Be careful what you wish for. That’s what Microsoft found out recently when it discovered that AI — rather than making Windows more secure by helping the company close security holes — could help hackers find flaws faster than Microsoft can fix them.

It’s put Microsoft in a serious bind. Should the company devote a potentially massive amount of resources to fix every AI-unearthed security issue as fast as it can? Or should it rush to close the most important ones, and clean up the minor ones later at much less cost?

What the company decides could have tremendous implications. For years, Microsoft has faced criticism from many in the US government because of how often its technologies have been hacked, potentially putting the nation’s security at risk. Some members of Congress have suggested the government curtail contracts with Microsoft until the company proves it can provide more safety. Billions of dollars in federal contracts could be pulled.

To get a better insight into what could happen, let’s look at AI’s newfound prodigious ability to find security holes and bugs.

AI-fueled security mavens Mythos and Project Glasswing

Microsoft’s AI-related security problems are an outgrowth of the launch of Anthropic’s Mythos AI model, designed to handle cybersecurity and biology research. One of its goals is to uncover security vulnerabilities as quickly as possible, so that software companies and cybersecurity companies can fix them before hackers find the holes.

Anthropic’s early tests found that Mythos was spectacularly successful in finding Windows security flaws. “Within 31 minutes, Mythos generated its first proof-of-concept exploit for a Windows kernel vulnerability,” Axios reported in June.

Anthropic noted that its testing of Mythos “reveals a stark fact: AI models have reached a level of coding capability where they can surpass all but the most skilled humans at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities.

“Mythos Preview has already found thousands of high-severity vulnerabilities, including some in every major operating system and web browser. Given the rate of AI progress, it will not be long before such capabilities proliferate, potentially beyond actors who are committed to deploying them safely. The fallout — for economies, public safety, and national security — could be severe.”

As a result, Anthropic decided to launch a security project it calls Project Glasswing, which it describes as “an urgent attempt to put these capabilities to work for defensive purposes.”

Many companies beyond Anthropic are part of the effort, including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Nvidia, Apple and others. In theory, it’s a great idea. Find and fix vulnerabilities before hackers can, and everyone is safer. What could go wrong? 

Plenty, as it turns out. Access to Mythos is available to anyone, and Mythos has been finding security holes and bugs far faster than companies — particularly Microsoft — can patch them. As Pro Publica reported in late July, ‘Microsoft is struggling to fix them fast enough.” 

Too little, too late?

For now, Microsoft is only patching the most dangerous bugs and holes. And, according to Pro Public, “internal records indicate that Microsoft plans to eventually address ‘moderate’-severity flaws uncovered by Mythos. The documents made no mention of ‘low’-severity bugs.”

That’s fairly typical of the triage many companies use when deciding how much effort to put into plugging holes. But some experts believe that in the Age of AI, that’s a dangerous way to handle security. 

Vinh Nguyen, former chief AI officer and chief data scientist at the US National Security Agency and now a senior technical adviser to Anthropic and senior fellow for AI at the Council on Foreign Relations, is particularly concerned that the approach is outdated. He told Pro Publica: “The problem now is that you can chain four low-level flaws, and that can equal a high severity. If you’re Microsoft, the current triage strategy may be underpricing risks.” 

It’s already proving difficult for Microsoft to keep up with patching bugs and security holes since Mythos’ launch. July’s Patch Tuesday release fixed the most bugs in Microsoft’s history – 622 of them. Things will only get harder from here. 

The dangers for Microsoft

Microsoft is already in the doghouse for how it’s handled security. A year ago, in one of the worst attacks on Microsoft technologies, Sharepoint was hacked. Tens of thousands of servers were hit, including not just thousands of businesses, but many important government agencies as well.    

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is in charge of the nation’s nuclear security, were among the victims. So were the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Transportation Security Administration, Customs and Border Protection, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, among many others. 

Even before then, some members in Congress were threatening to pull Microsoft contracts if it didn’t improve security. At one point Sens. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a threatening letter to the Pentagon requesting it not increase its use of Microsoft products.

“We write with serious concern that the Department of Defense (DoD) is doubling down on a failed strategy of increasing its dependence on Microsoft at a time when Congress and the administration are reviewing concerning cybersecurity lapses that led to a massive hack of senior US officials’ communications,” the letter said, in part.

Nothing happened as a result of the hack or the letter. But that could change in a heartbeat if there’s another big attach. It seems inevitable that hackers will start taking advantage of how quickly Mythos discovers security holes and bugs, especially if Microsoft doesn’t fix them all. 

The next big hack, powered by AI, could prove very dangerous — not just for businesses and governments, but for Microsoft as well.

Meta rolled out a new 30-billion-parameter AI model optimized to run on a PC or Mac with a single GPU on Monday, offering a way to run always-on agentic workflows locally rather than relying on the cloud.

The company has dubbed it Muse Glimmer. However, its hardware demands, including a GPU with a minimum of 24GB of VRAM, could make it difficult to justify for deployment at scale.

Although analysts and consultants agree that there is a tremendous enterprise appetite for running models locally, determining whether switching more systems from cloud to local makes fiscal sense is much more complex. 

The hardware costs are tricky to calculate even today, with the VRAM needed depending on the particular applications to be run. But the far bigger consideration is that there is no way to determine what RAM costs will look like over the next 12-18 months, and there is an identical lack of visibility into how cloud prices might increase during the same timeframe. 

That makes determining the better financial choice impossible.

Agents become capex, not opex

Noah Kenney, principal consultant at Digital 520, noted that since RAM costs have increased “exponentially” over the last 12 months, cloud AI providers are also going to have to increase their prices. Beyond that, IT needs to anticipate logistical issues; key questions to ask are, “How quickly can you scale? Can you even get the hardware?”

“Meta just made agents a capital expense instead of an operating one,” Kenney said. “For two years, enterprises have been trained to rent intelligence by the token from someone else’s data center. Muse Glimmer runs the agent on a GPU you own, on the desk, with the meter switched off. That is a direct shot at the business model that cloud AI vendors are built on, and it comes from the one player with no cloud API revenue to protect.”

In its post announcing the new model, Meta pointed out that it has aggressively slimmed it down to try to make it efficient and cost-effective. 

“At full precision, a 30-billion parameter model would require over 55 GB of memory — far more than any consumer GPU offers,” Meta said. “We use quantization techniques to compress the model’s weights to approximately 4-bit precision, shrinking the language model to under 20 GB. This leaves enough headroom for the model’s working memory, its KV cache, the perception encoder for image understanding, and the speculative decoding drafter to run simultaneously within a 24 GB or 32 GB envelope. We validated that this compression introduces minimal to no degradation on agentic tasks.”

More options for enterprises

Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security, said that Meta’s move is significant in that it starts to give enterprises more options. 

“The most important thing about Muse Glimmer is not that Meta has produced another capable model, it is that the economics and architecture of AI are beginning to move back toward the edge,” he said. “The financial comparison therefore becomes capital expenditure that can be amortized over several years versus an effectively perpetual per-token or per-request cloud operating expense.”

That means, he said, that an enterprise may rationally pay somewhat more for hardware if doing so gives it predictable AI costs, offline availability, control over model versions, freedom from sudden API pricing or access changes.

Independent cybersecurity and risk advisor Steven Eric Fisher also noted that the specs published by Meta don’t tell the full story.

The problem is that running locally versus in the cloud can generate a lengthy list of related expenses. 

“Agentic workloads [in the cloud] can amplify consumption through reasoning, retries, tool calls, context growth, and evaluation, while local deployment [also] introduces hardware, power, lifecycle, support, and utilization costs,” he said, adding that even the RAM requirements need a lot of context.

“Meta’s stated 24GB and 32GB memory targets demonstrate that Glimmer can be loaded and executed on comparatively accessible hardware, but that is not the same as having sufficient capacity for meaningful agentic workloads,” Fisher said, pointing out that once other factors are considered, practical memory requirements can move beyond the 32 GB available on an Nvidia RTX 5090 GPU.

“In enterprise terms, this still places Glimmer primarily in high-end developer, data science, or dedicated AI workstations rather than the standard corporate desktop or laptop,” he said.

Better ROI not guaranteed

Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, agreed. 

“I wouldn’t assume that moving inference from the cloud to the endpoint automatically produces a lower total cost of ownership,” he said, noting that variable cloud costs would be traded for the price of  deployment, endpoint management, support, security, model updates, and potentially accelerated hardware refresh cycles for the local devices.

“Muse Glimmer is an important milestone because it makes local agentic AI technically viable. But technical viability and enterprise ROI are two different milestones,” Greis said. “I think Meta has crossed the first one. I do not think they have fully crossed the second one yet.”

However, Kenney argued that there are also other elements of the Meta rollout that make meaningful comparisons difficult. 

“It is worth remembering that the local model is quantized, compressed to roughly 4-bit precision, while the cloud APIs you are comparing against typically serve full-precision models, so this is not a pure apples-to-apples cost comparison,” he said. “The ROI question is not local versus cloud on price alone. It is also a question of whether a company is willing to use a quantized model for the specific task. A cheaper agent that needs more retries or human correction can erase its savings fast.”

In addition, a local model often neglects to include every service that a cloud provider typically delivers. 

“The cloud vendor was quietly handling updates, scaling, reliability, and security patching across your whole footprint. Bring the model in-house and every one of those becomes your problem, multiplied by every machine running it,” Kenney noted. “Most enterprises that consume AI as a service have no muscle for operating a fleet of local models, and that cost rarely gets adequate consideration in ROI conversations. The GPU is cheap. Patching a thousand of them is not.”

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, also stressed that it can be difficult for IT to comprehensively anticipate the different cost variables. 

“Finance leaders are right to feel skeptical. An engine bought for one employee burns capital whether or not it runs. Meta has shown that a thirty-billion-parameter agent can run on a single machine, and that is a real engineering result. What it has not shown is that such an agent works reliably at enterprise scale, or that a fleet of them can be operated safely. Model fit and production fit are different claims. A laptop must still run the employee’s actual job,” Gogia said. “The economics turn on the incremental hardware premium, refresh timing and actual utilization, measured against the price of the remote inference being displaced.”

On the other hand, Arun Chandrasekaran, a distinguished VP analyst with Gartner, said that he found it “very interesting that they have decided to release a smaller model that operates on the edge” and especially liked Meta’s use of the popular Apache license. But he would have preferred that they had released more than just a model.

“Enterprise customers are asking for a car and Meta is delivering an engine,” Chandrasekaran said. “They should have built something more like a platform solution.”

I came across a LinkedIn post the other day that described “hypegineering,” which the poster explained refers to the moment when AI “marketing becomes more innovative than the technology itself.”

That post came from Ralph Aboujaoude Diaz, the global head of GRC for British consumer services company Haleon. Until last year, Diaz worked in operations cybersecurity for consumer goods giant Philip Morris. 

In his post, Diaz added that “side effects may include believing mediocre tech is revolutionary, confusing hype with progress, buying solutions to problems you don’t have and defending it like your job depends on it.”

As amusing as that might seem, the problem is frighteningly real. The sad truth is that enterprise IT executives are partly — perhaps mostly — to blame for the current hype around AI.

For many decades, senior IT leaders (pre-dating when it was called MIS) were the technology hype-deflators with razor-shape BS detection skills. That level of skepticism was needed. Tech vendors have always exaggerated and left out critical context when they weren’t outright lying about their products. 

Enterprises trusted the IT gate-keepers to ferret out reality from the smoke and mirrors. 

But there was a critical difference back then: senior management (especially CEOs, CFOs and board members) didn’t pay much attention to tech. They wanted the benefits, but they left the details to IT management to sort things out. With senior managers, benign neglect can be an incredibly good thing. 

As much as we might all think that we want our bosses to really care about our efforts, be careful what you wish for. (For Dilbert fans, think of the pointy-haired boss; a boss who has strong beliefs but no understanding of technology is a nightmare.) 

Alas, that is the situation many enterprises find themselves in today. IT management fully understands the level of absurd hype coming from a multitude of AI players. But unlike years and technologies past (RFID? NFC? Biometrics?), deflating hype balloons is easier when it’s comes solely from vendors. When senior managers start spouting this garbage, IT’s hype-deflation ability morphs into contradicting the very people at the top of their own corporate food chain.

That forces IT leaders who want to stay gainfully employed to do a lot of what used to be called lying. “Well, boss, yes these agentic systems have guardrails that will block destruction,” the lie begins, “but we can’t anticipate what any user or attacker might say in a prompt.”

That’s far more corporate acceptable than the actual truth: “Boss, a guardrail that an agent can disregard isn’t a guardrail. It’s more of a mild suggestion.” 

Or IT could say, “Well, yes, boss, autonomous agents could exponentially increase efficiency — as long as you’re OK with the risk that they might send our internal data to the competition.”

For the sake of the company, tech leaders and decision-makers need to reassert themselves and perform serious reality checks on all AI efforts. But this is more fraught than merely contradicting a top boss. IT  could be seen as embarrassing that top boss by pretty much proving that they were either naive or ignorant enough to be conned by the hype. 

Telling them they’re wrong seems nicer than calling them stupid. And yet, someone in IT has to find a politically palatable way to do both. 

Apple continues work to get White House go-ahead to source memory from Chinese supplier CXMT, which the US government has placed restrictions on.

For Apple, the issue comes down to simple math. With the cost of making iPhones up 38% because of eye-watering memory price increases — up almost 7-fold since the beginning of 2025 — it makes sense to make pragmatic choices when it comes to sourcing supply, particularly when other computer companies (including HP and Acer) already obtain memory from CXMT.

US resistance to the plan is that because of the way Apple packages memory on chip, the use of that memory might partly contravene the technology transfer restrictions the US has in place. Note: use of off-the-shelf components is fine.

Apple has been lobbying to use memory from the supplier only on devices made and sold in China and would likely argue this is reasonable given that both HP and Acer already use CXMT memory in products sold outside the US. 

Why it’s really about supply

The iPhone maker’s dilemma isn’t just about memory price, it’s also about ensuring it has enough component supply to satisfy demand for its products. This is plausibly a bigger challenge for the company, which is already warning of constrained supply because of lack of available memory. Samsung, Micron, and SK Hynix have allegedly already sold through all their DRAM production for 2027, which only sharpens Apple’s case to secure alternate sources.

With that in mind, it matters that China consumes around 20% of all Apple hardware sold globally. All the company needs is the go-ahead to use RAM from CXMT in those Chinese-made, China-sold devices.

That alone would effectively grow its usable memory supply by the same amount, because the non-restricted memory it currently has to use in Chinese-market products could be freed up for devices sold elsewhere, with CXMT covering the China-sold units instead.

With demand for its products accelerating —even amid a broad industry downturn — Apple really wants to make sure it has enough of the component to meet demand. Those powerful, on-premises 1.5TB RAM-equipped M7 Ultra Mac Studio AI clusters won’t exist unless it’s possible to find memory to put inside them.

The timeline challenge

The proposed arrangement with CXMT might not be a quick fix. Recent reporting indicated the company has already reached its production capacity for 2026, though it is working to double capacity by 2028. Apple has already tested memory chips from the company across products including iPhones and MacBooks.

While Apple this year has applied steep price increases across all its products (except for iPhones), it is now expected to increase the cost of the current iPhone 17 models perhaps as soon as this week. 

Market reports already warn that Apple will raise prices on its soon-to-debut iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Ultra devices next month, and we expect availability to be constrained, once again as a result of RAM shortages. Even if Apple gets the go-ahead to work with CXMT to close the gap, the positive impact of that arrangement is unlikely to kick in before next year.

Enjoy the pain

Elsewhere, big memory manufacturers, including SK Hynix, have announced plans to invest in new DRAM manufacturing capacity. But this will not be operational until 2029, at the earliest.

This suggests constrained product availability and higher prices for the coming months — and the only way Apple, or anyone else, will be able to limit the impact of those price increases across the entire electronics industry will be if they can obtain additional stocks of memory from vendors outside the big three. If they cannot, you can kiss the age of abundance goodbye.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

While the number of US jobs declined by 23,000 in July, employment in the tech sector rebounded as the AI revolution continues to gain steam.

The national unemployment numbers were reported Friday by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. At the same time, research firms said July was a good month for IT hiring compared to June.

According to CompTIA, which analyzed the BLS data, tech sector jobs rose in July by 3,700. In June, the IT sector had lost 900 jobs.

Companies last month hired in the cloud, hosting, information processing, data, and semiconductor manufacturing sectors, CompTIA said in a statement. 

“We’re entering a labor market where opportunity is increasingly concentrated around specific skills, industries, and investments,” said Ger Doyle, regional president of North America at ManpowerGroup, a labor consulting firm.

For example, data center hiring was up 39% in July compared to the same period last year, Doyle said. Not surprisingly, the data-center growth has been fueled by AI infrastructure needs and demand for hardware. That has helped increase the number of jobs in ancillary sectors such as transportation.

July hiring data showed heavy truck driver demand, which surged by 181% from June, Doyle said.

According to the BLS data, employment went up by 2.4% in the “computing infrastructure providers, data processing, web hosting, and related services” sectors, which is listed under the information sector.

Jobs in the “computer and electronic product manufacturing” sector — which is bunched under manufacturing — rose by 2.9% from June to July.

But bad news continued for the telecommunications sector, where the number of jobs declined by 1.5% from June to July. That continued a downward slide in recent years.

Overall job layoffs slowed in July, with 33,429 cuts announced; that’s down from 45,849 cuts announced in June, and the lowest since July 2024, according to data from Challenger, Gray and Christmas.

“Hiring has also increased over last year by 25%, so while AI is shifting the labor market, it is not dismantling it,” said Andy Challenger, chief revenue officer for Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

The tech sector announced 9,867 cuts in July, bringing the year-to-date total to 149,023 so far in 2026, according to Challenger figures.

Tech sector hiring and job losses vary as organizations use different measurement techniques to gauge the overall hiring environment. 

The top-line US unemployment rate declined to 4.1% from 4.2%, in part because of  workers leaving the workforce or not looking for jobs, indicating a slow labor market.

Still, hiring demand exists across the US, despite declining labor force participation and longer job searches, Doyle said.

Because technology underpins many of the changes occurring across sectors such as healthcare and services, employers are rethinking hiring.  “That’s why the labor market many workers are experiencing doesn’t always match the one described by the headline numbers,” Doyle said.

ADP’s National Employment report said only 44,000 jobs were added to private payrolls in July, with choppiness across sectors.

But demand for AI skills continues to rise, according to research firms that track growth by analyzing job listings. CompTIA noted that about 14,000 new job listings in July sought AI and machine learning skills.

It’s not clear how the ongoing AI boom may be hurting or helping human jobs. Many recent job cuts have been attributed to AI, though some companies have been accused of using the technology as a rationale for cuts they made for other reasons.

A recent OECD report said that even manual jobs once thought immune to AI are at risk of being taken over by robots. The OECD report said creative jobs — typically management, arts, and social work — will be least threatened by AI.

There are also increasing indications that successful AI deployments will require humans in the loop. For example, more consulting firms are using forward-deployed engineers (FDEs) to implement agentic AI. And smaller consultancy firms are finding more productivity by automating mundane work with AI and spending more time meeting client requirements.