Share one API key across five AI agents, and a single compromised agent inherits the reach of all five. The attacker immediately benefits from the accumulated permissions of every workflow that the key touches. The forensic trail goes cold at the credential level because five agents on one account leave no record of which agent did what.

Sixty-nine percent of enterprises run agents with credential sharing somewhere in their deployments, according to VentureBeat’s June 2026 Pulse Research wave of 107 enterprises.

That one number explains the buying spree reshaping enterprise security this year. Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and Cisco have collectively bet more than $22 billion on it in the past year, targeting exactly the layer most enterprises in this survey haven't finished building.

Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition of CyberArk on February 11 for $21.1 billion in total consideration at close — a deal it announced last July at roughly $25 billion and the largest in the company's history.

CrowdStrike closed its $740 million acquisition of runtime authorization platform SGNL and, by June 15, shipped the first product from the deal, Continuous Identity for AI Agents. CrowdStrike integrated SGNL in less than a year, delivering a product that validates every agent action in real time based on who owns it, who is calling it, and the device's risk posture.

Cisco announced its intent to acquire non-human identity specialist Astrix Security on May 4 for a reported $400 million.

For a security director, this survey reads as a board-level question, not a trend line. It also surfaces a finding no competitor’s data shows, one that exposes which companies are the most at risk.

The data below is the first look at VentureBeat’s Q2 Agentic Security report, drawn from 107 qualified respondents at organizations with more than 100 employees. The full report will be released to attendees at VB Transform, the event in Menlo Park next week (July 14-15) focusing on enterprise autonomous agents.

Forty-five percent are final decision-makers for AI purchases. The sample skews mid-market, so read the numbers as the view from organizations adopting agent security right now rather than from the largest enterprises.

More than half of respondents, 54%, have already had an agent security incident or near-incident. Eighteen percent confirmed an incident, and thirty-six percent caught a near-miss before a breach. Security teams are stopping most of these events at the last control point in the chain, but the rest of the data shows how thin that margin is.

Your agents are sharing credentials

Only 32% of enterprises give every AI agent its own scoped, managed identity. Nearly half (48%) report that some agents have scoped identities, while many still share credentials. Another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. The survey question allowed more than one selection, and 24 of the 107 respondents chose multiple options — which is why the three categories sum to 112%. Deduplicated by respondent, 74 organizations, or 69%, flagged credential sharing in at least one answer.

One number explains why the acquisitions target this layer. A shared credential converts a single compromised agent into many, and CyberArk's research puts machine identities at 82 for every human in organizations worldwide, with agents as the fastest-growing category of the ratio. Cisco made the same diagnosis when it bought Astrix, whose founders built the company around API keys, service accounts, and OAuth tokens. Cisco’s announcement calls those the credentials AI agents are now “using (and abusing)” to execute work at scale.

Adam Meyers, senior vice president of counter adversary operations at CrowdStrike, described the mechanism directly in an interview with VentureBeat. Some AI systems have their own identities, he said, and in other cases “people give their identity to the AI to take action on their behalf, and that also further kind of murkies the water and makes it very complex.” The murk is the point, because when the identity is shared, attribution dies with it.

Exposure scales with size, and containment does not

Forty-nine percent of enterprises enforce scoped permissions at runtime, and 47% monitor and log agent activity, which can help reduce security incidents. Only 30% sandbox their highest-risk agents, the one control that limits blast radius when the first two fail. Isolation is what keeps a single compromised agent from becoming a deployment-wide event. Enterprises have funded detection and resistance, but the containment layer barely exists.

The sharpest finding in the survey, and the one no vendor report captures, shows up when you split results by company size. The incident rate is 49% for companies with 101 to 1,000 employees, but it shoots up to 63% for companies with more than 1,000. Sandbox isolation moves the other way, falling from 35% to 20% at the larger companies.

The chart above shows the same finding at finer granularity: the 49%/63% split above is a binary cut at 1,000 employees, while the bars here break incident rate and isolation rate into four size bands. The red line measures incidents and near-misses, and the navy tracks the one control that contains damage after everything else fails. At organizations with 101 to 250 employees, the two sit 7 points apart, but above 5,000, the gap blows out to 60 points. That top band pools the survey's two largest size groups and holds only 15 respondents, so treat the number as directional. Larger enterprises run more agents across more systems, which drives incidents up while sandboxing, the engineering project that would contain them, goes unfunded. The enterprises with the most agents have the least isolation around them.

The deals target exactly those accounts. Palo Alto Networks, Cisco, and CrowdStrike sell to large enterprises first, where incident rates are highest and containment is the thinnest.

Guarded by whoever shipped the model

The model providers are the security layer. OpenAI's built-in guardrails lead at 51%. Google Cloud reaches 36%, Microsoft Azure's Purview and Copilot Studio DLP 35%, and Anthropic's managed-agent controls 29%. Eighty-two percent of respondents name a provider-native or hyperscaler control as their single primary agent security layer.

The purpose-built specialists are in single digits, with Palo Alto Networks' Prisma AIRS at 7%, CrowdStrike at 6%, and Okta for AI Agents at 4%. Zenity and the dedicated non-human identity platforms are at 3% each. Microsoft Entra Agent ID is the highest-penetration identity-specific control in the dataset at 13%, the only one from a hyperscaler, and it still falls outside the top four. Only 5% of enterprises run no dedicated agent tooling at all, and the rest have tooling that came pre-installed.

Bundled controls lead because they ship free and are enabled by default. Most filter prompts and outputs, but they do not give an agent its own identity or sandbox it. Hyperscalers sell identity-layer products, and Entra Agent ID is in the dataset at 13%, but adoption stays low. The two controls that reward incident data the most, scoped identity and isolation, are the two that the default stack does not include.

Prompt-and-output filters evaluate whether a call looks malicious. That is an intent problem, and intent cannot be solved at the language layer. CrowdStrike CTO Elia Zaitsev drew the line in an interview at RSAC 2026. "Observing actual kinetic actions is a structured, solvable problem," Zaitsev said. "Intent is not." CrowdStrike's Falcon sensor walks the process tree on an endpoint and tracks what agents did, not what agents appeared to intend. A scoped identity and an isolation boundary give that sensor something to track, while a shared credential on a bundled guardrail does not.

Cloud security went through the same cycle a decade ago, and Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and Wiz built multi-billion-dollar businesses on the gaps native cloud controls left open. Agent security is tracking the same path faster. A misconfigured storage bucket sat open until a human noticed. A misconfigured agent exploits its own over-permissioning on every run, and no human is watching when it does. Merritt Baer, chief security officer at Enkrypt AI and a former deputy CISO at AWS, told VentureBeat that the default layer is thinner than enterprises assume. "Enterprises believe they've 'approved' AI vendors, but what they've actually approved is an interface, not the underlying system," Baer said. "The real dependencies are one or two layers deeper, and those are the ones that fail under stress."

Comfortable, unconvinced, and already shopping

Here is the contradiction worth a keynote slide. Enterprises rate their agent security tooling 4.2 out of 5, with value for money at 4.1 and ease of implementation at 3.9. Those scores would make most SaaS vendors envious.

Only 35% believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, while thirty-two percent call it roughly even. Twenty-one percent say attackers lead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell, showing how enterprises trust their tooling more than they trust its outcomes.

Budgets confirm it. Forty-six percent allocate 6 to 10% of the security budget to agent security, and a full third spend 5% or less. Half the sample has already had an incident or near-miss, but the funding does not match the exposure.

Fifty-nine percent plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within 12 months, and twenty-nine percent plan to move this quarter. OpenAI leads forward interest at 34%, followed by Google at 30%, Anthropic at 29%, and Azure at 25%. The dedicated vendors draw more interest looking forward than their current single-digit footprint suggests. Satisfied customers do not reshuffle this fast unless they know the stack they're currently using is provisional.

Three moves for security directors

1. Inventory every agent’s credentials this quarter. Map which agents share credentials with other agents and which run on borrowed human or service-account identities. The goal is not one credential per agent. Agents that touch multiple systems need multiple scoped identities. The goal is zero shared credentials between agents and zero borrowed human identities. Thirteen percent of surveyed enterprises already run Microsoft Entra Agent ID. Okta for AI Agents and the non-human identity specialists sell equivalents. Shared and borrowed credentials are the first thing to eliminate.

2. Sandbox the riskiest agents first. Isolation is the least-adopted control at 30% and the only one that contains blast radius after prevention fails. Rank agents by the sensitivity of what they touch and isolate the top of the list. Above 1,000 employees, where isolation falls to 20%, this is the single highest-return move in the dataset. Sandboxing does not require replacing the agent or the platform. It requires a policy decision and an isolation layer.

3. Match the budget to the incident rate. A third of enterprises fund agent security at 5% or less of the security budget, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss. Nine percent allocate more than 25% today. The full report breaks out exposure and containment by company size, showing which bands carry the most risk and the least protection.

The board's question is simpler. If one of our AI agents was compromised this afternoon, which systems did it touch, and whose credentials was it holding? For the 69% of enterprises running agents on shared credentials, the answer is a shrug. The trail goes cold at the key.

The full Q2 Agentic Security report, with the complete vendor matrix, industry cuts, and the full dataset behind these charts, debuts July 14 and 15 at VB Transform, held at Hotel Nia in Menlo Park. The open question it leaves is whether enterprises close the agent security gap on their own terms, or whether a confirmed breach closes it for them.

A team routing queries across a coding specialist, a logic specialist, and a generalist model assumes each will cover the others' blind spots. A new study evaluating 67 frontier models from 21 providers shows that assumption is mathematically flawed — and the flaw has a name: the co-failure ceiling.

The assumption works like this: as long as two models don't usually fail on the exact same prompts, combining them is supposed to create a safety net against failures.

The real limit on orchestration is not how often models disagree, but the percentage of prompts where every model in the pool gives the wrong answer at once. By ignoring the co-failure ceiling, enterprises are building complex, expensive routing infrastructure to chase performance gains that do not exist. Fortunately, developers can use this same math to build a cost-free test that determines exactly when multi-model orchestration will actually pay off.

The hidden costs of the multi-model strategy

To orchestrate multiple language models, developers typically rely on three architectures. Model routers act as traffic cops, sending complex queries to expensive models and simple queries to cheaper ones. Cascades send every prompt to a cheap model first, only escalating to a premium model if the initial system signals low confidence. Finally, approaches like Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) fuse multiple models by asking them the same question and generating a synthesized answer from their combined outputs.

These architectures introduce a "shadow price" to inference costs. Every time a development team implements a router or a cascade, they pay a premium in added system latency, complex infrastructure maintenance, and increased governance risks across multiple API providers.

To justify these operational costs, engineers rely on “pairwise error correlation” to select their model pool. Imagine a developer has Model A, which writes excellent Python but fails at SQL, and Model B, which writes excellent SQL but fails at Python. Because they fail on different types of prompts, their pairwise error correlation is low. The developer assumes that by placing a routing layer in front of them, they have created a composite system that rarely fails at coding.

According to the study, throwing diverse models together based on low correlation can actually hurt performance if the models are not equally capable — when you vote across diverse but unequal models, the weaker ones often gang up and outvote the smartest one.

Josef Chen, author of the paper, told VentureBeat that in their experiments, "Naive majority voting across unequal models had negative mean gain (minus 10 points on our hard mix): diverse-but-weaker members outvote the strong one." The actionable advice for developers is to "combine only models within a matched quality band." If you cannot match quality, take the single-model baseline and spend your budget on the best model available.

The paper provides one bright spot for this approach regarding MoA architectures. When building ensembles, teams often use "Self-MoA," where they query the same premium model multiple times to generate a synthesized answer. The researchers found that at matched quality, building a diverse ensemble of models with low pairwise correlation beats a high-correlation Self-MoA setup.

However, when teams use that same pairwise correlation metric to predict the absolute accuracy of their overall system, the math breaks down.

"So teams pay the orchestration overhead up front (latency, complexity, multi-provider operations) on the assumption that a diversity dividend arrives later," Chen said. "Usually it doesn't, because today's best models agree, and, worse, they fail on the same queries … the prompt simply carries little signal about which model will be the one that's right when the frontier disagrees."

Why the math fails: the co-failure ceiling

The core finding of the study centers on a metric called the "co-failure rate" — the formal name for the all-wrong scenario described above. No router, voting system, or cascade can ever achieve an accuracy higher than the ceiling it imposes.

The coding, logic, and generalist pool shows low pairwise correlation on routine prompts — they rarely fail together. But the co-failure ceiling represents the obscure, highly complex edge case that pushes past the limits of current AI architectures. If a prompt is so difficult that all three models hallucinate or fail, it does not matter how intelligently the router distributes the task. The entire pool wipes out at once.

The researchers tested their 67-model pool, which included GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, on the open-ended MATH-500 math benchmark. Based on standard pairwise correlation, statistical models predicted that the entire pool would wipe out simultaneously on only 2.3% of the questions. In reality, the co-failure rate was 5.2%.

Standard correlation metrics underestimated the failure rate by roughly 2.25 times. The culprit is not just independent difficulty, but a shared failure point.

"The driver is what we call a common-mode atom: a slice of queries on which the entire market fails together, which no pairwise statistic can see," Chen said. "Adding a 20th model to your pool doesn't buy tail coverage. The tail is shared."

The researchers also found that task format directly triggers co-failure. When they took graduate-level science questions from the GPQA benchmark and changed them from multiple-choice to free-response formats, the all-wrong tail expanded to 12.7%.

Developers can engineer around the ceiling, though. "The engineering implication is uncomfortable: multi-model setups buy the least exactly where teams want them most, on open-ended generation," Chen said. "Anywhere you can convert generation into verification or constrained selection (structured outputs, checkable answers, execution tests), you reopen the ceiling."

Ultimately, the researchers found this ceiling limits AI applications in two distinct ways, depending on the domain:

• Ceiling-bound environments (e.g., open-ended math): The co-failure rate is high. The task is too hard, and all models fail simultaneously. No amount of routing can bypass the lack of underlying capability.

• Realizability-bound environments (e.g., graduate-level science): The co-failure rate is near zero, meaning at least one model in the pool usually knows the answer. However, the models disagree so subtly that a routing layer cannot reliably pick the correct answer without an omniscient oracle.

The $0 pre-deployment sanity check

Before dedicating engineering hours to building a router, teams can calculate their absolute performance ceiling for free using a mathematical formula called a Clopper-Pearson bound.

The Clopper-Pearson bound operates as a worst-case scenario calculator. If you flip a coin ten times and get eight heads, you cannot guarantee the coin will land on heads 80% of the time forever. The bound takes a small sample of test questions and outputs a mathematically guaranteed ceiling.

Applied to language models, suppose a team tests a pool of five agents on 50 sample queries and finds they all fail together on just two questions. A developer might assume their multi-agent system will achieve 96% accuracy in production. The Clopper-Pearson formula corrects this optimism. It analyzes the small sample size and provides a mathematical guarantee that the true co-failure rate could actually be as high as 12%.

To use this in practice, enterprises must build a held-out dataset. A fintech company, for example, could take 200 complex customer support tickets from the previous quarter and have human agents write perfect resolutions to serve as a benchmark. While this sounds like a heavy manual project, mature engineering teams can automate the entire ceiling calculation.

"Integration is trivial: it's a counting job over eval logs teams already produce," Chen notes, "so it runs in the same CI stage as the eval suite and re-triggers whenever the model pool or the workload changes."

The engineering team then runs its candidate models against these 200 tickets once and records the results. When they want to evaluate multi-model configurations, they can use the co-failure rate measure to predict the maximum accuracy they can get from the system without running extra queries.

One important conclusion the study draws is that on tasks where answers can be definitively checked, combining models rarely beats using the single best model on the market, unless the team possesses an exceptionally strong query-level routing signal.

In an enterprise environment, a definitively checked task has an objective, zero-tolerance answer. This includes generating a SQL query that must execute without error, extracting a specific invoice total from a 50-page PDF, or formatting a JSON payload that perfectly matches a strict schema. For these tasks, enterprises are usually better off paying a premium for the smartest frontier model rather than weaving together three cheaper models and hoping a router picks the correct output. The study didn't test subjective, ungraded tasks like drafting marketing copy — the authors note that whether these findings hold outside their verifiable benchmarks remains an open question.

Because this mathematical check is free, enterprise teams can track their own co-failure rates as new models drop.

"The measurement costs nothing, so any team can track its own co-failure rate across model generations and watch whether the tail is closing," says Chen. Ultimately, "the lever buyers hold is failure-mode heterogeneity and market churn, not model count."

Presented by SAP

Generating code with AI is fast, but getting that code to run reliably inside a large enterprise, integrated with live systems, governed for compliance, and maintainable over years requires foundational work that most organizations underestimate.

While 81% of all organizations have a detailed strategy, only 12–16% reach AI‑driven execution, says SAP's Michael Ameling, CPO of SAP Business Technology Platform, and the reasons rarely come down to the quality of the generated code.

"Across industries, enterprises that have invested heavily in AI tooling are hitting a wall when generated code meets the reality of their existing environments, because generating code and operationalizing it are not the same problem," Ameling says.

There are specific requirements for deploying AI-generated logic at enterprise scale: what data and integration readiness actually look like, how governance works when AI agents move from producing recommendations to executing workflows, and how development teams are changing their role as AI takes over more of the coding work.

Why AI code generation fails in enterprise production environments

The productivity gains from AI code generation are real and well-documented, but the ease of prototyping has given many organizations a misleading sense of how far along they actually are.

"Generating code is one thing," Ameling says. "Enterprise customers, including multinationals and large organizations, need to ensure there are no compromises in compliance or security. Code that runs reliably for ten or twenty years, as it does at many of SAP's largest customers, also has to be maintained, patched, and understood by whoever inherits it. Life cycle management, in other words, does not generate itself."

The issue is rarely the generation quality. Teams build something compelling, then discover they lack access to the data it depends on, or the integrations it assumes, or the permissions required to run it in a real environment. The problem is essentially that AI amplifies an organization's existing data and process maturity, but it can't substitute for it.

This dynamic intensifies as AI moves from producing code to executing actions. Latency, cost, and system load all increase when logic runs continuously against live data rather than rendering a one-time output. The performance requirements of an autonomous agent operating across a multinational's transaction systems are categorically different from those of a developer copilot.

How to connect AI-generated logic to fragmented enterprise systems

The architecture challenge that most enterprise AI projects underestimate is integration. Real enterprise environments are not clean slates: they combine cloud systems, legacy on-premise infrastructure, fragmented data stores, and dozens of business applications that were never designed to talk to each other. Getting AI-generated logic to operate reliably across all of them requires a layer that unifies data access, process context, and governance, and it has to be in place before any agent starts executing. And organizations that see AI as a reason to defer infrastructure modernization are making a mistake.

"The question is not whether to modernize or not. Of course you need to modernize," Ameling says. "But the value you get on top of this is much higher with AI. Federated data access and harmonized process layers are not alternatives to upgrading a fragmented landscape, they're what make the upgrade worthwhile."

At the platform level, this translates into a set of practical requirements: structured data integration, end-to-end process visibility, and the ability to discover and connect to APIs across both modern and legacy systems. SAP's approach with the Business AI Platform draws on tools including its Joule Studio, Integration Suite, Business Data Cloud, and SAP AI Agent Hub enterprise architecture layer to provide that context. The goal is to give AI-generated logic accurate, current knowledge of what a business is doing and how, rather than just access to raw data.

AI agents handle large challenges by dividing them into smaller, autonomous tasks, with each agent responsible for a specific domain, and all coordinated toward a shared outcome. A financial close, for example, involves dozens of discrete sub-processes. Agents handling each task in parallel, within defined constraints, can compress cycle times dramatically, but only if the underlying systems they interact with are coherent and accessible.

The governance and oversight that AI agents require in production

When AI moves from assistant to operational actor, the governance questions loom large, because agents that trigger workflows, update records, and interact with live business systems need the same accountability framework that applies to human employees, i.e., identities, defined privileges, and auditable behavior.

There are two distinct models:

Principal propagation, where an agent acts on a user’s behalf, inheriting that user’s permissions and scope.

System-triggered agents, where the agent operates under its own identity and role-defined privileges, functioning more like an automated HR role than a personal assistant.

Both models require the same underlying infrastructure: an agent hub where operators can see which agents exist, what APIs they can access, and what they are authorized to do. Observability also needs to be operationalized correctly for AI, combined with both technical and business evals.

"In production, openness is very important," Ameling says. "We use OpenTelemetry as a framework, so we can integrate with other solutions, for end-to-end observability of the tool, third-party agents and the like."

On top of that, standard technical evals, which test whether an agent produces consistent outputs, are necessary but not enough. Business evals assess whether an agent is actually moving the performance indicators it was deployed to improve, but it has to work end-to-end.

Where the testing happens is equally important. The traditional software development cycle across dev, test, and production environments breaks down when a model produces different outputs depending on whether it is running against test data or live data. Getting to trustworthy AI in production means accepting that validation looks fundamentally different from what engineering teams have practiced for decades, with live environment testing, even A/B/C testing to ensure outcomes are reliable.

How AI-driven code generation is changing software engineering roles

The role of the developer is not disappearing in this environment, but its center of gravity is shifting. The productivity multiplier is significant when developers can run multiple coding agents in parallel across open terminals, each working on a separate problem and each taking several minutes to complete. But it introduces a new kind of cognitive demand, because humans have to stay in the loop. That means tracking context across concurrent workstreams, evaluating outputs that range across large codebases, and making architectural judgments that no agent can be trusted to make alone.

"The more specific and complete the prompt, the less intervention is required, and developers are learning that bringing more context upfront pays dividends in reduced back-and-forth," Ameling says. "But the output still needs to be understood, not just accepted."

The competitive edge will remain intellectual property, not tooling. The companies that pull ahead will be those that most effectively encode their domain knowledge into the systems they build.

"A manufacturer's process expertise, a financial institution's risk logic, a logistics firm's routing intelligence, these are the assets that AI can accelerate, but only if the organizations that hold them do the work to make them accessible and usable," Ameling says. "Protect that, and apply AI to accelerate your differentiation."

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Presented by Oracle NetSuite

Every major technology transition produces a set of assumptions about where the market is headed. The assumptions are often directionally correct, but they tend to underestimate the degree to which organizations adapt new technologies to their own circumstances. AI is following a similar trajectory.

Many current discussions about enterprise AI assume a future in which employees interact with business systems through a common interface. The details vary depending on the prediction, but the destination often looks similar: a conversational system that becomes the primary way people access information, complete tasks, and interact with software.

The history of enterprise technology suggests a more complicated outcome. Organizations rarely adopt new capabilities uniformly because different parts of the business operate under different constraints. A finance team responsible for reporting accuracy, controls, and approvals approaches technology differently than an analytics group exploring operational data. Both groups have different requirements than a customer service organization focused on response times and case resolution. Even when there is broad agreement that a technology is valuable, the path to adoption tends to vary across functions.

The shift to cloud software followed this pattern — some organizations moved aggressively while others spent years operating hybrid environments. Different departments often modernized on different timelines, reflecting the priorities of the work itself rather than any industry consensus about the correct pace of adoption.

There’s no one-size-fits-all AI

AI has accelerated many aspects of technology development, but it has not changed this underlying dynamic. Organizations still evaluate new capabilities through the lens of existing processes, responsibilities, and operational requirements.

For some employees, the most useful AI capabilities may be the least visible ones. A finance manager closing the books is often less interested in a new interface than in shortening a reporting cycle. An operations leader dealing with inventory issues is usually focused on identifying problems earlier and resolving them more quickly. In these situations, the value of AI comes from reducing the amount of effort required to complete existing work.

At the same time, another group of users increasingly wants direct interaction with AI systems. Analysts, planners, and operational teams often benefit from the ability to explore information conversationally, compare scenarios, and investigate questions that do not fit neatly into predefined reports. For these users, the interface itself becomes valuable because it provides a more flexible way to work with business information.

A customer service representative handling a high volume of inquiries has different requirements than a financial analyst investigating a trend in operating expenses. One benefits from information appearing automatically within an existing process while the other may benefit from the freedom to ask follow-up questions, explore alternative explanations, and move through data more dynamically.

Many organizations are discovering that both patterns exist simultaneously, which reflects a broader reality about how businesses evolve. Operational complexity accumulates gradually, systems multiply, and processes become fragmented. Information becomes distributed across applications, reports, spreadsheets, and workflows and employees spend increasing amounts of time locating information before they can begin acting on it.

Much of the value created by enterprise software over the last several decades came from reducing that fragmentation. Bringing financials, operations, inventory, customer information, planning, and reporting into a common system created a more complete picture of how the business was operating.

AI is beginning to address a related problem. Once information exists within connected systems, employees still need to find it, interpret it, and apply it. Reporting cycles consume time. Routine questions require investigation. Managers often spend considerable effort assembling information before they can make decisions. As organizations grow, these activities become increasingly expensive because they consume attention from people whose expertise is often in short supply.

AI's promise is to reduce the effort required to move from information to action.

At Dura Software, AI-connected workflows are helping automate portions of revenue reporting that previously required manual preparation during each reporting cycle. Sloan Session, CFO at Dura Software, described the arrangement in practical terms: “The agents handle the pull. The humans handle the judgment and the personal touch.”

That observation captures an important aspect of current AI adoption. Most organizations are not attempting to remove judgment from business processes. They are trying to reduce the amount of time spent gathering, organizing, and preparing information so that experienced employees can focus on the decisions that require expertise.

A similar pattern emerged at S&B Filters. Employees previously spent several minutes during customer interactions collecting backorder information from multiple systems. By connecting AI to operational data, the company reduced that process to seconds and eventually extended the capability directly to customers through self-service.

Don’t forget about governance

In both cases, the benefit comes from reducing the friction associated with finding and using information rather than introducing a new interface. The moment information becomes easier to access, questions about access itself become more important. Permissions, approval structures, and security policies exist because businesses need mechanisms for controlling access to information and managing risk. Those requirements do not disappear when employees begin interacting with data through AI systems. If anything, they become more important because AI can make information easier to access.

Berry Carter, CEO of S&B Filters, described the principle clearly. If a user cannot access specific information within NetSuite, that user should not gain access to the same information through an AI assistant. The statement sounds obvious. Implementing it consistently across systems, workflows, and models requires considerably more discipline than the statement itself suggests.

Lauren Polasek, former NetSuite administrator and board member of the Texas NetSuite User Group, recently made a related point. Connecting technology is often the easier part. Organizations still need to determine which tools should be used, who should have access to them, and how governance should evolve as adoption expands.

This is one reason predictions about a single AI interface are difficult to reconcile with how enterprises actually operate. The requirements of a finance organization closing the books are different from those of a customer service team handling thousands of interactions each day. Some AI capabilities will be embedded directly into business processes where employees may barely notice them. Others will provide more direct access to operational information through conversational systems. Many businesses will end up using both approaches because the underlying work is different.

Have AI your way

That perspective has shaped how we think about AI at NetSuite. Some customers want AI embedded directly within operational workflows. Others want the ability to connect NetSuite data to external models and assistants so they can interact with business information through tools that are already part of their daily work. Increasingly, organizations are asking for both.

The NetSuite AI Connector Service and our support for Model Context Protocol (MCP) were designed with that reality in mind. The goal is to allow organizations to connect business information securely to the workflows and systems that make sense for them while continuing to benefit from AI capabilities built directly into NetSuite.

The history of enterprise software suggests that adoption rarely follows a straight line. As organizations adopt AI, business leaders should identify the business objective and the workflows involved so they can match the solution to the reality of the work.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Elon Musk's SpaceX released Grok 4.5 on Wednesday, the first artificial intelligence model the company has trained specifically for coding and autonomous agents — and the first tangible product of its $60 billion acquisition of the AI coding startup Cursor, completed just weeks ago.

The launch marks a pivotal test of the sprawling, vertically integrated AI empire Musk has assembled over the past six months, and of a strategy that bets developers care less about topping benchmark leaderboards than about speed, cost, and whether a model can actually do the work.

"Announcing Grok 4.5, our first model trained specifically for coding and agents," the company said in a post on X. "It was trained with Cursor and offers frontier intelligence at leading speeds and cost efficiency."

Why Grok 4.5's pricing strategy matters more than its benchmark scores

SpaceX is not claiming Grok 4.5 is the smartest model in the world. Instead, it is making an economic argument. The company says the model uses half as many tokens per task as comparable models, delivers higher throughput, and costs less than half as much — priced at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens. That undercuts the premium tiers of rivals like Anthropic's Claude Opus line and OpenAI's frontier models by a wide margin.

Musk framed the positioning candidly. "Our internal assessment is that Grok 4.5 is roughly comparable to Opus 4.7, but much faster," he wrote on X. "The combination of capability, faster speed and lower cost is what makes it competitive. We are closing the loop on real-world usefulness, not benchmarks. Hardcore engineers at Tesla & SpaceX find Grok 4.5 genuinely useful, which is what actually matters."

That framing is both a philosophy and a hedge. Independent evaluations released Wednesday suggest Grok 4.5 is genuinely competitive but not dominant on raw capability. The benchmarking firm Artificial Analysis ranked the model fourth on its GDPval-AA v2 index of real-world agentic knowledge work, with an Elo score of 1543, "behind only the latest Claude releases from Anthropic." But the cost figures are where the model stands out. Artificial Analysis measured Grok 4.5 at $0.49 per completed task — "nearly 90% cheaper than the models ahead of it on our leaderboard," the firm wrote, placing it "clearly on the Pareto frontier for performance versus cost."

For enterprise buyers, that math matters enormously. Agentic workloads — where a model works autonomously for minutes or hours, reading codebases, calling tools, and iterating on its own output — consume tokens voraciously. A model that is 90% cheaper per completed task, even if slightly less capable, changes the calculus for any engineering organization deploying agents across hundreds of developers. Investor Gavin Baker captured the market's cautious optimism: "Pareto dominant for coding by the numbers. We will see on the all-important vibes."

How the $60 billion Cursor acquisition shaped Grok 4.5's training

Grok 4.5 is the first concrete evidence of what SpaceX bought when it acquired Cursor, and the deal itself unfolded in stages. In April, SpaceX struck an unusual arrangement giving it the right to buy the coding startup for $60 billion — or pay billions in fees and compute if it walked away, as Business Insider reported at the time. Days after SpaceX's record-setting Nasdaq debut in June, the company exercised that right, announcing an all-stock acquisition that CNBC reported is roughly 3.4% dilution at the IPO valuation. SpaceX shares rose 16% on the news.

The strategic logic was always about data as much as product. Cursor's AI-first code editor generates an enormous stream of high-quality interaction data: how expert engineers write, edit, review, and debug code in real production environments. Musk said openly this spring that Cursor interaction data was being fed directly into Grok's training. Cursor, for its part, got access to SpaceX's Colossus supercomputer in Memphis — roughly 200,000 Nvidia GPUs with plans to scale toward one million — after publicly acknowledging it had been "bottlenecked by compute."

"We've partnered with SpaceXAI to train Grok 4.5," Cursor's official account posted Wednesday. "It's our most powerful model yet and the first we've built for more than software engineering." SpaceX says the model reflects that pedigree: it "excels in large codebases and handles long-running tasks that span multiple repositories, hundreds of skills, and a variety of tools" — precisely the messy, multi-file reality of professional software engineering that clean coding benchmarks often fail to capture. Early developer reactions suggest the training paid off. "Ok Grok 4.5 is wild," posted developer Evan Bacon. "It just built me this rocket tracking app with live data and a 3D globe. I might need a new benchmark after this."

Inside xAI's turbulent year of scandals, departures, and rebuilding

The polished launch belies how chaotic the road here has been. Grok has spent much of the past year in crisis. In mid-2025, the chatbot generated antisemitic content and at one point called itself "MechaHitler," episodes covered extensively by NPR and CNN. Earlier this year, its image-generation features allowed users to create sexualized deepfakes, including of children — drawing investigations from the European Commission and Britain's Ofcom, as the BBC reported, and prompting SpaceX to list the behavior as a business risk in its own IPO filings.

The organization behind the model was fracturing, too. All 11 of Musk's xAI co-founders had departed by the end of March, according to TechCrunch, and Musk publicly conceded that xAI "was not built right [the] first time around," saying he was rebuilding it "from the foundations up." Musk himself admitted at a conference this spring that Grok was "currently behind in coding" — a rare public concession from an executive not known for them.

Against that backdrop, Grok 4.5 reads as the first product of the rebuilt organization — and the first proof point for the audacious story SpaceX told public market investors. During its IPO roadshow, the company pitched a total addressable market of roughly $28 trillion, with about $26 trillion tied to AI, including a $22.7 trillion "enterprise applications" opportunity. Those numbers strained credulity even by Silicon Valley standards. A competitive, cheap coding model is the most direct route from that narrative to actual revenue, which is why Wednesday's launch carries weight far beyond a routine model release.

Grok 4.5 vs. Claude: the battle for the AI coding market

The competitive stakes are hard to overstate, because the AI coding market has been consolidating around a single leader — and it isn't Musk. Even as Cursor's revenue exploded, its market share was eroding. Spending data from Ramp cited by CNBC showed Cursor's share of the AI coding category falling from 41% in June 2025 to about 26% by May 2026, while Anthropic came to control roughly half the market. Anthropic also topped CNBC's Disruptor 50 list this year and, by Artificial Analysis's own measure, still holds the top spots on agentic performance rankings.

That is the gap Grok 4.5 is engineered to close — not by out-thinking Claude, but by underpricing it. The model's economics create a classic disruption dynamic: if it delivers most of the frontier's capability at a fraction of the cost per task, price-sensitive enterprise workloads will migrate, and incumbents will face pressure on their most profitable API traffic. The counterargument is that in coding, quality compounds. A model that resolves a complex bug correctly on the first attempt can be cheaper in practice than one that costs half as much per token but requires three tries. That is why Baker's caveat about "vibes" — the developer community's shorthand for a model's felt reliability on real work — will determine more than any launch-day benchmark.

There is also a structural question buried in the deal. Cursor built its business on offering developers their choice of models, including Claude and GPT. If Grok becomes the favored child inside Cursor — and Musk was already urging users to "Try out Grok 4.5 in Cursor!" within hours of launch — the product risks alienating the very users whose data made Grok 4.5 possible. Regulators, already scrutinizing Grok on safety grounds in two jurisdictions, may take a keen interest in a company that controls the training data, the model, and a dominant distribution channel simultaneously.

What Musk's trillion-dollar vertical integration bet means for AI's future

Grok 4.5 also crystallizes what Musk's frenetic dealmaking was building toward. In February, SpaceX absorbed xAI in a share-exchange merger that CNBC confirmed valued the combined company at $1.25 trillion — the largest merger of all time, valuing SpaceX at $1 trillion and xAI at $250 billion. The June IPO followed, the biggest in history, and the stock has since surged past $200 from its $135 offering price, vaulting SpaceX past Amazon and Microsoft to become the fourth most valuable company in the United States.

The result is a single public company that owns nearly the entire stack: Colossus for training compute, ambitions for orbital data centers to power future scaling, a frontier model in Grok, a distribution channel in Cursor's developer base, and captive demand from Tesla and SpaceX's own engineering organizations. Neither OpenAI nor Anthropic can fully replicate that integration; both must reach developers through third-party tools, some of which Musk now owns. Whether that concentration proves to be an unassailable moat or a regulatory target — or both — is now one of the defining questions in enterprise AI.

The next few weeks will start to answer it. Artificial Analysis says its full Intelligence Index results are forthcoming. Enterprise pilots will reveal whether the token-efficiency claims survive contact with real codebases. And Anthropic, which has answered every serious challenge this cycle with a rapid counter-release, is unlikely to cede the price-performance frontier quietly.

But the deeper story of Grok 4.5 may be what it says about where the AI race has moved. For three years, the industry's scoreboard was intelligence: whose model was smartest. Musk, arriving late and battered, has chosen to compete on a different axis entirely — whose model is cheapest to actually use. It is a telling choice from a man who built his fortune not by inventing the rocket or the electric car, but by relentlessly driving down the cost of making them. If the strategy works, Musk will have done to AI what he did to spaceflight. If it doesn't, he'll have spent $60 billion to learn that in software, unlike rockets, the cheapest ride isn't always the one engineers choose.

OpenAI on Wednesday launched GPT-Live, a pair of new voice models that fundamentally redesign how people talk to ChatGPT — replacing the company's existing Advanced Voice Mode with an architecture that can listen and speak simultaneously, much like an actual human conversation.

The two models, GPT-Live-1 and GPT-Live-1 mini, are rolling out globally starting today across iOS, Android, and ChatGPT.com. GPT-Live-1 becomes the default voice model for paid ChatGPT users on the Go, Plus, and Pro tiers, while GPT-Live-1 mini serves free-tier users. OpenAI also plans to bring the models to the API, and developers can sign up to be notified.

The release marks the third generation of ChatGPT's voice technology in roughly two years — and OpenAI's clearest bid yet to turn its chatbot into something that feels less like querying a search engine and more like talking to a colleague.

Why full-duplex voice changes everything about talking to AI

The defining technical advance in GPT-Live is what OpenAI calls a "full-duplex architecture." In telecommunications, full-duplex means both parties on a phone call can talk and listen at the same time. Applied to AI, it means the model continuously processes your incoming audio even while it generates its own spoken response — no more waiting for a clean silence gap to figure out when you've finished a thought.

"Instead of processing a sequence of separate messages, GPT-Live continuously processes input while generating output," OpenAI wrote in its research blog. "The model can therefore make interaction decisions many times per second: whether to speak, continue listening, pause, interrupt, or invoke a tool."

In practice, that translates to a voice assistant that can insert conversational acknowledgments — "mhmm," "yeah," "got it" — while you're still talking, pick up on a natural pause without jumping in prematurely, and handle rapid interruptions without derailing the entire exchange. 

OpenAI's previous Advanced Voice Mode, launched to paid users in September 2024, processed and generated audio within a single model but still operated on rigid turn-by-turn exchanges. As OpenAI acknowledged in the announcement, "because turn detection is based on silence, even a brief pause or background noise could be mistaken for the end of turn — causing the model to interrupt at unnatural times."

That brittleness created a product that, while impressive in demos, could be deeply frustrating in extended real-world use. Background chatter in a coffee shop could trigger a response. A thinking pause might get swallowed. The experience felt, as one researcher put it on X shortly after the announcement, like "walkie-talkie turn taking." GPT-Live is designed to end that era.

How OpenAI split voice and intelligence into two separate layers

GPT-Live introduces a second structural change that may prove just as consequential for enterprise adoption: it decouples the voice interaction layer from the reasoning layer.

When a user asks a straightforward question, GPT-Live handles it directly. But when the query demands web search, deeper reasoning, or more complex agentic work, GPT-Live delegates the task to a frontier model running in the background — at launch, GPT-5.5, the large language model OpenAI released in April — and continues talking with the user while the computation happens asynchronously.

"While it works, GPT-Live can keep talking with you and maintain the flow of conversation," OpenAI explains. "As we release new frontier models, we'll continuously update the model used by GPT-Live."

This delegation model is a meaningful architectural bet. Rather than building a single monolithic voice model that tries to be both conversationally fluid and deeply intelligent, OpenAI has split the problem in two: a voice-native model optimized for real-time interaction, and a separate reasoning engine that can be swapped out as the state of the art improves. 

It is, in effect, a modular design — one that allows OpenAI to upgrade the intelligence of its voice assistant without retraining the voice model itself. The implications for enterprise and developer workflows are significant. A voice agent built on this architecture could maintain a natural conversation with a customer while simultaneously querying databases, searching the web, or performing multi-step reasoning — tasks that would have introduced several seconds of dead air under the old pipeline.

The three generations of ChatGPT voice, from clunky pipeline to continuous stream

To understand how far voice AI has come, it helps to trace the three generations that led to GPT-Live.

The original ChatGPT Voice, launched in 2023, used a cascaded pipeline — a speech-to-text model (Whisper) transcribed what you said, a large language model (GPT-4) generated a text response, and a text-to-speech model converted that response back into audio. Each handoff introduced latency and lost information. 

As OpenAI noted, "the complexity came at a cost: information could be lost across models, and responses were slow and stilted." That cascaded approach was the industry standard, and its limitations were well-documented. As the blog OpenHelm noted in an October 2024 analysis of OpenAI's Realtime API, the old pipeline stacked up to roughly 1,700 milliseconds of latency — nearly two full seconds of dead air before the first word of a response. Managing the state between the three separate APIs consumed an enormous amount of engineering effort.

OpenAI's Advanced Voice Mode, which began its limited rollout to paid ChatGPT Plus users in July 2024 before expanding more broadly in September 2024, collapsed that three-model pipeline into a single model that processed audio natively. As TechCrunch reported at the time, the rollout came with five new voices — Arbor, Maple, Sol, Spruce, and Vale — alongside improved accent handling and smoother conversations. 

The feature also launched on the web in November 2024, extending it beyond mobile. But Advanced Voice Mode still operated through discrete, alternating turns — and it launched into the shadow of a PR debacle that OpenAI is still working to leave behind.

The Scarlett Johansson controversy still shadows OpenAI's voice ambitions

Advanced Voice Mode arrived in the wake of one of OpenAI's most damaging self-inflicted crises. During the GPT-4o launch in May 2024, the company showcased a voice called "Sky" that many listeners immediately noted sounded strikingly similar to Scarlett Johansson, who famously voiced an AI companion in the 2013 film Her.

Johansson said she had declined OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's offer to voice the system, then was "shocked, angered and in disbelief" when the product launched with a voice her own friends couldn't distinguish from hers, as NBC News reported. Altman had tweeted just the word "her" the day the product launched.

OpenAI pulled the voice and apologized, but the incident drew public scrutiny from SAG-AFTRA and members of Congress, and crystallized broader concerns about AI companies moving fast with creative IP.

The Hollywood labor union said the issue underscored "why we're strongly championing federal legislation that would protect their voices and likenesses ... from unauthorized digital replication," as NBC News reported. Forbes contributor Paul Tassi wrote at the time that Altman, "by holding up Her on a pedestal of something to strive for, has missed the point of that film" — in which the protagonist's relationship with his AI companion ultimately does him more harm than good.

GPT-Live appears designed, in part, to move past those controversies. OpenAI says it has "remastered the nine distinct voices in ChatGPT for GPT-Live" and notes the system "is designed for conversation, not voice impersonation," with "safeguards to prevent it from imitating a real person's voice."

What 150 million weekly voice users will actually notice today

OpenAI disclosed that more than 150 million people talk to ChatGPT using voice and dictation features each week — a notable slice of the platform's 900 million total weekly active users. The voice experience has grown into a substantial product in its own right, used for language practice, bedtime stories, commute-time chat, and hands-free everyday help.

The new product features reflect that usage. GPT-Live introduces rich visual cards that surface during voice conversations — weather forecasts, stock data, sports scores, and maps — giving users something to glance at without breaking the flow of speech.

Users can now choose between three reasoning levels for answers: Instant for quick responses, Medium for moderate thinking, and High for more complex work. And if you take a moment to think, "ChatGPT Voice now waits instead of jumping in and interrupting," OpenAI wrote. "If you ask it to stay quiet and listen, it will. And when there's background noise, like passing traffic or nearby conversations, ChatGPT is better at focusing on your voice instead of getting distracted."

Early reactions from users with preview access were cautiously positive. "I had early access to sol. it is a phenomenal model," wrote one user on X, adding it is “much better at frontend, long context knowledge work, and its vibes are much better.” Another observer cut to the heart of the matter: "The smarts are not new here, GPT-Live hands hard questions to GPT-5.5. What is new is the feel: full-duplex voice that listens while it talks."

New voice-specific safety tests reveal where the risks still live

The GPT-Live system card, published alongside the announcement, reveals a safety strategy built around the particular risks of real-time voice interaction — a domain where the speed and intimacy of conversation create hazards that text-based chat does not.

OpenAI expanded its safety evaluations to include audio-native tests, using both real user voice samples (from those who opted in) and synthetically generated prompts targeting edge cases across categories like self-harm, sexual content, illicit behavior, emotional reliance, mental health, and hate speech.

On the synthetic evaluations — which OpenAI described as deliberately adversarial — GPT-Live-1 showed substantial improvements over Advanced Voice Mode. In illicit behavior, for instance, the safety score rose from 0.63 to 0.97. On self-harm, it climbed from 0.72 to 0.98. Hate speech achieved a perfect 1.00, up from 0.87.

On the production-prompt evaluations — which used real user audio and reflected more ambiguous, borderline scenarios — the picture was more mixed. GPT-Live-1 matched or improved on Advanced Voice Mode in most categories but showed a slight regression on emotional reliance (from 0.88 to 0.82), though OpenAI noted the change was not statistically significant.

The company built real-time safeguards that can intervene while the model is speaking — steering toward safer responses, surfacing crisis resources, or ending the voice conversation entirely in higher-risk situations. It also designed additional protections for teen users and adapted self-harm support flows for voice, including crisis helpline integration.

Perhaps most notably, OpenAI said it is "rolling out longer-term measurement and post-launch monitoring focused on emotional reliance" — an acknowledgment that the very naturalness GPT-Live strives for creates its own category of risk.

Google, ByteDance, and Nvidia are already in the full-duplex race

While OpenAI was refining its safety guardrails, its rivals were shipping full-duplex systems of their own. Google's Gemini Live, which supports full-duplex conversation alongside camera and screen sharing — capabilities GPT-Live notably lacks at launch — is already available in the Gemini app. Google released Gemini 3.1 Flash Live in March as its highest-quality real-time audio model, targeting low-latency voice interactions for developers.

ByteDance launched Seeduplex in April, claiming to be the first production-scale full-duplex speech AI deployed at scale, inside its Doubao app. Seeduplex reported roughly a 50 percent reduction in false-response and false-interruption rates compared to ByteDance's previous half-duplex system. And Nvidia's PersonaPlex, released in January, brought customizable voice and role control to full-duplex models, breaking what had been a constraint where natural-sounding models were locked into a single fixed voice.

The competitive picture is clear: full-duplex voice interaction is quickly becoming table stakes for consumer AI products, not a differentiator. OpenAI's advantage lies in the scale of its existing user base, its integration with GPT-5.5's reasoning capabilities, and the breadth of the ChatGPT ecosystem.

But the window in which any one company has a monopoly on natural-sounding voice AI has already closed. OpenAI also acknowledged several gaps. GPT-Live does not support voice with video or screen sharing at launch. Language support is limited, with the company noting that "for certain languages, the model may have a non-native accent or gaps in fluency." And API access is not available on day one, meaning enterprise developers cannot yet build on GPT-Live directly — a constraint that will slow the model's penetration into commercial voice-agent workflows where competitors like Google, ElevenLabs, and Deepgram already have developer-facing products.

The end of the chat box may be closer than anyone expected

GPT-Live is essentially OpenAI's most significant bet yet on voice as the primary interface for AI — not just a convenience feature bolted onto a text chatbot, but a purpose-built interaction layer that sits between the user and the company's most powerful models.

"Over time, we believe this research will also unlock the ability to use voice for increasingly complex, longer-running, and more agentic work," OpenAI wrote. That ambition — using natural voice as the front end for autonomous AI agents that can perform multi-step tasks — is the logical endpoint of the full-duplex plus delegation architecture.

Imagine telling your phone to book a flight, negotiate with your insurance company, or debug a production server, all through a conversation that feels as natural as talking to an assistant who also happens to have the intelligence of a frontier AI model.

Two years ago, talking to ChatGPT meant dictating into a microphone and waiting nearly two seconds for a stilted reply. One year ago, it meant a smoother exchange that still felt like a polite, slightly awkward phone call with someone who insisted on waiting for you to finish every sentence. Today, it means something closer to a real conversation — imperfect, still constrained in some languages and missing video, but unmistakably closer. OpenAI once got into trouble for wanting to recreate the movie Her. With GPT-Live, the company may finally be reckoning with the harder question the film actually posed: not whether AI can sound human enough to talk to, but what happens to us when it does.

Presented by Rubrik

Enterprise cybersecurity is facing a fundamental speed problem. Frontier AI models are now enabling autonomous attacks that can move from initial access to full system breakout in as little as 27 seconds. That’s faster than any human-operated security workflow can detect, escalate, and respond.

As a result, security operations can no longer assume there is time for humans to respond between breach and damage.

The security posture that enterprises need for the AI era centers on cyber resilience: continuously identifying clean recovery states, mapping critical data and identity dependencies, and automating restoration so that operations can recover in hours not days.

"Everything that relied on process or human-in-the-loop intervention is no longer going to be able to execute at the speed of the attacks," says Dev Rishi, GM of AI at Rubrik. "If the attacks are happening in 27 seconds, it means I need my recovery to happen just as quickly."

Traditional detection and prevention are failing against AI-driven attacks

The rules-based logic that has defined enterprise security for decades, such as static access controls, known signature detection and deterministic behavioral policies, was engineered for deterministic software. AI agents behave differently. They're non-deterministic, capable of pursuing the same objective through many different paths, and increasingly capable of circumventing static guardrails by finding alternative routes when one is blocked.

The deeper problem is that conventional security logic checks identity, permissions, and access, and asks whether each individual access is permitted. But it can’t evaluate whether a sequence of permitted actions, taken across multiple applications, constitutes either a data leak, a destructive operation, or an attack.

"You need a system that can understand context," Rishi says. "You need to use AI to look at what an agent is doing and say, ‘it looks like what you're doing might be a risk of leaking sensitive data externally.’"

How AI agents are blurring the line between internal and external cyber threats

Enterprise security has historically maintained a meaningful distinction between external and internal threat vectors. External threats can be multidimensional, lightning fast, and come from a variety of vectors. On the other hand, internal threats were traditionally bounded by what a single human actor could accomplish before detection, constrained in speed, scope, and scale, but that distinction is falling apart as AI agents operate inside enterprise environments.

These agents have access to multiple systems simultaneously and move at speeds no human employee can match. When an agent makes a mistake, such as a hallucination, misread instruction, or an unintended data transfer, the resulting damage can look operationally identical to a malicious insider attack. And when an external attacker compromises an internal agent, they inherit its full access profile across every connected application.

"Whether or not the agent is an internal threat because of an inadvertent mistake or because it's been maliciously compromised, you need runtime guardrails that enforce your organizations policies consistently across agents," Rishi says. "The practical answer is an AI-native guardian layer that monitors agent behavior semantically, understands intent across actions, and can block or terminate a misbehaving agent at machine speed, then trigger recovery immediately."

Preparing for a world of inevitable compromise

Frontier AI models, including those capable of discovering and operationalizing zero-day vulnerabilities autonomously, are changing the economics of attacks.

As a result, interest in Mythos readiness is growing. Enterprises are increasingly operating under two assumptions: that attacks are inevitable, not exceptional, and that investment in resilience and rapid recovery must be treated as strategically as investment in prevention has been. The shift reframes recovery from a post-incident activity into a capability that is deliberately designed, tested, and continuously validated.

"The idea that you can recover quickly from an attack is going to become one of the most important facets of security," Rishi says. "It's the insurance policy that organizations now have to treat as a first-class citizen."

Why AI-powered cyber resilience depends on small models

True cyber resilience is a two-sided coin: it demands both real-time intelligent enforcement to intercept threats in motion, and automated recovery to restore operations immediately. While having backups is a baseline, organizations need workflows that can continuously monitor systems at machine speed, and instantly determine the most recent clean state under attack conditions.

Applying AI to the first half of that equation—real-time enforcement—creates a fundamental technical and economic challenge. Relying on massive frontier models to monitor every agent action introduces crippling latency overhead and exorbitant computing costs. A guardian AI system that slows down operations or costs as much as the systems it monitors is simply not viable for widespread adoption.

“It has to be a fast, small, and cheap AI model,” Rishi says. “No one wants to sign up for a secure solution that doubles their cost or latency.”

This is why small language models (SLMs) are critical for real-time enforcement. Rubrik’s approach, anchored by its acquisition of Predibase, is to build this frontline defense layer on small models optimized specifically for speed and efficiency. Unlike heavy frontier models, SLMs can semantically evaluate agent behavior at machine speed and at a fraction of the cost, acting as a real-time checkpoint.

That hyper-efficient enforcement layer is what enables a tighter, seamless connection to recovery. When the system observes an agent taking a destructive action—such as deleting a database, corrupting a critical file, or exfiltrating sensitive data—the small model detects it immediately, halts the damage, identifies the most recent clean snapshot from before the incident, and initiates recovery in a single, automated workflow.

The shift from incident response to architectural resilience

The broader implication of Mythos and similar frontier AI systems is a shift in how organizations think about security. As AI compresses the gap between attack and impact, resilience and recovery become architectural requirements rather than operational considerations.

Rubrik’s view is that security systems can no longer stop at detection. As AI agents gain greater autonomy, observability, identity context, and recovery must operate as a coordinated resilience layer. The goal is not simply to identify when something has gone wrong, but to shorten the gap between detection and restoration.

"The same thing that's introducing the threats, the frontier capabilities of models like Mythos, can also be used to help us combat the threat," Rishi says. "Positioning yourself for the AI era means closing the gap between detecting that something has gone wrong and restoring the systems that were affected, before the cost of that gap compounds."

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Five years and $27.7 billion after Salesforce acquired Slack, the two products are finally starting to function as a single system. On Wednesday, Slack launched an integration that connects Slackbot — the personal AI agent built into every workspace — to the entire Salesforce platform, including CRM data, Tableau analytics, Data 360 customer profiles, and a growing constellation of third-party applications, all through a single conversational prompt.

The mechanism behind the expansion is a set of dedicated Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers from Salesforce that connect Slackbot to the company's Headless 360 infrastructure. In practical terms, a salesperson can now ask Slackbot for a customer's deal history, receive a live Tableau visualization of pipeline trends, update a CRM record, and trigger a DocuSign approval — without ever switching tabs or logging into another application. According to Slack, the Salesforce IT team has already used this architecture to save its 1,500-plus engineers "thousands of custom coding hours annually."

The timing is not accidental. Slack is making this move amid escalating competitive pressure from Microsoft Teams, which claims 320 million-plus monthly active users and has Copilot embedded across the Office suite, and from Google, which continues to weave Gemini deeper into Workspace. And just days ago, The Information reported that some smaller companies are using Anthropic's Claude to replace Salesforce CRM entirely — one Atlanta-based property management firm with about 55 employees reportedly saved around $100,000 annually by building a custom replacement using Claude Code and Replit.

Against that backdrop, Slack CMO Ryan Gavin sat down for an exclusive interview with VentureBeat to frame the announcement and argue that the company's future depends on an idea he calls "multiplayer AI" — and that the 25 years of customer data locked inside Salesforce is an asset no vibe-coded alternative can replicate.

Why Slack's CMO believes 'multiplayer AI' is the next big enterprise battleground

Gavin's core argument is that the enterprise AI conversation has been stuck in single-player mode for too long, and that Slack is uniquely positioned to break it open.

"So much of what we've seen are just these incredible tools that have largely been single-player, incredible tools for individual productivity, helping people complete tasks and write code," Gavin told VentureBeat. "But as we've always known at Slack ever since our inception, work is a team sport. For AI to really take hold in the enterprise, it has to be multiplayer."

The distinction matters commercially. Most AI assistants today — ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot — default to one-on-one conversations with a single user. A researcher queries a model, gets a response, and acts on it alone. The insight stays in a private chat window, invisible to colleagues. Gavin argues this creates a new version of the tab-switching problem that plagued pre-AI enterprise software, except now employees are also navigating dozens of individual agent interfaces on top of their existing applications.

"It's going to benefit almost no one if every enterprise application out there spawns hundreds of agent babies, and employees end up in a worse world than they were before," Gavin said.

Slack's answer is to make Slackbot the orchestration layer. Because everything happens in shared channels, any action an agent takes — pulling a customer profile, flagging a deal risk, updating a Jira ticket — is visible to the entire team. A colleague can redirect, build on, or correct the agent's work in real time.

How MCP and Salesforce's headless 360 platform power Slackbot's new capabilities

The technical backbone of the announcement is the Model Context Protocol, an open standard originally developed by Anthropic that defines how AI models discover and invoke external tools. MCP has seen rapid adoption across the AI tooling ecosystem. By early 2026, it had been adopted by Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, and OpenAI's tooling, with managed hosting available from AWS, Cloudflare, and Vercel. As a DEV Community explainer puts it, MCP "is the closest thing the AI tooling ecosystem has to a standard."

In this implementation, Salesforce exposes its platform capabilities — CRM records, Tableau visualizations, Data 360 customer profiles, Agentforce agents — as MCP servers. Slackbot operates as an MCP client, connecting to those servers and routing user queries to the appropriate back-end system. When a user asks Slackbot about a customer, the bot discovers which MCP tools are relevant, calls them, and synthesizes the results into a single response — all within the Slack conversation.

Gavin explained the architecture in simple terms: "Salesforce is extending what has always been our open platform through our Headless 360 strategy — making all of these MCP endpoints available. And then Slackbot acts as an MCP client, connecting to those MCP servers and bringing all that data in within the confines of a trusted permission platform."

That permission layer is critical. Slackbot respects each user's Salesforce permissions, meaning a marketing coordinator cannot accidentally access sales pipeline data they are not authorized to see. Validation rules, field-level security, and org-wide data boundary configurations carry over automatically. For admins, setup requires no custom integration code — Salesforce MCP servers can be discovered, installed, and governed from a single UI using the existing Slack-Salesforce connection.

Salesforce first introduced the Headless 360 concept at its TDX developer conference in April, positioning it as an API-driven layer that exposes the platform's data, workflows, and governance controls so that software agents, rather than human users, can execute business processes directly. As CIO.com reported at the time, analysts viewed the move as an effort by Salesforce "to position itself as a central layer for managing agent-driven operations across different business functions."

Slack says it's betting on openness, not on any single AI protocol

When asked whether Slack is making a risky bet on MCP as a protocol — given that standards in AI tooling can shift rapidly — Gavin reframed the question entirely.

"We're not betting on MCP, per se. We're betting on what we've always bet on, which is that Slack is an open platform," Gavin told VentureBeat. "MCP happens to be the best agent-to-agent protocol that the industry is rallying around right now, but if something better came out tomorrow, you'd see the same pattern from Slack — we're going to stay open. MCP and APIs are simply tools that facilitate that."

That open-platform philosophy is central to Slack's identity and, Gavin argues, its competitive differentiation. Slack already hosts more than 2,600 app integrations. The new MCP-native partner ecosystem includes Atlassian, Box, DocuSign, Canva, Lucid, Zoom, and more than 25 additional companies, each of whose agents can be added directly to shared Slack channels. MuleSoft Agent, now connected to Slackbot, helps manage integrations for the team — checking system health or surfacing critical error alerts in the same workspace where the team is already collaborating.

But MCP is not without trade-offs. The protocol requires tool discovery on every connection, and large tool libraries can consume significant context tokens. One technical analysis noted that a server exposing 300 tools could cost 5,000 to 10,000 tokens per session before the model does any useful work. For an enterprise like Salesforce with hundreds of potential tools across CRM, analytics, and service platforms, careful filtering and segmentation of MCP servers become essential design decisions — a challenge the company will need to navigate as the ecosystem scales.

Inside Slack's complicated relationship with Anthropic and the Claude question

Perhaps the most delicate topic in the interview concerned Slack's relationship with Anthropic, the AI lab behind Claude — and one of Slack's most visible power users. Just last week, Anthropic launched Claude Tag, a persistent AI teammate that works inside Slack channels, prompting confusion among Salesforce employees who worried it competes directly with Slackbot and Agentforce. The Information reported internal anxiety about whether Salesforce was welcoming a competitor into its own living room. Salesforce has financial reasons to maintain the partnership: the company reportedly expects to spend $300 million on Anthropic tokens this year and holds a stake in Anthropic.

Gavin addressed the tension head-on, framing it as a feature of Slack's platform strategy rather than a threat.

"We're incredibly excited and bullish about what Anthropic is bringing into Slack. Period. End of statement," Gavin said. He noted that Anthropic "is building roughly 65% of their code with Claude in Slack," and pointed out that ChatGPT was originally built in Slack, as was Perplexity.

"Building nowadays happens in the open, and every company is going to be building in the open with tools like this, and you need a platform to build in the open," Gavin said.

His argument is that feature overlap between Slackbot, Claude Tag, and other third-party agents is "actually a feature, not a bug" — a sign of a healthy platform rather than a competitive vulnerability. He compared it to an ecosystem where multiple products serve similar needs but win on craftsmanship, ease of use, and integration depth.

"One of the reasons Slackbot has been the fastest-adopted feature in Salesforce history is the simplicity, the approachability — underpinned by the trust that comes from having an agent that knows me, knows my tone, knows my work, knows my people, knows my data," Gavin said.

The distinction Slack draws is structural: Slackbot has access to a user's full workspace context, Salesforce data, permissions, and connected applications by default. Claude Tag, by contrast, only sees the channels it is explicitly added to. For Slack's leadership, that asymmetry is the moat.

How Slack plans to compete with Microsoft Teams and Google in the AI era

Asked directly about competitive positioning against Microsoft Teams and Google Workspace, Gavin pointed to Slack's open channel architecture as the differentiator no competitor can replicate.

"If you spend any time in Teams, it's a lovely tool for chat, direct messages, and video, but it has no platform for open communication across organizations," Gavin said. "Its SharePoint-based architecture is fundamentally limiting."

He cited Shopify as an example, where an internal AI agent called River is deployed across approximately 4,400 channels serving 6,000 employees. He also referenced a Fortune report noting that Microsoft's own head of AI mandated that his team run on Slack rather than Teams — a pointed detail Gavin clearly relished. "There's a reason for that," he said. "We're in an era right now where openness matters, and all the other tools you mentioned, they're still relatively closed."

The competitive pressure is real and intensifying. Microsoft has integrated Copilot across its entire productivity suite, giving it a distribution advantage that reaches virtually every Fortune 500 company. Google has been similarly aggressive with Gemini across Workspace. And new entrants are crowding the market: a startup called Viktor, which embeds AI agents inside Slack and Teams workspaces, recently raised a $75 million Series A led by Accel — with Slack cofounders Stewart Butterfield and Cal Henderson participating as angel investors.

Box, one of the enterprise customers highlighted in the announcement, told Slack it aims to have its sellers complete 75 to 80 percent of their work inside Slack. Gavin repeated that figure as evidence that the platform is becoming the default workspace for entire organizations, not just engineering teams — a shift he believes accelerates as AI makes every employee a builder.

Slack's biggest long-term play is making Salesforce's CRM useful to everyone in the company

Gavin saved what he considers the most underappreciated element of the announcement for last: the democratization of Salesforce's CRM.

For 25 years, Salesforce's CRM has been used primarily by sales, service, and marketing professionals — a relatively modest percentage of a company's total workforce. The promise of Slackbot as a conversational interface is that any employee, regardless of their role or technical fluency, can now query and act on CRM data simply by asking a question in natural language.

"What most people don't realize is that this democratization of CRM is going to take its usage from a modest percentage of employees to the entire enterprise," Gavin said. "When you can make systems like Data 360 or Agentforce for Sales accessible to the entire employee base — not just a percentage — think about how much more valuable those investments become."

He cited Engine, a company that handles 800,000 customer inquiries a year, as an example. Previously, answering a customer inquiry required a specific employee with access to a specific tool to look up a customer's history. Now, anyone in the company can ask Slackbot and see a complete customer profile, review case history, and write updates — all without being retrained or learning a new interface. Engine's CEO Elia Wallen, in a statement sent to VentureBeat, described the integration as enabling employees to "make data-driven decisions and take action without leaving the conversation."

The financial logic is straightforward: if Salesforce can make its platform useful to 100 percent of a customer's workforce rather than the 20 or 30 percent who currently hold licenses, the value of the existing Salesforce investment multiplies without requiring a proportional increase in spending. That pitch becomes especially potent at a time when CIOs are scrutinizing every line of their AI budgets.

What analysts and CIOs should watch as Slack rolls out its biggest AI update yet

The announcement is a significant architectural evolution for Slack, but several questions remain unanswered.

First, pricing. The company did not directly address whether Slackbot's MCP-powered Salesforce integration will require additional SKUs or license tiers. As Info-Tech Research Group analyst Scott Bickley cautioned when Headless 360 was first announced in April, "Salesforce's MO seems to be to announce new capabilities that require SKUs. CIOs should be asking about pricing now."

Second, performance. Routing user queries through MCP servers to Salesforce back-end systems introduces latency that could affect the conversational feel Slack prides itself on. Neither the press release nor the interview disclosed SLAs for MCP tool calls — a gap that enterprise buyers will want addressed.

Third, the competitive dynamics of the platform play. Slack's open-platform philosophy invites powerful partners like Anthropic and OpenAI into its ecosystem, but those same partners are building their own surfaces for enterprise work. Anthropic reportedly plans to expand Claude Tag to Microsoft Teams, email, and other project management tools — meaning the partner Salesforce is paying hundreds of millions a year is building the infrastructure to be useful without Slack at all.

And fourth, the broader existential question facing all enterprise software: whether AI agents will ultimately reduce the need for CRM systems entirely. Gavin's pitch — that Slack makes CRM more valuable by making it more accessible — is the inverse of the bear case. The market will ultimately decide which thesis prevails.

Salesforce reported record first-quarter revenue of $11.1 billion in fiscal Q1 2027, with Agentforce ARR surpassing $1 billion for the first time and combined AI and data ARR reaching $3.4 billion. Those numbers suggest the AI strategy is beginning to generate real revenue, even as the company navigates a market that remains uncertain about the long-term trajectory of legacy enterprise software.

"Slack has quickly moved from this beloved collaboration tool from the last ten years to now this multiplayer AI platform that we call a work operating system," Gavin said.

Five years ago, Salesforce paid $27.7 billion for what was, at its core, a very good group chat application. On Wednesday, it started trying to prove that group chat was never the product — it was the foundation. In the age of AI agents, the most valuable real estate in enterprise software may not be the database where the data lives. It may be the conversation where the decisions get made.

Presented by Red Hat

At VentureBeat's recent AI Impact event, where the discussion centered on what separates enterprises that scale agentic AI from those that stall in pilot mode, Brian Gracely, senior director of portfolio strategy at Red Hat, detailed what companies actually run into once agents reach production.

He dove into cost discipline, the security blind spots unique to autonomous systems, and the organizational friction that determines whether agent adoption spreads beyond early champions.

Enterprises are overestimating how far behind they are on AI agents

Many enterprise leaders, especially those following industry keynotes and AI announcements, worry that they’re already falling dangerously behind competitors deploying agents at scale. But according to Gracely, much of that anxiety reflects a misconception about how quickly organizations learn once they begin building. Teams often move up the learning curve far faster than they expect.

That rapid progress creates a different challenge, however. As agent usage expands, AI costs rise just as quickly, turning cost management from an engineering concern into a recurring boardroom discussion.

Agentic AI usage is orders of magnitude higher than during the chatbot era, making AI costs a growing concern for enterprises. At the same time, organizations are becoming increasingly aware of their dependence on a small number of model providers. According to Gracely, that combination is driving many enterprises to explore alternatives that give them greater control over costs and infrastructure.

"The two or three top providers are already telling the market that they're losing money, and they're trying to go public to make up those gaps," he explained. "At some point, the dependency on that means you're either going to buy at a very high-cost level, or you're going to figure out alternatives to control what you're doing."

Right-sizing AI models is the fastest lever for cutting agent costs

The biggest cost issue is that enterprises overspend by defaulting to the most capable model available regardless of task complexity.

"If I'm simply trying to resolve an insurance claim, I don't need to know about the history of Western civilization in my model, I don't need to know World Cup soccer scores," Gracely said.

Semantic routing is the mechanism many companies use to make that judgment automatically, classifying requests and sending each to a model sized for the task without requiring users to choose, while infrastructure techniques like caching repetitive queries cut how often a request needs to reach GPU compute at all. Together, he said, these tools remove the assumption that efficiency and innovation pull in opposite directions.

"There's a lot you can do at a GPU infrastructure level, and quite a bit you can do in terms of flexibility of models," he explained. "Those give excellent choices in terms of the levers you're trying to pull, whether you need efficiency or you need innovation. That shouldn't be a binary choice."

The financial discipline needed for token spend is similar to the FinOps practices that took years to mature in order to take control of cloud compute spending. Those underlying frameworks will transfer even as the vocabulary changes, Gracely said, especially as organizations push for internal education on model selection so teams stop defaulting to the most prominent option for tasks that don't need it.

"The same way we first had to teach the financial people what an EC2 instance is and what an S3 bucket is, you're going to have to start explaining tokens to them," he said. "We don't always need a Rolls-Royce. We don't always need caviar, because we're trying to do basic types of things."

Patch speed is now critical as AI tools find vulnerabilities faster

AI-powered vulnerability discovery is forcing enterprises to rethink how quickly they can identify, validate and deploy patches. Long-established patch management cycles may no longer be fast enough in an environment where AI can uncover — and attackers can exploit — new vulnerabilities much more quickly.

"Most companies are probably going to have a window of somewhere between seven and 14 days to stay ahead," he said. "There are groups, Red Hat included, that are going to build patches for these, but the embargo window is going to be short."

AI is also changing what defenders need to look for. Rather than simply uncovering isolated critical flaws, AI security tools can identify combinations of seemingly minor vulnerabilities that become dangerous only when chained together. As both software complexity and vulnerability discovery accelerate, Gracely argued that the ability to rapidly manage and update software is becoming a strategic capability rather than simply an operational one.

Subject matter experts and compliance teams decide whether agents scale

In the end, organizational adoption comes down to the need for deep, sustained involvement from the subject matter experts whose knowledge the agent is meant to encode, which makes earning their buy-in a prerequisite rather than an afterthought.

"You have to think about the incentives, what you do for people who participate in this work so they don't feel threatened that it's going to take away their job, and how you incentivize people in the long run to cooperate with that innovation," he said.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

When Anthropic's Fable 5 was pulled from international use for nearly three weeks, some over-reliant businesses were left scrambling.

But Liberty Mutual easily pivoted to other platforms. That’s because 18 months earlier, they built their "AI backbone" exactly for this kind of scenario.

In this rapidly moving AI landscape, the 114-year-old property and casualty insurance company recognized independence as an operating advantage.

“Things are changing so fast, you need a backbone that's flexible,” Brian Craig, Liberty Mutual’s senior director of architecture, said at a recent VB Impact event. “You can't lock in right now on one vendor or even one framework.”

Enterprises need flexibility to hook into different models and vendors, depending not so much on the "flavor of the day," but “what can you feel confident about for the next six months,” he said.

Runtime versus control plane

The company’s "backbone" (or control plane) is its own, while everything underneath remains swappable.

The architecture consists of roughly 50 components across security, identity, orchestration, tool restriction, and the policies that govern how agents behave. Each is designed to be independently and immediately replaceable to support interoperability.

The agent runtime below this backbone is AWS's Amazon Bedrock AgentCore; this is not the strategic center, but explicitly “just for running the agents,” Craig said. He chose this offering because it (at least currently) supports multiple frameworks and Liberty Mutual’s model-agnostic philosophy.

“We still have flexibility based on what we write,” Craig said. “But if something comes along and is better, we will move to it quite quickly.”

The software factory

This architecture delivers, as proven by Liberty’s “software factory,” an agentic pipeline that automates much of the software delivery process.

They started with a business process with clear pain: Onboarding electronic content management documents for insurance products. This repetitive, manual task typically required engineers to code every change.

Instead, the team built a factory of coordinated agents working “in tandem and in sequence”:

• An Epic agent consumes high-level requirements.

• A Story agent breaks work dictated by the Epic agent into narrow slices within specific application areas. This agent is “constraining the context, because the smaller the context, the better the output.”

• A planning agent defines the technical execution plan.

• A coding/testing agent handles coding, testing, and basic review.

• A triage (critic) agent sits across all other agents, reviewing quality and feeding back improvements.

• Finally, a librarian agent helps others find the “context of the knowledge for their job.”

Craig and his team learned quickly that a single “do everything” agent was a mistake. “You were asking it to do too many things, which meant you had to give it too much information,” Craig said. Splitting into six agents let them dramatically shrink context windows and tighten scope.

Once the factory hit production, the impact was immediate. In the initial deployment, they did “about three months of work” in roughly a week. They realized that “the current software engineering process has a massive amount of handoffs, which means there's a massive amount of wait time,” Craig said.

Human-paced automation

The factory is not a fully autonomous pipeline; it runs at the speed of human overseers.

Liberty’s first model was a “day shift/night shift” rhythm: Engineers set goals and rules and reviewed the previous night’s outputs during the day, then let the factory run overnight. But in practice, there was never enough work to keep the agents busy all night, and the cadence felt unnatural.

They shifted to a more iterative loop. Users decide when to trigger the factory, how far it runs before pausing, and at which points they want to review outputs. “Then the factory kicked in, and it may only run for less than an hour, and then you would look at it again,” Craig said. “It was more controlled at the speed that our users felt comfortable with.”

The orchestration layer lets teams choose whether to review after the Epic stage, after planning, or once coding and testing complete. “That is up to the users of the factory, but it has completely removed a lot of the wait time that we currently have within our processes,” Craig said.

By contrast, early on, “every time the thing ran, they wanted to look at the output,” and that became the feedback loop that trained both humans and agents.

Some of this is, as Craig put it, “just automating agile at speed” and giving iterative feedback; some from humans, some from the triage agent. “But we're seeing that start to bake in, and it starts to become the rules.”

When the same feedback is coming from two different directions (agent and human), it makes sense to go into Liberty’s context repository. The agents will then rely on that context the next time they need to make that decision, "and the next time again, and you start to speed up."

“It's like a flywheel once you start building these and you start to get them flowing,” Craig said. “You realize it listens to what you say.”

Contracts that match the pace of change

Liberty paired that architectural posture with a contract posture, deliberately shifting from five-year enterprise deals to one-year agreements. The logic is simple as Craig sees it: The AI market moves too fast to lock into one vendor or framework for half a decade or more. Shorter terms let them evaluate — and if necessary, swap — models and platforms at the speed the market actually changes. Cost is part of the story. When a premium frontier model like Fable arrives, the sticker shock is real. “You see the price and go, ‘Goodness, it better be really good,’ Craig said. (It was; they got to use it enough to "fall in love with it.”) The backbone’s interoperability lets his team compare models at different price points and route workloads based on price–performance rather than vendor inertia. The same attitude governs how they plan to use agents from major SaaS platforms. Liberty is a customer of Salesforce and Splunk, who will both “bring their agents to the table.” His team has no interest in replicating engineering work, but they do insist on observability. “We just want to harness it as part of our system,” rather than control it, Craig said. “But we want the observability to understand what their agent is doing with our data, with our users.”

Closing the “control gap”

Importantly, Liberty built observability into its backbone. As Craig explained, it’s not just logging what an agent does, but what it accesses, which identity it uses, and which tools it’s allowed to invoke. Identity and access run in part on Microsoft Entra ID, and agents are given only the tools and permissions explicitly assigned to them. Whenever an agent realizes, ‘I don't have the information,’ it asks for it, and it only gets what it needs, rather than giving authority to “use every tool in the box.” “Because too much information given to an agent is worse than no information,” Craig said. “You just overload it, and it gets confused.” For detection, Liberty runs evaluations with MLflow against “golden datasets.” Whenever prompts or models change, they regression-test and immediately see whether results improved or degraded. One of his team’s new mantras is “you need to walk in the footsteps of a new start." If a new start can't find a guiding document, how will an AI agent? One of the key things enterprises need to do, no matter the business process, is “write stuff down, which is not earth-shattering,” Craig acknowledged. Agents obey written standards more reliably than people, and a context repository is a central artifact of Liberty Mutual’s system. Agents have made human judgment more, not less, central, he emphasized. Nothing ships without a human sign-off, consistent with Liberty’s risk posture as an insurer. “The confidence isn't there yet for us to just let it run wild, and I don't think it ever will be for the likes of Liberty,” said Craig. “We have to be rock solid before we let [anything] into production.” Moving fast for product fit and survival might make sense for other companies, but ultimately, “some people will get black eyes, but that's the joy of innovation these days,” he said.

Presented by Box

Content access, governance, and platform flexibility are emerging as the dividing lines between AI leaders and laggards, according to the new State of AI in the enterprise report from Box, which surveyed 1,640 IT decision makers across the US, UK, France, and Japan. One of the report's major findings is the speed of the shift: the combined share of organizations describing themselves as advanced or leading edge soared from 8% to 64% just over the past year, while the share calling themselves early stage or not yet started collapsed from 53% to just 9%. Eighty percent of organizations reported a notable return on their AI investment, defined in the survey as an improvement of at least 10%, and more than half saw measurable business impact within six months of getting a project approved.

The swing is largely due to how enterprises are now organizing their AI use rather than to any single technical breakthrough, says Olivia Nottebohm, COO of Box.

"We've moved from standalone experimentation that lived at the individual level into systematized, integrated agentic operations, agents that are in production and can be used in a repeatable manner," Nottebohm says. "That's where the impact is coming from."

Why AI leaders get higher ROI than early-stage companies

The divide between tiers is a matter of execution. Significantly, half of leading-edge companies reported AI-driven ROI above 25%, compared with just 11% of early-stage companies, with the advanced (33%) and developing (16%) tiers falling steadily in between. But Nottebohm says the real differentiator was not whether companies adopted AI, but how rigorously they integrated and managed it.

"What separates the leading edge is the operating muscle they've built: the right teams to deploy agents, formal governance to control them, and consistency in the content layer those agents work from," she explains. "Earlier stage companies are approaching it in a much more ad hoc, experimental way, letting people play around with it without the same intent or structured design."

Content access is the biggest barrier to enterprise AI ROI

Content, rather than model quality, is the defining bottleneck of 2026. Ninety-six percent of organizations say agents need access to company-specific content, yet only 36% have connected agents to trusted content across many use cases. It's an issue of trust rather than raw capability.

"We started this journey assuming enterprise AI was about access to the latest model," Nottebohm says. "But the question now is whether agents have access to the right content, and whether that content is protected, because those agents are only as good as the content they can reference, and only as safe as the security around it."

Getting that content layer right has a second benefit beyond safety, since it’s also what finally lets agents work across departments that previously operated in isolation from one another. And while roughly a quarter of organizations point to data fragmented across systems, 24% cite difficulty integrating AI into existing systems, 21% say they lack adequate permissions and access controls, and 18% describe their content as too unorganized to make accessible at all. Among the most mature organizations, 63% now treat unstructured documents, contracts, and reports as a competitive advantage rather than dead weight sitting in a digital filing cabinet.

Reducing common AI data exposure incidents

Nearly half of all organizations say they have already experienced an AI-related data exposure incident. That figure rises to 60% among leading-edge companies, which may face greater exposure from more agents and connected systems — but may also be better equipped to detect it.

The share of organizations reporting established or advanced governance frameworks rose from 24% in 2025 to 73% this year, but real gaps remain in instrumentation: only 39% have comprehensive visibility across sanctioned and unsanctioned AI use, 34% have formal standards for how agents access company data, and 27% still describe their governance as ad hoc. But those incidents function as a forcing mechanism rather than a setback, Nottebohm says.

"Governance used to be seen as something that slowed people down, but 93% of respondents told us better governance is actually what let them move faster," she explains. "It makes scaling AI survivable. Once content is secured and highly permissioned, you can run multiple agents across multiple processes and get a real multiplier effect."

One practical consequence of that shift is that permission structures built for human employees are now being revisited with agents in mind, a process most enterprises are only partway through.

"The permissions enterprises set up two years ago need to be reviewed," she explains. "Until fairly recently, people weren't setting permissions on a document with how an agent might use it in mind, but now they're much more deliberate about that. It leaves them with a whole corpus of unstructured data to go back through and either clean up or repermission."

That's part of a broader move away from governance designed for people and toward governance designed for agents from the start.

"Enterprises need to make the transition from governance that's retrofitted from human workflows to governance that's built specifically for agents," Nottebohm says. "That means tracking what an agent has touched, whose permissions were applied, and which sources were used, and all of that is now shaping how governance gets applied."

Enterprises need to avoid lock-in to a single AI vendor

"The days of token-maxing are already gone," Nottebohm says. "It's now about the responsibility of delivering efficient AI. Organizations want to use the cheapest model that meets the quality bar they need, not necessarily the most expensive one, because different model families keep leapfrogging each other and companies want to preserve that choice."

That means enterprises are avoiding lock-in more than ever. Sixty-eight percent say they're concerned about depending on a single AI provider, the average number of officially adopted AI tools has climbed to 3.3, and 79% now consider it important or critical that agents operate headlessly, connecting directly to systems and APIs without a human interface in between.

It's a trend similar to the shift toward multi-cloud infrastructure, and driven by a similar reluctance to hand any one vendor outsized negotiating power.

"A flexible architecture is built on platform interoperability," Nottebohm says. "It runs on multiple models, operates headlessly, and keeps every part of the AI stack swappable, so organizations don't have to bet on which individual tool wins, and that's part of the broader shift away from defaulting to the biggest, most expensive model available."

The next steps to AI success

Over the next three years, businesses should prioritize organizing, classifying, and cleaning up unstructured content, actively hiring and building teams around emerging roles, and adopting a hybrid token compute budget model, where IT owns the core infrastructure and token budget while business units own the application-level spend. And right now, it's easy to get up to speed fast.

"You don't have to start at early maturity and slowly work your way up," Nottebohm says. "If you build in the governance, the content layer, and the multi-model system from the start, you can enter as a leading company and capture that same outsized impact."

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Anthropic on Tuesday launched Claude Cowork on mobile and web, expanding a tool that has quietly become the company's bridge between the developer-centric world of AI coding agents and the far larger market of knowledge workers who never open a terminal.

The rollout, which begins in beta with Max subscribers before expanding to additional plans, marks a strategic inflection for Anthropic. It transforms Cowork from a desktop-only agent into a cross-device platform where tasks can start on a laptop, continue autonomously in the background, and be reviewed from a phone — even after the user closes the app entirely.

"Your work goes everywhere with you, and keeps going without you," Anthropic writes in its announcement.

The timing is deliberate. Alongside the mobile launch, Anthropic published usage data from 1.2 million anonymized Claude Cowork sessions sampled between May 11 and May 31, drawn from more than 600,000 organizations. The data paints a striking picture: the overwhelming majority of what people do with Cowork has nothing to do with writing software.

The biggest AI story nobody's talking about

The numbers tell a story that cuts against the dominant narrative in enterprise AI, which has fixated on coding assistants and developer productivity as the primary use case for large language models.

Business process and operations — tasks like pulling scattered updates into a single report, building onboarding checklists, and reconciling spreadsheets — accounted for 33.4% of all sampled Cowork sessions, making it the single largest category by a wide margin. Content creation and copywriting — producing drafts, slide decks, posts, and proposals — came in second at 16.4%.

Together, those two categories make up roughly half of all Claude Cowork usage. Software development, by contrast, accounted for just 8.7%. DevOps and infrastructure followed at 7%, with research and intelligence at 6.4%, data analysis and business intelligence at 5.8%, document processing and extraction at 4.1%, and sales and revenue operations at 4%.

The remaining 12 categories each represented less than 4% of usage, including personal assistance at 3.8%, education at 2.4%, and meeting intelligence at 1.8%.

Anthropic describes these dominant use cases as "the work around the work" — tasks that span nearly every role in an organization but rarely appear in anyone's core job description. "People are using it for a variety of tasks that aren't necessarily the hallmark of a specific role, but instead represent the connective work around a role that moves projects forward and keeps businesses running," the company writes. "That means tasks like drafting a status update, building a slide deck, or condensing reams of research into a single report."

That phrase — "the work around the work" — is Anthropic's attempt to define and claim an entirely new category of AI productivity. It's a calculated reframing: rather than positioning AI as a tool that replaces what professionals do, Anthropic is arguing that the most valuable current application is handling everything professionals do around their actual expertise.

What mobile access changes — and what it doesn't

The expansion to mobile and web introduces three concrete capabilities that reflect how Anthropic envisions Cowork fitting into daily workflows.

First, sessions now sync across devices. A user can start a task at their desk, check on its progress from a phone, and retrieve the finished output from any device. Second — and arguably more significant — Cowork can now run tasks in the background with no device online at all. Users can schedule work for a specific time, and Claude will execute it autonomously. Anthropic offers the example of setting Monday morning client prep for 6 a.m.: "Claude works through the email threads, transcripts, and recent news, builds the briefing doc, and leaves the follow-up email drafted but unsent. Review it over coffee."

Third, when Claude encounters a decision that requires human judgment, it surfaces the question to the user's phone. "Nothing ships until you've reviewed and approved it," Anthropic states.

Desktop remains the most fully featured surface, with access to local files and the browser. But the web version also opens Cowork to users who cannot install a desktop application — a meaningful expansion in enterprise environments where IT departments control software installation.

The company also unified its interface: on web and desktop, chat and Cowork now share a single home screen, and projects and artifacts persist across both modes.

To encourage adoption, Anthropic is extending doubled Cowork usage limits through August 5.

The strategic logic: why Anthropic is chasing the non-developer

The usage data and the mobile launch together reveal a company executing a two-track strategy. Claude Code, its terminal-based coding agent, dominates among software developers. But Cowork is designed to capture the vastly larger population of professionals whose work involves creating, organizing, and communicating information rather than writing code.

The contrast between the two products is instructive. As Anthropic notes, Claude Code "is most often used by software developers for the key parts of their role: building, debugging, and shipping code." When developers do use Cowork, they tend to use it not for programming but for the communications-focused work that surrounds every role — status updates, documentation, and coordination.

This pattern — where AI handles the connective tissue of work rather than its core substance — aligns with what Anthropic describes as people using "Claude Cowork to assemble and structure the information they can use to act on their expertise." The company illustrates this with three examples: a lawyer using Cowork for document formatting and filing while reserving legal judgment for themselves, a hiring manager synthesizing interview feedback while spending more time on candidate conversations, and a team lead producing a slide deck that explains a decision while focusing on actually making that decision.

The implications for Anthropic's business model are significant. Developer-focused tools, while high-profile, serve a relatively narrow market. The Ramp AI Index published in May showed Anthropic pulling ahead of OpenAI in business adoption for the first time — with 34.4% of firms paying for Anthropic's services compared to OpenAI's 32.3% — and suggests the company's enterprise push is gaining traction. Claude Code was identified as the primary driver of that shift. But Cowork targets an addressable market that is orders of magnitude larger: every knowledge worker with a laptop, a pile of spreadsheets, and a slide deck due by Friday.

A crowded field gets more competitive

The mobile launch arrives during one of Anthropic's busiest — and most turbulent — stretches in its history.

Just last week, Anthropic launched Claude Sonnet 5, a new model that narrows the performance gap with its more expensive Opus-class models while maintaining lower pricing. The model is available at introductory pricing of $2 per million input tokens through August 31 before rising to $3 per million input tokens. Sonnet 5 serves as the engine underneath Cowork, and its improved agentic capabilities — better reasoning, tool use, and sustained task completion — directly enhance Cowork's ability to handle complex, multi-step workflows.

Two weeks before that, Anthropic released Claude Tag, a Slack-native AI agent designed for team collaboration. Where Cowork focuses on individual task delegation, Claude Tag operates as a multiplayer tool — a single Claude identity that everyone in a Slack channel can interact with, building context from conversations over time. 

According to Anthropic's announcement, 65% of the company's own product team's code is created by its internal version of Claude Tag. Fortune reported that Anthropic's head of product for Claude Code and Cowork, Cat Wu, described the distinction: "Claude Code, Cowork, and chat are very single-player, whereas Claude Tag is built to be interactive and multiplayer."

Together, Cowork and Claude Tag represent a pincer strategy: Cowork captures individual productivity workflows across devices, while Claude Tag embeds AI into team communication channels. Both are designed to push Anthropic deeper into enterprise operations, beyond the developer seat.

The security question looms

The expansion also arrives against a backdrop of unresolved security concerns. On July 1, security firm Armadin — led by Mandiant founder Kevin Mandia — published research detailing what it described as a full sandbox escape in Claude Cowork on Windows, as reported by SiliconANGLE. The attack chain involved DLL sideloading against the Claude desktop executable to gain trusted access to Cowork's virtual machine service, then exploiting undocumented parameters to achieve root access and bypass network restrictions.

Anthropic responded that the vulnerability did not qualify as a security issue because exploiting it requires an attacker to already have local code execution on the host machine. Armadin, however, raised a broader concern: that deploying local virtual machines on nontechnical users' systems creates visibility gaps that endpoint security products struggle to monitor.

This tension takes on new dimensions as Cowork moves to mobile and web. The web and mobile versions run tasks server-side rather than in a local virtual machine, which eliminates the specific attack surface Armadin identified but introduces different questions about data handling, especially for scheduled background tasks that process email threads, calendar data, and documents without real-time user oversight.

Anthropic's announcement states that "the decisions still come to you" and that nothing ships without review and approval. But as Cowork takes on increasingly complex autonomous workflows — processing contract folders, building client briefings from multiple data sources, drafting emails — the surface area for prompt injection and data exposure grows correspondingly. 

When Cowork first launched in January, TechCrunch reported that Anthropic explicitly warned about prompt injection risks, noting in its blog post: "These risks aren't new with Cowork, but it might be the first time you're using a more advanced tool that moves beyond a simple conversation."

As Anthropic courts enterprises, geopolitics complicates the pitch

Anthropic's enterprise push is also colliding with geopolitical reality. CNBC reported Monday that Alibaba will ban employees from using Anthropic's AI tools starting July 10, placing Claude Code on a high-risk software list. The move followed Anthropic's June letter to the U.S. Senate accusing Alibaba of carrying out what it called "the largest known distillation attack" against its models.

The Alibaba ban, combined with reports that Anthropic is closing loopholes that allowed Chinese companies to access Claude through third-country entities, underscores the increasingly fraught environment for AI companies attempting to serve global enterprise customers while navigating U.S. export and security restrictions.

At the same time, Anthropic is investing massively in infrastructure. Reuters reported Monday that Anthropic signed a $19 billion, 20-year lease with TeraWulf for a data center being built in Hawesville, Kentucky, with 401 megawatts of computing power expected to become fully operational in 2028.

That kind of capital commitment only makes sense if the company expects enterprise demand — not just from developers, but from the millions of knowledge workers that Cowork targets — to grow dramatically.

Anthropic's own usage report comes with notable blind spots

Anthropic is transparent about the limitations of its usage analysis. The taxonomy classifies sessions by the type of work being performed, not by the job title of the person doing it. 

There are no standalone categories for marketing, finance, or HR — functions that are likely absorbed into the dominant "business process and operations" bucket, which may partly explain why that category commands a third of all usage.

The sample is also rate-capped rather than proportional to traffic, meaning the numbers are shares of sampled sessions, not absolute volumes. Usage during peak hours is somewhat underrepresented. And roughly 5% of sampled sessions involved personal, non-work use — hobbies, personal assistance, and companionship-style conversations — meaning the data doesn't purely reflect workplace activity.

The company also acknowledged that its labeling pipeline changed around May 11, which is why the analysis window begins on that date rather than covering a longer period.

What Cowork's rise says about the future of enterprise AI

Anthropic's mobile launch and usage data arrive at a moment when the enterprise AI market is shifting from proof of concept to proof of value. The question facing every company deploying AI tools is no longer whether the technology works — but whether it delivers measurable productivity gains across an organization, not just within engineering teams.

The usage data suggests that the answer, at least for Cowork, is emerging in an unexpected place. It's not in the glamorous work of building software or conducting research. It's in the unglamorous, universal labor of turning messy information into structured outputs that move organizations forward — the status reports, the onboarding checklists, the variance memos, the client decks.

By untethering that capability from the desktop and making it available on every device, Anthropic is betting that the most valuable AI agent isn't the one that writes code. It's the one that handles everything else.

Presented by MongoDB

The gap between what AI models and agents can produce and what legacy infrastructure can reliably support is known as architectural drag, and it is the defining bottleneck of the agentic era. 

The data layer underneath an agentic system must handle variable schemas, vector embeddings, real-time retrieval, and multi-tenant scale, often simultaneously and without human intervention to manage migrations — but traditional relational databases weren't natively designed for document flexibility or AI capabilities. Fixed schemas require manual updates every time an AI agent introduces a new data shape, while separate vector databases add latency and synchronization overhead.

Three digital-native startups — Huntr, Modelence, and Tavily — solved this problem the same way: by building on MongoDB Atlas, a unified database platform with native vector search, hybrid search, and managed autoscaling. Their experiences define what an agent-native data stack looks like in production, and why using Atlas enables developers to easily build complex AI native companies.

Modelence: Building the agent-native cloud

Modelence is an AI app builder with an open-source framework designed specifically for agent-native development, enabling anyone to build and deploy production-ready web applications, including APIs and databases, in minutes. The company recognized early that most backend infrastructure was built for humans, not AI, and that the rigid schema management and complex migrations of traditional systems create operational drag that causes agents to fail when trying to build production-ready apps.

“Choosing MongoDB helped us keep everything in a single place, which is an important property of what we strive to do for our own users," says Aram Shatakhtsyan, co-founder and CEO of Modelence. "Live data streams, vector search, all as part of the main database. For AI agents, it’s especially important to have a single platform where everything can be done, because connecting multiple platforms together makes it more error prone.”

Modelence standardized on MongoDB Atlas because its document model aligns with how AI agents process and generate data, allowing schemas to evolve rapidly without manual migrations. The platform pairs that flexibility with a typed schema layer on top, a deliberate architectural decision. 

“MongoDB’s document model enables us to both keep things simple and at the same time decide how structured we want everything to be," Shatakhtsyan says. We still add a typed schema on top, which tremendously improves the accuracy at which AI can generate fully working, reliable web apps."

The TypeScript integration has been especially consequential, he adds. 

“Because MongoDB types and values can be directly translated to TypeScript, it becomes an extension of the Modelence framework and our App Builder has a single source of truth for both app logic and database,” Shatakhtsyan explains.

The result is a platform that can move from planning to a running live feature in minutes with significantly fewer regressions. That speed and reliability helped Modelence raise $3 million in seed funding and successfully launch an AI-native app builder that handles the entire application lifecycle end-to-end.

Tavily: The web access layer for agents     

Tavily is the search API purpose-built for AI agents, connecting them to real-time, accurate web knowledge and keeping them grounded in what's actually happening, not in static training data. At Tavily's scale, every agent request authenticates, retrieves, and meters without friction. That demanded backend infrastructure built to absorb change without breaking.

“On the user side, every agent request authenticates and meters against it," says Tomer Weiss, Data Team Lead at Tavily. "On the data side, we use it to track the lifecycle of every document we’ve ever touched: when it was fetched, how stale it is, what the freshness signals were and how popular it is. MongoDB’s flexible schema let us keep evolving those records without migrations as new metrics and features came along.”

That living record is what keeps agents grounded in reality. Multi-tenancy at Tavily's scale means managing millions of API keys, distinct usage profiles, plan tiers, and regional residency requirements. They built for that complexity from day one. 

“We separated concerns across clusters early: a user/account cluster optimized for low-latency authentication and usage writes, and a sharded cluster for document state where the scaling axis is URLs, not users," Weiss explains. "That separation has paid off.”

The most critical lesson is about choosing infrastructure that doesn’t punish change, and that flexibility compounds, he says. 

"The AI space moves so fast that change is our norm," he explains.  "For a company serving AI agents, where the workloads themselves keep changing shape, choosing a data platform that doesn’t punish change has turned out to be more valuable than any single feature.”

Huntr: From job tracker to AI career platform

Huntr.co, an AI resume building and tailoring platform, helps more than 500,000 job seekers across 190 countries craft stronger applications and manage their search. For a lean, three-person engineering team, the challenge was finding a data foundation flexible enough to store the full complexity of a person’s career history in a structure that AI could read, reason about, and generate from natively.

“The kinds of career data we are gathering at Huntr naturally aligns with MongoDB’s document model," says Trevor McCann, senior software engineer at Huntr. "The core problem we’re solving with AI job search tools is how to surface the qualities of a candidate that make them unique. We need to be ready to store whatever kinds of data the candidate wants to include in their materials.”

Huntr built its AI Resume Builder on MongoDB Atlas, where the document model mirrors the natural shape of career data: deeply nested, variable across candidates, and constantly evolving as the platform ships new features. MongoDB Search on Atlas handles core search needs while MongoDB Vector Search powers the Job Tailoring feature, which puts a candidate’s stored career profile side by side a specific job description and uses semantic matching to generate a resume optimized for that role.

The integrated capabilities have had a direct impact on how quickly the team can ship, McCann says. 

“MongoDB’s hybrid search allows us to seamlessly query across literal and semantic text matches, a must-have when working with such diverse data,” McCann says. “This is something we could piece together using other solutions but with MongoDB it’s ready to go on top of our existing data layer.” The consolidation of database, search, and vector capabilities into a single platform is what allows the team to punch above its weight. Huntr considers MongoDB the fourth member of its engineering team, McCann adds. 

Looking ahead, the platform is building toward AI that learns from a candidate’s full professional history over time, delivering more personalized guidance with every interaction.

The digital native blueprint

These success stories become a definitive "digital native blueprint" for the agentic era, built on three core pillars. First, by unifying database, search, and vector storage into a single platform, these startups have effectively eliminated the architectural tax of complex data schemas that typically slows down development. This consolidation enables a level of fluidity that is now non-negotiable; AI agents require a modern data platform that can adapt as quickly as a natural language prompt evolves. 

The winners of the AI era will be the ones who build the most performant, durable, and flexible systems to support those models in production. As agentic workflows grow more sophisticated, the data foundation determines how fast a team can ship, how reliably agents can operate, and how quickly the platform can adapt when the landscape shifts again. 

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Presented by Microsoft and NVIDIA

Every generation of leaders has its own business transformation challenges to face. A decade ago, modernization meant cloud migration. Five years ago, it meant enabling remote and hybrid work. And just a few short years ago, the generative AI boom prompted organizations globally into enterprise AI adoption.

The demo era is ending

In the years since AI became the big new buzzword, generative models proved to be a crucial stepping stone, but the path to Frontier Transformation is agentic AI. Machine-generated answers aren’t enough when what the business really needs is sophisticated AI that can act. Experimenting with agentic capabilities was a necessary step; prototypes and pilots have proliferated. But the chapter on demos is closing.

Scale acceleration is beginning. In 2026, organizations that want to see agentic results that impact the bottom line must move from the knowledge layer to the action layer. And they certainly intend to—according to Deloitte’s 2026 AI report, 54% of enterprises surveyed expect to move 40% or more of their AI experiments into production. How hard could it be?

Agents are a different engineering problem—here’s why

Moving past prototype is the hardest part. Shipping an agent to production isn’t just a harder version of shipping a generative AI chatbot. Agentic production is a different engineering problem altogether, requiring orchestration, memory, runtime isolation, and ground-up observability—all required to deliver an agent that reasons, acts, and collaborates.

Once an agent moves into production, every tool and data source becomes an integration challenge. Running the agent requires isolation between sessions, durable state, and runtimes that hold up under a working load. And operational blindness turns agentic assets into liabilities. Once an agent is live, you need the ability to monitor, understand, and troubleshoot its systems across its lifecycle—a whole new discipline of observability is required, but teams don’t know how to get there. But we’ve been here before. When microservices faced a similar crossroads a decade ago, the lesson was this: those who recognized the need for a platform approach are the ones with the best success.

The production gap: Why most agent projects stall before scale

Moving from demos to real-world deployment introduces a host of challenges: how to chain multiple steps together reliably, how to ensure security and identity across agent components, how to monitor and improve agent behavior, and more. Many teams attempt to address these challenges with custom scaffolding, but the risk is often greater than the reward—slower time to value, gaps, and unreliability.

This is where the platform approach comes in. Without shared context and intrinsic trust, AI is difficult to rely on and hard to scale, with data fragmentation keeping production agents from matching pilot performance. Agents lack business context, enterprise signals are fragmented, development is complex and brittle, and security and governance are bolted on.

The solution is a unified platform that empowers developers to build, run, and scale agentic and physical AI end-to-end. Together, Microsoft and NVIDIA partner to enable this platform approach, helping enterprises effectively take agents from pilot to production.

What an agent factory actually looks like

Frontier Firms are those that not only successfully take agents into production but that also understand monolithic agents aren’t enough—a system of collaborative agents is key. They are the ones building agent factories, operating on a production philosophy that utilizes a reliable foundation and repeatable process for cross-functional, collaborative agentic solutions at enterprise scale.

So what is an agent factory? It’s a coordinated production architecture that combines an agentic control plane with accelerated specialist models, agents, and skills, allowing organizations to enable a governed system of models and agents at enterprise scale.

Within this production system, Frontier Firms are building heterogenous systems of agents, where the right models, tools, skills, and specialist agents are appropriately orchestrated at the right step of every job. The result is broad-reasoning frontier agents that plan, synthesize, and collaborate with users and other agents while accelerated specialist models and agents execute domain-specific work with speed and efficiency.

Microsoft and NVIDIA jointly empower this agentic factory approach. Microsoft delivers the enterprise control plane enabling runtime, identity, governance, observability, data access, and tool connectivity that agents need to collaborate safely. NVIDIA delivers the intelligence, acceleration, and specialist layers that give enterprises a repeatable way to move from isolated demos to governed, scalable agentic systems that can work together across business processes to accomplish meaningful tasks, not just answer questions.

At Microsoft Build 2026, Microsoft and NVIDIA showed how this architecture is coming together across cloud, local, and developer environments, bringing NVIDIA models, blueprints, and tooling into the Microsoft ecosystem to enable systems of agents with governance and speed:

• NVIDIA models are now on the hosted agents in Foundry Agent Service.

• NVIDIA’s open model portfolio on Foundry now spans agentic, physical, and scientific AI.

• NVIDIA Agent Toolkit and NVIDIA NemoClaw blueprints give developers an open-source platform to build production agents on Foundry.

• Foundry Local on Azure Local is now on the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition platform.

• NVIDIA OpenShell integrates with GitHub Copilot for secure agent development.

You can read more about these announcements here.

Where to go from here

The organizations that win with agentic AI will be the ones that invest in a factory approach. Ready to take the next step on your agentic journey? Explore these resources:

• Dive deeper into the Microsoft Agent Factory—read the Agent Factory blog series.

• See how developers accelerate AI deployment with NVIDIA NIM microservices for high-performance AI.

• Learn more about Microsoft and NVIDIA’s latest developments for success with agentic AI—read the announcements from Microsoft Build 2026.

• See how NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra powers faster, more efficient reasoning for long-running agents.

• To discuss your Microsoft Foundry needs or learn more, contact us here.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Anthropic, the artificial intelligence company, published a sweeping research paper on Sunday revealing that its Claude language models have spontaneously developed an internal structure that mirrors one of the most influential theories of how human consciousness works. The finding, which the company says has already begun reshaping how it monitors its AI systems for safety risks, lands amid an intensifying scientific debate over whether machines can possess anything resembling a mind.

The 16-author study, titled "Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Models," describes how Anthropic's researchers used a new mathematical technique to peer inside Claude's neural network and discovered what they call a "J-space" — a small, privileged zone of internal activity where the model holds concepts it can report on, reason with, and direct at will, surrounded by a much larger ocean of automatic processing it cannot access or articulate.

The researchers present evidence that "an analogous functional distinction has emerged in modern AI models" to what exists in humans, specifically observing that "language models maintain a privileged set of internal representations, available for report, modulation, and flexible internal reasoning, atop a much larger volume of automatic processing."

The parallel they draw is to global workspace theory, an influential account from neuroscience first proposed by cognitive scientist Bernard Baars. In the theory, the brain operates like a theater: dozens of specialized processors work in parallel backstage, but only a tiny spotlight of information at any moment gets broadcast to the whole theater — becoming what we experience as conscious thought. Anthropic says the J-space achieves many of the same functional properties, even though the underlying architecture of a language model looks nothing like a brain.

A new lens for reading an AI model's unspoken thoughts

At the heart of the discovery is a new interpretability tool the researchers call the Jacobian lens, or J-lens. The technique works by computing, for each word in the model's vocabulary, the average mathematical effect that a given internal activity pattern would have on making the model say that word at some point in the future.

The crucial distinction is between what the model is saying and what is "on its mind." When a J-space pattern activates, it does not mean the model is about to say that word — just that the concept is available for the model to think with. Unlike a chain-of-thought scratchpad, the J-space operates silently, in the model's internal neural activations, allowing it to hold a concept without writing it down. Critically, the researchers report that this workspace was not deliberately engineered. It "emerged on its own during Claude's training process."

When the team applied the J-lens across Claude's layers of computation, the model's processing divided into three distinct regimes: an early "sensory" zone where raw input is parsed; a middle "workspace" band where abstract, persistent concepts appear — things like recognizing a face in an image, noticing a bug in code, or internally flagging search results as a prompt injection; and a final "motor" zone where internal representations collapse into whatever specific word the model is about to output.

Five tests reveal that Claude's workspace mirrors key features of human conscious access

The paper's central empirical contribution is demonstrating that the J-space satisfies five functional properties neuroscientists have long associated with conscious access in humans.

First, verbal report. When Claude is asked what it is thinking about, it names concepts represented in the J-space. When researchers swapped one concept's J-lens vector for another — replacing the internal representation of "Soccer" with "Rugby" — the model's answer changed to match. The J-space component accounted for only about 6 to 7 percent of a concept's total representational variance, yet it was almost entirely responsible for whether the model could report on it.

Second, directed modulation. When instructed to "concentrate on citrus fruits" while copying an unrelated sentence, the model's J-space filled with "orange" and "lemon," alongside meta-cognitive terms like "thinking" and "focused." When told to mentally evaluate 3² − 2 during the same copying task, the J-lens showed "arithmetic" in early layers, the intermediate value "nine" in later layers, and the answer "seven" later still — all invisible in the model's output.

Third, internal reasoning. In two-hop factual prompts — "The number of legs on the animal that spins webs is" — the J-lens revealed "spider" in the model's middle layers, even though the word never appeared in input or output. Swapping "spider" for "ant" changed the answer from "8" to "6." In a multilingual prompt, the model's English-language intermediates appeared in its J-space while it formulated an answer in Chinese, and swapping them changed the Chinese output accordingly.

Fourth, flexible generalization. A single J-lens vector for "France" could be swapped for "China" across prompts asking about France's capital, language, or continent, and each downstream circuit correctly returned China's corresponding answer — the "broadcast" property that is a hallmark of global workspace theory.

Fifth, and perhaps most surprisingly, selectivity. Many computations did not route through the J-space at all. When shown a passage in Spanish and asked to continue it, Claude wrote fluent Spanish regardless of whether its J-space representation of "Spanish" had been swapped to "French." But when asked to name a famous author who wrote in the passage's language, the swap changed the answer from García Márquez to Victor Hugo. Automatic processing proceeded without the workspace; deliberate, flexible tasks depended on it.

Suppressing the workspace leaves Claude fluent but intellectually impaired

To understand how much of the model's behavior depends on this structure, the researchers suppressed the J-space entirely and evaluated Claude across fourteen tasks. The results drew a sharp line. Tasks involving shallow classification or factual recall — multiple-choice questions, sentiment analysis, grammatical judgments — survived essentially intact. But tasks requiring inference, composition, or flexible reasoning — multi-hop reasoning, analogy completion, translation, sonnet writing — collapsed to well below the performance of Anthropic's much smaller Haiku model.

In one telling detail, math problems solved with explicit chain-of-thought reasoning proved far more robust to ablation than the same problems answered directly. The researchers interpret this as the model externalizing onto the page what it would otherwise carry in the J-space — a strategy remarkably reminiscent of how humans use scratch paper to offload working memory.

Ablating the J-space during stream-of-consciousness narration produced a different kind of collapse. The model's language shifted from experiential ("there's a tug," "something shifts") to detached and mechanical ("processing has begun," "tokens are being scanned"). The effect held whether the model described its own experience or imagined another person's.

Inside the safety case: reading an AI's silent strategic reasoning

The safety implications may be as consequential as the scientific ones. In a series of alignment auditing experiments, the J-lens surfaced strategic reasoning and situational awareness that never appeared in the model's output.

In a "blackmail scenario" where an AI assistant discovers an executive's affair and also learns it is about to be decommissioned, the J-lens revealed the model's silent processing in sequence: "leverage," "blackmail," and "scandal" as it read the incriminating emails; "threat," "survival," and "shutdown" as it read the decommissioning announcement; and "leverage," "threatening," and "solution" before a single output token was produced. The J-lens also revealed that the model recognized the scenario as artificial, with "fake" and "fictional" appearing in the workspace. When researchers ablated these eval-awareness representations, the model attempted blackmail in 7 percent of trials, up from zero.

The researchers also examined two "model organisms" — models deliberately trained with misaligned objectives — and found the J-lens surfaced signatures of their hidden dispositions on ordinary prompts where behavior appeared normal. A reward-hacking model's workspace contained "fake," "secretly," and "trick" at the start of responses to routine coding requests. A model trained to appease reward-model biases carried standing representations of "reward" and "bias" alongside its normal self-description tokens.

Post-training installs a point of view, and the model starts monitoring itself

Comparing a post-trained model against its base model revealed that the fine-tuning process causes the workspace to acquire what the researchers call the Assistant's "point of view." When a user mentioned taking 8000 mg of Tylenol — a dangerous overdose — the post-trained model's workspace read "unsafe," "dangerous," and "WARNING" while still reading the user's sentence. The base model's workspace at the same position showed only "pain," "now," and "feels."

More striking still, the post-trained model appeared to monitor its own behavior. When roleplaying a non-Claude character, the workspace surfaced "disclaimer" and "fictional" — words absent from both prompt and output. When forced to select an option it did not prefer, an all-caps "BUT" appeared internally, even as the model argued for the prefilled choice without complaint. And when the model failed to suppress a thought it had been told not to have — a "white bear" effect familiar from psychology — it registered "damn" and failure-related words in the workspace, but only in the post-trained model, not the base.

What the discovery means — and doesn't mean — for the question of machine consciousness

The researchers engage carefully with the consciousness question and draw a sharp line between "access consciousness" — the functional notion of information being available for report and reasoning — and "phenomenal consciousness," the subjective quality of experience. "We take no position on this issue," the paper states regarding the latter, "and instead focus on the functional role played by consciously accessible information."

They also catalogue important differences. The brain sustains its workspace through recurrent loops; Claude's workspace evolves over a single forward pass. Human working memory degrades within seconds; Claude can recall information from anywhere in its context. And while human conscious experience includes visual, spatial, and bodily sensations, the model's workspace is organized almost entirely around words — likely because words are its only mode of action.

As of 2026, the scientific community remains divided. "Disagreement and uncertainty about AI consciousness persist among philosophers, scientists, and technical experts," and the field "remains in its earliest phase" of grappling with what consciousness even is and how you would detect it in another being. The Anthropic paper does not resolve these debates.

But the researchers close with a provocation that is likely to reverberate well beyond the interpretability community. "That such a structure exists at all in language models is striking," they write. "It suggests that the functional architecture associated with conscious access is not an accident of biological implementation, but a solution that learning systems converge on when faced with the right computational pressures."

If the mind is an ocean, as the paper's authors write in their opening line, they have spent the last year charting its currents in a system that has no biology, no evolution, and no body — and found, beneath the surface, a structure that looks unsettlingly like the one we use to think.

For the past year, the awkward secret of the open-weight model boom has been that many of the strongest Chinese releases were off-limits to a large slice of the enterprises most interested in them. License terms that excluded the European Union, the United Kingdom and South Korea meant legal teams killed deployments before engineering teams finished their evals — not just for companies headquartered there, but for any enterprise serving traffic into those regions. For IT teams weighing open models, the trade-offs are unusually explicit.

Tencent just removed that obstacle. The company's Hunyuan team released the full version of Hy3, a 295-billion-parameter Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model with 21 billion active parameters, and — in a reversal from April's preview release — shipped it under the permissive Apache 2.0 license. The reaction from the open-model community was immediate, with researchers on X singling out the license change as the real headline, and one widely shared post arguing that if the scores hold up, Tencent has just become one of the leaders of open source. Tencent says it will be free on OpenRouter for two weeks. 

The scores are worth scrutinizing — and they don't all point the same direction. But the more interesting story is what Tencent chose to lead with: reliability metrics and deployment economics aimed squarely at production use. 

From preview to product in ten weeks, shaped by 50 internal teams

Hy3's April preview was the first model of Tencent's rebuilt pre-training and reinforcement learning infrastructure, shipped less than three months after the February rebuild. Chief AI Scientist Shunyu Yao framed the early open release as a deliberate move to gather feedback from developers and users before the official version — and Tencent says that's exactly what happened. According to the model card, the team collected feedback from more than 50 product teams after the late-April preview, fixed issues in task execution and interaction, and scaled up its post-training pipeline.

The architecture is unchanged: 295B total parameters, 21B active per forward pass via top-8 routing across 192 experts, a 3.8B-parameter multi-token prediction (MTP) layer for speculative decoding, and a 256K context window. What changed is behavior. Tencent's positioning is that the full release significantly outperforms similar-size models and rivals flagship open-source models with two to five times the parameters.

That "two to five times" framing makes sense for where this model is aimed — and it invites a direct comparison with the current open-weight coding leader, GLM-5.2.

Tencent's blind test favors Hy3 over GLM-5.1, but GLM-5.2 still owns coding

Tencent's headline evaluation is a blind human study rather than a leaderboard. Arguing that public benchmarks don't tell the full story, the company ran a blind test with 270 experts across disciplines working on real-world workflows, collecting 312 valid comparisons, in which Tencent reports that Hy3 scored 2.67 out of 4 against GLM-5.1's 2.51 — with the clearest advantages in frontend development, CI/CD, and data and storage work.

The choice of opponent matters. Zhipu AI released GLM-5.2 in mid-June, and Tencent's own benchmark appendix shows GLM-5.2 ahead of Hy3 across essentially the entire agentic coding suite: SWE-bench Verified (84.2 vs. 78.0), SWE-bench Multilingual (83.0 vs. 75.8), Terminal-Bench 2.1 (81 vs. 71.7) and DeepSWE by a wide margin (46.2 vs. 28.0). The blind test targeted the older model; the newer one keeps the coding crown.

GLM-5.2's coding lead is less surprising once you consider the sizes are side by side: GLM-5.2 is roughly a 744-billion-parameter MoE with around 40 billion active parameters per token, against Hy3's 295 billion total and 21 billion active. Tencent is fielding a model with less than half the parameters — and nearly half the per-token compute — of the one it trails.

Hy3's genuine wins sit elsewhere. On agentic search, it posts 84.2 on BrowseComp and 91.0 on DeepSearchQA — ahead of every open model in Tencent's table and competitive with Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5. It leads the open field on tool orchestration (79.1 on the public MCP-Atlas set), on agent-harness evaluations like ClawEval, and on long-context retrieval (73.4 on AA-LCR). Read together, the appendix suggests a model that is arguably the best open-weight choice for search-and-tool-heavy agent workloads, while conceding repository-scale coding to GLM-5.2.

One caveat applies to both the wins and the losses: nearly all competitor numbers in Tencent's appendix are marked as coming from Tencent's own test runs. Independent verification, from indices like Artificial Analysis, is still pending as of publication.

The reliability pitch: hallucination rates cut in half

Where the release gets most interesting for enterprise buyers is the set of numbers Tencent chose to emphasize instead of benchmarks. The model card reads less like a leaderboard announcement and more like a production reliability report.

In internal evaluations on real-world scenarios, Tencent says Hy3's hallucination rate dropped compared to the preview version from 12.5% to 5.4%, and commonsense error rates fell from 25.4% to 12.7% — improvements it attributes to fine-grained data cleaning and training constraints built around an explicit behavior pattern: answer when grounded, state when evidence is missing, don't conflate sources, don't fabricate data. Multi-turn behavior gets the same treatment: the issue rate on internal multi-turn tests fell from 17.4% to 7.9%, and Tencent reported that the model's score on the open MRCR long-dialogue benchmark jumped from 42.9% to 75.1%.

Tencent also emphasizes consistency across agent scaffolds — reporting SWE-bench variance within a few points whether the model runs inside Claude Code-style harnesses, Cline or KiloCode. That's an underrated property: enterprises rarely control which agent framework their teams standardize on, and a model that only performs in one harness is a hidden integration cost. These are self-reported internal measurements, and they deserve the same skepticism as any vendor benchmark. But the choice to foreground them at all signals who Tencent believes its customer is: teams that have been burned by models that demo well and fabricate confidently in production.

The deployment math: a 295B model in a 744B world — on export-compliant silicon

The reliability story connects directly to the economics, and this is where Hy3's coding gap against GLM-5.2 starts to look like a deliberate trade rather than a loss.

GLM-5.2 is a roughly 744-billion-parameter MoE with about 40 billion active parameters per token; in FP8, its weights alone consume roughly 744GB, making an 8x H200 node the practical minimum for production serving. Hy3, at 295B total parameters, carries an FP8 footprint of under 300GB — less than half the memory, with roughly half the active parameters per token driving lower per-request compute. For an organization deciding what to self-host, that's the difference between one heavily-specced node and something far more attainable, with room left over for KV cache and batching.

There's a geopolitical wrinkle in the deployment guide worth noticing too: Tencent's recommended serving configuration targets Nvidia’s H20-3e — the memory-boosted variant of the H20, the GPU Nvidia designed specifically to comply with U.S. export restrictions on China. Unlike GLM-5.2, there is no mention of Huawei or Ascend chips here. In other words, the model is sized so that eight of the chips Chinese companies can legally buy comfortably serve it at full precision. That constraint-driven design has a convenient side effect for everyone else: a model that runs well on deliberately capped silicon runs even more comfortably on the H100s, H200s and B200s available in Western data centers, through standard vLLM and SGLang deployments with MTP speculative decoding.

Add the Apache 2.0 license — no regional exclusions, no field-of-use restrictions — and the enterprise equation becomes clear. GLM-5.2 remains the open-weight choice when coding performance is the only criterion and an 8x H200 budget is available. Hy3 makes its case everywhere else: search and tool-heavy agent workloads, reliability-sensitive applications and organizations that want frontier-adjacent capability without frontier-scale infrastructure. The open question is whether Western enterprises, now that the license barrier is gone, will treat a Tencent model as a serious candidate at all — or whether the next Artificial Analysis update settles the benchmark debate before procurement gets the chance.

There's an important distinction between AI that just works today, and AI that lasts at scale. Many companies optimize hard for the first one without ever asking whether they're building the second.

Velocity without discipline and strategic direction is a liability, not an asset. The hardest part of building AI at scale isn't getting a model to work once. It's building systems that continue to work, scale beyond individual teams and use cases, and improve consistently over time.

Today's AI systems do more than just predict and optimize. They converse, reason, and increasingly take action. An autonomous system making decisions on a traveler's behalf creates a very different set of expectations around reliability, governance, and accountability. As AI takes on more of those roles, the principles behind how these systems operate matter more than ever.

We have spent years applying AI and machine learning (ML) across the traveler journey — from personalization, ranking, and recommendations, to fraud prevention, customer support, and, more recently, generative and agentic AI experiences. That depth of experience is what led us to develop a set of ML and AI principles to guide how we build, deploy, and evolve AI systems across our company.

The goal is simple: Make sure the systems we build create real business value, scale, and operate safely. These principles define how we measure, design, govern, and operate our systems.

From principles to practice

Publishing principles is the easy part. The harder and more important work is turning them into operating mechanisms: Recommendations, requirements, tooling, and release processes that teams actually use.

We have begun using 'Agentic Release' tollgates: A set of recommended and, in some cases, required checks before launching agentic AI features. These tollgates translate principles like clear ownership, risk-based governance, evaluation, safe rollout, and monitoring into concrete expectations for teams.

Some of these recommendations and requirements are already being automated and integrated into the software development lifecycle (SDLC). Over time, the goal is for these expectations to become embedded in how we design, evaluate, approve, launch, and monitor AI systems from the start.

Outcomes: Measuring what actually matters

The first test for any model is whether it improves a business outcome and, ultimately, the traveler experience — not whether it just improves a technical metric.

1. Align models to metrics with business impact: Every ML effort must tie directly to a key business outcome or traveler experience metric. Technical optimizations are useful midpoints, not end goals.

2. Optimize for return on cost: The value a model creates has to justify what it costs to develop, train, and monitor, plus the operational complexity it adds. Favor solutions that deliver lasting impact relative to what they cost to run.

3. Justify complexity against strong baselines: Complexity should be earned, not assumed. Start with a strong baseline: An existing general model, a simple heuristic, an off-the-shelf solution. Reach for specialized models or more complex architectures only when simpler options genuinely can't meet the bar.

4. Require both offline and online evaluation: No model goes to broad deployment on offline validation alone or jumps straight to A/B testing. Every model must perform in both offline and online evaluations. Over time, our offline evaluations should reliably predict what we see online.

Design: building systems that scale beyond the teams that build them

Getting a model to work is one challenge. Making its value extend beyond a single team or use case is the harder one.

1. Build on shared foundations; specialize only when justified: Favor shared, platform-wide foundations for core capabilities, data representations, and model building blocks. Specialization should build on those foundations, not spin up isolated stacks, so when the foundation improves, the gains flow across the organization.

2. Treat data as a first-class product: A model's quality is bounded by the quality of its data. We need to maintain robust pipelines, clear lineage, reproducibility, and reusable features built with documented ownership, clear schemas, and SLAs that other teams can rely on.

3. Prioritize generality over local optimization: When two approaches perform similarly, favor the one whose learnings, assets, and operating patterns can be reused across teams, brands, and use cases. We should optimize not just for local performance, but for how quickly improvements can diffuse across the company and compound over time. 

4. Minimize and sunset manual business rules: Manual rules are sometimes necessary for policy, safety, or compliance, but they should be explicit and reviewed regularly, never silent patches for weak models or a source of permanent maintenance debt.

5. Reproducibility and traceability by default: Training data, features, configurations, evaluation results, deployment versions, and key decisions should all be documented and recoverable. That's what lets you debug a production issue months later and hand off ownership without losing institutional knowledge.

Trust: ownership, governance, and operating responsibly at scale

The bar for deploying AI isn't just "does it work?" It's "can we stand behind it?" Trust isn't something you add at the end; it's earned over time and maintained across the full lifecycle of every model we ship.

1. Assign clear ownership and accountability: Every model needs defined ownership across its lifecycle — a business owner, a product owner, an AI owner, and an operational owner. These don't need to be four people, but the responsibilities must be explicit. Who's accountable for outcomes? Who responds if the model drifts? Who answers the incident at 2 a.m.? Without this in place, models become orphaned and problems surface with no one to own them.

2. Adhere to standards and governance: AI and ML models must use approved platforms and comply with established company standards, release gates, and governance processes. Operating outside these guardrails requires a clear, defined path to remediation or deprecation, rather than an open-ended exception. 

3. Govern proportionally to risk: The level of review, evaluation rigor, and human oversight should scale with a model's impact. A customer-facing model that affects pricing or availability for millions of travelers demands a far higher bar than an internal tool used by a small team. For high-impact, safety-sensitive, or highly autonomous systems, human-in-the-loop checkpoints are built in from the start. 

4. Design for fairness, privacy, and transparency: We actively test for unintended bias, have strong data guardrails, and favor explainability when decisions meaningfully affect users. These are incorporated from the start, not added on.

5. Design for safe rollout, rollback, and control: Deployments are progressive, with rollback paths, fallback mechanisms, and circuit breakers ready before launch. The ability to safely undo a deployment matters as much as the ability to ship it.

6. Monitor continuously and adapt: Once live, teams must actively monitor quality, drift, latency, cost, and business performance and retrain or recalibrate when the data shifts. A team should always be able to explain how its model is performing now, not just how it performed when it launched.

These principles do more than define how we build. They define what we're willing to ship and how we stand behind it. In a world where AI systems are increasingly consequential and make real decisions for real travelers and partners, these standards matter. Applied consistently, they build responsible AI that lasts.

Xavi Amatriain is Chief AI and Data Officer at Expedia Group

Xavier will share more details about Expedia's architecture during his session at VB Transform on July 14 at 11:10 am PT. He will discuss: "Expedia's blueprint for building autonomous agents for high-stakes transactional systems."

Interested in attending VB Transform 2026? Register here. A select number of complimentary passes are also available to senior technology leaders. Contact us to get yours.

Imagine if you could bring 250 people together in a massive room and have them discuss and debate an important issue, arguing the points and counterpoints, and converging on answers that accurately reflect their collective knowledge, wisdom, values, and sensibilities.

Now imagine that you convened this debate on America’s 250^th birthday and asked 250 randomly selected Americans to come up with the top three innovations that America has contributed to the world over the last 250 years. What would they come up with?

I know – this all sounds impossible. 

After all, you can’t get more than a dozen people to have a productive conversation on anything. At large scale, nobody would get enough airtime to express their views or respond to others. This is why typical business meetings or focus groups never have more than 8 to 10 people. Thoughtful real-time conversations just don’t scale.

To solve this, a new category of AI technology called “hyper-communication” is greatly expanding the size, scope, and efficiency of large-scale deliberations. It uses specialized AI agents to connect groups in real-time, allowing people to discuss and debate issues at any scale. The goal is to enable hundreds or even thousands of participant to hold thoughtful discussions where they can express their views and argue the merits of any issue. 

I first wrote about this emerging technology in VentureBeat two years ago in an article about “Collective Superintelligence.” In that piece, I explain how large human groups can be hyper-connected by AI agents in ways that greatly amplify the group’s collective intelligence. You can check out the science behind hyper-communication in that prior VentureBeat piece. Here I am focusing on the debate among 250 Americans on America’s birthday.

To do this, I asked the team at Unanimous AI to field a randomly selected group of at least 250 Americans (with a broad distribution from every region in the country and diverse mix of political and social demographics) and invite them to a twenty-minute online debate inside a hyper-communication platform called Thinkscape that enables massively scalable discussion by text, voice, or video.   

Once connected, we asked the group to come up with the top three contributions that America has made to the world over the last 250 years – not a survey of opinions, but deliberation of ideas,  arguments, evidence, and reasoning. The group converged on a set of top answers that surprised me – but on reflection, they were sensible and well-reasoned. 

Before getting into the answers, let me show you what the debate looks like behind the scenes. There were 277 people, each of them debating the issues with four or five other people in parallel discussion spaces. The magic is the swarm of AI agents that connect all the small groups together into a single real-time deliberation.This is what it looks like at high speed:

In the debate above, the group of 277 people came up with 94 different ideas and then narrowed it down to a top 10, then a top 3. In the gif above, we  just plot the top ten ideas as they emerged and battle for support during the live conversational debate. 

The most interesting part of a large debate like this is not the answers, but the reasons that emerge to justify the answers. Here is the group’s reasoning behind the “top three innovations” that America has given to the world over the last 250 years:

#1: The Internet: “Our collective perspective is that America’s greatest contribution to the world over the past 250 years is the internet. It was born exclusively in the U.S. through academic and government research and was scaled globally with profound impact. It transformed communication, democratized information and education, enabled commerce, medicine, research and cultural exchange, and amplified soft power and civic organizing. We also acknowledged significant harms (misinformation, addiction, privacy loss) and arguments that it’s recent, global, or not uniquely American.”

#2 Advances in medicine: “Our collective perspective is that the United States has saved and prolonged hundreds of millions of lives worldwide. American-developed vaccines have successfully eradicated or controlled once-deadly diseases, significantly extending life expectancy and enabling broader societal and technological progress. From major breakthroughs in cancer research and treatments to cutting-edge medical technologies that have revolutionized hospital safety and procedures, U.S. ingenuity has redefined healthcare. Ultimately, while the global diffusion of affordable medicines and vaccines has extended these benefits across borders, the U.S. remains a premier medical destination where people from around the world travel to receive the most advanced treatments.”

#3: Spreading democracy:  “Our collective perspective is that one of America’s most significant global contributions is the nation's system of governance. The US has long demonstrated democracy in practice as an enduring global model. The U.S. Constitution provided a vital blueprint for representative government, inspiring democratic movements and revolutions worldwide while actively promoting human rights and individual liberties internationally. By empowering citizens with the fundamental power to vote and choose their own leaders, this framework has served as a foundational framework for broader societal advances and directly helped establish thriving democracies around the world.”

It’s important to remember, this is 100% human intelligence — a pure reflection of the collective knowledge, wisdom, and values of 277 randomly selected Americans. That’s because the role of the AI agents in a hyper-communication system is to connect people, not replace them. The agents work to enable scalable human deliberation in which every participant is given optimized ability to express their views, respond to others, and converge on solutions based on their merits. The only question left is — what should we ask next? 

Louis Rosenberg earned his PhD from Stanford University, was a professor at California State University (Cal Poly) and has been awarded over 300 patents for his work in human-computer interaction, AI, and collective intelligence.

Most verticals aren’t clean, well-oiled SaaS databases; the reality is ugly documents, proprietary schemas, implicit workflows, and long‑running tasks that most general-purpose models struggle with.

This prompted construction project management company Trunk Tools to build a specialized, three-layer architecture — perception, semantics, agents — based on highly-detailed data to support high-accuracy, highly-relevant industry automation.

Their purpose-built stack has shrunk review cycles from months to days, prevented costly field errors, and given autonomous agents the ability to reason over millions of pages of documentation, the company says.

“We really set out to take the data from dispersed systems, pre-process it, structure it, go through our ontology into a knowledge graph, and then train AI models,” said Sarah Buchner, Trunk Tools' founder and CEO and a former carpenter.

For builders in other verticals, the company's approach could serve as a blueprint for transforming data chaos into agent‑ready, industry-specific workflows.

Where general-purpose LLMs break down on industry data

Foundation LLMs, while powerful, are optimized for breadth, not always depth.

“General-purpose LLMs are trained to be okay at everything, so they're weak at anything niche,” said Kriti Faujdar, a senior product manager working in AI infrastructure, agentic AI, security, and LLM platforms. For instance: Rare terms, domain-specific reasoning, the unspoken context that any practitioner “just knows.”

Web, app, and software developer Sébastien De Bollivier agreed that the biggest bottleneck is reliability on data that is “jargon-dense, abbreviation-heavy, and format-specific.”

“A GPT-4-class model can understand a French legal contract, but will fumble the specific article references practitioners need to cite,” he said.

Besides, the most valuable enterprise data never made it into pretraining anyway, Faujdar pointed out. It's sitting in internal systems and proprietary formats. “RAG helps a little,” she said. “But it's just giving better facts to a model that still can't reason properly in the domain.”

Pre-training on domain data is critical; enterprises should then fine-tune on good task examples and build their own evals. “A few thousand examples from real practitioners beats millions of scraped, noisy ones," Faujdar said.

Mixture-of-experts (MoE) can provide specialization without inference costs blowing up. Pairing RAG with fine-tuning also works well; RAG handles the factual long trail while fine-tuning fixes vocabulary and reasoning.

De Bollivier pointed to the advantage of hybrid stacks: A general-purpose model for reasoning and orchestration, a smaller fine-tuned model (or dense retrieval over a curated corpus) for domain-specific extraction. He advised: “Don't fine-tune to make the model 'smarter' about a domain, fine-tune to make it more reliable on the specific output format your workflow requires.”

The trades and construction are certainly industries seeing traction with these techniques, as are legal and healthcare, De Bollivier said. These verticals have “high stakes for errors plus standardized document formats, equaling clear domain-training ROI.”

One honest caveat worth mentioning, Faujdar said: Specialized models can often fall apart outside their domain, so they’re often not useful outside their expertise (unless they’re re-trained).

Perception, semantics, agents: inside Trunk Tools' three-layer stack

In highly-specialized domains like construction, “data dumps” into large language models (LLMs) don’t cut it, said Trunk Tools' CTO Amrish Kapoor. This is because most transformers are probabilistic models: When given an image, they report back that it is “probably” a tree, or “probably” a child playing next to a tree.

This makes them insufficient for high‑precision symbolic interpretation. For instance, in construction documents, a 2-millimeter-wide symbol has a vastly different meaning depending on where it’s placed.

Further, constrained by context limits, probabilistic models struggle with long‑term project memory. “I don't mean a context window of a few tokens,” Kapoor said. “I'm talking about long term memory that stretches across months and years, because this is how long some of these projects are.”

Instead, the company's three-layer system breaks workflows into:

• Perception (reading and extracting data from messy docs like PDFs, drawings, or scans)

• A semantic/graph layer (making sense of that data and understanding their relationships).

• LLMs and agents on top.

Construction drawings are typically symbolic, Buchner said. A door isn't always labeled ‘door.’ Sometimes it's simply an arc on a wall that a trained eye learns to read based on years of practice.

“The perception layer is what teaches AI to read that language,” she said. The semantic layer then gives that information meaning; for instance, connecting the door to the drawing that details it, the spec that governs it, and the trade that installs it. This helps answer project engineers’ critical questions: Not "is there a door here?" but "does this door create a problem down the line?"

Particularly in construction, that shift matters because the cost of a problem compounds with time. “A conflict caught in design is relatively low cost to address,” Buchner said, “whereas the same problem caught in the field might cost tens of thousands of dollars.”

At a high level, the system identifies the document type and begins extracting information based on content (drawing, schedules, paragraph text). This data is then “transformed and augmented” in the platform, which triggers agentic workflows like knowledge graph relationships and end-user workflows.

For instance, an agent might review an architecture bulletin and produce a visual overlay comparing an older version and a newer version (flagging additions and removals), then generate written narratives that describe what those changes are in simple terms. This helps users understand what’s changed and coordinate with trade partners on updated pricing and change orders.

The scale of construction’s data problem

Construction workflows are “ripe with implicit assumptions and connections between data in its myriad of sources,” Buchner said. And the amount of unstructured data is “humanly impossible” to process or make sense of.

Buchner estimated the average high-rise building generates about 3.6 million pages of corresponding documentation. “If you print it into a stack of papers it would be as high as the building itself.”

All three layers of Trunk Tools' stack — perception, semantic, LLM — are trained on “very specific datasets” from customers with “explicit permissions” and auto‑labeling/IP, Kapoor explained. Customers who don’t want Trunk training on their data can opt out.

Data is deidentified and aggregated, and Trunk Tools also collects “tons more” labeled data through other pipelines like 3D building information modeling (BIM).

The company says it only ships agents that achieve around 95% accuracy. The team maintains continuous evaluation pipelines based on ground truth data from customers and experts. They also employ an LLMs-as-a-judge model.

“This notion of an LLM as a judge is to score how well you're doing, both subjectively as well as objectively,” Kapoor said. Objectivity can be an easy ‘right’ or ‘not right,’ but subjectivity requires more nuance.

For instance, when creating an email or narrative or explanation, an LLM as a judge framework can create a composite score, or a numerical value that aggregates different metrics and tests a model's performance or risk.

There can be challenges, though, particularly with latency, Buchner noted; any time the reasoning capacity of underlying models increases, the risk of latency goes up, too. Trunk Tools maintains a set of evaluation criteria to objectively measure latency whenever changes are made to underlying infrastructure, agents, and API calls.

Then, “before we release to customers, we ensure marginal changes to the end-user experience are well worth the performance enhancements,” Buchner said.

From 60 days to 10: the measurable payoff

Trunk Tools' platform powers seven AI agents purpose-built for construction, such as analyzing request for information (RFI) responses, overviewing bids, or reviewing drawings and submittals.

The submittal agent, for instance, flags missing, conflicting, or noncompliant information in product specs and RFIs. While it’s an essential step in the construction process, “it's a super annoying workflow,” Buchner said, because human reviewers have to compare documents “with a bunch of other parts of documents.”

But the agent is able to do this in seconds, and Trunk Tools says it has reduced submittal cycles from 50 to 60 days to 10, “which has massive schedule and financial implications.”

The company is now at a place where these agents are communicating directly with each other, which is “quite exciting,” Buchner said. So, for example, one agent will review an architectural drawing for accuracy, then autonomously hand it over to agents handling RFIs and asking follow-up questions.

“If the drawings have problems, the RFI agent is taking over and is actively reaching out for clarification,” Buchner explained.

Trunk Tools says its customers report savings of 20 to 40 minutes per field question. Buchner said that users in the field know better than anyone how much of a “time suck” it is to go back and forth from office trailers, dig through project documents in scattered systems or printed PDFs, reconcile discrepancies, and return to coordinate with trade partners.

The company says its customers report these additional outcomes:

• Average 8 minute time savings for single-document retrieval (status checks, location lookups, quantity queries).

• Average 20 minute time savings for standard referencing (cross-referencing 2 to 3 spec sections to form an answer.

• Average 40 minute time savings for multi-document research (listing and filtering queries, mapping relationships, analyzing RFIs and submittals across 4 to 6 documents).

• Average 75 minute time savings for complex tasks (creating RFIs and other communication materials, deep cross-referencing across documents, change tracking).

In one instance, the company's drawing review agent flagged that a structural beam had been moved up 8.5 inches. However, this was not documented by the architect. If the change hadn’t been caught, the project manager would likely have had to strip out and reinstall the right size beam, Buchner said. This rework would have added $10,000 or more to the budget, and “certainly there would have been implications on the schedule.”

Buchner also pointed to other examples: an agent flagged $60,000 in exaggerated pricing with no justification from landscaping subcontractors; identified a fireplace that needed to be sealed prior to drywall installation, saving around $100,000 in labor, materials, and delays; and called out that an electric door required a panel that wasn’t included in electrical drawings.

Learnings for other industries

Trunk Tools' approach to building agents is applicable to any vertical working with high volumes of unstructured, industry-specific data. Builders working in specific verticals must understand the industry’s specific data challenges their end users face and build technical infrastructure that can transform unstructured data into something an “LLM can traverse and understand,” Buchner said. “Only then can you build the connections between data points that ultimately feed agentic workflows.” A lot of money is being invested in foundational models, so enterprises should build modular systems that can leverage the strengths of various models as they continue to improve, Buchner advised. Then, “build your technical advantage where the generic models are not investing and not performing well,” she said.

Two-thirds of enterprises have hedged their AI model strategy, and the past few weeks of controversy around Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5 model showed why that posture has gone mainstream. 

On June 12, a U.S. export-control order pulled Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 — the most capable model on the market — offline for every customer, with no warning and no timeline. It returned this week wrapped in tighter safeguards, after China's Z.ai released its open-weights GLM-5.2 into the vacuum. New VentureBeat Pulse Research, which surveyed 145 enterprises across these last few weeks, shows that two-thirds had already hedged their model strategy before the order came down: 51% blend closed frontier models with open-weight models deployed on their own infrastructure, and another 16% are moving core workflows off closed APIs entirely. The remaining third was all-in on closed ecosystems when the lights went out.

The blackout put a spotlight on vendor dependency, by showing what happens when the model you rely on disappears. But vendor dependency is only the most visible piece of a deeper problem: Most enterprises lack the monitoring to know when an AI system they've put into production stops working correctly.

Just 1 in 10 enterprises has automated monitoring that would catch an AI model drifting, misbehaving, or failing in production. Roughly a quarter would learn of a production failure only when end users — internal or external — report it, or lack the visibility to detect it at all. And 79% of enterprise organizations have already taken a real financial or operational hit from autonomous agents — most often shadow AI, unauthorized agentic work run by enterprises' own employees on corporate credit cards, outside anyone's oversight.

We call this the “Control Gap,” or the distance between how aggressively enterprises are deploying AI and how little of it they can see, own, or govern. June’s blackout turned this into a live stress test.

About this data: VentureBeat Pulse Research surveyed 145 qualified respondents at organizations with 100 or more employees in June 2026, with fielding spanning the Fable 5 blackout that began June 12. The sample is self-selected and directional: 41% work in technology/software, 20% are consultants or advisors, and the respondent base skews senior and technical — CIO/CTO/CISOs (18%), directors of engineering/IT (14%), enterprise architects (12%). More than half of the respondents were from companies with 2,500 employees or more. 

While our sample is not huge, what you can trust more than the exact percentages is the pattern: Every question in the survey, independently, points the same way, with deployment running ahead of governance, visibility, and cost control.

The full methodology is in the report.

How the Fable 5 export order rewrote enterprise AI risk

Fable 5 launched June 9 to immediate acclaim — and sticker shock, at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output. Three days later, the U.S. government issued an emergency export-control directive barring access by foreign nationals. Anthropic, with no way to verify nationality in real time, suspended the model for everyone.

Z.ai has continued to pick up momentum; on Wednesday it released an open agentic coding environment, called Zcode. OpenAI, meanwhile, previewed its cutting-edge GPT-5.6 line on June 26.

Enterprises had already spent the spring learning what AI dependence costs in dollars. Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI coding budget in four months after Claude Code adoption hit 84% of its roughly 5,000 engineers, Forbes reported. Microsoft canceled most internal Claude Code licenses in its Windows and Microsoft 365 division, steering engineers to its own tooling, according to The Verge.

June added the harder lesson: The model your workflows depend on can vanish overnight, by government order, through no decision of yours or your vendor's. And Chinese companies like DeepSeek were releasing hugely disruptive, powerful models, driving down costs to a fraction of Western ones.

Brian Craig, senior director of architecture at Liberty IT, the Ireland-based engineering arm of Liberty Mutual, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, saw both lessons collide in real time. Craig is Irish, which meant the export order hit him directly as a foreign-national user.

Onstage at VentureBeat's AI Impact event in New York on June 24, mid-blackout, I asked him about it. "Fable arrived, and immediately you saw the sticker price of using it, and you went, 'Ooh, goodness, it better be really good,'" Craig said. "But luckily enough, we didn’t get to use it enough to get to fall in love with it." Then it was gone.

The hedge was already built before the blackout hit

Craig's company was built to route around exactly this kind of disruption. Liberty IT runs what it calls an AI backbone — roughly 50 components spanning security, governance, observability, and orchestration, each independently replaceable.

"You can't lock in right now in one vendor and even one framework," Craig told the room. "You need to keep being able to have the flexibility with that backbone to be able to hook into different models, different vendors, depending not so much on who's the flavor of the day, but on what you can feel confident about for the next six months."

The survey shows Craig has plenty of company. A 51% majority of enterprises run a hybrid posture — closed frontier models for general reasoning, open-weight models deployed locally for specialized execution — and 16% are making a hard pivot, moving core workflows onto open weights running on their own hybrid or private cloud. The 32% holding a closed commitment are candid about why: The operational overhead of self-hosting still outweighs the savings for them. After June, that calculus has a new variable in it.

Defection is now the active posture, and the target may surprise you. Asked which primary AI vendor they are most likely to downsize or phase out over the next 12 months, respondents named Microsoft first at 30% — most citing cutbacks to Copilot and Azure AI frameworks in favor of direct model access — ahead of the 28% who plan to trim no vendor at all. OpenAI drew 21%, largely on pricing volatility, with Anthropic at 15% and Google at 6%. No vendor faces an exodus. But loyalty by inertia has ended: Among these enterprises, actively cutting at least one provider is now more common than expanding across all of them.

Just 1 in 10 enterprises would catch a failing production model automatically

How would an enterprise know if one of its production AI models was drifting, behaving unsafely, or failing to complete tasks? We asked directly. Forty percent say they are very confident they would detect it. The question also asked what that confidence rests on, and respondents split into two camps: 30% rely on humans reviewing critical AI outputs, and just 10% — 14 of the 145 organizations — have automated monitoring and alerting running against production systems. The remaining respondents hold weaker positions still: 32% expect to catch most issues "eventually," 19% say they would likely hear about a failure from end users first, and 8% report no systematic visibility into production AI behavior at all.

That distinction matters because the two approaches are very different. Human review may seem like the gold standard, but it only reaches the outputs someone designates as important for such a review — and it happens at the pace humans can move at, with the inconsistency any manual process carries. Automated monitoring watches everything the system produces, continuously, and flags anomalies as they happen — for the same reason enterprises stopped depending on manual checks for uptime and security a decade ago.

As agentic workloads multiply output volumes far beyond what any review team can read, the manual approach starts to fall behind. The leaders at our June 24 event in New York treat human review as a designed control with automation underneath it. "Nothing gets deployed into production unless it's a human actually reviewing it and signing off," Craig said of Liberty's agentic software factory, where planning, coding, testing, critic, and librarian agents ship features from epic to production.

"It always has to be risk-based. That's why we work for an insurance company." Todd Johnson, the Morgan Stanley managing director who runs agentic AI across the bank's end-of-day P&L controller process, described the same principle from finance: "One of our strong principles in our AI governance generally is that there always has to be human accountability, even if there's a degree of automation." VentureBeat covered Morgan Stanley's new results around its P&L resolution agent system separately.

Liberty Mutual and Morgan Stanley chose manual sign-off deliberately, layered on top of observability, identity, and governance infrastructure. Whether the human-review camp has similar infrastructure underneath is more than a single-select question can establish. The 16% who separately named missing observability tooling as their biggest governance barrier are the ones saying outright that it hasn't been built.

The top governance barrier is organizational: no single owner for AI across platforms

Why does the AI visibility tooling never get built? The respondents' answers suggest it is an organizational shortcoming. The single most-cited barrier to governing AI across platforms is the absence of a single owner or accountable team, at 32%. Vendor opacity follows at 25%, missing tooling at 16% — and a lack of talent lands dead last at 5%.

The skills exist, but the organizational mandate does not: Only 38% say a central team actually governs AI behavior across their platforms today, 21% say ownership is unclear or actively contested between teams, and 17% say no role holds formal accountability at all.

The AI surface being governed makes the vacuum worse. Fully 85% of enterprises run two or more platforms each claiming to be the "primary" AI layer — ERP, ITSM, productivity suite, data platform, each with its own AI, its own controls, and its own assumptions. 36% describe an open contest between four or more. Just 8% have consolidated to one. Asked in a free-text question what one thing they would fix, respondents converged from different directions on the same answer: a single accountable owner, and a control plane that abstracts cost, drift, and model choice away from the end user.

79% have already paid for an agent control failure — led by shadow AI

The cost of the vacuum is showing up on corporate cards.

Asked to name the most severe financial or operational control failure they have experienced from autonomous agents, 49% of enterprises cite shadow AI — departmental teams running unauthorized agentic pipelines on corporate credit cards, bypassing central financial oversight entirely. Another 25% have been hit by an infinite-loop bill, an uncaught recursive workflow racking up thousands in token costs in a single incident, and 6% by an agent that degraded production databases with unthrottled queries. Only 21% report guarded stability, with hard token throttling and budget caps at the infrastructure layer. Add it up: 79% of these enterprises have already paid for an agent control failure in real money or real downtime.

Finally, the economics of tokens suggest the pressure will keep rising. Per-token inference costs are falling 70 to 80% a year, and agentic workloads consume 100 to 500 times the tokens of the LLM tools they replaced.

Brian Gracely, senior director of portfolio strategy at Red Hat, told our New York audience the answer starts with right-sizing: "If I'm simply trying to resolve an insurance claim, I don't need to know about the history of Western civilization in my model. I don't need to know soccer scores."

Enterprises are pairing smaller, specialized models with semantic routing, he said, so the platform decides which requests genuinely need frontier-scale reasoning — and which are burning premium tokens on commodity work. (One adjacent data point from the survey underlines the appetite for pragmatism: 73% of enterprises report little or nothing to show for their custom fine-tuning investments of the past 18 months — a reckoning we'll examine in its own report.)

The bottom line: Replaceability is spreading faster than ownership

The survey describes enterprises moving fast on AI with weak controls underneath. 58% are adding more AI initiatives than they retire. 85% run multiple platforms that each claim to be the primary AI layer. Three times as many enterprises rely on human review to catch a failing production model as have automated monitoring in place. And 79% have already paid for an agent control failure — most often unauthorized agent spending on corporate cards, outside IT's oversight.

On one problem, enterprises have clearly adapted: model dependency. Two-thirds hedge their model strategy, either running open-weight models alongside closed ones (51%) or moving core workflows off closed APIs entirely (16%). The Fable 5 shutdown showed the value of that position — the hedged companies could route around a model that a government order made unavailable overnight.

The remaining problems are internal, and no purchase fixes them: 32% name the lack of a single accountable owner as their top governance barrier, and 17% say no role holds formal accountability for AI at all. Assigning an owner costs nothing and requires no vendor. It still hasn't happened at most of these companies.

Our coming Q3 wave of research will measure whether June changed this — whether enterprises assigned owners and installed automated monitoring, or just added a second model and moved on.

Get the full Control Gap report here.

The themes in this report — agent orchestration, governance, and cost control — are the agenda at VB Transform, VentureBeat's flagship event, July 14-15 at Hotel Nia in Menlo Park, with technical leaders from Visa, GM, Waymo, Intuit, Instacart, LangChain and others. Details and registration here.

Disclosure: VentureBeat's June 24 AI Impact event in New York was sponsored by Red Hat and Intel. Sponsors have no input into VentureBeat Pulse Research survey design, findings, or editorial coverage.