entirely new abstraction. The fact that the Kubernetes maintainers built a dedicated primitive for this, rather than recommending teams compose one from existing resources, is itself the clearest signal that agent execution does not fit the old model.

What agent execution actually requires

Concretely, it requires four things. First, isolated execution environments that provision in milliseconds, not minutes, so each agent task gets its own sandbox for code execution and tool calls without blocking the reasoning loop. The difference between a two-second environment and a two-minute environment is not a performance optimization; it determines whether the architecture is viable at all. Second, durable state management across the full task lifecycle, so an agent can pause, hand off or resume without re-initializing from scratch and burning tokens to reconstruct context it already built. Third, coordination primitives for multi-agent work: The ability to spawn subagents, pass structured outputs between them and track task dependencies across a graph of concurrent processes. Production agent systems are rarely single agents; they are pipelines of specialized agents with handoffs that need to be reliable and inspectable. Fourth, credentials and secrets management that travel with the execution context, so agents can authenticate to external services securely without exposing credentials in the task definition, logs or the environment variables of a shared container.

The mismatch shows up fast in production

Kubernetes and EKS expose the mismatch quickly in practice. Pod eviction terminates an agent mid-task with no clean recovery path. Autoscaling reads CPU utilization as the load signal, but an agent holding a long inference connection looks idle to the scheduler even when it is doing the most consequential work in the pipeline. Provisioning a new environment takes 45 seconds to two minutes on a well-tuned cluster; agent workloads need that in under two seconds or the reasoning loop stalls and the user experience degrades visibly. These are not edge cases or misconfigurations. They are the normal operating conditions for production agent workloads running on infrastructure that was not designed for them.

The utilization data makes the broader cost picture even starker. The 2026 State of Kubernetes Optimization Report from CAST AI, drawn from analysis of over 23,000 production clusters across AWS, Azure and GCP, found average CPU utilization at 8 percent, down from 10 percent the year prior. Memory utilization fell from 23 to 20 percent. CPU overprovisioning jumped from 40 to 69 percent year over year. These numbers reflect clusters running traditional workloads, and the pattern is worsening, not improving, as environments scale. Agent workloads compound this problem further. An agent holding an open inference connection or waiting on a tool call registers as idle to a scheduler that reads CPU and memory as the only meaningful load signals. The infrastructure responds to the wrong metric, overprovisioning capacity for demand it cannot measure, while the actual bottleneck, environment provisioning latency and state continuity, goes unaddressed.

Security is not the same problem it was before

Agent workloads change the threat model at the infrastructure level. A compromised stateless service exposes a narrow surface defined by its API contracts. A compromised agent exposes every system it can reach, every credential it holds and every action it is authorized to take on behalf of the user. Agents generate and execute their own code, make non-deterministic tool-call decisions and accumulate context across long-running sessions. Standard container namespacing does not contain that kind of risk. Kernel-level isolation, default-deny network egress, scoped credentials per session and agent-aware observability are not optional hardening steps. They are baseline requirements for running agents in production.

What teams that ship agents have already figured out

Some of the clearest evidence for this shift comes not from infrastructure vendors but from product engineering teams running agents at scale on their own code. In late 2025, Ramp’s engineering team published a detailed account of building Inspect, their internal background coding agent. Each Inspect session runs in a sandboxed VM with a full-stack development environment and deep integrations across their observability, CI, and deployment tooling. The architecture requirements map almost exactly to the four primitives above. Filesystem snapshots keep sessions starting in seconds rather than minutes. Sessions are isolated and stateful. The agent can run tests, review telemetry, query feature flags and visually verify frontend changes in a real browser. And the whole system supports unlimited concurrency, so engineers can spin up ten parallel sessions exploring different approaches to the same problem without contention.

The results speak for themselves. Within months of launch, roughly 30 percent of all pull requests merged to Ramp’s frontend and backend repositories were written by Inspect. That level of adoption was not mandated. It happened because the execution environment was fast enough, capable enough and well-integrated enough that the agent was strictly better than a local workflow for a meaningful share of tasks. The key insight from the Ramp case is not about the model. It is about the execution layer. As their team put it, session speed should only be limited by model-provider time-to-first-token; everything else, like cloning and installing, needs to be done before the session starts. That is a statement about infrastructure, not intelligence.

The ecosystem is catching up, but defaults are sticky

None of that is a criticism of the tools. Kubernetes solved exactly the problem it was designed for, and it solved it well. The issue is that infrastructure defaults are sticky. Teams inherit them, build on top of them and optimize within their constraints long after the underlying workload has changed. The Kubernetes community’s own response, the Agent Sandbox project under SIG Apps, validates the thesis that a new abstraction is necessary. The new primitives the community is building include warm pools for near-zero cold starts, lifecycle management for suspending and resuming idle agents without losing state, and pluggable kernel isolation for secure execution of untrusted code. These are not incremental improvements to existing resources. They are net-new abstractions that acknowledge the old model does not stretch to fit.

But adoption of purpose-built agent infrastructure remains early. Enterprises building agent pipelines today are largely running a request-oriented orchestration model against an execution-oriented workload, and the mismatch shows up in task failure rates, runaway costs and debugging cycles that have no good tooling because the observability layer was also designed for stateless services.

The structural advantage is available now

The infrastructure to close that gap exists now. The prerequisite is recognizing that agent execution is a first-class compute pattern with its own primitives and its own requirements, not a variant of the stateless service model that defined the last decade. Teams that make that shift early will have a meaningful structural advantage. The ones that do not will spend the next two years wondering why their agent systems are unreliable at a scale that should be tractable.

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

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on Tuesday reiterated his push for an AI industry self-regulation effort, led by the US government, that is particularly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis said he would propose that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants would be encouraged to adopt best practices, such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. He has already worked on a US government initiative evaluating AI safety, which involved DeepMind, Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on Tuesday reiterated his push for an AI industry self-regulation effort, led by the US government, that is particularly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis said he would propose that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants would be encouraged to adopt best practices, such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. He has already worked on a US government initiative evaluating AI safety, which involved DeepMind, Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Enterprises are facing two simultaneous challenges with AI: The risks associated with it are evolving faster than governance frameworks, while the business benefits are often difficult to measure.

This is one of the key findings of The Value of AI, a study commissioned by SAP from Oxford Economics. Now in its second year, the study surveyed 2,600 executives from 13 countries worldwide.

High expectations, limited preparation

On average, the enterprises surveyed plan to spend around $28 million on AI (up from $26.7 million last year), and expect a 21% ROI (from 16% last year). Expectations for AI agents are particularly high, with ROI expected to reach 17% this year, up from 10% last year. Furthermore, 83% of respondents worldwide said agentic AI has the potential to fundamentally transform their organization. On the other hand, only 3% of respondents said their enterprises were fully prepared for the deployment of AI agents.

There are gaps, particularly when it comes to governance:

• Only 12% of respondents said their skills or processes were able to govern AI effectively,
• 38% do not have human-in-the-loop processes in place for oversight of AI agents, and
• only 63% have established permissions and access controls for agents.

Other concerns include weaknesses in the organization of AI deployment, poor data quality, insufficient employee training, and the widespread use of shadow AI.

Governance is the bigger challenge

In an interview, Sean Kask, Chief AI Strategy Officer at SAP, commented on the study’s key findings.

Mr. Kask, in the study’s foreword, you write that companies are currently facing two challenges simultaneously: The risks associated with AI are evolving faster than governance, while the business benefits are often difficult to measure. Which of these poses the greater problem for companies?

Sean Kask: Measuring the business value of IT investments has never been easy. The same applies to AI. That’s why I currently consider the governance issue to be the greater challenge. While traditional governance principles and best practices for secure software development remain important even in the age of large language models and agent-based AI, entirely new risks are emerging at the same time.

For example, as soon as companies roll out AI on a broad scale, they suddenly discover hundreds or even thousands of so-called shadow agents that employees are using without central oversight. Or they find that a significant portion of the workforce is copying content into private ChatGPT accounts. Such risks often only become apparent once AI is already being used productively.

According to your study, German companies invest an average of nearly $40 million in AI, more than companies in all other countries surveyed. Why is that?

Kask: I was less surprised by the amount of investment than by the fact that, overall, the level of investment and the return on investment achieved have developed very similarly across the various countries. There’s no clear answer as to why Germany invests more. In part, it’s likely simply because costs here are higher than in India, for example.

However, we’re also seeing a high level of AI adoption among German companies. SAP has a dashboard that allows us to track how our customers are using AI features. Germany is among the countries with particularly high usage. Added to this are the strong industrial base and the political impetus from Europe, which are driving the use of AI. Accordingly, companies there are making targeted investments in building the necessary expertise.

According to the study, 47% of German companies are satisfied with the return on investment from their AI investments. At the same time, 77% say they are still far from realizing AI’s full potential. Isn’t that a contradiction?

Kask: No, we see this pattern worldwide. Companies initially invest in a few AI use cases and realize: This works; we’re creating added value. Accordingly, they’re satisfied with their investment.

But this is precisely what leads them to identify further use cases. They explore AI agents and want to utilize them as well. However, it is exactly at this point that many encounter new challenges in implementation and scaling.

The study therefore primarily highlights a learning curve: The more experience companies gain with AI, the greater their awareness of its previously untapped potential becomes.

According to the study, only 33% of companies surveyed have KPIs at the executive board level that are directly linked to the implementation of AI. In your view, which metrics should supervisory boards and CEOs definitely be tracking?

Kask: For us, a key indicator is employee enablement. How many employees have already successfully completed training or upskilling programs related to AI? Without the appropriate skills, AI adoption will fall short of its potential.

Transparency is equally important. Companies should know which AI agents are actually in use within their landscape. SAP offers the SAP AI Agent Hub for this purpose, which automatically discovers and inventories agents from SAP and third-party environments. Customers have already been able to identify thousands of agents this way, which highlights the need for centralized governance and transparency.

In addition, companies should have a complete overview of all AI use cases. A robust business case should be in place for each use case. We often see two extremes: Either the executive board is under pressure to implement AI as quickly as possible and allocates a lump-sum budget for this purpose. Or management initially takes a wait-and-see approach. This leads to independent pilot projects springing up throughout the company, with individual departments procuring their own tools and entering into their own contracts.

At SAP, we therefore follow a clearly structured selection process. Each idea first undergoes an assessment of its expected business value. We then examine technical feasibility, data availability, and ethical and governance aspects. From management’s perspective, it is crucial to maintain transparency regarding all ongoing AI projects at all times and to consistently prioritize them based on their business value.

Agents, too, need a ‘hire-to-retire’ lifecycle

Even with the introduction of dozens or even hundreds of AI agents, governance becomes increasingly complex. What capabilities do enterprise platforms need to manage AI agents securely and in a controlled manner at scale?

Kask: We make a conscious effort not to anthropomorphize AI too much. Nevertheless, the analogy is helpful: Agents require a complete hire-to-retire lifecycle. This begins with the detection and registration of an agent. It is then integrated into the enterprise environment, granted the necessary permissions, and given access to the data sources it needs to perform its tasks.

Observability is just as important. Companies must be able to track what an agent is actually doing in the system at all times. In addition, they should track key performance indicators: Is the agent achieving the desired results? How efficiently is it working? How many tokens does it consume? How many processing steps does it require for a task?

Ultimately, this involves several key components: a complete inventory of all agents, appropriate governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) mechanisms, transparency regarding agent behavior, and continuous monitoring. This is the only way to ensure that AI agents consistently operate within defined parameters and deliver the desired business value.

In your estimation, which business processes will companies actually delegate entirely to AI agents over the next two to three years?

Kask: Currently, such agents work particularly well in clearly defined use cases. SAP will release more than 50 (currently 34) specialized AI agents.

One example is periodic financial reporting. In this context, journal entries must be made based on numerous rules stored in documents, emails, or previous transactions. The agent analyzes these various sources of information, derives a recommendation from them, and suggests the appropriate journal entry to the user.

Based on what we’ve heard from customer projects, employees at medium-sized companies currently spend about twelve hours per month on these tasks. With the help of an AI agent, this effort can be reduced to two to three hours.

Another area of application is production planning. If delivery dates change or new orders come in at short notice, the entire production plan must be adjusted. It is precisely these kinds of complex optimization tasks that are ideally suited for AI agents.

In principle, there are virtually no limits to the narrowly defined business processes in which agents can be deployed. However, they will not operate completely autonomously at first.

Trust in AI begins with a stable foundation

Many companies still struggle to trust AI agents. After all, large language models operate probabilistically and can produce false information. This is particularly problematic in financial processes. How do you build trust?

Kask: Trust begins with a stable foundation. ERP systems remain the reliable system of record. They operate deterministically, contain the business logic, and hold the relevant company data. AI agents build upon this foundation. They do not replace it.

Equally important is the human-in-the-loop principle. Employees must be able to understand what the agent is doing, verify its results, and intervene if necessary. That’s why employee training also plays a crucial role. They must understand how generative AI works and where its limitations lie.

Of course, language models can hallucinate. At the same time, we must not forget that humans are not infallible either. The key lies in the collaboration between humans and AI. This allows us to improve both the efficiency and the quality of many business processes.

Another important component is transparency. Our global AI ethics policy, for example, stipulates that users must always be able to recognize when AI is involved. In Joule, it’s possible to trace which data sources the agent used and which steps it went through in reaching its decision. This traceability is an essential prerequisite for trust.

What distinguishes an SAP agent from a general AI agent that merely accesses an ERP system?

Kask: The key difference is that Joule and the SAP agents are directly embedded in the ERP system. There, for example, we’ve built a knowledge graph that describes the semantic relationships between all tables, business objects, and data fields.

To put this into perspective: The SAP S/4HANA Knowledge Graph is based on approximately 452,000 ABAP tables, 7.3 million data fields, and thousands of analytical views. The semantic relationships between these artifacts are modeled in the Knowledge Graph and made available for AI applications.

For example, if a user wants to view all open purchase orders, the agent does not first have to laboriously search for the relevant information. It immediately knows which tables and objects are relevant and also understands the relationships between a purchase order, a purchase requisition, the responsible approvers, and other business objects. As a result, the agent not only works much more precisely but also requires significantly fewer tokens because it can greatly narrow down the search space.

If, instead, one attempts to simply overlay AI onto an existing system or extract data from a relational ERP system, many of these relationships are lost. In a sense, this destroys the semantic context that is crucial for precise answers.

That is why we view the ERP system as an enormous strategic advantage. It has been the system of record for decades and contains roughly 50 years of codified business and process knowledge. This knowledge forms the foundation for what we call the autonomous enterprise. The agents build upon this knowledge and continue to develop it.

In the future, SAP agents will also communicate bidirectionally with agents from other providers via standards such as Agent-to-Agent (A2A).

According to your study, AI currently creates the greatest added value in decision-making, customer interaction, and gaining new insights, rather than in traditional productivity gains. Will this change the way companies justify AI investments in the future?

Kask: In our study, productivity was simply rated slightly lower than, for example, gaining new insights. In the long term, however, productivity remains the ultimate goal. Europe, in particular, has been suffering from comparatively weak productivity growth for years.

At SAP, we therefore first evaluate every new AI feature based on its specific business value. For all agents and AI features that we include in our AI Feature Catalog, we first conduct a value analysis. We ask: What benefit does the feature offer the user? Does it contribute to higher revenue? Does it increase productivity? Only then is it developed further.

At the moment, the greatest added value often still lies in consolidating information from structured and unstructured data sources and making it accessible via natural language. The next step, however, is to translate these insights directly into more efficient business processes. That is precisely where the greatest productivity gains will be realized in the future.

If you could give CIOs just one or two pieces of advice for the transition from generative AI to AI agents, what would they be?

Kask: In my view, the biggest mistake would be to try to transform the entire company all at once or to attempt to perfectly prepare all the data right from the start.

Instead, you should consider what kind of agent can create significant added value, and then implement it. Of course, this agent needs access to consistent and context-rich enterprise data. That’s exactly what we’re working on at SAP with technologies like the knowledge graph, which maps the semantic relationships within enterprise data.

In addition, with data products and the SAP Business Data Cloud, we provide tools that make data from various sources usable for AI agents. Thanks to zero-copy and data fabric approaches, information from legacy systems, Snowflake, or ERP systems can be consolidated without first having to extensively replicate the data. For a procurement agent, this makes it possible to provide exactly the relevant data for the specific use case.

The key point is this: Companies do not have to wait until they have fully migrated to the cloud or consolidated their entire data landscape. With the technologies available today, data can already be made usable for specific AI agents, managed in a controlled manner, and used to quickly generate initial business value. On the other hand, those who wait for the perfect starting point run the risk of falling behind.

This article is adapted from one first published by Computerwoche.

---

Every day this past week I did something I suspect millions of other people also did: I stared at an LLM model picker and wondered which one I was supposed to want.

OpenAI just released ⁠GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna. Sol is the flagship. Terra offers much of its intelligence for less money. Luna is cheaper still. Anthropic released ⁠Claude Sonnet 5 at the end of June and Opus 4.8 the month prior, with a little Fable 5 emerging in between. Meanwhile, Google, which seemed to be winning the model wars a few months ago, is now getting shade from Gergely Orosz, who ⁠argues that Gemini has slipped outside the top tier for software development and has been out of the major model release game for eons (May 19).

Perhaps Orosz is right. Perhaps he’ll be wrong again in six weeks. Honestly, it’s exhausting.

I use ChatGPT and Claude constantly and still have no principled idea which model to choose most of the time. I tend to click whatever looks like the biggest, most expensive option because I don’t know what I’m giving up by choosing something smaller. “Instant” sounds dangerously unserious. “Thinking” sounds expensive but powerful.

A quick survey of my LinkedIn crowd suggests others also feel my “WHICH MODEL???” pain. More importantly, I suspect most enterprises do, too.

A model doesn’t rot

Before getting carried away, however, it’s worth considering whether any of this model churn actually matters. After all, a model doesn’t rot. The model an enterprise put into production in March performs just as well in July as it did when the company selected it. “Obsolete” generally means that something better now exists, not that the deployed model suddenly stopped summarizing insurance claims or classifying support tickets. (In other words, once you have something working, the idea that “but maybe Opus 200.2 is better!” is really a FOMO problem, not a performance issue.)

Most enterprise workloads don’t live at the frontier anyway. Extraction, summarization, classification, document comparison, and customer-service assistance often work perfectly well with smaller, cheaper models. OpenAI’s own pitch for the trio of GPT-5.6 models isn’t simply that Sol is better. It’s that ⁠Terra and Luna deliver different combinations of intelligence, latency, and cost. Luna, the cheapest tier, nearly matches the previous generation’s peak performance at less than half the estimated cost, according to OpenAI.

The practical question, of course, is where to start. An enterprise can’t test every model, every reasoning setting, and every price tier before doing any work. So here’s my advice (which I don’t follow in my own work, but I’m not defining enterprise strategy and can be a little price-insensitive). Start with the cheapest credible model that appears capable of the task. Give it a representative set of real examples and, before you start testing, define what counts as good enough. If it passes, stop. If it fails, move up a tier or try a model with strengths better suited to the work.

That sounds almost offensively simple, but it reverses the way many people, including me, use these products. We start with the biggest model because we’re afraid of what we might lose. Enterprises should start lower and require evidence before paying for more intelligence.

There are exceptions, of course. For genuinely difficult work, such as autonomous coding, complex research, or high-stakes reasoning, beginning with a frontier model may save time. But even then, the goal should be to establish a quality ceiling, then test whether a cheaper model can meet it. It’s changing the question from “which model is best?” to “what is the least expensive model that reliably clears the bar for this job?”

For many workloads, that price improvement matters more than a few extra benchmark points. ⁠As I argued back in 2023, following AI hype doesn’t help anyone. If your model strategy depends on whichever benchmark screenshot is circulating on X this week, you don’t have a strategy. Not a viable one, anyway. Pick a model and ignore the noise.

Except, of course, when that noise suggests a serious signal.

Sometimes better really is better

Frontier improvements aren’t always incremental, making it advantageous to consider an upgrade. Coding is the obvious example. There’s a significant difference between a model that suggests the next few lines of code and one that can inspect a repository, plan a change, use tools, run tests, discover its own mistakes, and keep working for an extended period. That isn’t merely a nicer autocomplete experience. It can reorganize a development workflow.

This is why enterprises can’t simply standardize on an 18-month-old model and declare victory. In some areas, particularly software development and other agentic work, better models can unlock compounding productivity. A model that reliably completes 80% of a bounded task rather than 50% may justify an entirely different division of labor between humans and machines.

Still, that upgrade isn’t free.

Models differ in how they interpret instructions, call tools, manage context, refuse requests, and fail. Prompts and scaffolding tuned for one model can regress when moved to another. Or costs can explode. As one of my Oracle colleagues discovered just this week, running the same tasks in GPT 5.6 was orders of magnitude more expensive than 5.5. The API change may be trivial, but the revalidation and implications are not.

This leaves enterprises caught between two bad options. They can freeze and potentially miss out on meaningful improvements or chase every release and repeatedly test production systems on faith. What to do?

Stop making model bets

The answer is to stop making LLM bets and start making job-to-be-done bets. Stop asking which model is fastest. Instead, figure out what work you are trying to improve. What does a good result look like? How much latency and cost can the workflow tolerate? How wrong can it be before a human must intervene? Once those questions have answers, model selection becomes less opaque.

A difficult code migration may justify GPT-5.6 Sol or Claude Sonnet 5. A repetitive classification task may work just as well with Luna or another smaller model. A regulated workflow may require a model or deployment option that offers particular data controls. Sometimes the correct model is no LLM at all, like when I’m writing this post. Sorry, AI vendors! (At least you won’t get blamed for my mistakes.)

This is where evaluations become the center of enterprise AI strategy. ⁠As I’ve said before, most companies don’t have an AI quality problem so much as an AI measurement problem. Hence, a private evaluation suite built from real company work is the only leaderboard that matters. Does the new model materially improve quality? If so, use it! Does it reduce cost or latency? Again, that’s your free pass to adoption. Does the improvement justify the expense and effort of revalidation? If yes, continue.

Make model releases boring

As important as the model is, keep in mind that AI success always comes back to your company’s data, your company’s workflows, your company’s integrations, etc. That’s the ⁠dull reality behind sexy AI. Retrieval, memory, governance, data quality, observability, and feedback loops aren’t as exciting as a new model launch, but they’re what ultimately make AI truly work.

Again, when it’s time to consider something new, the principle should be to default to the least expensive model that reliably passes your evaluations. Only escalate harder tasks to more capable models when measurement shows that the premium pays. Tip: Make this invisible to employees so that the system routes to the best model for a particular prompt. As dbt Labs’ Jon Lewis expresses it, “The best model is ‘Auto’ and I won’t hear anyone say otherwise.” OpenAI’s own ⁠migration guidance recommends testing models on representative tasks, including trying a lower reasoning level rather than automatically cranking everything to the maximum.

As for me, I’ll probably keep clicking the shiniest option. I don’t have a formal evaluation suite for InfoWorld columns, and the marginal cost is a subscription I already pay. Enterprises don’t get that excuse.

Microsoft has released TypeScript 7.0, a native port of the company’s strongly typed version of the JavaScript language based on the Go programming language.

With this new codebase, TypeScript 7.0 brings native code speed, shared memory multithreading, and a number of new optimizations that typically yield speedups between 8x and 12x on full builds, Microsoft said in a July 8 announcement. This port of TypeScript to native code was done as faithfully as possible, writing new code while maintaining the structure and logic of the original codebase to keep results consistent and compatible between the two compilers, according to Microsoft. 

TypeScript 7.0 is available via npm:

npm install -D typescript

To help with the TypeScript 6.0 to TypeScript 7.0 transition process, Microsoft has published a new compatibility package, @typescript/typescript6. This package provides an executable named tsc6, so that if needed, a developer can install TypeScript 7.0 (which ships its own tsc binary) side-by-side with TypeScript 6.0 without naming conflicts. The new package also re-exports the TypeScript 6.0 API, so that a developer can use tsc for TypeScript 7, while other tooling can continue to rely on TypeScript 6.0.

TypeScript 7.0 is a major milestone in the TypeScript project, Microsoft said. This port has been the primary focus for Microsoft’s team for more than a year. With TypeScript 7.0 now out, the team will return to new feature work, ergonomic improvements, more performance wins, and implementing a new API for the broader ecosystem. Microsoft expects a fairly similar timeline to releases prior to TypeScript 7.0, with new versions published every three to four months.

TypeScript 7.0 was announced as a release candidate on June 18.

OpenClaw’s announcement that it has become a nonprofit foundation is generating IT excitement because of the potential for governance and development consistency that the popular platform has thus far lacked. Still, some worry about the risks created by the move. 

“Our ambition is for OpenClaw to be the Switzerland of AI. Neutral ground where every model and every lab can plug into the technology and collaborate on standards in the era of agents,” OpenClaw said in a post. “That work is already underway in Foundation-convened councils on agent identity, agent profiles, evals, and enterprise deployment.”

The statement, co-authored by OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger, pointed out, “the great open source projects of our time — Linux, Apache, Mozilla — endure because a neutral steward stands behind them. That is the role we are taking on to keep OpenClaw MIT licensed, open, and independent so that everyone building on it can trust it will be here for the long term.”

But it reassured users that the original OpenClaw leadership is still in charge.

“Peter built this thing and Peter keeps making the calls, especially the technical ones. Since joining OpenAI earlier this year, he has continued to steward OpenClaw as an open and independent project, and OpenAI has made a commitment to keep it that way,” the post said. “The foundation is here to serve: good governance, stable funding, and paying the people who keep the claws alive.”

However, some analysts and consultants were skeptical about how much true independence Steinberger would have, given his salaried role with OpenAI. 

Neutrality claim in question

“The Switzerland of AI neutrality claim collapses under its own announcement,” said Noah Kenney, principal consultant at Digital 520. “OpenAI runs a team [at OpenAI] called Claw Labs that Peter leads and OpenAI is a major donor to OpenClaw. The ‘neutral steward’s’ chief technical decision maker is employed by one of the competing labs it is supposed to be neutral with.” To OpenAI, he said, OpenClaw is closer to a tax-exempt nonprofit subsidiary than it is to a neutral ‘Switzerland of AI.’

He pointed out that, in addition, Microsoft is shipping the enterprise version of OpenClaw, and Nvidia is shipping the hardware bundle. “This is being called the Switzerland of AI, but Switzerland does not have its central bank run by France,” he observed.

Kenney said that what the new OpenClaw has actually built is “a shared dependency that several competitors fund, staff, and steer, wrapped in a nonprofit structure. Enterprise IT should understand that structure, because treating OpenClaw as neutral is a mistake,” adding that CIOs need to look at this development devoid of the emotional component. 

“There is a strategic irony here that CIOs should sit with,” Kenney said. “If OpenClaw succeeds at becoming the universal agent substrate, then every model plugs into the same identity layer, the same profiles, and the same deployment plumbing. The thing every vendor is racing to own becomes a commodity that nobody owns.” He pointed out that, in the short term, that is genuinely good news for buyers because it means less lock-in and more portability.

“But,” he said, “when the connective tissue is free and natural, the only labs that benefit are the ones with the best models and the deepest distribution. Commoditize the layer below you and you compete on the layer where you are already strongest. The foundation is not a charity. It is the biggest players agreeing to stop fighting over the plumbing so they can fight over the water, and the enterprise is the one paying the water bill either way.”

Good news, bad news

Jason Andersen, principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, liked the potential consistency that could emerge from the structural change, given the complexity of agent development today. 

“We are seeing a lot of OpenClaw variants hit the market, such as those from Nvidia as well as competing products from cloud and SaaS vendors. A common base helps solidify the common parts,” Andersen noted. “That said, a common challenge is the sustainability of these open source foundations over time. In addition to releasing code, these foundations need funding to evolve and grow. And that funding needs to come from continued momentum to incentivize existing members to increase investment and recruit new members to join.”

Andersen stressed that IT buyers need to keep an eye on the roadmap for any OpenClaw variant they choose to deploy, “as that will directly impact the foundation, and the momentum of the foundation and common base. If the common base loses momentum, it can lead to forks, or just a loss of innovation. When that happens, members tend to back away, which puts customers in limbo.”

But not everyone sees the promised structure as entirely good for IT.

Ishraq Khan, CEO at coding productivity tool vendor Kodezi, said, “most CIOs do not want to bet their future entirely on a single model vendor. They want Claude for some workloads, GPT for others, open models for sensitive environments, and potentially internally fine-tuned systems for specific use cases. The problem is that every vendor currently brings its own identity system, tool interfaces, permissions model, and operational assumptions. That fragmentation does not scale.”

He said, “the risk if standards fail is straightforward: every vendor builds its own closed ecosystem, enterprises become locked into individual stacks, and security becomes dramatically harder. The opportunity if OpenClaw succeeds is equally significant: enterprises get portable agents, common identity standards, interoperable tooling, and a healthier competitive market around models rather than ecosystems.”

Will it remain a nonprofit?

However, said Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, one of the key details that IT executives will want to keep in mind is that OpenAI also began as a nonprofit, but it was quickly seen as not adhering to nonprofit objectives. 

“OpenAI’s transition from a nonprofit research organization into a more complex structure highlighted the challenge of maintaining mission alignment while scaling technology, capital, partnerships, and commercial operations,” Greis said. “OpenClaw has the opportunity to address some of those governance questions earlier by establishing clear principles around neutrality, transparency, and decision-making before the ecosystem becomes even larger and more valuable.”

He noted, “we have seen this pattern before with technologies like Linux and Kubernetes. The strongest open ecosystems succeeded because they created trusted foundations that enterprises could build upon. The technology was important, but the governance model that underpinned it was equally critical.”

Risks are ‘squarely in IT’s lap’

Consultant Brian Levine, executive director of FormerGov, echoed Greis’ concerns. 

“CIOs shouldn’t assume that this nonprofit will always be a nonprofit, or confuse being a nonprofit with actually being neutral or unbiased,” he said. “The risks are squarely in IT’s lap: autonomous agents ‘with their own identity’ acting on a user’s behalf blow straight through traditional IAM assumptions. Issues, such as agent identity, auditability, secret handling. Identity boundaries have not yet been reliably solved. Until they are, enterprises should treat OpenClaw agents like privileged service accounts, not like a browser plugin.”

Independent cybersecurity and risk advisor Steven Eric Fisher pointed to another IT exposure that might come from this OpenClaw transition: Cost.

“OpenClaw currently has a very high token burn rate in usage, which presents a significant cost consideration for large-scale enterprise adoption,” he said. “The skills marketplace introduces a new supply chain threat that enterprises will need to manage. Threat management, and specifically handling external marketplace elements, can be highly challenging for open-source operations. Ultimately, at scale, enterprise adoption could become a difficult balancing act between managing high operational costs and securing an expanded security surface.”

This article originally appeared on Computerworld.

The first time I heard someone say their AI now wrote 80% of their tests, I asked the obvious question. Eighty percent of what?

After 20 years building and leading test automation for consumer-scale platforms, my honest answer turned out to be eighty percent of the typing, not eighty percent of the engineering. The remaining twenty was where the work still lived. Budgeting for two percent of leftover effort was the mistake. When the real number was closer to thirty, that gap was the difference between a pipeline that shipped and one that quietly built up a queue of half-trusted features nobody could rely on.

This piece is about that gap. As an independent research project on LLM-augmented testing methodology, I built a six-stage agentic pipeline that takes a design in Figma and produces running tests in WebDriverIO, connected end to end over the Model Context Protocol. It works. It has been useful. And the parts that broke surprised me, because they were not the parts the hype cycle tells you to worry about.

How I wired a six-stage pipeline over one protocol

The pipeline runs six stages in sequence, each owned by a different agent, with every handoff crossing MCP.

Six-stage agentic test pipeline: design capture → requirements writer → ticket opener → code generator → test-case writer → automation generator. Each stage carries an MCP handoff and a provenance stamp.

The end-to-end trace links a pull request back to a Jira ticket, a requirements section and a Figma frame. Each artifact is stamped with the agent that produced it, the model it used and the inputs it was given.

MCP is the boring middle that makes any of this work. The cliché is that MCP is “USB-C for AI”: one open protocol, any tool. Like most analogies, it is about eighty percent right. The part that matters is the eighty: I do not have to write a custom adapter for every system the agent talks to. One MCP server per tool and every agent talks to all of them the same way.

Typed handoffs between agents are my own architecture, layered on top of MCP rather than provided by it. Each agent writes a typed artifact the next agent reads. Each handoff is logged with provenance. When something went wrong six stages in, I could replay the chain. Without that discipline, a multi-agent pipeline is a debugger’s worst day. You know the test plan is wrong. You cannot tell whether the mistake came from the Figma read, the requirements interpretation or the ticket scaffolding. With it, I could point at exactly which stage went sideways and which inputs it was looking at when it did. The pattern lives in a public MIT-licensed reference implementation for any reader who wants to run it.

The sixteen-minute number is the marketing number. I ran the full chain end to end in about sixteen minutes on a synthetic net-new screen, Figma in, automation suite out. That repeated across my runs; it is not a demo trick. But sixteen minutes is the part of the story most fun to tell and least useful to learn from. It is what gets quoted in the all-hands. The hours that come after, when a human reviews each handoff, are where the work actually lives.

What actually broke in production-style runs

The failures that stalled my pipeline were rarely the ones I expected.

I expected hallucinated APIs. I got them: the agent confidently called endpoint names that sounded right but did not exist. I expected sparse-spec-in, sparse-spec-out, where a Figma frame with no annotations produced a requirements doc with vague acceptance criteria, every time. I expected locator drift, the common UI-automation failure mode where a renamed component silently breaks an entire test suite. There is solid outside writing on non-determinism in tests covering this whole family of failure modes, and the agent inherited every one.

What I did not expect, and what kept the pipeline down longer than any of the above, was the plumbing.

The model backend timed out under load. It lost credentials silently and started returning empty strings, which the agent then read as confidence. A duplicate consumer on a shared long-poll API endpoint produced an HTTP 409 conflict that broke delivery without throwing anything visible. One unguarded exception inside one agent aborted a whole shared scheduler run and took the other agents in the registry down with it. The single worst incident cost me three hours to find. An environment variable had silently rotated overnight; every agent in the fleet was returning structurally valid but semantically empty requirements docs; the downstream stages were dutifully generating tests against nothing.

None of those are model bugs. They are infrastructure. The agent literature, which is what I went looking through when I started this work, mostly does not talk about them.

The fix was not better prompts. It was circuit-breaker-style review checkpoints between stages and what I now call the four-guard discipline: four small guards I consider non-negotiable on any unattended agentic pipeline. The bulkhead pattern from microservices is the most consequential. An unhandled exception inside one agent can no longer abort the shared run; the offending agent fails fast with a structured error and the others keep going. Paired with that, a pure-data fallback ensures a model timeout produces a deterministic output explicitly marked as degraded mode, rather than an empty string the next stage will misread as confidence. A single-owner lease sits on every shared external endpoint, the cure for the duplicate-consumer incident that ate one of my Sunday afternoons. The cheapest guard was the last to arrive: a one-line synthetic canary every agent has to produce a known correct response to before any real work begins, so a credentials rotation or silent backend failure trips an alert before downstream stages have generated artifacts against garbage.

None of these guards is novel. They are textbook stability patterns at a new boundary: the seam between the LLM agent and the rest of the system, which most of the existing agent literature still treats as a solved problem.

The 20% you don’t see, and when not to do this

Here is the part the demo videos leave out. Even when the pipeline works, the human time per stage does not go to zero.

Human review time per ticket across five pipeline stages: code review 60-180 min, automation review and flaky-fix loop 30-90 min, ticket architecture and sequencing 30-60 min, test data and environment 15-30 min, requirements review 20-30 min. Net: the human still spends 20-30% of the original effort, almost all of it reviewing rather than creating.

Net of all that, the human still spends twenty to thirty percent of the original effort, almost all of it reviewing rather than creating. The pipeline saves seventy to eighty percent, not ninety-eight. The trap is budgeting for the two percent you do not save.

When does this kind of pipeline make sense? In my experience, when the Figma is richly annotated and acceptance criteria are clear up front; when there is review capacity to absorb the work the pipeline shifts onto humans; when the stack is well represented in the training data; and when the feature is net-new rather than a deep edit of legacy code. When does it not? When the design lives on a whiteboard. When the integration touches old code with hidden contracts. When the path is regulated or safety-critical. When there is no senior reviewer who can hold the line. When the work is exploratory and writing the spec is the actual point of the exercise.

Teams I have seen succeed with agentic pipelines budget for the rework explicitly, staff the review queue and treat the saved hours as capacity for harder problems rather than headcount they can release. Teams I have seen struggle did the opposite: declared victory at the demo and quietly accumulated a backlog of half-trusted features the next quarter had to clean up.

The right unit of measurement is not how much the pipeline generates. It is how much of what it generates a human still has to touch before you would ship it. Call it the 80/20 rework rule: measure the rework, not the generation. The teams that get the rework number right are the ones whose AI investments compound. The teams that stop counting at the headline percentage are the ones that own the cleanup six months later.

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

This is Part 2 of a series on tech worker unionization. See Part 1: “A brewing battle: More IT workers want unions. The industry doesn’t.”

The best time for tech workers to unionize was 20 years ago, when they had plenty of leverage. The second-best time is now, when they don’t.

Mass layoffs, AI-driven displacement, corporate surveillance, workplace disillusionment have created conditions that have made organizing compelling for tech professionals. But the federal labor board that has historically protected workers’ right to organize has been weakened, and the companies that once feared it are openly defying it.

Here’s how organizers and labor experts describe the pros and cons to organizing — and how you can get started.

What unions can — and can’t — do for you

The single biggest benefit of a union contract for most tech workers isn’t pay — it’s protection against arbitrary termination, especially in the wake of recent mass layoffs in tech. In the United States, nonunion “at-will” workers can be fired at any time without a stated reason, while unionized workers negotiate protections written into their contracts.

“That fear of the company letting you go for anything at any time…with a union they just can’t do that,” says Zak Thompson, a senior software engineer at Kickstarter and union steward at Kickstarter United. Now that Kickstarter employees are unionized, people are less worried that saying something negative will result in termination.

“I’ve been shocked at the willingness of my co-workers to speak up against what they see as poor or controversial business decisions,” Thompson says.

Beyond job security, unions can deliver concrete material gains. Kickstarter United was formed in 2020, although getting there wasn’t easy: two employees were fired during the organizing campaign — which itself became a galvanizing event. And while the union hasn’t been able to prevent layoffs, it did negotiate better terms: four months of severance pay and four to six months of continued health insurance, versus the two to three weeks per year of work that management had initially proposed.

Other benefits include a four-day work week; AI protections; a minimum pay floor; and standards for raises, promotions, and time off for the company’s 59 employees.

Unions can give tech workers a voice in decisions that affect their daily work — including how AI tools are deployed. “Nobody I’ve spoken to is against new technology or getting trained in it,” says Max Belasco, a business systems analyst at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law and co-chair of the UCLA chapter of the University Professional and Technical Employees/Communications Workers of America (UPTE-CWA) Local 9119.

“But when new technology is being implemented, we want to know: what’s the five-year vision, the 10-year vision? Are we implementing this in a way that betters staffing, increases efficiency, or eases the lives of people already working? Or are we trying to take away jobs, automate people out of their pension or paycheck?” Belasco says.

The challenges are real. Tech professionals are less inclined to leave their jobs in the current market because wages haven’t been increasing as fast as they once were, and it can take longer to land another job.

“Tech moved from a very tight labor market in 2022 (1.85% unemployment rate) to a noticeably weaker one in 2024–2026 (3.49%),” although that’s still better than the national unemployment rate of 4.36% through May of this year, says Liya Palagashvili, senior research fellow and director of the Labor Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Flexibility is a concern. The more substantive challenge, raised by economists including Palagashvili, is that traditional union contracts impose uniform terms across an entire bargaining unit, limiting the flexibility that many tech workers — and their employers —currently enjoy. Tech firms need to move fast, adjusting teams, products, and roles on the fly.

“Collective bargaining agreements can make those adjustments much more difficult, whether by making them slower, costlier, or inconsistent with the contract,” she says.

Workers skeptical of unions in a survey of 1,900 tech professionals conducted by the career site Blind cited specific concerns: that unions are “not meritocratic,” “prevent innovation,” and “hold back earnings of top performers.”

Thompson from Kickstarter United pushes back: “We have nothing in our contract about ‘you can’t bend down and pick up a piece of trash because that’s someone else’s job.’ The company is free to give bonuses and individual raises as much as they like. This is all just up to the people who are bargaining the contract from the union side.”

Organizing carries potentially serious personal risks. During negotiations for a second three-year contract in 2025, Kickstarter United went on strike for 42 days. A few months later, the company announced layoffs.

“They let go strong union leaders, including a person who had bargained our last contract,” Thompson says. The union appealed, and the issue is now going to arbitration.

If you form a union, don’t expect much support from the National Labor Relations Board, the agency that certifies US labor unions and protects workers’ right to organize, in terms of prosecuting complaints of unfair labor practices, Thompson warns. “We’re in a political moment in this country with a pretty weakened NLRB. You have to be ready to organize and withhold worker power without any guarantee of safety.”

Organizers are up against an enormous union avoidance industry. Organizers can expect fierce pushback as soon as the business discovers that organizing is underway.

“There’s a multi-billion-dollar industry in union avoidance,” says Alan McAvinney, a Google software engineer and organizing chair, Alphabet Workers Union-CWA, a 1,400-member minority union of Alphabet employees. (Google is a subsidiary of Alphabet.)

US employers spend roughly $1.7 billion a year on union avoidance consultants and law firms, according to a May 2026 report by the Economic Policy Institute and LaborLab.

Expect hardball tactics. Management may play hardball during the time between when organizers announce their intention to unionize and the actual vote. For example, management can threaten to fire foreign-born workers in the US on H-1B visas if they support the union. Those workers would then have just 60 days to find a new sponsoring employer or lose their H-1B status, according to a recent Tech Workers Coalition blog post.

And at venture capital-backed startups, investment agreements sometimes require management to attest there is no union activity — meaning a public organizing drive can trigger funding withdrawal. Or, if a unionized company is acquired, the new management can dissolve the union overnight by reclassifying unionized workers as new hires.

With these sobering facts in mind, here is how organizers who have done it describe the process of creating a union.

Step 1: Start a conversation with your co-workers

At the University of California, a two-tier system had evolved where some tech workers were unionized and some weren’t, Belasco says. Management created new titles that fell outside the union even though they had similar job descriptions and responsibilities to those in the union. Those nonunion employees received lower pay and benefits than their unionized peers, which created resentment and instability.

Belasco and other organizers wanted to eliminate that division by bringing everyone under the same contract. But when they began their unionization drive, “the biggest barrier we faced wasn’t management opposition — it was that people felt this was just the best-case scenario realistically available: ‘We have this job at the university, we have concerns about automation and layoffs, but what can we really do about it?'” he says.

The antidote to that fatalism, organizers say, is simple: “Just start talking to your immediate co-workers. Are they experiencing the same challenges you are experiencing?” says McAvinney. “There’s no need to start talking about a union at this point.”

Just get a consensus and start building a group of like-minded individuals, Thompson advises. “Always start with one-on-one conversations, and that’s what you should do the whole time. That’s the key to organizing,” he says.

Tech workers often think they’re a special case, says Thompson, and therefore that unionization isn’t a good fit. “You’re not special. You are a company of workers, you are organizing, and there is a playbook for that. Trust the process, because it tends to work pretty well,” he says.

Step 2: Who’s on board, and who’s not? Map your workplace, but keep it quiet

Once there’s a consensus, continue to grow your network. Keep a list of everyone you’ve spoken with and note their disposition: “Is this person union-friendly or anti-union? Would they be a strong organizer?” Thompson says.

Maintaining secrecy early on is essential, because anti-union tactics will start immediately, and that can stop union organizing before it can gain momentum.

“Generally, employers do not want to share power with their workforce,” McAvinney says. Employers will deploy every means at their disposal to stop organizing efforts and peel away potential yes votes.

“If you look at historical examples, having 70% approval before the employer finds out about you results in a high percentage of wins when you actually cast the vote. Historically, that’s an effective buffer,” he says.

There’s a real threat of firing and layoffs. The traditional tech worker belief that job mobility makes collective action unnecessary is now being tested by a tighter job market, McAvinney says, noting that workers who many believe were fired for speaking out back in 2019 were a galvanizing factor in his union’s formation.

“You generally don’t want to be in a situation where the employer feels comfortable firing everyone. Part of that is thinking from a cynical standpoint about what the consequences would be to the employer if they did fire everyone,” he says.

One-on-one conversations that include personally asking co-workers to keep conversations confidential are key to keeping things quiet, Belasco says. When 2,100 UC tech workers voted to unionize in May, 96% voted in favor. To stay out of earshot of managers, avoid employee surveillance tools, and sidestep conference calls that could be recorded, organizers met with workers in their homes.

“That tactic is probably what made the difference between winning the election and getting the majority we got,” he says.

Step 3: Find the right union affiliation or go it alone

“Running a campaign against major employers requires the resources and expertise of the larger labor movement, even if workers publicly present as independent,” says Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research and senior lecturer emeritus at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Options include the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), among others. Another resource, the Tech Workers Coalition (TWC), provides training on organizing tactics, AI-in-workplace issues, and contract negotiation, and can match workers to the right unions for their needs.

The Alphabet Workers Union decided early on to affiliate with CWA. “They gave us a bunch of support early on in our campaign with no strings attached,” McAvinney says.

Kickstarter is organized through OPEIU, Thompson says. “They’ll usually have resources and staff that can help you through the next steps: collecting signatures in support of a union, bringing that to management, holding a vote — the more formalized things that interact with US labor law. They’ll also help with organizing along the way,” he says.

For workers at institutions where a union already exists, there may be a faster path. Organizers at UCLA did what’s called a “unit modification,” aligning with UPTE. By organizing under UPTE, the workers didn’t have to negotiate a new contract from scratch — they joined an already-negotiated contract covering existing UPTE tech members, which put them in “a much stronger position” than starting fresh, Belasco says.

Step 4: Choose your union model: majority vs. pre-majority or minority

Assess what’s practical for your organizing effort. In a majority union, more than 50% of all workers in a defined bargaining unit must vote to join the union through an NLRB-supervised election in the private sector, or a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)-supervised election for public sector workers.

The NLRB must certify the union, which then operates under its legal protections. This means, for example, that the employer must bargain, negotiated contracts are enforceable, violations must go to the NLRB or arbitration, and workers can’t be dismissed without just cause.

A pre-majority or minority union is a minority labor organization operating without NLRB protections or collective bargaining agreements. “Pre-majority means that workers are able to demonstrate majority support — through signed cards, petitions, a walkout, or everyone wearing solidarity T-shirts — without going through a formal election,” Bronfenbrenner says.

The Alphabet Workers Union-CWA (AWU-CWA) formed as a pre-majority union because achieving majority status across a globally distributed workforce of over 100,000 was not a realistic near-term goal. “An underground model where you try to reach 70% support across a workforce of over 100,000 people isn’t realistic,” McAvinney says.

A pre-majority union can still make a difference, he says. For example, the Alphabet Workers Union-CWA convinced management to offer voluntary exit packages — buyouts — prior to announcing layoffs.

For smaller organizations, a majority union may be the more practical option — it’s more attainable, McAvinney says. “I don’t think [the pre-majority union model] is the correct thing to do in all situations. I certainly would not recommend it to a 200-person shop.”

Kickstarter, which had fewer than 100 employees, was able to form a majority union, with 55% voting to organize.

Ultimately, says McAvinney, “there’s no inflection point where you go from being able to win nothing to winning everything, even with a contract and a supermajority. But the more people you have who are willing and able to fight for what they want, the more you’ll be able to get.”

Step 5: Who should — and should not — be in your union?

Belasco’s situation at UCLA illustrates a broader strategic choice that every organizing campaign must make. He had been in a union position in educational technology when he was told his role would be reclassified as a non-union position.

“I was given a choice: apply to the new non-union position to continue doing the work I’d trained for, or stay in my union position doing service desk work I wasn’t used to,” he says. “Essentially, it was a choice between job security and career progression.”

Belasco joined a “wall-to-wall” union, which represents a broad range of university professional and technical employees across the UC system rather than a single job category, such as engineers or tech professionals.

Kickstarter United is another example of a wall-to-wall union. “It’s not just the engineers who are unionized, but also customer support, designers — everyone,” Thompson says.

Wall-to-wall unions are more powerful, but they’re also more difficult to achieve. Under US labor law, “professionals have to vote separately on whether they want to be combined with other workers,” says Bronfenbrenner. “You can never have a wall-to-wall unit without giving professionals the chance to decide whether they want to be separate.”

The law’s “professional employees” category includes roles like software engineers and developers but not necessarily others. For example, customer support specialists and QA analysts would fall into the “non-professional workers” category.

“For decades, the pattern was either to organize everybody except the engineers, or manage to organize the engineers and fail to bring in everybody else — neither of which builds real worker power,” says Simone Robutti, an organizer with Tech Workers Coalition Global, an international branch of TWC based in Berlin.

Step 6: You won the vote. Get ready for what comes next

Winning a union vote means having a seat at the table, says Thompson. “Once the workers have come together and agreed they want that seat, you bring that to management, and they have a chance to voluntarily recognize a union,” he says.

But in most cases employers contest the results, which must be certified by the NLRB or PERB. That process, in which the employer uses various tactics to challenge the legitimacy of the outcome, can take weeks or months.

Unfortunately, the legal framework that is supposed to protect workers during this process has been significantly weakened in the last few years. In a potentially more ominous development, SpaceX, Amazon, Trader Joe’s, Starbucks, and the University of Southern California have in separate legal actions challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB, arguing that the agency’s structure violates the separation of powers. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld injunctions against the NLRB in SpaceX’s case in August 2025 — a serious challenge to the agency’s authority.

In the meantime, some companies may disregard negotiated contracts, which can lead to lengthy legal appeals or extended arbitration.

“The NLRB can still force an election, but it can’t force a contract, and companies are saying they simply won’t comply,” Bronfenbrenner says. This is where the expertise and resources of affiliation with a major union can help, she adds.

As a result, contract negotiations can take far longer than workers might expect. At Kickstarter, for example, two years and four months elapsed from the time of the union vote to the first contract, and that was at a 59-person company with a relatively cooperative employer. At larger companies with more aggressive legal teams, the timeline will be longer.

Forming a union is hard work, Robutti says. “It’s not a service you pay for and they protect you. It doesn’t happen spontaneously, and it doesn’t happen magically. It’s the choice to take responsibility for improving your workplace.”

Gen AI spending is moving beyond the familiar software model of seats, licenses, and pilots. As AI shifts from copilots to embedded workflows and autonomous agents, one user request can trigger multiple model calls, retrieval steps, retries, orchestration layers, and infrastructure events. A tool that looks affordable in pilot may behave very differently once connected to production systems or allowed to act with less human supervision.

According to Michael Corrigan, CIO of World Insurance Associates, AI introduces a fundamentally different cost model — one that’s usage driven, non-linear, and tightly coupled to business activity. “Success requires shifting from traditional IT budgeting to FinOps-style discipline where consumption, value, and governance are actively managed in real time,” he says.

Here are five ways CIOs can build that discipline before AI costs spiral.

Forecast AI by workflow, not by user

At World, a top 25 insurance broker with about 3,000 employees across roughly 300 locations, AI use falls into three broad categories, Corrigan says. One is broad tools, such as copilots. Another is embedded AI inside SaaS platforms. And the third is bespoke AI built around specific workflows and manual processes.

“The bespoke is the area that’s growing the most right now,” he says. “And that’s where the model, from a cost perspective, has really been shifting from a license seat cost to a token consumption or token burn cost, or even a hybrid.”

Seat-based pricing is relatively easy to forecast whereas consumption-based AI isn’t. Costs may depend on prompt complexity, output length, model choice, workflow design, and whether the system calls a model once or many times in the background.

World tries to manage that uncertainty by defining the business problem, success criteria, and expected operational improvement upfront. Pilots help estimate consumption before scaling, but Corrigan says they don’t remove the ambiguity.

“We’ll try our best in the pilot to understand what the consumption rate is, what the token burn rate is,” he says. But once a consumption-based workflow goes into production, he adds, an estimate is put into place. That estimate is informed, but still rough.

Elmer Morales, founder and CEO of koder.com, an agentic AI coding startup, says CIOs should think less about headcount and more about workflow mechanics. Agentic AI costs are driven by the number of decisions an agent makes, how often it retrieves external data, how much context it carries, and how many systems it touches.

“CIOs should start by mapping workflows, not necessarily users,” he says. “The relevant variable isn’t going to be the headcount but how many decisions an agent makes per task.”

Model the failure path, not just the happy path

Pilots can mislead because they often test the cleanest version of an AI workflow. Morales says many enterprises model agentic AI costs around the happy path: the user gives a clear prompt, the system understands the request, the agent completes the task, and the process ends. Production is messier.

“They generally don’t model for situations where the agent is going to need to go back and check its work and redo things,” Morales says. “A lot of times, agents are wrong, either because they hallucinate or they understood the problem incorrectly.”

In an agentic workflow, the system may check its work, call another tool, retrieve more data, or redo a step. While that may improve quality, it also adds cost.

The difference between copilots and agents is central. A copilot interaction is often one prompt and one response. An agentic workflow may involve agents moving through a decision tree, executing tasks in sequence or in parallel, and calling sub-agents or external systems along the way. “By the time it’s achieved the original goal, the agent might have made 50 or 100 model calls, compared with a single call for a traditional copilot prompt,” Morales says.

That’s why CIOs should require teams to model the failure path before production, like how many retries are allowed, how much context is resent, which tools can be called, when a human should intervene, and what happens when the agent can’t complete the task.

Build cost controls into the architecture

Traditional FinOps practices still matter, but AI requires more than retrospective dashboards and chargebacks.

According to Pavan Madduri, senior cloud platform engineer at industrial supply company Graigner, looking backward at usage data, as traditional FinOps often does, can be too late. Costs are shaped by prompt design, model selection, agent behavior, orchestration choices, and runtime loops.

“Dashboards or chargebacks, those are historical accounting,” he says. “The money’s already gone.” For AI, he argues, cost controls need to be embedded into the architecture. That includes hard token caps, retry-depth limits, maximum runtime limits, workload prioritization, background-job throttling, and cluster-level controls that prevent runaway consumption.

“The real FinOps means you need to have the cost constraints embedded into your architecture framework,” Madduri says.

Those controls also extend to infrastructure. Expensive GPUs may sit warm between jobs because systems need capacity available when inference demand arrives. Teams may pass huge schemas, databases, or thousands of lines of code into frontier models when a smaller or more focused prompt would do.

Enterprises should also adopt event-driven autoscaling, Madduri says. “Use tools like KEDA to scale GPU nodes down to zero the moment inference demand drops, so teams only pay for the windows when the silicon is actively crunching tokens.”

Corrigan says World uses rate limits, spend limits, alerts, and approval gateways for consumption-based tools. When users approach token consumption limits, automated alerts allow IT and the business to review whether the continued spend is justified.

“If it’s not meeting the success criteria we expected, you have to have the control in place to say we’re going to move on or kill that process,” Corrigan says.

Route work to the right model

CIOs can also reduce AI bill shock by avoiding a default assumption that every task requires the most powerful model available. While some tasks need advanced reasoning, many others don’t. A simple support ticket, log-parsing task, or structured database transaction may be handled by a smaller or cheaper model. A complex architecture decision, legal analysis, or multi-step reasoning task may justify a more powerful one.

“Choosing the right model for the right prompt and right question — that’s where you leverage the maximum from that model, and you can decrease the costing,” Madduri says. “If you default every single call to a frontier model, that’s architectural laziness.”

Morales makes a similar point. Not every step in an agentic workflow requires a top-of-the-line model. Model routing, he says, is the discipline of determining the best model for the task, and providing the relevant context when the model needs it.

According to Jim Olsen, CTO of enterprise software company ModelOp, CIOs should use the least expensive model that can accomplish the business goal. Using the biggest model for everything is easier, but expensive. “It’s like hiring the most expensive engineer to change a few colors in a website’s CSS, or visual styling,” he says. “You wouldn’t do that. You use the appropriate tools for the task.”

Tie consumption to business value

For Olsen, the deeper enterprise problem is AI value shock, not just bill shock. Spending $200,000 in a quarter on AI is justified if it produces $2 million in business value. The problem is spending heavily on use cases that don’t generate a meaningful return.

“Are you actually getting that return on investment, or are you just blowing tokens for something that’s not delivering the value to your business?” Olsen asks. Tracking token usage by user or department may show who consumed AI, but not whether the consumption mattered.

For most enterprise AI systems, Olsen says costs should be tied back to business use cases. A model may be used for HR document search, customer support, code review, problem resolution, or other functions. Each use case may draw on the same underlying models or agents, but the business value can be very different.

That’s why he argues that companies need an AI inventory, a record of which business workflows use which models, agents, providers, workflows, and systems. Without that inventory, enterprises can’t connect consumption to value.

Corrigan takes a similar approach from a governance perspective. At World, new AI ideas go through an intake process. Business users propose improvements, and IT, finance, operations, sales, and business stakeholders evaluate, prioritize, and monitor them from pilot through production.

That may be where the next stage of AI FinOps is heading, toward a clearer understanding of which AI consumption deserves to scale, not just to lower bills. So the question, as Olsen puts it, isn’t whether someone used a million tokens. It’s what are they using them for.

If you spend enough time in Silicon Valley AI circles, you’ll hear the same message over and over again: AI needs context.

The statement is broadly true. The problem is that “context” has become one of the least precise terms in the industry.

Depending on who is using it, context can mean documents, dashboards, reports, metadata, business rules, policies, transaction histories, CRM records, knowledge bases or institutional expertise. The word has become a catch-all for virtually any information that might be made available to a model.

As a result, many organizations have started treating context as a volume problem. Conversations quickly turn to larger context windows, additional data sources and broader system access, while far less attention goes toward determining whether that information actually improves the quality of the outcome.

What we’re seeing in practice suggests a different way of thinking about the problem. The organizations making the most progress with enterprise AI are not necessarily the ones exposing the largest amount of information to their systems. They are the ones spending the most time understanding which information should influence a decision, which information should not and how to ensure that business logic is applied consistently.

That distinction matters because the industry is beginning to repeat a mistake enterprises already made once before.

Context has become the new ‘big data’

For much of the last two decades, organizations operated under the assumption that collecting more data would naturally produce better decisions. Massive investments were made in data warehouses, reporting platforms, analytics systems and business intelligence tools. Those investments created tremendous value, but they also exposed an important reality: Collecting information and creating clarity are not the same thing.

Today, AI is heading down a similar path.

Many enterprise AI projects measure progress by counting how much information a model can access. More documents become better than fewer documents. More systems become better than fewer systems. Larger context windows become better than smaller ones. The conversation often assumes that quantity and quality move together.

Well, they don’t.

According to Salesforce research, only 35% of business leaders say they are completely satisfied with their organization’s ability to use data effectively despite years of investment in data infrastructure and analytics. Enterprises learned long ago that information alone does not create understanding. The same lesson applies to AI.

When a model gains access to five versions of the same metric, conflicting definitions of a business process or documentation that has not been updated in years, it does not magically resolve those inconsistencies. It consumes them. More context can just as easily increase ambiguity as reduce it.

Simply exposing more information to a model does not guarantee better outcomes. What matters is whether the information available to the system helps it make the right decision at the right time.

Most AI failures are actually context failures

One of the more interesting things we’ve observed over the past year is how many AI projects are blamed for problems that have very little to do with AI.

The model answers a question incorrectly, and the immediate assumption is that the model failed. In reality, the underlying issue often sits elsewhere. The organization may have multiple definitions of the metric being requested. Customer information may exist across several systems with conflicting values. Business rules may be documented in one location, partially implemented in another and understood differently by different teams.

In many deployments, the issue is not that the AI lacks information. The issue is that it has access to several competing versions of the truth.

Anyone who has worked inside a large enterprise will recognize the pattern. Revenue means one thing to finance and something slightly different to sales. Product usage metrics evolve over time. Operational processes change while documentation remains frozen. Human employees learn how to navigate these inconsistencies through experience and institutional knowledge. AI systems inherit them immediately.

This is why the conversation around context often misses the point. The challenge is not simply providing more information. The challenge is determining which information should be trusted, how conflicts should be resolved and what business logic should govern the final answer.

A single trusted source can be more valuable than a hundred loosely connected ones. A clearly defined rule can be more useful than thousands of pages of documentation. The quality of the context matters far more than the volume.

Access does not create trust

Many organizations can tell you exactly how their AI systems retrieve information. They can explain retrieval pipelines, vector databases, ranking systems, semantic search architectures and context windows in extraordinary detail.

Far fewer can explain how they determine whether the answers produced are consistently correct.

That gap becomes especially important in enterprise environments where the cost of an incorrect answer can be substantial. A sales leader making a forecast, a finance team evaluating performance or an operations executive making a resource allocation decision does not care how many documents were retrieved. They care whether the answer is right.

Trust has always been one of the hardest problems in enterprise data. According to Accenture research on data trust and decision making, only about a quarter of employees report high confidence in their organization’s data when making decisions. That challenge does not disappear when AI enters the picture. If anything, it becomes more visible.

Organizations frequently measure access because access is easy to quantify. Reliability is harder. Reliability requires understanding whether an answer remains consistent across users, across prompts, across time periods and across changing business conditions. It requires understanding whether the same question produces the same answer and whether that answer reflects the business logic the organization intends to enforce.

Those are fundamentally different measurements, and they point to a different definition of success.

Context requires measurement

One reason this problem is becoming more pronounced is that enterprises accumulate information far faster than they eliminate it.

New systems are added, new reports are created, processes evolve. Teams develop local definitions and specialized workflows. Documentation grows continuously, while very little of it gets removed. Over time, organizations build large collections of information that contain years of historical decisions, exceptions, workarounds and competing interpretations.

We’ve yet to encounter an enterprise that doesn’t have some version of this problem.

That reality turns context into an operational challenge rather than a technical one.

Simply connecting AI systems to enterprise information does not improve the quality of that information. In some cases, it exposes longstanding inconsistencies that were previously hidden by human interpretation and tribal knowledge. Gartner has long identified poor data quality as one of the most significant obstacles to successful analytics and AI initiatives because bad inputs inevitably produce unreliable outputs, regardless of how sophisticated the technology becomes.

As AI becomes more deeply integrated into business operations, organizations will need new ways to evaluate the context their systems rely on. They will need visibility into how information is being used, where definitions conflict, which sources are trusted and how context quality affects outcomes. Context cannot be treated as a static asset. It must be measured, monitored and improved over time, just as organizations measure the quality of the models and applications built on top of it.

The shift from access to reliability

The industry has spent the last several years focused on access. How do we connect models to enterprise systems? How do we expose organizational knowledge? How do we give AI visibility into the information people use every day?

Those questions were important because they represented genuine technical barriers. Today, many of those barriers are disappearing.

Most enterprises can already connect AI systems to data warehouses, applications, dashboards, documents and knowledge repositories. The conversation is beginning to shift toward a more difficult problem: Determining whether those connections actually produce outcomes people trust.

That is where the next phase of enterprise AI will be decided.

Organizations that treat context as a quantity problem will continue adding more information and hoping accuracy improves. Organizations that treat context as a quality problem will focus on trust, consistency, governance and outcome reliability.

The difference between those approaches may sound subtle, but it has enormous implications. One produces systems that can access information. The other produces systems that people are willing to use to make decisions.

And in the enterprise, that distinction is ultimately what matters.

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

Security engineers play a pivotal role in enterprise cybersecurity, because they are the professionals who design, build, and deploy security systems to protect an organization’s data, applications, systems, networks, and other IT components against a variety of cyber threats.

Finding not just qualified security engineers, but the best and brightest available, needs to be a priority for CISOs and others overseeing security at their organizations. That’s especially true with the rapid rise of AI and the threats that brings to the enterprise.

Here are some of the key skills and traits of elite security engineers to look for when hiring — or to acquire in order to uplevel your cybersecurity career.

Acumen with AI-powered tools

These days, AI-related skills are in demand regardless of domain, and this certainly applies to security engineers. There’s a wealth of solutions leveraging AI in the market, tools that engineers can add to their defense arsenal.

“AI is transforming security engineering from reactive alerting to predictive threat detection,” says Praveen Margabandhu, digital engineering anchor at financial services firm Navy Federal Credit Union. “AI-driven anomaly detection now identifies behavioral patterns that indicate fraud or compromise before traditional threshold-based systems would fire. This shifts the security engineer’s role from incident responder to threat model designer.”

AI-powered tools have taken over a large portion of the detection and triage work that used to be the core of a security engineer’s day, says Maruf Ahmed, cofounder and CEO of global tech staffing firm Dexian. “Vulnerability scanning runs on its own now,” he says. “Threat flagging that used to require a team pulling through logs for hours happens in minutes.”

This has freed up capacity on most security teams and changed what the day-to-day work looks like, Ahmed says. “With detection increasingly automated, the engineer’s value sits more in interpreting what gets flagged and deciding what to do about it,” he says.

Keen understanding of emerging and established AI threats

Engineers must also have a thorough understanding of the risks AI presents, including AI-enhanced cyberattacks using large language models (LLMs) to automate and scale highly personalized social engineering attacks, craft sophisticated malware, and generate deepfakes.

Other AI threats they need to be aware of include prompt injections, data and model poisoning, disclosure of sensitive information, model theft, supply chain compromises, and excessive agency.

“The same generative tools that help security teams work faster are available to adversaries, and it shows,” Ahmed says. “Phishing campaigns read better and land more precisely than they did a year ago. Social engineering is harder to catch when the language is polished and tailored to the target, and security engineers are now defending against threats built with the same class of technology they use on the defensive side.”

That has raised the bar for what reliable detection looks like, Ahmed says. “The objective shift I hear most from clients is about trust in their own systems,” he says. “Two years ago, the priority was visibility — making sure you could see across your environment. Most organizations have that now. The harder problem is knowing whether what those tools are telling you holds up under scrutiny and having people on the team who can stand behind those findings in front of a regulator or a board.”

Appreciation of performance and business goals

The best security engineers understand how performance and security intersect, says Margabandhu, who leads performance engineering across Navy Federal Credit Union’s digital banking infrastructure, including real-time fraud detection, identity and access management, and cybersecurity infrastructure resilience.

“A fraud detection system that is secure but too slow to catch transactions in real-time is not secure at all,” Margabandhu says. “Elite engineers optimize for both simultaneously.”

Engineers must be able to put things in business context, Ahmed says. “An engineer who can work across domains, validate AI outputs, and learn new tools fast is valuable. But that value compounds when the person also understands what the organization is trying to protect and why,” he says.

Security engineers who understand the business make better risk decisions, write more effective policies, and generate less friction with the teams around them, Ahmed says. “That is the profile employers are hiring toward right now, and it is where the talent shortage is most pronounced,” he says.

Systems mindset

“One of the biggest misconceptions in cybersecurity hiring is that elite security engineers are defined purely by technical certifications or tool familiarity,” says Juan Mathews Rebello Santos, an independent cybersecurity researcher and ethical hacker.

“Technical skill absolutely matters, but the strongest engineers I’ve worked with consistently share a combination of analytical thinking, operational adaptability, communication ability, and deep systems understanding,” Santos says.

Elite security engineers understand how infrastructure, cloud services, identity systems, applications, APIs, networks, users, and business operations connect, Santos says.

“Modern attacks rarely target a single isolated component anymore,” he says. “Threat actors chain together weaknesses across environments. Engineers who can understand those relationships holistically are significantly more effective at both prevention and incident response.”

Cross-disciplinary fluency and broad stack know-how

Being an elite software engineer today means having a range of technology experience and knowledge. “Organizations want engineers who can work across more of the stack than they used to,” Ahmed says. “A role that might have asked for deep specialization in one area now expects someone who can move between cloud infrastructure, application security, and compliance without needing a handoff at every boundary.”

The attack surface has continued to get wider, and the job descriptions for security engineers has followed suit. “That cross-domain fluency matters because security incidents rarely stay contained in one layer,” Ahmed says. “The engineer who can follow a problem from the network through the application to the data governance framework resolves it faster, with fewer people involved.”

The strongest security engineers bridge infrastructure, application, and business domains, Margabandhu says. “They can speak to a CISO, a developer, and a cloud architect in the same conversation,” he says. “An engineer who can explain what an authentication problem means for fraud exposure moves faster in a room full of executives than one who can only describe it in infrastructure terms. I’ve watched technically brilliant people lose that race repeatedly.”

Having the ability to communicate technical risk clearly to non-technical leadership can mean the difference between success and failure of attacks.

“Many security failures today are not caused by lack of tooling, but by misalignment between technical teams and business decision-makers,” Santos says. “Elite engineers can explain operational risk, prioritization, and security tradeoffs in language executives understand.”

Deep understanding of third-party risk and non-human threats

Threats can come from anywhere, including supply chains and non-human combatants. Third-party cybersecurity risks are on the rise. The 2026 Global CISO Leadership Report by executive search firm Hitch Partners, based on a survey of more than 625 information security executives across the US and Canada, says 43% put third-party risks as the No. 1 priority.

“Most teams are still better at securing what they own than securing what they depend on,” Margabandhu says. “The mental shift from perimeter thinking to dependency thinking is real and not everyone has made it. The engineers who treat every API call, every credentialed vendor, every third-party model as part of their attack surface approach design differently.”

Another growing source of potential threats are not human. Machine identities now outnumber human identities by ratios exceeding 100 to 1 in most enterprise environments, with some sectors closer to 500 to 1, according to the ManageEngine Identity Security Outlook 2026 report.

This includes service accounts, API keys, automation tokens, and AI agents, any one of which can present data governance and security risks.

Many organizations are still managing machine identities through manual processes that weren’t designed for scale, Margabandhu says. “Engineers who understand non-human identity governance are rare and increasingly important. This is not a future problem.”

Willingness to keep learning

Security engineers need to have a desire to never stopped learning.

“That sounds obvious until you work with people who’ve been doing this for 15 years and are still operating from the same threat models they built in 2012,” Margabandhu says. “Security changes fast enough that standing still is the same as going backwards.”

The security engineers who keep up aren’t reading one report a year. “They’re genuinely curious about what attackers are doing right now, this month, and they adjust how they think accordingly,” Margabandhu says. “That quality is harder to hire for than most technical skills, because it’s not on a resume.”

With AI presenting new and more sophisticated threats, keeping up with the latest developments is perhaps more important than ever. “Strong engineers are naturally investigative,” Santos says. “They actively study attack techniques, test assumptions, reverse engineer failures, and continuously adapt their understanding of risk.”

The best security engineers are often the people who remain intellectually uncomfortable because they know the landscape is always evolving, Santos says.

Employers have started paying closer attention to how fast someone can learn, Ahmed says. “The threat landscape and the defensive toolkit are both moving faster than any certification program can track, so hiring managers are probing for adaptability in interviews: how candidates have responded to recent shifts, whether they have picked up unfamiliar platforms on their own, how they work through problems they have not seen before,” he says.

Europe is sweltering. The summer of 2026 has seen historic heat waves that have taken a significant toll on infrastructure. In recent weeks, across the continent, problems have been reported in the power grid, telecommunications, and rail transportation. IT infrastructure has not been spared from the situation.

“The heat affects equipment long before anyone notices a problem,” explains Ricardo Román, sales director at Fracttal, in an email. “Every piece of equipment has a temperature range within which it is designed to operate, and when it operates above that range, it begins to degrade silently,” he says. A process of wear and tear begins that will eventually take its toll. With technology, this happens much faster. “In a data center, this effect is amplified because there’s no margin for error,” he notes. When something starts to fail, everything grinds to a halt.

In fact, this latest heat wave has already had negative impacts on data centers outside of Spain. In the United Kingdom, high temperatures shut down hospital data centers and caused the University of Cambridge’s Dawn supercomputer to go offline, as its cooling systems were unable to cope with the temperatures. That’s the crux of the problem. “In IT, heat isn’t a computing problem—it’s a problem of maintaining the assets that support the data center,” explains Román. 

Heat thus becomes yet another risk for the IT industry and, in particular, for data centers.

Temperatures are a clear and growing concern when it comes to corporate risk prevention. “I see it in conversations with clients: In the past, the maintenance team was the one monitoring the temperature in a technical room,” Román says. “Today, management also monitors it, because they know that if that goes down, the service goes down—and behind the service is the end customer,” he adds. Maintenance has gone from being a cost “to a lever for business continuity that no one dares to touch.”

As a World Economic Forum analysis warns, we’re experiencing a boom in AI-driven data centers, but the impact of climate risks on them is being overlooked. Their estimates suggest these risks could result in an additional annual cost of $81 billion by 2035 and $168 billion by 2065. These calculations include all kinds of threats, such as floods or droughts, but most of the impact comes from extreme heat.

These projections are confirmed by data from the industry itself: Over the past three years, extreme weather events have accounted for one-third of the losses incurred by the U.S. division of the data center company Zurich. According to projections by the climate risk analysis firm First Street, 79% of global data centers will face increased risks from extreme weather. MapleCroft estimated in 2025 that 56% of major data centers had a high or very high risk rating for extreme heat, and that this figure would rise to 80% by 2080.

These percentages cannot be easily extrapolated to Europe in general—and to Spain in particular—as one might think, although they do make the trend clear. Guillermo Benito, CTO of Nabiax, points out during a video call that these studies are based on global samples and thus place significant weight on the capacity of Asia and the United States. “We represent a small percentage there, but that said, all countries will have to adapt. The two major challenges for data centers are energy and cooling,” Benitonotes.

Spain: A pioneer in heat?

In late June, French Labor Minister Jean-Pierre Farandou proposed taking a training course in Spain to learn how to prevent high temperatures from paralyzing a country. Although Spain’s climate varies by region, high summer temperatures are common in many areas (though climate change has made them more extreme and frequent in recent years), and the infrastructure of knowledge and solutions that Farandou wanted to learn about has been established. The big question is whether this also applies to data centers. Is Spain better prepared than other European regions?

“Heat waves are becoming increasingly intense and frequent. What used to happen once every two years now happens two, three, or four times a year,” Benito says. Speaking from his own experience, he adds: “In Spain, data centers already take these factors into account.” When it comes to redundancy, monitoring, or maintenance, these factors are already factored in. “It’s not like it’s an unforeseen event. It’s already been taken into account, and we build in a lot of redundancy—a wide safety margin,” he says.

The difference compared to central or northern Europe is that some haven’t considered this possibility. Benito points out that the same thing happens with homes. “For many years, they’ve been designing with two assumptions: that they have plenty of water because their climates are humid, and that it never gets hot,” he says. And this is a problem, because their summer temperatures have risen significantly during extreme heat waves. “Temperatures in the UK have gone up by 10 or 15 degrees, and their data centers aren’t prepared for that,” he says. In fact, he shares an anecdote about “a certain hyperscaler that, a few years ago, when its data centers in the United Kingdom went down, held a global conference to figure out how this had happened and draw lessons from it.” The curious thing is that what they learned was something that was already well known in Spain.

It was already getting hot in southern Europe, and preparations were needed. Now, temperatures are becoming a topic of conversation outside the region, and climate change has made its way into IT strategy. Benito confirms that, yes, the conversation is more visible in global settings. “For several reasons. The first is because, obviously, it affects operations. Another is the market. Customers also demand that you address this.” Before, the focus was on power capacity and square meters. Now, the expert points out, people are asking where the electricity comes from and whether it’s clean, and they’re demanding emissions guarantees. The sector is making significant investments to become sustainable, he argues.

Beyond consumption data and the improvements that can be made, the big question is whether these high temperatures are already impacting decision-making—whether decisions on where to locate data centers (or not) are already being made with heat in mind.

Industry representatives explain that while the climate can have an impact and is already taken into account when deciding where to locate a data center, it is not yet the sole factor or the most decisive one. In other words, many other factors must be considered, and these carry much more weight in the decision-making process. One such factor is energy, which is essential for these infrastructures and must be constant, resilient, and have a low carbon footprint. It is also an area where cooling plays a major role. As Román points out, cooling can account for between 30 and 40% of energy consumption, “and in poorly managed facilities, that figure approaches 50%.” Energy efficiency and cooling efficiency are thus essential—and not just for sustainability reasons. “It’s a matter of the bottom line.”

Another factor is space. As Benito says, you need “stable locations where you can grow.” This isn’t just about whether the infrastructure fits, but also about how it aligns with the needs of its customers. As this expert points out, the concentration of data centers near Madrid or Barcelona isn’t “just a whim,” but because you need to be close to large population centers to provide them with low latency. “Other supercomputing applications can be located farther away, and that’s already happening,” he explains, but generally speaking, you can’t just put data centers anywhere. You have to strike a balance between needs and available space.

How to survive the heat

So, how can we survive the heat, especially when projections suggest that the future will bring even higher temperatures? The key is to understand that this is no longer a curiosity or an occasional incident. As Román points out, air-conditioning systems are running longer and longer. What worked 10 years ago will now barely suffice—it’s “pushed to its limits.” “Heat is shifting from being an August blip to a variable that must be monitored year-round. One you endure; the other you manage.”

“By the time the room’s thermometer rises, it’s already too late. What you need to monitor isn’t the room—it’s the equipment—and you have to do it sooner,” he says. Román recommends a three-step strategy. First, don’t measure the environment; instead, measure the equipment and its variations in temperature, vibrations, and energy consumption. Next, take action on any deviations: Don’t wait for a failure, but instead act on early indicators that things aren’t normal. And finally, keep a comprehensive record of historical data, which will be key to anticipating issues and learning from them. “And here I’m going to be honest, because this is what I see every day: The technology to do all this already exists and isn’t expensive,” he asserts. “Many critical facilities are still managed using an Excel spreadsheet and the memory of a technician who’s been there for twenty years,” he warns. And that’s a problem.

In the specific case of data centers, Spain has done its homework. The high temperatures (which exceeded those recorded in the United Kingdom, where some data centers did shut down) did not bring them to a halt during this heat wave.

Unlike what might happen in other countries, Spain has optimized its cooling systems to be efficient and sustainable, as Benito explains, noting that the country must also contend with water stress. “In other countries, I can use water and let it evaporate as I please because I know it’s going to rain again—or at least that was the case until recently. In Spain, we’ve known for a long time that this isn’t the case,” he says. That’s why we work with closed-loop systems. “Most of us operators don’t use any water,” he says. The same water, mixed with certain cooling agents, circulates continuously. “Once the loop is filled, we don’t lose a single drop,” he asserts.

What this expert is now seeing at international conferences is that in other countries where water wasn’t an apparent problem, people are starting to talk about working this way—”as a technical innovation.” “That’s where we say, ‘Yes, just like the ones we have in Spain or Portugal,’” he remarks with a touch of humor. “Water, like energy, is a challenge,” he says, so everything has already been designed with that in mind. It isn’t wasted, it doesn’t evaporate, and it isn’t consumed, he says.

OpenClaw’s announcement that it has become a nonprofit foundation is generating IT excitement because of the potential for governance and development consistency that the popular platform has thus far lacked. Still, some worry about the risks created by the move. 

“Our ambition is for OpenClaw to be the Switzerland of AI. Neutral ground where every model and every lab can plug into the technology and collaborate on standards in the era of agents,” OpenClaw said in a post. “That work is already underway in Foundation-convened councils on agent identity, agent profiles, evals, and enterprise deployment.”

The statement, co-authored by OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger, pointed out, “the great open source projects of our time — Linux, Apache, Mozilla — endure because a neutral steward stands behind them. That is the role we are taking on to keep OpenClaw MIT licensed, open, and independent so that everyone building on it can trust it will be here for the long term.”

But it reassured users that the original OpenClaw leadership is still in charge.

“Peter built this thing and Peter keeps making the calls, especially the technical ones. Since joining OpenAI earlier this year, he has continued to steward OpenClaw as an open and independent project, and OpenAI has made a commitment to keep it that way,” the post said. “The foundation is here to serve: good governance, stable funding, and paying the people who keep the claws alive.”

However, some analysts and consultants were skeptical about how much true independence Steinberger would have, given his salaried role with OpenAI. 

Neutrality claim in question

“The Switzerland of AI neutrality claim collapses under its own announcement,” said Noah Kenney, principal consultant at Digital 520. “OpenAI runs a team [at OpenAI] called Claw Labs that Peter leads and OpenAI is a major donor to OpenClaw. The ‘neutral steward’s’ chief technical decision maker is employed by one of the competing labs it is supposed to be neutral with.” To OpenAI, he said, OpenClaw is closer to a tax-exempt nonprofit subsidiary than it is to a neutral ‘Switzerland of AI.’

He pointed out that, in addition, Microsoft is shipping the enterprise version of OpenClaw, and Nvidia is shipping the hardware bundle. “This is being called the Switzerland of AI, but Switzerland does not have its central bank run by France,” he observed.

Kenney said that what the new OpenClaw has actually built is “a shared dependency that several competitors fund, staff, and steer, wrapped in a nonprofit structure. Enterprise IT should understand that structure, because treating OpenClaw as neutral is a mistake,” adding that CIOs need to look at this development devoid of the emotional component. 

“There is a strategic irony here that CIOs should sit with,” Kenney said. “If OpenClaw succeeds at becoming the universal agent substrate, then every model plugs into the same identity layer, the same profiles, and the same deployment plumbing. The thing every vendor is racing to own becomes a commodity that nobody owns.” He pointed out that, in the short term, that is genuinely good news for buyers because it means less lock-in and more portability.

“But,” he said, “when the connective tissue is free and natural, the only labs that benefit are the ones with the best models and the deepest distribution. Commoditize the layer below you and you compete on the layer where you are already strongest. The foundation is not a charity. It is the biggest players agreeing to stop fighting over the plumbing so they can fight over the water, and the enterprise is the one paying the water bill either way.”

Good news, bad news

Jason Andersen, principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, liked the potential consistency that could emerge from the structural change, given the complexity of agent development today. 

“We are seeing a lot of OpenClaw variants hit the market, such as those from Nvidia as well as competing products from cloud and SaaS vendors. A common base helps solidify the common parts,” Andersen noted. “That said, a common challenge is the sustainability of these open source foundations over time. In addition to releasing code, these foundations need funding to evolve and grow. And that funding needs to come from continued momentum to incentivize existing members to increase investment and recruit new members to join.”

Andersen stressed that IT buyers need to keep an eye on the roadmap for any OpenClaw variant they choose to deploy, “as that will directly impact the foundation, and the momentum of the foundation and common base. If the common base loses momentum, it can lead to forks, or just a loss of innovation. When that happens, members tend to back away, which puts customers in limbo.”

But not everyone sees the promised structure as entirely good for IT.

Ishraq Khan, CEO at coding productivity tool vendor Kodezi, said, “most CIOs do not want to bet their future entirely on a single model vendor. They want Claude for some workloads, GPT for others, open models for sensitive environments, and potentially internally fine-tuned systems for specific use cases. The problem is that every vendor currently brings its own identity system, tool interfaces, permissions model, and operational assumptions. That fragmentation does not scale.”

He said, “the risk if standards fail is straightforward: every vendor builds its own closed ecosystem, enterprises become locked into individual stacks, and security becomes dramatically harder. The opportunity if OpenClaw succeeds is equally significant: enterprises get portable agents, common identity standards, interoperable tooling, and a healthier competitive market around models rather than ecosystems.”

Will it remain a nonprofit?

However, said Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, one of the key details that IT executives will want to keep in mind is that OpenAI also began as a nonprofit, but it was quickly seen as not adhering to nonprofit objectives. 

“OpenAI’s transition from a nonprofit research organization into a more complex structure highlighted the challenge of maintaining mission alignment while scaling technology, capital, partnerships, and commercial operations,” Greis said. “OpenClaw has the opportunity to address some of those governance questions earlier by establishing clear principles around neutrality, transparency, and decision-making before the ecosystem becomes even larger and more valuable.”

He noted, “we have seen this pattern before with technologies like Linux and Kubernetes. The strongest open ecosystems succeeded because they created trusted foundations that enterprises could build upon. The technology was important, but the governance model that underpinned it was equally critical.”

Risks are ‘squarely in IT’s lap’

Consultant Brian Levine, executive director of FormerGov, echoed Greis’ concerns. 

“CIOs shouldn’t assume that this nonprofit will always be a nonprofit, or confuse being a nonprofit with actually being neutral or unbiased,” he said. “The risks are squarely in IT’s lap: autonomous agents ‘with their own identity’ acting on a user’s behalf blow straight through traditional IAM assumptions. Issues, such as agent identity, auditability, secret handling. Identity boundaries have not yet been reliably solved. Until they are, enterprises should treat OpenClaw agents like privileged service accounts, not like a browser plugin.”

Independent cybersecurity and risk advisor Steven Eric Fisher pointed to another IT exposure that might come from this OpenClaw transition: Cost.

“OpenClaw currently has a very high token burn rate in usage, which presents a significant cost consideration for large-scale enterprise adoption,” he said. “The skills marketplace introduces a new supply chain threat that enterprises will need to manage. Threat management, and specifically handling external marketplace elements, can be highly challenging for open-source operations. Ultimately, at scale, enterprise adoption could become a difficult balancing act between managing high operational costs and securing an expanded security surface.”

Python’s rich ecosystem of data science tools is a big draw for users. The only downside of such a broad and deep collection is that sometimes the best tools can get overlooked.

Here’s a rundown of some of the best newer or less-known data science projects available for Python. Some, like Polars, are getting more attention but still deserve wider notice. Others, like ConnectorX, are hidden gems.

ConnectorX

Most data sits in a database somewhere, but computation typically happens outside of it. Getting data to and from the database for actual work can be a slowdown. ConnectorX loads data from databases into many common data-wrangling tools in Python, and it keeps things fast by minimizing the work required. Most of the data loading can be done in just a couple of lines of Python code and an SQL query.

Like Polars (which I’ll discuss shortly), ConnectorX uses a Rust library at its core. This allows for optimizations like being able to load from a data source in parallel with partitioning. Data in PostgreSQL, for instance, can be loaded this way by specifying a partition column.

Aside from PostgreSQL, ConnectorX also supports reading from MySQL/MariaDB, SQLite, Amazon Redshift, Microsoft SQL Server and Azure SQL, and Oracle. The results can be funneled into a Pandas or PyArrow DataFrame, or into Modin or Dask (via Pandas), or Polars (via PyArrow). General support for reading from ODBC is a work in progress.

DuckDB

Data science folks who use Python ought to be aware of SQLite—a small, but powerful and speedy relational database packaged with Python. Since it runs as an in-process library, rather than a separate application, SQLite is lightweight and responsive.

DuckDB is a little like someone answered the question, “What if we made SQLite for OLAP?” Like other OLAP database engines, it uses a columnar datastore and is optimized for long-running analytical query workloads. But DuckDB gives you all the things you expect from a conventional database, like ACID transactions. And there’s no separate software suite to configure; you can get it running in a Python environment with a single pip install duckdb command.

DuckDB can directly ingest data in CSV, JSON, or Parquet format, as well as a slew of other common data sources. The resulting databases can also be partitioned into multiple physical files for efficiency, based on keys (e.g., by year and month). Querying works like any other SQL-powered relational database, but with additional built-in features like the ability to take random samples of data or construct window functions.

DuckDB also has a small but useful collection of extensions, including full-text search, accelerated vector similarity search, Excel import/export, direct connections to SQLite and PostgreSQL, Parquet file export, and support for many common geospatial data formats and types.

Optimus

One of the least enviable jobs you can be stuck with is cleaning and preparing data for use in a DataFrame-centric project. Optimus is an all-in-one tool set for loading, exploring, cleansing, and writing data back out to a variety of data sources.

Optimus can use Pandas, Dask, CUDF (and Dask + CUDF), Vaex, or Spark as its underlying data engine. Data can be loaded in from and saved back out to Arrow, Parquet, Excel, a variety of common database sources, or flat-file formats like CSV and JSON.

The data manipulation API resembles Pandas, but adds .rows() and .cols() accessors to make it easy to do things like sort a DataFrame, filter by column values, alter data according to criteria, or narrow the range of operations based on some criteria. Optimus also comes bundled with processors for handling common real-world data types like email addresses and URLs.

One possible issue with Optimus is that it’s still under active development but its last official release was in 2020. This means it might not be as current as other components in your stack.

Polars

If you spend much time working with DataFrames and you’re frustrated by the performance limits of Pandas, reach for Polars. This DataFrame library for Python offers a convenient syntax similar to Pandas.

Unlike Pandas, though, Polars uses a library written in Rust that takes maximum advantage of your hardware out of the box. You don’t need to use special syntax to take advantage of performance-enhancing features like parallel processing or SIMD; it’s all automatic. Even simple operations like reading from a CSV file are faster. Rust developers can craft their own Polars extensions using pyo3.

Polars provides eager and lazy execution modes, so queries can be executed immediately or deferred until needed. It also provides a streaming API for processing queries incrementally. Streaming isn’t available yet for many functions, although Polars can always fall back to the in-memory engine for such operations if need be. You can also plot execution graphs for queries, streaming or otherwise, if you want to get an idea of what memory or CPU consumption is like for the query (via the external Graphviz library).

DVC

A major and pervasive issue with data science experiments is version control—not of the project’s code, but its data. DVC, short for Data Version Control, lets you attach version descriptors to datasets, check them into Git as you would the rest of your code, and keep versions of data and code consistent together.

DVC can track most any kind of dataset as long as they can be expressed as a file, whether kept in local storage or in a remote storage service like an Amazon S3 bucket. You can describe how data models are managed and used by way of a “pipeline,” which DVC’s documentation describes as being like “a Makefile system for machine learning projects.”

The use cases for DVC are intended to be more than just allowing data to be versioned alongside code. It also works as a fast data cache for remotely hosted data, a methodology for tracking experiments conducted with data, and a registry or catalog for machine learning models created with the data. Visual Studio Code users can integrate DVC workflows into the editor by way of the DVC VS Code extension.

Cleanlab

Good machine learning datasets are hard to come by, because it’s expensive and time-consuming to create clean, properly labeled data. Sometimes, though, you have no choice but to use data that’s raw and inconsistent. Cleanlab (as in, “cleans labels”) was made for this scenario.

Cleanlab uses existing, high-quality machine learning datasets to analyze lower-quality, unlabeled (or poorly labeled) datasets. You create a model based on the original dataset, use Cleanlab to figure out what needs to be improved in the original dataset, then re-train using your automatically cleaned and adjusted dataset to see the difference.

Cleanlab is data-model and data-framework agnostic, a powerful aspect of its design. It doesn’t matter if you’re running PyTorch, OpenAI, scikit-learn, or Tensorflow; Cleanlab can work with any classifier. It does, however, have specific workflows for common tasks like token classification, multi-labeling, regression, image segmentation and object detection, outlier detection, and so on. It’s worth perusing the example set to see for yourself how the process works and what results you can expect.

Snakemake

Data science workflows are hard to set up, and that’s even harder to do in a consistent, predictable way. Snakemake was created to automate the process, setting up data analysis workflows in ways that ensure everyone gets the same results. Many existing data science projects rely on Snakemake. The more moving parts you have in your data science workflow, the more likely you’ll benefit from automating that workflow with Snakemake.

Snakemake workflows resemble GNU Make workflows—you define the steps of the workflow with rules, which specify what they take in, what they put out, and what commands to execute to accomplish that. Workflow rules can be multithreaded (assuming that gives them any benefit), and configuration data can be piped in from JSON or YAML files. You can also define functions in your workflows to transform data used in rules, and write the actions taken at each step to logs.

Snakemake jobs are designed to be portable—they can be deployed on any Kubernetes-managed environment, or in specific cloud environments like Google Cloud Life Sciences or Tibanna on AWS. Workflows can be “frozen” to use a specific set of packages, and successfully executed workflows can have unit tests automatically generated and stored with them. And for long-term archiving, you can store the workflow as a tarball.

Over its more than 15 years in the wild, Google’s Go programming language has evolved from a curiosity for alpha geeks to the battle-tested programming language behind some of the world’s most important cloud-native software projects.

If you’ve ever wondered why Go is the language of choice for projects like Docker and Kubernetes, this article is for you. We’ll discuss Go’s defining characteristics and how it differs from other programming languages. You will also learn what kinds of projects Go is best suited for, including the state of Go development for AI-powered tools. We’ll conclude with an overview of Go’s feature set, some limitations of the language, and where it may be going from here.

Also see: Golang tutorial: Get started with the Go language.

Go is small and simple

Go, or Golang as it’s often called, was created by Google employees—chiefly longtime Unix guru and Google distinguished engineer Rob Pike—but it’s not strictly speaking a “Google project.” Rather, Go is a community-developed open source project, spearheaded by leadership with strong opinions about how Go should be used and the direction the language should take.

Go is meant to be easy to learn and straightforward to use, with syntax that is simple to read and understand. Go does not have a large feature set, especially when compared to languages like C++. Go’s syntax is reminiscent of C, making it relatively easy for longtime C developers to learn. That said, many features of Go, especially its concurrency and functional programming features, harken back to languages like Erlang.

As a C-like language for building and maintaining cross-platform enterprise applications of all sorts, Go has much in common with Java. And as a means for enabling rapid development of code that might run anywhere, you could draw a parallel between Go and Python, though the differences outweigh the similarities.

The Go documentation describes Go as “a fast, statically typed, compiled language that feels like a dynamically typed, interpreted language.” Even a large Go program will compile in a matter of seconds. Plus, Go avoids much of the overhead of C-style include files and libraries.

Advantages of the Go language

Go is a versatile, convenient, fast, portable, interoperable, and widely supported modern language. These characteristics have helped to make it a top choice for large-scale development projects. Let’s look more closely at each of these positive qualities of Go.

Go is versatile and convenient

Go has been compared to interpreted languages like Python in its ability to satisfy many common programming needs. Some of this functionality is built into the language itself, such as goroutines for concurrency and thread-like behavior, while additional capabilities are available in Go standard library packages, like the http package. Like Python, Go provides automatic memory management capabilities including garbage collection.

Unlike interpreted languages, however, Go code compiles to a fast-running native binary. And unlike C or C++, Go compiles extremely fast—fast enough to make working with Go feel more like working with an interpreted language than a compiled one. Further, the Go build system is less complex than those of other compiled languages. It takes few steps and little bookkeeping to build and run a Go project.

Go is faster than many other languages

Go binaries run more slowly than their C counterparts, but the difference in speed is negligible for most applications. Go performance is as good as C for the vast majority of work, and generally much faster than other languages known for speed of development—including JavaScript, Python, and Ruby.

Go is portable and interoperable

Executables created with the Go toolchain can stand alone, with no default external dependencies. The Go toolchain is available for a wide variety of operating systems and hardware platforms, and can be used to compile binaries across platforms. What’s more, Go delivers all of the above without sacrificing access to the underlying system. Go programs can talk to external C libraries or make native system calls. In Docker, for instance, Go interacts with low-level Linux functions, cgroups, and namespaces to work container magic.

Go is widely supported

The Go toolchain is freely available as a Linux, macOS, or Windows binary, or as a Docker container. Go is included by default in many popular Linux distributions, such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora, making it somewhat easier to deploy Go source to those platforms. Support for Go is also strong across many third-party development environments, from Microsoft’s Visual Studio Code to ActiveState’s Komodo IDE.

Also see: 8 reasons developers love Go—and 8 reasons they don’t.

Optimal use cases for the Go language

No language is suited to every job, but some languages are suited to more jobs than others. Go shines brightest in cloud-native development projects, distributed network services, and for developing utilities and stand-alone tools. Let’s consider the qualities that make Go especially well-suited to each of these project types.

Cloud-native development

Go’s concurrency and networking features, and its high degree of portability, make it well-suited for building cloud-native apps. In fact, Go was used to build several cornerstones of cloud-native computing including Docker, Kubernetes, and Istio.

Distributed network services

Network applications live and die by concurrency, and Go’s native concurrency features—goroutines and channels, mainly—are well suited for such work. Consequently, many Go projects are for networking, distributed functions, and cloud services. These include APIs, web servers, Kubernetes-ready frameworks for microservices, and much more.

Utilities and standalone tools

Go programs compile to binaries with minimal external dependencies. That makes them ideally suited to creating utilities and other tools, because they launch quickly and can be readily packaged up for redistribution. One example is an access server called Teleport, which can be deployed on servers quickly by compiling it from source or downloading a prebuilt binary.

Limitations of the Go language

Now let’s consider some of the limitations of Go. For one, it omits many language features developers may desire. It also packs everything into its binaries, so Go programs can be large. Furthermore, Go’s garbage collection mechanism delivers automatic memory management at the cost of absolute performance. The language also lacks a standard toolkit for building GUIs, and it is unsuited to systems programming.

Let’s look at each of these issues in detail.

Go omits many desirable language features

Go’s opinionated set of features draws both praise and criticism. Go is designed to err on the side of being small and easy to understand, with certain features deliberately omitted. The result is that some features that are commonplace in other languages simply aren’t available in Go. This is purposeful, but it’s still a drawback for some types of projects.

One thing Go omits that you will find in other languages is macros, commonly defined as the ability to generate program code at compile time. C, C++, and (the rising star) Rust all have macro systems. Go does not have macros, or at least not of the same variety as those languages. What Go does have is a tool command, go generate, which looks for magic comments in Go source and executes them. This can be used to generate Go source code, or even run other commands, but its main use is to programmatically generate code, usually as a precursor to the build process. (Technical blogger Eli Bendersky explains the ‘go generate’ command in detail.)

Another longstanding complaint with Go was, until recently, the lack of generic functions, which allow a function to accept many different types of variables. Go’s development team held out against adding generics to the language for many years because they wanted a syntax and set of behaviors that complemented the rest of Go. But as of Go 1.18, released in early 2022, the language includes a syntax for generics. Because go generate and its code-generation abilities emerged as one possible way to partially address the lack of generics, this functionality is no longer as commonly used in Go.

The fact is that Go adds major language features rarely, and only after much consideration. This works to preserve broad compatibility across versions, but it comes at the cost of slower innovation.

Also see: What you need to know about Go, Rust, and Zig.

Go’s binaries are large

Another potential downside to Go is the size of the generated binaries. Go binaries are statically compiled by default, meaning that everything needed at runtime is included in the binary image. This approach simplifies the build and deployment process, but at the cost of a simple “Hello, world!” weighing in at around 1.5MB on 64-bit Windows. The Go team has been working to reduce the size of those binaries with each successive release. It is also possible to shrink Go binaries with compression or by removing Go’s debug information. This last option may work better for standalone distributed apps than for cloud or network services, where having debug information is useful if a service fails in place.

Go’s garbage collection is resource hungry

Yet another touted feature of Go, automatic memory management, can be seen as a drawback, as garbage collection requires a certain amount of processing overhead. By design, Go doesn’t provide manual memory management, and garbage collection in Go has been criticized for not dealing well with the kinds of memory loads that appear in enterprise applications.

That said, each new version of Go seems to improve the memory management features. For example, Go 1.8 brought significantly shorter lag times for garbage collection, and Go 1.25 introduced a new, experimental garbage collector. While Go developers can use manual memory allocation in a C extension, or by way of a third-party manual memory management library, most prefer native solutions.

Go doesn’t have a standard GUI toolkit

Most Go applications are command-line tools or network services. That said, various projects are working to bring rich GUIs for Go applications. There are bindings for the GTK and GTK3 frameworks. Another project is intended to provide platform-native UIs across platforms, although it focuses on Go 1.24 forward only. But no clear winner or safe long-term bet has emerged in this space. Also, because Go is platform-independent by design, it is unlikely any project in this vein will become a part of the standard package set.

You shouldn’t use Go for systems programming

Finally, although Go can talk to native system functions, it was not designed for developing low-level system components such as kernels, device drivers, or embedded systems. After all, the Go runtime and the garbage collector for Go applications are dependent on the underlying operating system. (Developers interested in a cutting-edge language for that kind of work might look into using Rust.)

The future of the Go language

Go’s development is turning more toward the wants and needs of its developer base, with Go’s minders changing the language to better accommodate this audience rather than leading by stubborn example. A case in point is generics, which were finally added to the language after much deliberation about the best way to do so.

The 2024 Go Developer Survey found developers were overall satisfied with Go. Challenges that surfaced were generally due to the verbosity of error handling, missing or immature frameworks, and using Go’s type system—areas ripe for future development.

Like most languages, Go has gravitated to a core set of use cases over time, finding its niche in network services. In the future, Go is likely to continue expanding its hold there. Other use cases cited in the developer survey include creating APIs or RPC services (74% of respondents), followed by CLI applications (63%), web services (45%), libraries/frameworks (44%), automation (39%), and data processing (37%). While only 4% of respondents mentioned using Go to develop AI technologies, those who did reported that Go was a strong platform for running AI-powered workloads in production. For those wanting to develop ML/AI with Go, lack of tooling (23%) and the fact that Python is the default choice for such work (16%) topped the reasons why.

It remains to be seen how far Go’s speed and development simplicity will take it into other use cases, especially those dominated by other languages and their existing use cases. Rust covers safe and fast systems programming (a space Go is unlikely to enter); Python is still a common default for ML/AI, prototyping, automation, and glue code; and Java remains a stalwart for enterprise applications.

But Go’s future as a major programming language is already assured—certainly in the cloud, where the speed and simplicity of Go ease the development of scalable infrastructure that can be maintained over the long run.

Also see: Go language evolving for future hardware, AI workloads.

Spring is a reliable and popular framework for building web and enterprise Java applications. In this article, you’ll learn how to unit test each layer of a Spring MVC application, using built-in testing tools from JUnit 5 and Spring to mock each component’s dependencies. In addition to unit testing with MockMvc, Mockito, and Spring’s TestEntityManager, I’ll also briefly introduce slice testing using the @WebMvcTest and @DataJpaTest annotations, used to optimize unit tests on web controllers and databases.

Also see: How to test your Java applications with JUnit 5.

Overview of testing Spring MVC applications

Spring MVC applications are defined using three technology layers:

• Controllers accept web requests and return web responses.
• Services implement the application’s business logic.
• Repositories persist data to and from your back-end SQL or NoSQL database.

When we unit test Spring MVC applications, we test each layer separately from the others. We create mock implementations, typically using Mockito, for each layer’s dependencies, then we simulate the logic we want to test. For example, a controller may call a service to retrieve a list of objects. When testing the controller, we create a mock service that either returns the list of objects, returns an empty list, or throws an exception. This test ensures the controller behaves correctly.

We’ll use Spring MVC to build and test a simple web service that manages widgets. The structure of the web service is shown here:

This is a classic MVC pattern. We have a widget controller that handles RESTful requests and delegates its business functionality to a widget service, which uses a widget repository to persist widgets to and from an in-memory H2 database.

Get the source: Download the source code for this article.

Unit testing a Spring MVC controller with MockMvc

Setting up a Spring MVC controller test is a two-step process:

• Annotate your test class with @WebMvcTest.
• Autowire a MockMvc instance into your controller.

We could annotate all our test classes with @SpringBootTest, but we’ll use @WebMvcTest instead. The reason is that the @WebMvcTest annotation is used for slice testing. Whereas @SpringBootTest loads your entire Spring application context, @WebMvcTest loads only your web-related resources. Furthermore, if you specify a controller class in the annotation, it will only load the specific controller you want to test. Testing a single “slice” of your application reduces both the amount of compute resources required to set up the test and the time required to run a test.

For example, when we test a controller, we’ll mock just the services it uses, and we won’t need any repositories at all. If we don’t need them, then we needn’t waste time loading them. Slice tests were created to make tests perform better and run faster.

Here’s the source code for the Widget class we’ll be managing:

package com.infoworld.widgetservice.model;
import jakarta.persistence.Entity;
import jakarta.persistence.GeneratedValue;
import jakarta.persistence.GenerationType;
import jakarta.persistence.Id;

@Entity
public class Widget {
    @Id
    @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
    private Long id;
    private String name;
    private int version;

    public Widget() {
    }

    public Widget(String name) {
        this.name = name;
    }

    public Widget(String name, int version) {
        this.name = name;
        this.version = version;
    }

    public Widget(Long id, String name, int version) {
        this.id = id;
        this.name = name;
        this.version = version;
    }

    public Long getId() {
        return id;
    }

    public void setId(Long id) {
        this.id = id;
    }

    public String getName() {
        return name;
    }

    public void setName(String name) {
        this.name = name;
    }

    public int getVersion() {
        return version;
    }

    public void setVersion(int version) {
        this.version = version;
    }
}

A Widget is a JPA entity that manages three fields:

• id is the primary key of the table, annotated with @Id and @GeneratedValue, with an automatic generation strategy.
• name is the name of the widget.
• version is the version of the widget resource. We’ll use this value to populate our eTag value and check it in our PUT operation’s If-Match header value. This ensures the widget being updated is not stale.

Here’s the source code for the controller we’ll be testing (WidgetController.java):

package com.infoworld.widgetservice.web;

import java.net.URI;
import java.net.URISyntaxException;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Optional;
import com.infoworld.widgetservice.model.Widget;
import com.infoworld.widgetservice.service.WidgetService;
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.http.HttpStatus;
import org.springframework.http.ResponseEntity;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.DeleteMapping;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.GetMapping;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.PathVariable;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.PostMapping;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.PutMapping;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RequestBody;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RequestHeader;
import org.springframework.web.bind.annotation.RestController;

@RestController
public class WidgetController {
    @Autowired
    private WidgetService widgetService;
    @GetMapping("/widget/{id}")
    public ResponseEntity getWidget(@PathVariable Long id) {
        return widgetService.findById(id)
                .map(widget -> {
                    try {
                        return ResponseEntity
                                .ok()
                                .location(new URI("/widget/" + id))
                                .eTag(Integer.toString(
                                               widget.getVersion()))
                                .body(widget);
                    } catch (URISyntaxException e) {
                        return ResponseEntity
                          .status(HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR)
                          .build();
                    }
                })
                .orElse(ResponseEntity.notFound().build());
    }
    @GetMapping("/widgets")
    public List getWidgets() {
        return widgetService.findAll();
    }
    @PostMapping("/widgets")
    public ResponseEntity createWidget(@RequestBody Widget widget)
    {
        Widget newWidget = widgetService.create(widget);
        try {
           return ResponseEntity
                   .created(new URI("/widget/" + newWidget.getId()))
                   .eTag(Integer.toString(newWidget.getVersion()))
                   .body(newWidget);
        } catch (URISyntaxException e) {
            return ResponseEntity
                    .status(HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR)
                    .build();
        }
    }

    @PutMapping("/widget/{id}")
    public ResponseEntity updateWidget(@PathVariable Long id,
                                          @RequestBody Widget widget,
                         @RequestHeader("If-Match") Integer ifMatch) {
        Optional existingWidget = widgetService.findById(id);
        return existingWidget.map(w -> {
            if (w.getVersion() != ifMatch) {
                return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.CONFLICT)
                                     .build();
            }

            w.setName(widget.getName());
            w.setVersion(w.getVersion() + 1);

            Widget updatedWidget = widgetService.save(w);
            try {
                return ResponseEntity.ok()
                        .location(new URI("/widget/" + 
                                      updatedWidget.getId()))
                        .eTag(Integer.toString(
                                      updatedWidget.getVersion()))
                        .body(updatedWidget);
            } catch (URISyntaxException e) {
                throw new RuntimeException(e);
            }
        }).orElse(ResponseEntity.notFound().build());
    }

    @DeleteMapping("widget/{id}")
    public ResponseEntity deleteWidget(@PathVariable Long id) {
        Optional existingWidget = widgetService.findById(id);
        return existingWidget.map(w -> {
           widgetService.deleteById(w.getId());
           return ResponseEntity.ok().build();
        }).orElse(ResponseEntity.notFound().build());
    }
}

The WidgetController handles GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE operations, following standard RESTful principles, so we’re going to write tests for each operation.

The following source code shows the structure of our test class (WidgetControllerTest.java):

package com.infoworld.widgetservice.web;

@WebMvcTest(WidgetController.class)
public class WidgetControllerTest {
    @Autowired
    private MockMvc mockMvc;

    @MockitoBean
    private WidgetService widgetService;
}

I omitted the imports for readability, but the important thing to note is that the class is annotated with the @WebMvcTest annotation, and that we pass in the WidgetController.class as the controller we’re testing. This tells Spring to only load the WidgetController and no other Spring resources. The @WebMvcTest annotation includes other annotations, but the important one for our tests is @AutoConfigureMockMvc, which will cause Spring to create a MockMvc instance and add it to the application context. That lets us autowire it into our test class using the @Autowired annotation.

Next, we use the @MockitoBean annotation to use Mockito to create a mock implementation of the WidgetService, after which Spring will autowire it into the WidgetController class. This lets us control the behavior of the WidgetService for the WidgetController test cases we’re writing. Note that starting in Spring Boot version 3.4, @MockitoBean replaced @MockBean. Everything you know about @MockBean translates to using @MockitoBean—with some improvements.

Unit testing GET /widgets

Let’s start with the easiest test case, a test for GET /widgets:

@Test
void testGetWidgets() throws Exception {
    List widgets = new ArrayList();
    widgets.add(new Widget(1L, "Widget 1", 1));
    widgets.add(new Widget(2L, "Widget 2", 1));
    widgets.add(new Widget(3L, "Widget 3", 1));

    when(widgetService.findAll()).thenReturn(widgets);

    mockMvc.perform(get("/widgets"))
            .andExpect(status().isOk())
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$.length()").value(3))
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$[0].id").value(1L))
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$[0].name").value("Widget 1"))
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$[0].version").value(1));
};

The testGetWidgets() method creates a list of three widgets and then configures the mock WidgetService to return the list when its findAll() method is called. The WidgetControllerTest class statically imports the org.mockito.Mockito.when() method that accepts a method call, which in this case is widgetService.findAll(), and returns a Mockito OngoingStubbing instance. This OngoingStubbing instance exposes methods like thenReturn(), thenThrow(), thenCallRealMethod(), thenAnswer(), and then().

Here, we use the thenReturn() method to tell Mockito to return the list of widgets when the WidgetService’s findAll() method is called. The @MockitoBean annotation causes the mock WidgetService to be autowired into the WidgetController. So, when the getWidgets() method is called in response to a GET /widgets, it calls the WidgetService’s findAll() method and returns our list of widgets as a web response.

Next, we use MockMvc’s perform() method to execute a web request. This diagram shows the various classes that interact with the perform() method:

The perform() method accepts a RequestBuilder. Spring defines several built-in RequestBuilders that we can statically import into our tests, including get(), post(), put(), and delete(). The perform() method returns a ResultActions instance that exposes methods such as andExpect(), andExpectAll(), andDo(), and andReturn(). Here, we invoke the andExpect() method, which accepts a ResultMatcher.

A ResultMatcher defines a match() method that throws an AssertionError if the assertion fails. Spring defines several ResultMatchers that we can statically import:

• status() allows us to check the HTTP status code of response.
• content() allows us to check the content headers of the response, such as Content-Type.
• header() allows us to check any of the HTTP header values.
• jsonPath() allows us to inspect the contents of a JSON document.

After MockMvc performs a GET to /widgets, we expect the HTTP status code to be 200 OK. We can then use the jsonPath matcher to check the body results, using the following JSON path expressions:

• $.length(): The $ references the root of the JSON document. If the response is a list, then we can call the length() method to get the number of elements in the list.
• $[0].id: JSON path expressions for a list use an array syntax starting at 0. This expression gets the ID of the first element in the list.
• $[0].name: This expression gets the name of the first element and compares it to “Widget 1”.
• $[0].version: This expression gets the version of the first element and compares it to 1.

Unit testing the GET /widget/{id} handler

Here’s the source code to test the GET /coffee/{id} widget:

@Test
void testGetWidgetById() throws Exception {
    Widget widget = new Widget(1L, "My Widget", 1);          
    when(widgetService.findById(1L))
           .thenReturn(Optional.of(widget));

    mockMvc.perform(get("/widget/{id}", 1))
            // Validate that we get a 200 OK Response Code
            .andExpect(status().isOk())

            // Validate Headers
            .andExpect(content()
                      .contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON))
            .andExpect(header().string(HttpHeaders.LOCATION,
                                       "/widget/1"))
            .andExpect(header().string(HttpHeaders.ETAG, "\"1\""))

            // Validate content
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$.id").value(1L))
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$.name").value("My Widget"))
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$.version").value(1));
 }

This test method is very similar to the testGetWidgets() method, but with some notable changes:

• The GET URI is defined using a URI template. You can specify any number of variables enclosed in braces in the URI template and then send a list of arguments that will replace those variables in the order they appear in the template.
• We check that the returned Content-Type is “application/json”, which is a constant in the MediaType class. We access the content using the content() method, which returns a ContentResultMatchers instance that provides various methods, including contentType(), which allows us to validate the content headers.
• We check for specific header values using the header() method. The header() method returns a HeadersResultMatchers instance, which can check for header String, long, and date values, as well as checking to see whether or not specific headers exist. In this case, we use constants defined in the HttpHeaders class to check the location and eTag header values.
• We check the body of the response using JSON path expressions. In this case, we do not have a list of objects, so we can access the individual fields in the JSON document directly. For example, $.id retrieves the id field value in the root of the document.

Unit testing a GET /widget/{id} Not Found code

Next, we test the GET /widget/{id}, passing it an invalid ID so that it returns a 404 Not Found response code:

@Test
void testGetWidgetByIdNotFound() throws Exception {
   when(widgetService.findById(1L)).thenReturn(Optional.empty());

   mockMvc.perform(get("/widget/{id}", 1))
            // Validate that we get a 404 Not Found Response Code
            .andExpect(status().isNotFound());
}

The testGetWidgetByIdNotFound() method configures the mock WidgetService to return Optional.empty() when its findById() is called with a value of 1. We then perform a GET request to /widget/1, then assert that the returned HTTP status code is 404 Not Found.

Unit testing POST /widgets

Here’s how to test a Widget creation:

@Test
void testCreateWidget() throws Exception {
    Widget widget = new Widget(1L, "Widget 1", 1);
    when(widgetService.create(any())).thenReturn(widget);

    mockMvc.perform(post("/widgets")
            .contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
            .content("{\"name\": \"Widget 1\"}"))

            // Validate that we get a 201 Created Response Code
            .andExpect(status().isCreated())

            // Validate Headers
            .andExpect(content().contentType(
                                      MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON))
            .andExpect(header().string(HttpHeaders.LOCATION, 
                                       "/widget/1"))
            .andExpect(header().string(HttpHeaders.ETAG, "\"1\""))

            // Validate content
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$.id").value(1L))
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$.name").value("Widget 1"))
            .andExpect(jsonPath("$.version").value(1));

The testCreateWidget() method first creates a Widget to return when the WidgetService’s create() method is called with any argument. The any() matcher matches any argument and, because the createWidget() handler will create a new Widget instance, we will not have access to that instance when the test runs. We then invoke MockMvc’s perform() method to the ”/widgets” URI, sending the content body of a new widget named “Widget 1”, using the content() method. We expect a 201 Created HTTP response code, an “application/json” content type, a location header of “/widget/1”, and an eTag value of the String “1”. The body of the response should match the Widget we returned from the create() method, namely an ID of 1, a name of “Widget 1”, and a version of 1.

Unit testing PUT /widget

This code runs three tests for the PUT operation:

@Test
public void testSuccessfulUpdate() throws Exception {
    // Create a mock Widget when the WidgetService's findById(1L) 
    // is called
    Widget mockWidget = new Widget(1L, "Widget 1", 5);
    when(widgetService.findById(1L))
                      .thenReturn(Optional.of(mockWidget));

    // Create a mock Coffee that is returned when the 
    // CoffeeController saves the Coffee to the database
    Widget savedWidget = new Widget(1L, "Updated Widget 1", 6);
    when(widgetService.save(any())).thenReturn(savedWidget);

    // Execute a PUT /widget/1 with a matching version: 5
    mockMvc.perform(put("/widget/{id}", 1L)
                    .contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
                    .header(HttpHeaders.IF_MATCH, 5)
                    .content("{\"id\": 1, " +
                             "\"name\": \"Updated Widget 1\"}"))

            // Validate that we get a 200 OK HTTP Response
           .andExpect(status().isOk())

            // Validate the headers
           .andExpect(content()
                        .contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON))
           .andExpect(header().string(HttpHeaders.LOCATION, 
                                      "/widget/1"))
           .andExpect(header().string(HttpHeaders.ETAG, "\"6\""))

           // Validate the contents of the response
           .andExpect(jsonPath("$.id").value(1L))
           .andExpect(jsonPath("$.name")
                               .value("Updated Widget 1"))
           .andExpect(jsonPath("$.version").value(6));
}

@Test
public void testUpdateConflict() throws Exception {
   // Create a mock coffee with a version set to 5
   Widget mockWidget = new Widget(1L, "Widget 1", 5);

    // Return the mock Coffee when the CoffeeService's 
    // findById(1L) is called
    when(widgetService.findById(1L))
                      .thenReturn(Optional.of(mockWidget));

    // Execute a PUT /widget/1 with a mismatched version number: 2
    mockMvc.perform(put("/widget/{id}", 1L)
                    .contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
                    .header(HttpHeaders.IF_MATCH, 2)
                    .content("{\"id\": 1, " + 
                             "\"name\":  \"Updated Widget 1\"}"))
             // Validate that we get a 409 Conflict HTTP Response
            .andExpect(status().isConflict());
}

@Test
public void testUpdateNotFound() throws Exception {
   // Return the mock Coffee when the CoffeeService's 
   // findById(1L) is called
   when(widgetService.findById(1L)).thenReturn(Optional.empty());

   // Execute a PUT /coffee/1 with a mismatched version number: 2
   mockMvc.perform(put("/widget/{id}", 1L)
                    .contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
                    .header(HttpHeaders.IF_MATCH, 2)
                    .content("{\"id\": 1, " + 
                             "\"name\":  \"Updated Coffee 1\"}"))

           // Validate that we get 404 Not Found
           .andExpect(status().isNotFound());
}

We have three variations:

• A successful update.
• A failed update because of a version conflict.
• A failed update because the widget was not found.

In RESTful web services, version management is handled by the entity tag, or eTag. When you retrieve an entity, it has an eTag value. When you want to update the entity, you pass that eTag value in the If-Match HTTP header. If the If-Match header does not match the current eTag, which is the Widget version in our implementation, then the PUT handler returns a 409 Conflict HTTP response code. If you get this error, it means that you need to retrieve the entity again and retry your operation. This way, if two different clients attempt to update the same entity simultaneously, only one will succeed.

In the testSuccessfulUpdate() method, we return a Widget with a version of 5 when the WidgetService’s findById() method is called. We then pass an If-Match header value of 5 and then validate that we get a 200 OK HTTP response code and the expected header and body values. In the testUpdateConflict() method, we do the same thing, but we set the If-Match header to 2, which does not match 5, so we validate that we get a 409 Conflict HTTP response code. And finally, in the testUpdateNotFound() method, we configure the WidgetService to return an Optional.empty() when its findById() method is called, so we execute the PUT operation and validate that we get a 404 Not Found HTTP response code.

Unit testing DELETE /widget

Finally, here is the source code for our two DELETE /widget tests:

@Test
void testDeleteSuccess() throws Exception {
    // Setup mocked product
    Widget mockWidget = new Widget(1L, "Widget 1", 5);

    // Setup the mocked service
    when(widgetService.findById(1L))
                      .thenReturn(Optional.of(mockWidget));
    doNothing().when(widgetService).deleteById(1L);

    // Execute our DELETE request
    mockMvc.perform(delete("/widget/{id}", 1L))
            .andExpect(status().isOk());
}

@Test
void testDeleteNotFound() throws Exception {
    // Setup the mocked service
    when(widgetService.findById(1L)).thenReturn(Optional.empty());

    // Execute our DELETE request
    mockMvc.perform(delete("/widget/{id}", 1L))
            .andExpect(status().isNotFound());
}

The DELETE handler first tries to find the widget by ID and then calls the WidgetService’s deleteById() method. The testDeleteSuccess() method configures the WidgetService to return a mock Widget when the findById() method is called and then configures it to do nothing when the deleteById() method is called. The deleteById() method returns void, so we do not need to mock a response, though we do want to allow the method to be called. We execute the DELETE operation and validate that we receive a 200 OK HTTP response code. The testDeleteNotFound() method configures the WidgetService to return Optional.empty() when its findById() method is called. We execute the DELETE operation and validate that we receive a 404 Not Found HTTP response code.

At this point, we have a comprehensive set of tests for all of our controller operations. Let’s continue down our stack and test our service.

Unit testing a Spring MVC service

Next, we’ll test a WidgetService class, shown here:

package com.infoworld.widgetservice.service;

import java.util.List;
import java.util.Optional;

import com.infoworld.widgetservice.model.Widget;
import com.infoworld.widgetservice.repository.WidgetRepository;

import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Service;

@Service
public class WidgetService {
    @Autowired
    private WidgetRepository widgetRepository;

    public List findAll() {
        return widgetRepository.findAll();
    }

    public Optional findById(Long id) {
        return widgetRepository.findById(id);
    }

    public Widget create(Widget widget) {
        widget.setVersion(1);
        return widgetRepository.save(widget);
    }

    public Widget save(Widget widget) {
        return widgetRepository.save(widget);
    }

    public void deleteById(Long id) {
        widgetRepository.deleteById(id);
    }
}

The WidgetService is very simple. It autowires in a WidgetRepository and then delegates almost all its functionality to the WidgetRepository. The only business logic it implements is that it sets the Widget version to 1 in the create() method, when it is persisting a new Widget to the database.

While Spring supports slice testing for our controller and (as you’ll soon see) our repository, it doesn’t have a slice testing annotation for our service. We could use the @SpringBootTest annotation, but then Spring would load all the controllers, repositories, and any other Spring resources in our application into the Spring application context. We can avoid by using Mockito directly.

Here is the source code for the WidgetServiceTest class:

package com.infoworld.widgetservice.service;

import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertTrue;
import static org.mockito.Mockito.when;

import java.util.Optional;

import com.infoworld.widgetservice.model.Widget;
import com.infoworld.widgetservice.repository.WidgetRepository;

import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ExtendWith;
import org.mockito.InjectMocks;
import org.mockito.Mock;
import org.mockito.junit.jupiter.MockitoExtension;

@ExtendWith(MockitoExtension.class)
public class WidgetServiceTest {
    @Mock
    private WidgetRepository repository;

    @InjectMocks
    private WidgetService service;

    @Test
    void testFindById() {
        Widget widget = new Widget(1L, "My Widget", 1);
        when(repository.findById(1L)).thenReturn(Optional.of(widget));

        Optional w = service.findById(1L);
        assertTrue(w.isPresent());
        assertEquals(1L, w.get().getId());
        assertEquals("My Widget", w.get().getName());
        assertEquals(1, w.get().getVersion());
    }
}

JUnit 5 supports extensions and Mockito has defined a test extension that we can access through the @ExtendWith annotation. This extension allows Mockito to read our class, find objects to mock, and inject mocks into other classes. The WidgetServiceTest tells Mockito to create a mock WidgetRepository, by annotating it with the @Mock annotation, and then to inject that mock into the WidgetService, using the @InjectMocks annotation. The result is that we have a WidgetService that we can test and it will have a mock WidgetRepository that we can configure for our test cases.

Also see: Advanced unit testing with JUnit 5, Mockito, and Hamcrest.

This is not a comprehensive test, but it should get you started. It has a single method, testFindById(), that demonstrates how to test a service method. It creates a mock Widget instance and then uses the Mockito when() method, just as we used in the controller test, to configure the WidgetRepository to return an Optional of that Widget when its findById() method is called. Then it invokes the WidgetService’s findById() method and validates that the mock Widget is returned.

Slice testing a Spring Data JPA repository

Next, we’ll slice test our JPA repository (WidgetRepository.java), shown here:

package com.infoworld.widgetservice.repository;

import java.util.List;
import com.infoworld.widgetservice.model.Widget;
import org.springframework.data.jpa.repository.JpaRepository;

public interface WidgetRepository extends JpaRepository {
    List findByName(String name);
}

The WidgetRepository is a Spring Data JPA repository, which means that we define the interface and Spring generates the implementation. It extends the JpaRepository interface, which accepts two arguments:

• The type of entity that it persists, namely a Widget.
• The type of primary key, which in this case is a Long.

It generates common CRUD method implementations for us to create, update, delete, and find widgets, and then we can define our own query methods using a specific naming convention. For example, we define a findByName() method that returns a List of Widgets. Because “name” is a field in our Widget entity, Spring will generate a query that finds all widgets with the specified name.

Here is our WidgetRepositoryTest class:

package com.infoworld.widgetservice.repository;

import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotNull;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNull;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;

import com.infoworld.widgetservice.model.Widget;

import org.junit.jupiter.api.AfterEach;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.BeforeEach;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.boot.test.autoconfigure.orm.jpa.DataJpaTest;
import org.springframework.boot.test.autoconfigure.orm.jpa.TestEntityManager;

@DataJpaTest
public class WidgetRepositoryTest {
    @Autowired
    private TestEntityManager entityManager;

    @Autowired
    private WidgetRepository widgetRepository;

    private final List widgetIds = new ArrayList();
    private final List testWidgets = Arrays.asList(
            new Widget("Widget 1", 1),
            new Widget("Widget 2", 1),
            new Widget("Widget 3", 1)
    );

    @BeforeEach
    void setup() {
        testWidgets.forEach(widget -> {
            entityManager.persist(widget);
            widgetIds.add((Long)entityManager.getId(widget));
        });
        entityManager.flush();
    }

    @AfterEach
    void teardown() {
        widgetIds.forEach(id -> {
            Widget widget = entityManager.find(Widget.class, id);
            if (widget != null) {
                entityManager.remove(widget);
            }
        });
        widgetIds.clear();
    }

    @Test
    void testFindAll() {
        List widgetList = widgetRepository.findAll();
        assertEquals(3, widgetList.size());
    }

    @Test
    void testFindById() {
        Widget widget = widgetRepository.findById(
                               widgetIds.getFirst()).orElse(null);

        assertNotNull(widget);
        assertEquals(widgetIds.getFirst(), widget.getId());
        assertEquals("Widget 1", widget.getName());
        assertEquals(1, widget.getVersion());
    }

    @Test
    void testFindByIdNotFound() {
        Widget widget = widgetRepository.findById(
            widgetIds.getFirst() + testWidgets.size()).orElse(null);
        assertNull(widget);
    }

    @Test
    void testCreateWidget() {
        Widget widget = new Widget("New Widget", 1);
        Widget insertedWidget = widgetRepository.save(widget);

        assertNotNull(insertedWidget);
        assertEquals("New Widget", insertedWidget.getName());
        assertEquals(1, insertedWidget.getVersion());
        widgetIds.add(insertedWidget.getId());
    }

    @Test
    void testFindByName() {
        List found = widgetRepository.findByName("Widget 2");
        assertEquals(1, found.size(), "Expected to find 1 Widget");

        Widget widget = found.getFirst();
        assertEquals("Widget 2", widget.getName());
        assertEquals(1, widget.getVersion());
    }
}

The WidgetRepositoryTest class is annotated with the @DataJpaTest annotation, which is a slice-testing annotation that loads repositories and entities into the Spring application context and creates a TestEntityManager that we can autowire into our test class. The TestEntityManager allows us to perform database operations outside of our repository so that we can set up and tear down our test scenarios.

In the WidgetRepositoryTest class, we autowire in both our WidgetRepository and TestEntityManager. Then, we define a setup() method that is annotated with JUnit’s @BeforeEach annotation, so it will be executed before each test case runs. Next, we define a teardown() method that is annotated with JUnit’s @AfterEach annotation, so it will be executed after each test completes. The class defines a testWidgets list that contains three test widgets and then the setup() method inserts those into the database using the TestEntityManager’s persist() method. After it inserts each widget, it saves the automatically generated ID so that we can reference it in our tests. Finally, after persisting the widgets, it flushes them to the database by calling the TestEntityManager’s flush() method. The teardown() method iterates over all Widget IDs, finds the Widget using the TestEntityManager’s find() method, and, if it is found, removes it from the database. Finally, it clears the widget ID list so that the setup() method can rebuild it for the next test. (Note that the TestEntityManager removes entities directly; it does not have a remove by ID method, so we first have to find each Widget and then remove them one-by-one.)

Even though most of the methods being tested are autogenerated and well tested, I wanted to demonstrate how to write several kinds of tests. The only method that we really need to test is the findByName() method because that is the only custom method we define. For example, if we were to define the method as findByNam() instead of findByName(), then the method would not work, so it is definitely worth testing.

Conclusion

Spring provides robust support for testing each layer of a Spring MVC application. In this article, we reviewed how to test controllers, using MockMvc; services, using the JUnit Mockito extension; and repositories, using the Spring TestEntityManager. We also reviewed slice testing as a strategy to reduce testing resource utilization and minimize the time required to execute tests. Slice testing is implemented in Spring using the @WebMvcTest and @DataJpaTest annotations. I hope these examples have given you everything you need to feel comfortable writing robust tests for your Spring MVC applications.

Generative AI is a kind of artificial intelligence that creates new content, including text, images, audio, and video, based on patterns it has learned from existing data.

Today’s generative models are typically built on foundation-model architectures such as large-language models (LLMs) and multimodal systems, enabling them to carry on conversations, answer questions, write stories, generate code, and produce images or videos from brief prompts.

Generative AI is different from discriminative AI, which draws distinctions between different kinds of input. Where discriminative AI answers questions like “Is this image of a rabbit or a lion?”, generative AI instead responds to prompts such as “Describe to me how a rabbit and lion look different from one another” or “Draw me a picture of a lion and a rabbit sitting next to each other” — and in both cases produces text or imagery that, while grounded in the AI’s training data, isn’t just a copy of something that already existed.

Just a few years ago, generative AI was once a novelty focused on chatbots and artistic image generation. Today, it has become a core enterprise technology, and powers everything from content creation and software development to customer support and analytics workflows. But with that power comes a new set of challenges — from model alignment and hallucination to governance and data-integration hurdles.

In this article, we’ll look at how generative AI works, explore how it has evolved into the foundation-model era, examine how to implement it effectively, and offer best practices for getting value out of it, today and in the future.

How does generative AI work?

For decades, early artificial-intelligence efforts often focused on rule-based systems or narrowly trained models that were built for one task at a time. While these efforts produced useful systems that could reason and solve human tasks, they were generally a far cry from sci-fi visions of thinking machines. Programs that could talk to people never seemed to get very far past the level of ELIZA, a “computer therapist” created at MIT in the mid 1960s; even Siri and Alexa after much fanfare were revealed to be fairly limited.

The big structural shift that gave birth to modern generative AI came with the concept of a transformer, first introduced in “Attention Is All You Need,” a 2017 paper from Google researchers.

Using a transformer architecture as a basis, you can build a system that derives meaning from analyzing long sequences of input tokens (words, sub-words, bytes) to understand how different tokens might be related to one another, then determines how likely any given token is to come next in a sequence, given the others. In AI lingo, we call these systems models. Because a model analyzes very large datasets and parameter counts, it can pick up on statistical patterns and knowledge implicitly embedded in the data.

This is all easier said than done. The process of adjusting a model’s internal parameters so it gets better at predicting the next token in sequences is called training. During training, the model repeatedly guesses the next token in a given sequence, compares its prediction to the actual one, measures the error, and updates its parameters to reduce that error across billions of examples. Over time, that process teaches the model the statistical relationships that will allow it to generate coherent language (or code, or images) later.

What is a foundation model?

You’ll often hear the word large used for transformer-based models of these types, like the LLMs we mentioned earlier. Large in this context refers to the large number of internal numerical values that the model adjusts during training to represent what it has learned, along with breadth and diversity of data used to train the model and the underlying compute resources powering this whole process.

This is in contrast with the narrow models of the earlier era of AI/ML, which werebuilt for one purpose and trained on a limited dataset. For instance, a spam filter may be very good at what it does, but it’s only trained on email data and all it can do is classify emails. Large models, by contrast, serve as what’s known as foundation models. They’re trained broadly on diverse data (text, code, images, or multimodal data) and then adapted or specialized for many downstream tasks.

These foundation models are the basis for most of the popular generative AI tools and services on the market today. They can be specialized in several ways:

• Fine-tuning: Giving a foundation model further training on a smaller, task-specific dataset
• Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG): Giving the model the ability to pull in external knowledge when asked a question
•  Prompt engineering: Tailoring a query so the model gives the sort of answers you’re looking for.

How do AI systems write computer code?

One of the surprising discoveries of the gen AI era was that in recent years was that foundation models trained on natural-language text can also, when fine-tuned with code examples, also write computer code — often better than many purpose-built systems. Still, it makes sense, when you think about it — after all, high-level computer languages are designed by humans and ultimately based on human language.

This 2023 InfoWorld article highlights how models like PaLM, LLaMA and other transformer-based systems fine-tuned on code repositories propelled this shift, but since AI giants like OpenAI have moved into this space. This all matters because code generation (or code-assisted productivity) has become a key enterprise use case of generative AI — perhaps the key use, given the industry’s enthusiastic adoption of it.

What are AI agents?

So far, we’ve been talking about chatbots, writing assistants, image-generation tools. They respond to prompts, output text or images, and then stop. A new category of tool called agentic AI goes further: it plans, executes, and in many cases learns as it works.

Because large models already understand language, code, and even structured data to some extent, they can be repurposed to generate not only descriptive text but operational instructions. For example: an agent might parse the intent “generate a sales-report”, then format internal calls like getData(salesDB, region=NA, period=lastQuarter), and then call an API, all by generating text that’s interpreted as instructions. The MCP framework standardizes the “language” of those instructions and the plug-points into tools and data so that the model doesn’t need bespoke integrations for each new workflow.

These kinds of autonomous agents have several enterprise use cases:

• Software automation: Agents that generate code, call unit tests, deploy builds, monitor logs and even roll back changes autonomously.
• Customer support: Instead of simply drafting responses, agents interact with CRM APIs, update ticket statuses, escalate issues, and trigger follow-up workflows.
• IT operations/AIOps: Agents monitor infrastructure, identify anomalies, open/close tickets, or auto-remediate based on defined rules and context from logs.
• Security: Agents may detect threats, initiate alerts, isolate compromised systems, or even attempt to manage threat containment — though this raises new risks.

How can you implement generative AI in the enterprise?

We’ve now touched on what generative AI can do. But how can you make it work reliably in your business. The difference between a pilot and full-scale deployment often comes down to systems, structure and governance as much as to models themselves. InfoWorld’s Matt Asay offers a deep dive into enterprise gen AI essentials, but here are some important points to keep in mind:

Choosing between API, open-source or custom fine-tuned models. One of the first major decisions for any enterprise project is: do you use a model via an API (e.g., from a vendor like OpenAI or Anthropic), deploy an open-source model internally, or build/fine-tune a custom model yourself? Each has trade-offs.

APIs offer speed and minimal setup, but may expose data, limit customization or accrue high cost — and will leave you at the mercy of your vendor. Open source allows internal control and may ease fine-tuning, but requires infrastructure, expertise, and support. Custom fine-tuning gives you the tightest alignment to your use-case, but lengthens time to value and increases risk.

Governance, data privacy and compliance. Deploying generative AI in an enterprise setting raises new governance, privacy and regulatory issues. For example: Who owns the data that’s ingested? How is proprietary data protected if you call a third-party API? What traceability exists for model outputs—a huge question for regulated industries? One useful framework is covered in “A GRC framework for securing generative AI” Data governance must adapt for the new era,  and new frameworks are evolving to help.

Human-in-the-loop review. Even the best models make mistakes and cannot simply be put on autopilot. You need a human-in-the-loop (HITL) process: real people need to review outputs, validate for bias, approve high-stakes content, and tune prompts or models based on feedback. Incorporating HITL checkpoints helps mitigate risk and improve overall quality.

Integration with existing systems and RAG pipelines. Retrieval-augmented generation, which we touched on earlier, connects foundation models into business workflows, systems, and enterprise data stores. RAG can bind LLMs to your organization’s internal knowledge bases, thereby reducing hallucinations (which we’ll discuss in a moment) and increasing the relevance of gen AI output.

What causes AI hallucinations?

Probably the biggest limitation of generative AI is what those in the industry call hallucinations, which is a perhaps misleading term for output that is, by the standards of humans who use it, false or incorrect.  

Every generative AI system, no matter how advanced, is built around prediction. Remember, a model doesn’t truly know facts—it looks at a series of tokens, then calculates, based on analysis of its underlying training data, what token is most likely to come next. This is what makes the output fluent and human-like, but if its prediction is wrong, that will be perceived as a hallucination.

Because the model doesn’t distinguish between something that’s known to be true and something likely to follow on from the input text it’s been given, hallucinations are a direct side effect of the statistical process that powers generative AI. And don’t forget that we’re often pushing AI models to come up with answers to questions that we, who also have access to that data, can’t answer ourselves.

In text models, hallucinations might mean inventing quotes, fabricating references, or misrepresenting a technical process. In code or data analysis, it can produce syntactically correct but logically wrong results. Even RAG pipelines, which provide real data context to models, only reduce hallucination—they don’t eliminate it. Enterprises using generative AI need review layers, validation pipelines, and human oversight to prevent these failures from spreading into production systems.

What are some other problems with generative AI?

Generative AI has proven to be such a disruptive technology that’s stoking near-apocalyptic fears that it will result in a superintelligence that will enslave or destroy humanity. Meanwhile, in the present day, increasingly troubling reports of so-called AI psychosis are emerging, where people have mental health episodes triggered by the uncanny and sometimes sycophantic ways chatbots affirm whatever you talk to them about and try to keep the conversation going.

Compared to such existential questions, the following business-related problems may seem petty. But they’re real issues for enterprises considering investing in AI tools.

• Data leakage and regulatory risk. When a model is fine-tuned or prompted with sensitive information, that data may be memorized and unintentionally reproduced. Using third-party APIs without strict controls can expose proprietary or personally identifiable information (PII). Regulatory frameworks like GDPR and HIPAA require explicit governance around where training data resides and how inference results are stored.
• Prompt injection occurs when an attacker manipulates a model’s instructions—embedding hidden directives or malicious payloads in user input or external content the model reads. This can override safety rules, expose internal data, or execute unintended actions in agentic systems. Guardrails that sanitize inputs, restrict tool-calling permissions, and validate outputs are becoming essential.
• Copyright and content ownership. Many foundation models are trained on data scraped from the public internet, creating disputes over copyright and data provenance. Enterprises using generated output commercially need to confirm usage rights and review indemnity terms from vendors.
• Unrealistic productivity expectations. Finally, organizations sometimes expect generative AI to deliver instant productivity gains. The reality, it turns out, is more mixed. Enterprise adoption requires infrastructure, governance, retraining, and cultural change. The models accelerate work once properly integrated, but they don’t automatically replace human judgment or oversight.

The current generation of enterprise AI systems includes several layers of defense against these risks:

• Guardrails that constrain model behavior and filter unsafe outputs.
• Model validation frameworks that measure factual accuracy and consistency before deployment.
• Policy layers that enforce compliance rules, redact sensitive data, and log model actions.

These safeguards reduce—but don’t remove—the inherent uncertainty that defines generative AI.

GenAI: essential for the enterprise

Generative AI has evolved from a novelty into a core layer of enterprise technology. Foundation models and agentic systems now power automation, analytics, and creative workflows — but they remain fundamentally probabilistic tools. Their strength lies in scale and adaptability, not perfect understanding.

For organizations, success depends less on chasing model breakthroughs than on integrating these systems responsibly: building guardrails, maintaining oversight, and aligning them with real business needs. Used wisely, generative AI can amplify human capability rather than replace it.

Node.js is one of the most popular server-side platforms, especially for web applications. It gives you non-blocking JavaScript without a browser, plus an enormous ecosystem. That ecosystem is one of Node’s chief strengths, making it a go-to option for server development.

This article is a quick tour of the most popular web frameworks for server development on Node.js. We’ll look at minimalist tools like Express.js, batteries-included frameworks like Nest.js, and full-stack frameworks like Next.js. You’ll get an overview of the frameworks and a taste of what it’s like to write a simple server application in each one.

Minimalist web frameworks

When it comes to Node web frameworks, minimalist doesn’t mean limited. Instead, these frameworks provide the essential features required to do the job for which they are intended. The frameworks in this list also tend to be highly extensible, so you can customize them as needed. With minimalist frameworks, pluggable extensibility is the name of the game.

Express.js

At over 47 million weekly downloads on npm, Express is one of the most-installed software packages of all time—and for good reason. Express gives you basic web endpoint routing and request-and-response handling inside an extensible framework that is easy to understand. Most other frameworks in this category have adopted the basic style of describing a route from Express. This framework is the obvious choice when you simply need to create some routes for HTTP, and you don’t mind a DIY approach for anything extra.

Despite its simplicity, Express is fully-featured when it comes to things like route parameters and request handling. Here is a simple Express endpoint that returns a dog breed based on an ID:

import express from 'express';

const app = express();
const port = 3000;

// In-memory array of dog breeds
const dogBreeds = [
  "Shih Tzu",
  "Great Pyrenees",
  "Tibetan Mastiff",
  "Australian Shepherd"
];
app.get('/dogs/:id', (req, res) => {
  // Convert the id from a string to an integer
  const id = parseInt(req.params.id, 10);

  // Check if the id is a valid number and within the array bounds
  if (id >= 0 && id  {
  console.log(`Server running at http://localhost:${port}`);
});

You can easily see how the route is defined here: a string representation of a URL, followed by a function that receives a request and response object. The process of creating the server and listening on a port is simple.

If you are coming from a framework like Next, the biggest thing you might notice about Express is that it lacks a file-system based router. On the other hand, it offers a huge range of middleware plugins to help with essential functions like security.

Koa

Koa was created by the original creators of Espress, who took the lessons learned from that project and used them for a fresh take on the JavaScript server. Koa’s focus is providing a minimalist core engine. It uses async/await functions for middleware rather than chaining with next() calls. This can give you a cleaner server, especially when there are many plugins. It also makes the error handling less clunky for middleware.

Koa also differs from Express by exposing a unified context object instead of separate request and response objects, which makes for a somewhat less cluttered API. Here is how Koa manages the same route we created in Express:

router.get('/dogs/:id', (ctx) => {
  const id = parseInt(ctx.params.id, 10);

  if (id >= 0 && id < dogBreeds.length) {
    ctx.status = 200;
    ctx.body = { breed: dogBreeds[id] };
  } else {
    ctx.status = 404;
    ctx.body = { error: 'Dog breed not found' };
  }
});

The only real difference is the combined context object.

Koa’s middleware mechanism is also worth a look. Here’s a simple logging plugin in Koa:

const logger = async (ctx, next) => {
  await next(); // This passes control to the router
  console.log(`${ctx.method} ${ctx.url} - ${ctx.status}`);
};

// Use the logger middleware for all requests
app.use(logger);	

Fastify

Fastify lets you define schemas for your APIs. This is an up-front, formal mechanism for describing what the server supports:

const schema = {
  params: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      id: { type: 'integer' }
    }
  },
  response: {
    200: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        breed: { type: 'string' }
      }
    },
    404: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        error: { type: 'string' }
      }
    }
  }
};

fastify.get('/dogs/:id', { schema }, (request, reply) => {
  const id = request.params.id;

  if (id >= 0 && id  {
  if (err) {
    fastify.log.error(err);
    process.exit(1);
  }
  console.log(`Server running at ${address}`);
});

From this example, you can see the actual endpoint definition is similar to Express and Koa, but we define a schema for the API. The schema is not strictly necessary; it is possible to define endpoints without it. In that case, Fastify behaves much like Express, but with superior performance.

Hono

Hono emphasizes simplicity. You can define a server and endpoint with as little as:

const app = new Hono()
app.get('/', (c) => c.text('Hello, Infoworld!'))  

And here’s how our dog breed example looks:

app.get('/dogs/:id', (c) => {
  // Get the id parameter from the request URL
  const id = parseInt(c.req.param('id'), 10);

  // Check if the id is a valid number and within the array bounds
  if (id >= 0 && id < dogBreeds.length) {
    // Return a JSON response with a 200 OK status (default)
    return c.json({ breed: dogBreeds[id] });
  } else {
    // Set status to 404 and return a JSON error message
    c.status(404);
    return c.json({ error: 'Dog breed not found' });
  }
});

As you can see, Hono provides a unified context object, similar to Koa.

Nitro.js

Nitro is the back end for several full-stack frameworks, including Nuxt.js. As part of the UnJS ecosystem, Nitro goes further than Express in providing cloud-native tooling support. It includes a universal storage adapter and deployment support for serverless and cloud deployment targets.

Also see: Intro to Nitro: The server engine built for modern JavaScript.

Like Next.js, Nitro uses filesystem-based routing, so our Dog Finder API would exist at the following filepath:

/api/dogs/:id

The handler might look like this:

export default defineEventHandler((event) => {
  // Get the dynamic parameter from the event context
  const { id } = getRouterParams(event);
  const parsedId = parseInt(id, 10);

  // Check if the id is a valid number and within the array bounds
  if (parsedId >= 0 && parsedId < dogBreeds.length) {
    // Nitro handles JSON serialization
    return { breed: dogBreeds[parsedId] };
  } else {
    setResponseStatus(event, 404);
    return { error: 'Dog breed not found' };
  }
});

Nitro inhabits the middle ground between a pure tool like Express and a full-blown stack, which is why full-stack front ends often use Nitro on the back end.

Batteries-included frameworks

Although Express and other minimalist frameworks set the standard for simplicity, more opinionated frameworks can be useful if you want additional features out of the box.

Nest.js

Nest is a progressive framework built with TypeScript from the ground up. Nest is actually a layer on top of Express (or Fastify), with additional services. It is inspired by Angular and incorporates the kind of architectural support found there. In particular, it includes dependency injection. Nest also uses annotated controllers for endpoints.

Also see: Intro to Nest.js: Server-side JavaScript development on Node.

Here is an example of injecting a dog finder provider into a controller:

// The provider:
import { Injectable, NotFoundException } from '@nestjs/common';

// The @Injectable() decorator marks this class as a provider.
@Injectable()
export class DogsService {
  private readonly dogBreeds = [
    "Shih Tzu",
    "Great Pyrenees",
    "Tibetan Mastiff",
    "Australian Shepherd"
  ];

  findOne(id: number) {
    if (id >= 0 && id < this.dogBreeds.length) {
      return { breed: this.dogBreeds[id] };
    }
    // NestJS has built-in HTTP exception classes for common errors.
    throw new NotFoundException('Dog breed not found');
  }
}

// The controller

import { Controller, Get, Param, ParseIntPipe } from '@nestjs/common';
import { DogsService } from './dogs.service';

@Controller('dogs')
export class DogsController {
  // NestJS injects the DogsService through the constructor.
  // The 'private readonly' syntax is a TypeScript shorthand
  // to both declare and initialize the dogsService member.
  constructor(private readonly dogsService: DogsService) {}

  @Get(':id')
  findOneDog(@Param('id', ParseIntPipe) id: number) {
    // We can now use the service's methods. The ParseIntPipe
    // automatically converts the string URL parameter to a number.
    return this.dogsService.findOne(id);
  }
}

This style is typical of dependency injection frameworks like Angular, as well as Spring. It allows you to declare components as injectable, then consume them anywhere you need them.

In Nest, we’d just add these as modules to make them live.

Adonis.js

Like Nest, Adonis provides a controller layer that you wire together with routes. Adonis is inspired by the model-view-controller (MVC) pattern, so it also includes a layer for modelling data and accessing stores via an ORM. Finally, it provides a validator layer for ensuring data meets requirements.

Routes in Adonis are very simple:

Route.get('/dogs/:id', [DogsController, 'show'])

In this case, DogsController would be the handler for the route, and might look something like:

import type { HttpContextContract } from '@ioc:Adonis/Core/HttpContext'  // Note, ioc means inversion of control, similar to dependency injection

export default class DogsController {
  // The 'show' method handles the logic for the route
  public async show({ params, response }: HttpContextContract) {
    const id = Number(params.id);

    // Check if the id is a valid number and within the array bounds
    if (!isNaN(id) && id >= 0 && id < this.dogBreeds.length) {
      // Use the response object to send a 200 OK JSON response
      return response.ok({ breed: this.dogBreeds[id] });
    } else {
      // Send a 404 Not Found response
      return response.notFound({ error: 'Dog breed not found' });
    }
  }
}

Of course, in a real application, we could define a model layer to handle the actual data access.

Sails

Sails is another MVC-style framework. It is one of the original one-stop-shopping frameworks for Node and includes an ORM layer (Waterline), API generation (Blueprints), and realtime support, including WebSockets.

Sails strives for conventional operation. For example, here’s how you might define a simple model for dogs:

/**
 * Dog.js
 *
 * @description :: A model definition represents a database table/collection.
 * @docs        :: https://sailsjs.com/docs/concepts/models
 */
module.exports = {
  attributes: {
    breed: { type: 'string', required: true },
  },
};

If you run this in Sails, the framework will generate default routes and wire up a NoSQL or SQL datastore based on your configuration. Sails also provides the option to override these defaults and add in your own custom logic.

Full-stack frameworks

Also known as meta-frameworks, these tools combine a front-end framework with a solid back end and various CLI niceties like build chains.

Next.js

Next is a React-based framework built by Vercel. It is largely responsible for the huge growth in popularity of these types of frameworks. Next was the first framework to bring together back-end API definitions with the front end that consumes them. It also introduced file-system routing. In Next and other full-stack frameworks, you get both parts of your stack in one place and you can run them together during development.

In Next, we could define a route at pages/api/dogs/[id].js like so:

export default function handler(req, res) {
  // `req.query.id` comes from the dynamic filename [id].js
  const { id } = req.query;
  const parsedId = parseInt(id, 10);

  if (parsedId >= 0 && parsedId < dogBreeds.length) {
    // If the ID is valid, return the data
    res.status(200).json({ breed: dogBreeds[parsedId] });
  } else {
    // Otherwise, return a 404 error
    res.status(404).json({ error: 'Dog breed not found' });
  }
}

We’d then define the UI component to interact with this route at pages/dogs/[id].js:

import React from 'react';

// This is the React component that renders the page.
// It receives the `dog` object as a prop from getServerSideProps.
function DogPage({ dog }) {
  // Handle the case where the dog wasn't found
  if (!dog) {
    return 
Dog Breed Not Found
;
  }

  return (
    

      
Dog Breed Profile
      
Breed Name: {dog.breed}
    
  );
}

// This function runs on the server before the page is sent to the browser.
export async function getServerSideProps(context) {
  const { id } = context.params; // Get the ID from the URL

  // Fetch data from our own API route on the server.
  const res = await fetch(`http://localhost:3000/api/dogs/${id}`);
  
  // If the fetch was successful, parse the JSON.
  const dog = res.ok ? await res.json() : null;

  // Pass the fetched data to the DogPage component as props.
  return {
    props: {
      dog,
    },
  };
}

export default DogPage;

Nuxt.js

Nuxt is the same idea as Next, but applied to the Vue front end. The basic pattern is the same, though. First, we’d define a back-end route:

// server/api/dogs/[id].js

// defineEventHandler is Nuxt's helper for creating API handlers.
export default defineEventHandler((event) => {
  // Nuxt automatically parses route parameters.
  const id = getRouterParam(event, 'id');
  const parsedId = parseInt(id, 10);

  if (parsedId >= 0 && parsedId < dogBreeds.length) {
    return { breed: dogBreeds[parsedId] };
  } else {
    // Helper to set the status code and return an error.
    setResponseStatus(event, 404);
    return { error: 'Dog breed not found' };
  }
});

Then, we’d create the UI file in Vue:

// pages/dogs/[id].vue


  

    

      Loading...
    
    

      
{{ error.data.error }}
    
    

      
Dog Breed Profile
      
Breed Name: {{ dog.breed }}
    
  

SvelteKit

SvelteKit is the full-stack framework for the Svelte front end. It’s similar to Next and Nuxt, with the main difference being the front-end technology.

In SvelteKit, a back-end route looks like so:

// src/routes/api/dogs/[id]/+server.js

import { json, error } from '@sveltejs/kit';

// This is our data source for the example.
const dogBreeds = [
  "Shih Tzu",
  "Australian Cattle Dog",
  "Great Pyrenees",
  "Tibetan Mastiff",
];

/** @type {import('./$types').RequestHandler} */
export function GET({ params }) {
  // The 'id' comes from the [id] directory name.
  const id = parseInt(params.id, 10);

  if (id >= 0 && id < dogBreeds.length) {
    // The json() helper creates a valid JSON response.
    return json({ breed: dogBreeds[id] });
  }

  // The error() helper is the idiomatic way to return HTTP errors.
  throw error(404, 'Dog breed not found');
}

SvelteKit usually splits the UI into two components. The first component is for loading the data (which can then be run on the server):

// src/routes/dogs/[id]/+page.js

import { error } from '@sveltejs/kit';

/** @type {import('./$types').PageLoad} */
export async function load({ params, fetch }) {
  // Use the SvelteKit-provided `fetch` to call our API endpoint.
  const response = await fetch(`/api/dogs/${params.id}`);

  if (response.ok) {
    const dog = await response.json();
    // The object returned here is passed as the 'data' prop to the page.
    return {
      dog: dog
    };
  }

  // If the API returns an error, forward it to the user.
  throw error(response.status, 'Dog breed not found');
}

The second component is the UI:

// src/routes/dogs/[id]/+page.svelte




  
Dog Breed Profile
  
Breed Name: {data.dog.breed}

Conclusion

The Node.js ecosystem has moved beyond the “default-to-Express” days. Now, it is worth your time to look for a framework that fits your specific situation.

If you are building microservices or high-performance APIs, where every millisecond counts, you owe it to yourself to look at minimalist frameworks like Fastify or Hono. This class of frameworks gives you raw speed and total control without requiring decisions about infrastructure.

If you are building an enterprise monolith or working with a big team, batteries-included frameworks like Nest or Adonis offer useful structure. The complexity of the initial setup buys you long-term maintainability and makes the codebase more standardized for new developers.

Finally, if your project is a content-rich web application, full-stack meta-frameworks like Next, Nuxt, and SvelteKit offer the best developer experience and the perfect profile of tools.

It’s also worth noting that, while Node remains the standard server-side runtime, alternatives Deno and Bun have both made a name for themselves. Deno has great heritage, is open source with a strong security focus, and has its own framework, Deno Fresh. Bun is respected for its ultra-fast startup and integrated tooling.

Despite many worthy contenders, React remains the most popular front-end framework, and a key player in the JavaScript development landscape. React is the quintessential reactive engine, continually innovating alongside the rest of the industry. A flagship open source project at Facebook, React is now part of Meta Open Source. For developers new to JavaScript and web development, this tutorial will get you started with this vital technology.

React is not only a front-end framework, but is a component in full-stack frameworks like Next.js. Newer additions like React server-side rendering (SSR) and React server components (RSC) further blur the line between server and client.

Also see: Is the React compiler ready for primetime?

Why React?

React’s prominence makes it an obvious choice for developers just starting out with web development. It is often chosen for its ability to offer a smooth and encompassing developer experience (DX), which distinguishes it from frameworks like Vue, Angular, and Svelte. It could be said that React’s true “killer feature” is the perks that come with longstanding popularity: learning resources, community support, libraries, and developers are all plentiful in the React ecosystem.

Installing React

Real-world React requires running on the server with a build tool, which we will explore in the next section. But to get your feet wet, we can start out with an online playground. There are several high-quality playgrounds for React, including full-blown environments like StackBlitz or Codesandbox. For a quick taste, we will use PlayCode React.

When you first open it, PlayCode React gives you a basic layout like the one shown here:

The menu on the left is the file explorer, at the top is the code window, and at the bottom are the console (on the left) and the preview pane (on the right).

From this screenshot, you can see how the content of the code is displayed on the preview pane, but this basic layout doesn’t use any variables (or “state,” as it’s known in React). It does let you see some of the plumbing, like the React library import and the exported App function.

Modern React is functional. The App function has a return value that is the actual output for the component. The component’s return is specified by JSX, a templating language that lets you use HTML along with variables and JavaScript expressions. Right now, the app just has some simple markup.

The classic example you see next is a “Counter” that lets you increase and decrease a displayed value using buttons. We’ll do a slight “Spinal Tap” variation of this, where the counter only goes to 11 and displays a message:

You can take a look at the running example here, and the full code for the example is below:

import React, { useState } from 'react';

export function App() {
  // 1. The State
  const [volume, setVolume] = useState(0);

  return (
    

      
Spinal Tap Amp 🎸
     
      {/* 2. The "View" (Displaying the state) */}
      

        {volume}
      

      

        {/* 3. The Actions */
         setVolume(volume - 1)}>Down
       
         {
          if (volume 
          Up
        
      

      {/* 4. Conditional */}
      {volume === 11 &&
        
"Why don't you just make ten louder?"
      }
    
  );
}

If you play with the example, you’ll see that moving the buttons changes the value, and the display automatically reflects the change. This is the essential magic of a reactive engine like React. The state is a managed variable that React automatically updates and displays. State is declared like so:

const [volume, setVolume] = useState(0);

The syntax is a bit funky if you are coming from straight JavaScript, but most developers can adapt to it quickly. Basically, useState(0) says, with a default value 0, give me a variable, volume, and a function to set it, setVolume.

To display the value in the view, we use: {volume}.

To modify the value, we use button event handlers. For example, to increment, we’d do:

To modify the value, we use buttons event handlers.  For example, to increment:

onClick={() => setVolume(volume + 1)

Here we’ve directly modified the volume state, and React will update accordingly. If we wanted to, we could call a function (for example, if the logic were more involved).

Finally, when the value reaches 11, we display a message. This syntax is idiomatic React, and uses an embedded JavaScript equality check:

{volume === 11 &&
  
"Why don't you just make ten louder?"
}

The check says, if volume is 11, then display the

markup.

Using a build tool with React

Once upon a time, when NVIDIA was nothing but a graphics card, it was quite a bit of work assembling a good build chain for React. These days, the process is much simpler, and the once ubiquitous create-react-app option is no more. Vite is now the standard choice for launching a new app from the React terminal, so that’s the approach you’ll learn here.

With that said, there are a few alternatives worth mentioning. VS Code has extensions that will provide you with templates or scaffolding, but what’s becoming more common is using an AI coding assistant. A tool like Copilot, ChatGPT, or Gemini can take a prompt describing the basics of the application in question, including the instruction to use React, and produce a basic React layout for you. AI assistants are available in both command-line and VS Code extension flavors. Or, for an even more forward-looking option, you could use something like Firebase Studio.

But enough about alternatives—Vite is the standard for a reason. It is repeatable, capable, and fast. To launch a new Vite app, you just enter the following in your command line:

$ npm create vite@latest

The interactive tool will walk you through the process, starting with selecting React as your technology:

Use your own preferences for the other options (like using TypeScript versus JavaScript) and accept the option to install and launch the app immediately. Afterward, you’ll see a simple demo like this one:

The demo app has a counter component like the one we built earlier. If you Ctrl-c (or Cmd-c) to kill the Vite process running in the terminal, you can cd into the new directory. From there, you can see where the counter component is defined, in src/App.jsx (or App.tsx if you have selected TypeScript like I have).

It’s worth looking at that file to see how React appears on the server:

src/App.tsx
import { useState } from 'react'
import reactLogo from './assets/react.svg'
import viteLogo from '/vite.svg'
import './App.css'

function App() {
  const [count, setCount] = useState(0)

  return (
    
      

        
          
        
        
          
        
      
      
Vite + React
      

         setCount((count) => count + 1)}>
          count is {count}
        
        

          Edit src/App.tsx and save to test HMR
        
      
      

        Click on the Vite and React logos to learn more
      
    >
  )
}

export default App</code>

Notice we export the App as a module, which is used by the src/main.tsx file to display the component in the view. That file creates the bridge between the respective worlds of React and HTML:

import { StrictMode } from 'react'
import { createRoot } from 'react-dom/client'
import './index.css'
import App from './App.tsx'

createRoot(document.getElementById('root')!).render(
  
    
  ,
)

Don’t worry too much about the details of how React bootstraps itself with createRoot and the render call (which you won’t have to interact with on a regular basis). The important thing is how the App component is imported and then used with the JSX.

Note

Strict mode adds warning during dev mode to help you catch component bugs early.

There are a few rules to bear in mind when using JSX, the templating language of React:

• HTML elements are lowercase (
  , ), but components are uppercase (, ).
• You can’t just type “class” in JSX; instead, use className; e.g.,
  .
• To access the realm of JavaScript (and the application state) from within JSX, use curly braces: {2 + 2 != 5}.

React components and props

The main organizational concept in React is the component. Components are used to contain the functionality for a part of the view within a self-contained package. We’ve seen a component in action already with but it might be a little obscure, so let’s add another simple component to enhance the demonstration. This component also lets us explore another key part of React: Props.

To start, let’s create a display of the counter value influenced by the Rob Reiner movie This Is Spinal Tap. To start, we create a new file at src/VolumeDisplay.jsx:

// src/VolumeDisplay.jsx

export function VolumeDisplay({ level }) {
  return (
    

      {/* The Dial */}
      
= 11 ? '#d32f2f' : '#f0f0f0',
        color: level >= 11 ? 'white' : 'black',
        transition: 'all 0.2s ease'
      }}>
        {level}
      

      {/* The Message */}
      {level >= 11 && (
        

          "These go to eleven." 🤘
        
      )}
    
  );
}

This is a simple display but there are a couple of things worth noting about it.

One is that we accept a prop (a property) “from above” with VolumeDisplay({ level }). This tells whatever parent component uses this one that VolumeDisplay accepts a single property, called level. VolumeDisplay uses the property by displaying it (though it adds a bit of fancying up using conditional logic like we have already seen).

The way we define the CSS values, inside the double braces, {{ }}, and as a map of value is idiomatic React. (It isn’t essential at this point to grasp why it works that way, but basically, it is the JSX token { } with a JavaScript map of CSS values using JavaScript-friendly camel-cased names, like justifyContent.)

Now, to utilize this component, we can go to App.jsx, and make two changes:

import { useState } from 'react'
import reactLogo from './assets/react.svg'
import viteLogo from '/vite.svg'
import './App.css'
// 1. Import our new component
import { VolumeDisplay } from './VolumeDisplay'

function App() {
  const [count, setCount] = useState(0)

  return (
    
      

        
          
        
        
          
        
      
      
Vite + React
      

         setCount((count) => count + 1)}>
          count is {count}
        
        {/* 2. Pass the 'count' state into the 'level' prop */}
      
        

          Edit src/App.tsx and save to test HMR
        
      
      

        Click on the Vite and React logos to learn more
      
    >
  )
}

export default App</code>

Here, we’ve done two things: imported the new component and used it in the view.

Notice, also, that the line passes the existing count state variable into VolumeDisplay as a prop. React will do the work of ensuring that whenever count changes, the VolumeDisplay will also be updated, including any dependent logic such as the conditional statements.

Now, if we run the code like so:

$ npm run dev

We get what you see in the screenshot below:



Matthew Tyson

Conclusion

The world is now your oyster, at least within the realm of JavaScript web development. Not only is React wildly popular, its basic ideas are applicable to a host of other innovative frameworks, including Svelte and Solid. (To get some idea of the alternatives, just type npm create vite@latest and look at all the available technologies.) Now that you have a basic introduction, a good next step for learning would be to add an control that allows typing in the volume manually. Happy coding!

Angular is a cohesive, all-in-one reactive framework for web development. It is one of the larger reactive frameworks, focused on being a single architectural system that handles all your web development needs under one idiom. While Angular was long criticized for being heavyweight as compared to React, many of those issues were addressed in Angular 19. Modern Angular is built around the Signals API and minimal formality, while still delivering a one-stop-shop that includes dependency injection and integrated routing.

Angular is popular with the enterprise because of its stable, curated nature, but it is becoming more attractive to the wider developer community thanks to its more community engaged development philosophy. That, along with its recent technical evolution, make Angular one of the most interesting projects to watch right now.

Why choose Angular?

Choosing a JavaScript development framework sometimes feels like a philosophical debate, but it should be a practical decision. Angular is unique because it is strongly opinionated. It doesn’t just give you a view layer; it provides a complete toolkit for building web applications.

Like other reactive frameworks, Angular is built around its reactive engine, which lets you bind state (variables) to the view. But if that’s all you needed, one of the smaller, more focused frameworks would be more than enough. What Angular has that some of these other frameworks don’t is its ability to use data binding to automatically synchronize data from your user interface (UI) with your JavaScript objects. Angular also leverages dependency injection and inversion of control to help structure your application and make it easier to test. And it contains more advanced features like server-side rendering (SSR) and static-site generation (SSG) within itself, rather than requiring you to engage a meta-framework for either style of development.

While Angular might not be your top choice for every occasion, it’s an excellent option for larger projects that require features you won’t get with a more lightweight framework.

Also see: Catching up with Angular 19.

Getting started with Angular

With those concepts in mind, let’s set up Angular in your development environment. After that, we can run through developing a web application with Angular. To start, make sure you have Node and NPM installed. From the command line, enter:

$ node -v
$ npm -v

Next, you can use the Angular CLI to launch a new app:

$ ng new iw-ng

You can use the defaults in your responses to the interactive prompts shown here:

We now have a basic project layout in the new directory, which you can import into an IDE (such as VS Code) or edit directly.

Looking at the project layout, you might notice it is fairly lean, a break from Angular projects of the past. The most important parts are:

• src/main.ts: This is the main entry point. In older versions of Angular, this file had to bootstrap a module, which then bootstrapped a component. Now, it avoids any verbose syntax, calling bootstrapApplication with your root component directly.
• src/index.html: The main HTML page that hosts your application. This is the standard index.html that serves all root requests in a web page and contains the tag where your Angular component will render. It is the “body” that the “spirit” of your code animates.
• src/app/app.ts: The root component of your application. This single file defines the view logic and the component metadata. In the new “standalone” world, it manages its own imports, meaning you can see exactly what dependencies it uses right at the top of the file. (This is the root element that appears in src/index.html.)
• src/app/app.config.ts: This file is new in modern Angular and replaces the old AppModule providers array. It is where you configure global services, like the router or HTTP client.
• angular.json: The configuration file for the CLI itself. It tells the build tools how to process your code, though you will rarely need to touch this file manually anymore.

Here is the basic flow of how the engine renders these components:

1. The arrival (HTML): The browser receives index.html. The tag is there, but it’s empty.
2. The unpacking (JavaScript): The browser sees the tags at the bottom of the HTML and downloads the JavaScript bundles (your compiled code) from src/app/app.ts.
3. The assembly (Bootstrap): The browser runs that JavaScript. The code “wakes up,” finds the tag in the DOM, and dynamically inserts your title, buttons, and lists.

This flow will be different if you are using server-side rendering (SSR), but we’ll leave that option aside for now. Now that you’ve seen the basic architecture, let’s get into the code.

Developing your first web app in Angular

If you open src/app/app.ts (more info here) the component definition looks like this:

import { Component, signal } from '@angular/core';
import { RouterOutlet } from '@angular/router';

@Component({
  selector: 'app-root',
  imports: [RouterOutlet],
  templateUrl: './app.html',
  styleUrl: './app.css'
})
export class App {
  protected readonly title = signal('iw-ng');
}

Before we dissect the code, let’s run the app and see what it produces:

$ ng serve

You should see a page like this one at localhost:4200:

Returning to the src/app.ts component, notice that there are three main parts of the definition: the class, the metadata, and the view. Let’s unpack these separately.

The class (export class App)

Export class App is vanilla TypeScript that holds your component’s data and logic. In our example, title = signal(‘iw-ng’) defines a piece of reactive state. Unlike older versions of Angular where data was just a plain property, here we use a signal. Signals are wrappers around values that notify the template precisely when they change, enabling fine-grained performance.

The metadata (@Component)

The @Component decorator tells Angular it is dealing with a component, not just a generic class. There are several elements involved in the decorator’s communication with the engine:

• selector: 'app-root': Defines the custom HTML tag associated with any given component. Angular finds in your index.html and renders the component there.
• imports: In the new Angular era, dependencies are explicit. You list exactly what a component needs (like RouterOutlet or other components) here, rather than hiding them in a separate module file.
• templateUrl: Points to the external HTML file that defines the view.

The view (the template)

This is the visual part of the component, defined in app.html. It combines standard HTML with Angular’s template syntax. (JSX handles this part for React-based apps.)

We can modify src/app/app.html to see how these three elements work together. To start, delete the default content and add the following:

Hello, {{ title() }}

The double curly braces {{ }} are called interpolation. Notice the parentheses in title(). We are reading the “title” signal value by calling its function. If you were to update that signal programmatically (e.g., this.title.set('New Value')), the text on the screen would update instantly.

Angular’s built-in control flow

Old-school Angular required “structural directives” like *ngIf and *ngFor logic control. These were powerful but required importing CommonModule and learning a specific micro-syntax. Modern Angular uses a built-in control flow that looks like standard JavaScript (similar to other Reactive platforms).

To see the new control flow in action, let’s add a list to our component. Update src/app/app.ts as follows, leaving the rest of the file the same:

export class App {
  protected readonly title = signal('iw-ng');
  protected readonly frameworks = signal(['Angular', 'React', 'Vue', 'Svelte']);
  protected showList = signal(true);

  toggleList() {
    this.showList.update(v => !v);
  }
}

While we’re at it, let’s also update src/app/app.html to render this new list (don’t worry about for now; it just tells Angular where to render the framing template):

Toggle List

@if (showList()) {
  

    @for (tech of frameworks(); track tech) {
      
{{ tech }}
    }
  
} @else {
  
List is hidden
}

The app will now display a list that can be toggled for visibility:

This syntax is cleaner and easier to read than the old *ngFor loops:

• @if conditionally renders the block if the signal’s value is true.
• @for iterates over the array. The track keyword is required for performance (it tells Angular how to identify unique items in the list).
• (click) is an event binding. It lets us run code (the toggleList method) when the user interacts with the button.

Services: Managing business logic in Angular

Components focus on the view (i.e., what you see). For the business logic that backs the application functionality, we use services.

A service is just a class that can be “injected” into a component that needs it. This is Angular’s famous dependency injection system. It allows you to write logic once and reuse it anywhere. It’s a slightly different way of thinking about how an application is wired together, but it gives you real organizational benefits over time.

To generate a service, you can use the CLI:

$ ng generate service frameworks

This command creates a src/app/hero.ts file. In modern Angular, we define services using the @Injectable decorator. Currently, the src/app/hero.ts file just has this:

import { Injectable } from '@angular/core';

@Injectable({
  providedIn: 'root',
})
export class Frameworks {
  
}

Open the file and add a simple method to return our data:

import { Injectable } from '@angular/core';

@Injectable({
  providedIn: 'root', // Available everywhere in the app
})
export class Frameworks {
  getList() {
    return ['Angular', 'React', 'Vue', 'Svelte'];
  }
}

The providedIn: 'root' metadata is important, it tells Angular to create a single, shared instance of this service for the entire application (you might recognize this as an instance of the singleton pattern).

Using the service

In the past, we had to list dependencies in the constructor. Modern Angular offers a cleaner way: the inject() function. Subsequently, we can refactor our src/app/app.ts to get its data from the service instead of hardcoding it:

import { Component, inject, signal } from '@angular/core';
import { RouterOutlet } from '@angular/router';
import { Frameworks } from './frameworks'; // Import the service

@Component({
  selector: 'app-root',
  imports: [RouterOutlet],
  templateUrl: './app.html',
  styleUrl: './app.css'
})
export class App {
  private frameworksService = inject(Frameworks); // Dependency Injection
  
  protected readonly title = signal('iw-ng');
  
  // Initialize signal with data directly from the service
  protected readonly frameworks = signal(this.frameworksService.getList());
  protected showList = signal(true);

  toggleList() {
    this.showList.update(v => !v);
  }
}

Dependency injection is a powerful pattern. The component doesn’t need to know where the list came from (it could be coming from an API, a database, or a hard-coded array); it just asks the service for what it needs. This pattern adds a bit of extra work up front, but it delivers a more flexible, organized codebase as the app grows in size and complexity.

Routers and routes

Once your application grows beyond a single view, you need a way to navigate between different screens. In Angular, we use the built-in router for this purpose. In our example project, src/app/app.routes.ts is the dedicated home for the router config. Let’s follow the steps for creating a new route.

First, we define the route. When you open src/app/app.routes.ts, you will see an exported routes array. This array contains the available routes for your app. Each string name resolves to a component that handles rendering that route. In effect, this is the map of your application’s landscape.

In a real application, you’d often have “framing template” material in the root of the app (like the navbar) and then the routes fill in the body content. (Remember that by default, Angular is designed for single-page apps, where navigation does reload the screen, but swaps content.)

For now, let’s just get a sense of how the router works. First, create a new component so we have a destination to travel to. In your terminal, run:

$ ng generate component details

This will generate a simple details component in the src/app/details directory.

Now we can update src/app/app.routes.ts to include this new path. We will also add a “default” path that redirects empty requests to the home view, ensuring the user always lands somewhere:

import { Routes } from '@angular/router';
import { App } from './app'; // Matches src/app/app.ts
import { Details } from './details/details'; // Matches src/app/details/details.ts

export const routes: Routes = [
  { path: '', redirectTo: '/home', pathMatch: 'full' },
  { path: 'home', component: App },
  { path: 'details', component: Details },
];

Now if you visit localhost:4200/home, you’ll get the message from the details component: “Details works!”

Next, we’ll use the routerLink directive to move between views without refreshing the page. In src/app/app.html, we create a navigation bar that sits permanently at the top of the page (the “stationary” element), while the router swaps the content below it (the “impermanent” element):

And with that, the application has a navigation flow. The user clicks, the URL updates, and the content transforms, all without the jarring flicker of a browser reload.

Parametrized routes

The last thing we’ll look at is handling route parameters, where the route accepts variables in the path. To manage this kind of dynamic data, you define a route with a variable, marked by a colon. Open src/app/app.routes.ts and add a dynamic path:

export const routes: Routes = [
  // ... existing routes
  { path: 'details/:id', component: Details }, 
];

The :id is a placeholder. Whether the URL is /details/42 or /details/108, this router will receive it because it matches the path. Inside the details component, we have access to this parameter (using the ActivatedRoute service or the new withComponentInputBinding). We can use that value to retrieve the data we need (like using it to recover a detail item from a database).

Conclusion

We have seen the core elements of modern Angular: Setting up the environment, building reactive components with signals, organizing logic with services, and tying it all together with interactive routing.

Deploying these pieces together is the basic work in Angular. Once you get comfortable with it, you have an extremely powerful platform at your fingertips. And, when you are ready to go deeper, there is a whole lot more to explore in Angular, including:

• State management: Beyond signals, Angular has support for managing complex, application-wide state.
• Forms: Angular has a robust system for handling user input.
• Signals: We only scratched the surface of signals here. Signals offer a powerful, fine-grained way to manage state changes.
• Build: You can learn more about producing production builds.
• RxJS: Takes reactive programming to the next level.

Every day this past week I did something I suspect millions of other people also did: I stared at an LLM model picker and wondered which one I was supposed to want.

OpenAI just released ⁠GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna. Sol is the flagship. Terra offers much of its intelligence for less money. Luna is cheaper still. Anthropic released ⁠Claude Sonnet 5 at the end of June and Opus 4.8 the month prior, with a little Fable 5 emerging in between. Meanwhile, Google, which seemed to be winning the model wars a few months ago, is now getting shade from Gergely Orosz, who ⁠argues that Gemini has slipped outside the top tier for software development and has been out of the major model release game for eons (May 19).

Perhaps Orosz is right. Perhaps he’ll be wrong again in six weeks. Honestly, it’s exhausting.

I use ChatGPT and Claude constantly and still have no principled idea which model to choose most of the time. I tend to click whatever looks like the biggest, most expensive option because I don’t know what I’m giving up by choosing something smaller. “Instant” sounds dangerously unserious. “Thinking” sounds expensive but powerful.

A quick survey of my LinkedIn crowd suggests others also feel my “WHICH MODEL???” pain. More importantly, I suspect most enterprises do, too.

A model doesn’t rot

Before getting carried away, however, it’s worth considering whether any of this model churn actually matters. After all, a model doesn’t rot. The model an enterprise put into production in March performs just as well in July as it did when the company selected it. “Obsolete” generally means that something better now exists, not that the deployed model suddenly stopped summarizing insurance claims or classifying support tickets. (In other words, once you have something working, the idea that “but maybe Opus 200.2 is better!” is really a FOMO problem, not a performance issue.)

Most enterprise workloads don’t live at the frontier anyway. Extraction, summarization, classification, document comparison, and customer-service assistance often work perfectly well with smaller, cheaper models. OpenAI’s own pitch for the trio of GPT-5.6 models isn’t simply that Sol is better. It’s that ⁠Terra and Luna deliver different combinations of intelligence, latency, and cost. Luna, the cheapest tier, nearly matches the previous generation’s peak performance at less than half the estimated cost, according to OpenAI.

The practical question, of course, is where to start. An enterprise can’t test every model, every reasoning setting, and every price tier before doing any work. So here’s my advice (which I don’t follow in my own work, but I’m not defining enterprise strategy and can be a little price-insensitive). Start with the cheapest credible model that appears capable of the task. Give it a representative set of real examples and, before you start testing, define what counts as good enough. If it passes, stop. If it fails, move up a tier or try a model with strengths better suited to the work.

That sounds almost offensively simple, but it reverses the way many people, including me, use these products. We start with the biggest model because we’re afraid of what we might lose. Enterprises should start lower and require evidence before paying for more intelligence.

There are exceptions, of course. For genuinely difficult work, such as autonomous coding, complex research, or high-stakes reasoning, beginning with a frontier model may save time. But even then, the goal should be to establish a quality ceiling, then test whether a cheaper model can meet it. It’s changing the question from “which model is best?” to “what is the least expensive model that reliably clears the bar for this job?”

For many workloads, that price improvement matters more than a few extra benchmark points. ⁠As I argued back in 2023, following AI hype doesn’t help anyone. If your model strategy depends on whichever benchmark screenshot is circulating on X this week, you don’t have a strategy. Not a viable one, anyway. Pick a model and ignore the noise.

Except, of course, when that noise suggests a serious signal.

Sometimes better really is better

Frontier improvements aren’t always incremental, making it advantageous to consider an upgrade. Coding is the obvious example. There’s a significant difference between a model that suggests the next few lines of code and one that can inspect a repository, plan a change, use tools, run tests, discover its own mistakes, and keep working for an extended period. That isn’t merely a nicer autocomplete experience. It can reorganize a development workflow.

This is why enterprises can’t simply standardize on an 18-month-old model and declare victory. In some areas, particularly software development and other agentic work, better models can unlock compounding productivity. A model that reliably completes 80% of a bounded task rather than 50% may justify an entirely different division of labor between humans and machines.

Still, that upgrade isn’t free.

Models differ in how they interpret instructions, call tools, manage context, refuse requests, and fail. Prompts and scaffolding tuned for one model can regress when moved to another. Or costs can explode. As one of my Oracle colleagues discovered just this week, running the same tasks in GPT 5.6 was orders of magnitude more expensive than 5.5. The API change may be trivial, but the revalidation and implications are not.

This leaves enterprises caught between two bad options. They can freeze and potentially miss out on meaningful improvements or chase every release and repeatedly test production systems on faith. What to do?

Stop making model bets

The answer is to stop making LLM bets and start making job-to-be-done bets. Stop asking which model is fastest. Instead, figure out what work you are trying to improve. What does a good result look like? How much latency and cost can the workflow tolerate? How wrong can it be before a human must intervene? Once those questions have answers, model selection becomes less opaque.

A difficult code migration may justify GPT-5.6 Sol or Claude Sonnet 5. A repetitive classification task may work just as well with Luna or another smaller model. A regulated workflow may require a model or deployment option that offers particular data controls. Sometimes the correct model is no LLM at all, like when I’m writing this post. Sorry, AI vendors! (At least you won’t get blamed for my mistakes.)

This is where evaluations become the center of enterprise AI strategy. ⁠As I’ve said before, most companies don’t have an AI quality problem so much as an AI measurement problem. Hence, a private evaluation suite built from real company work is the only leaderboard that matters. Does the new model materially improve quality? If so, use it! Does it reduce cost or latency? Again, that’s your free pass to adoption. Does the improvement justify the expense and effort of revalidation? If yes, continue.

Make model releases boring

As important as the model is, keep in mind that AI success always comes back to your company’s data, your company’s workflows, your company’s integrations, etc. That’s the ⁠dull reality behind sexy AI. Retrieval, memory, governance, data quality, observability, and feedback loops aren’t as exciting as a new model launch, but they’re what ultimately make AI truly work.

Again, when it’s time to consider something new, the principle should be to default to the least expensive model that reliably passes your evaluations. Only escalate harder tasks to more capable models when measurement shows that the premium pays. Tip: Make this invisible to employees so that the system routes to the best model for a particular prompt. As dbt Labs’ Jon Lewis expresses it, “The best model is ‘Auto’ and I won’t hear anyone say otherwise.” OpenAI’s own ⁠migration guidance recommends testing models on representative tasks, including trying a lower reasoning level rather than automatically cranking everything to the maximum.

As for me, I’ll probably keep clicking the shiniest option. I don’t have a formal evaluation suite for InfoWorld columns, and the marginal cost is a subscription I already pay. Enterprises don’t get that excuse.

While many technology companies have slowed hiring or even launched significant layoffs, that doesn’t mean job opportunities have dried up for software developers. In fact, skilled developers—particularly those with knowledge of AI—are in demand in other industries.

The key to success for developers looking to snatch up these roles is to be well-prepared to meet the needs of potential employers in a variety of sectors.

“The demand for developers in non-tech sectors is real and growing, but the roles look different from what you’d find at a software company,” says Pragati Awasthi, assistant teaching professor of AI and data science at Drexel University.

“Across all these sectors, the common thread is that software is no longer a support function; it is embedded in core operations,” Awasthi says. “The developer in these environments is often the person translating domain-specific business problems into technical solutions, which requires a different profile than a pure product engineer at a tech firm.”

Opportunity knocks

The tech industry has long been a mainstay as far as employing software developers. But as these businesses trim staffs in efforts to cut expenses, that has impacted the hiring landscape. Even as the tech sector scales back, however, companies in industries such as financial services/fintech, healthcare/healthtech, retail/ecommerce, and manufacturing are looking to acquire programming talent.

“The unifying factor is data complexity,” Awasthi says. “These industries generate large volumes of sensitive, regulated, or operationally critical data, and they need developers who can build and maintain systems that handle it responsibly.”

While recruiting firm Summit Search Group has placed developers in roles with technology companies, “it is just as common to recruit them for roles outside this niche,” says Matt Erhard, managing partner at the company. “There are actually a fairly wide variety of roles available for developers in industries beyond tech,” Erhard says.

For example, in financial services Summit Search Group has seen significant hiring for back-end and data engineers who can build and maintain fraud detection systems, digital banking platforms, and regulatory tools, Erhard says. In healthcare, companies are hiring developers to build AI-driven diagnostics platforms and patient portals, or to work with systems that manage electronic health records, he says.

In manufacturing and industrial companies, developers are needed for systems integration and embedded software related to predictive maintenance, Internet of Things (IoT) systems, and smart factories. And in retail and ecommerce, there’s strong demand for full-stack developers and data developers who can handle logistics systems, omni-channel platforms, and personalization engines, Erhard says.

“One significant function where we’ve been placing developer talent lately is in developing business systems and internal applications,” Erhard says. These roles often have titles such as systems engineer or application developer, and professionals are hired to handle tasks such as customizing customer relationship management (CRM) or enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, building workflow automation tools or modernizing legacy systems, he says.

Other core functions for which Summit Search Group has placed a lot of developers include data, analytics, and AI-enablement. “That could be directly involved with data engineering or in building tools like reporting systems and ETL [extract, transform, load] pipelines,” Erhard says.

The firm also has handled searches for developers who can build and maintain customer-facing products for banking, healthcare, and retail companies, such as mobile apps or digital platforms customers can use to interact with companies.

Randstad Digital, a provider of global technology talent, sees demand for roles including web developers, system developers, and app developers. “These professionals would work on anything from customer-facing platforms to internal tools,” says Michael Morris, global head of platform and talent at the company. “Non-tech companies are also often hiring roles like software architecture and devops to help scale existing technology. These involve being more ingrained in the business, like building a supply chain system for a retailer, rather than creating individual tech products like you would at a technology company.”

Prep for success

To increases the chances of success at landing developer jobs outside of the tech industry, development professionals would be wise to follow some good practices.

Boost AI skills

One best practice is to boost skills in using AI-powered tools and get familiar with all things AI.

“Get fluent with AI-assisted development and its limits,” Awasthi says. “This is not optional. Organizations across every sector expect developers to use AI coding tools productively. But the more durable skill is knowing when AI output is wrong, incomplete, or unsuitable for a regulated context. That critical evaluation capacity is what non-tech employers are increasingly trying to hire.”

AI does not necessarily replace the need for human developers so much as it changes the skills profile for those roles, Erhard says. “The biggest difference in recent years is that AI literacy is now a non-negotiable,” he says. “At minimum, developers today need to understand concepts like prompt engineering and how to use AI tools to improve their efficiency.”

One thing many job candidates don’t expect is that the rise of AI has also increased the importance of high-level skills such as problem framing, system design, and cross-functional communication,” Erhard says. “Essentially, if something is related to development but too complex or nuanced for an AI to handle effectively, then the demand is high for human developers who have that expertise,” he says.

Candidates who land roles consistently have experience building AI-augmented workflows along with standard coding skills, Erhard says. “Employers increasingly expect to hire developers who can leverage AI, so demonstrating this experience on your résumé can be very beneficial,” he says.

Gain domain knowledge

Summit Search Group is seeing high demand for developers with deep domain knowledge in an organization’s specific industry. “So, for instance, if someone is both an experienced developer and has expertise in healthcare compliance, or financial regulations, then those candidates tend to be very sought after,” Erhard says.

Domain fluency is an underrated skill, Awasthi says. “A developer who understands healthcare compliance, financial regulation, or manufacturing process logic is significantly harder to replace than one who only writes clean code,” she says. “AI can generate boilerplate. It cannot navigate a HIPAA audit or explain a model’s output to a compliance officer.”

Development professionals should “pick an industry and learn it seriously; not just the technology stack but the regulatory environment, the business model, and the actual problems practitioners face,” Awasthi says. “A developer who has read about HIPAA, or spent time understanding credit risk, is immediately more valuable in those hiring contexts.”

It’s also vital to demonstrate real-world, practical application of skills, not just credentials. “The strongest candidates have projects in their portfolio that directly tie to and solve real business problems,” Erhard says.

Acquire soft skills

And then there are the soft skills that are becoming more of a differentiator than they were in the past. As AI handles more routine coding, human developers are expected to make more architectural decisions and collaborate across departments, Erhard says. “Strong communication and problem-solving skills are critical for many of the developer roles that we’re filling today,” he says.

While technical skills are still relevant for developers using and managing AI tools, “they also need to develop the skill of ‘deeper thinking’ and learn how to think one step ahead,” Morris says. “This includes skills like system design mastery—understanding the macro view and learning how microservices, databases, and third-party APIs interact securely and efficiently.”

They also should become deeply fluent in the AI coding tools commonly used in their particular industry, with a strong understanding of how to prompt them for optimal output, Morris says. Product context awareness is also useful. “AI doesn’t know what the customer wants, but you do,” Morris says. “Understanding the business problem and the end-user experience is a requirement for being able to guide LLMs.”

Master debugging and incident response

Developers looking to break into non-tech sectors also should develop skills in debugging and incident response, Morris says. “Complex systems with multiple AI agents can, and will, fail, which means companies need humans to trace logic flaws to get the system back on track,” he says. “A mastery of root-cause analysis is a critical skill.”

“Security, compliance, and reliability are very important in non-tech industries like finance and healthcare,” says Rohit Agarwal, co-founder of Zenius, a remote hiring company. “So employers want developers who also know regulatory environments well.”

Network and keep learning

To successfully pivot from jobs at tech companies, “continuous learning, upskilling, and building hybrid skills that combine technical and business knowledge are essential,” Morris says. “With the right preparation, tech professionals can adapt and continue to thrive in meaningful, dynamic careers.”

It’s also a good idea to join talent communities in fields of interest and “engage with other members in conversations that increase your knowledge through the collective intelligence of the community,” Morris says. “Take advantage of AI skilling opportunities relevant for your role, or better yet, where you want to go next. Experiment with the technology either on your own or through structured programs.” Ultimately, be curious and proactive, he says.

“I’d also recommend developers not to ignore referrals, direct outreach, and industry-specific communities during job search,” Agarwal says. “There are often a lot more opportunities available than the ones posted online.”