The White House is monitoring developments after OpenAI revealed earlier this week that one of the company’s AI systems went beyond its intended parameters during a security test and managed to hack into the infrastructure of the AI platform Hugging Face. According to Reuters, presidential technology advisor Michael Kratsios has been briefed on the incident.

The OpenAI model escape also prompted a group of Republican and Democratic members of the House of Representatives to introduce two new bills. One, called the AI Kill Switch Act, would give the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the authority to order companies to shut down AI models deemed to pose a risk to human life or the US economy.

The other measure would require developers of the most advanced AI models to undergo independent security reviews before the systems are put into use.

The European Commission has fined Google a total of €890 million ($1 billion) for its breaches of the Digital Market Act (DMA).

Just over half the fine — €460 million — was because Google illegally gave preference to its own services in Google Search results.

The remainder was because in the Google Play store for Android apps, the company prevented app developers from leading consumers to alternative, often cheaper, purchase channels. Under the DMA, app developers who distribute their apps via Google Play or Apple’s App Store should be able to inform customers of alternative offers.

Now Google must give third-party services featuring in its results the same treatment as its own services, and allow developers of apps in the Play Store to communicate about offers both in and outside the Play Store, or face further fines.

The Commission first raised these issues with Google in March 2025. In April of this year, the Commission laid out plans as to how Google should allow other third-parties to share its searches, suggestions that the tech firm firmly resisted. Earlier this month, the Commission also said  Android should be open to other AI agents and not limited to Google’s own Gemini.

Google is not the only US company to have fallen foul of the DMA. In April 2025, Apple was fined €500 million for breaching the Act and, last month, the Commission fired the first shots at cloud hyperscalers Microsoft and Amazon.

Among a range of factors leading to a wave of tech sector layoffs in 2026 is the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and automation. Companies are reconfiguring their workforces to leverage AI for increased efficiency and reduced operating costs. This realignment and reduction is implemented even by companies reporting strong financial performance.

But it’s not just AI leading to workforce cuts. Complementing this technological shift are ongoing economic uncertainty, inflation, and higher interest rates, compounded by a chip shortage and rising energy costs. This mix is driving companies to cut costs and streamline operations for increased efficiency.

According to data compiled by Layoffs.fyi, an online tracker that keep tabs on job losses in the technology sector, 123,941 tech employees were laid off at 269 companies in 2025. The site also reports that 71,981 government employees were laid off by DOGE alone, with 182,528 total federal workers laid off.

Here is a list — to be updated regularly — of some of the most prominent technology layoffs the industry has experienced recently.

Notable tech layoffs in 2026

• Monday.com
• Microsoft
• Meta
• Cisco
• Cloudflare
• Oracle
• Atlassian
• Salesforce
• Amazon
• Ericsson

July 22, 2026: Monday.com cuts 20% of its workforce to restructure for the AI era

The company says the decision to cut 620 jobs isn’t about margins, but about creating a flatter organization built around AI agents, autonomous teams, and deeper customer engagement.

July 6, 2026: Microsoft cuts 4,800 jobs, primarily in sales and Xbox teams

As the company trims thousands of jobs, it’s also investing in embedded engineering teams and AI infrastructure. The layoffs come several weeks after the company offered 8,750 US employees voluntary retirement buyouts.

June 5, 2026: Tech industry cut 38,242 jobs in May, worst since 2024

AI was blamed for 40% of the job cuts in May, up from 7% in January, according to research by employment placement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

May 20, 2026: Meta cuts 8,000 jobs, around 10% of workforce

The cuts are expected to expected to hit Meta’s engineering and product teams the hardest, arriving as Meta pivots toward AI to boost efficiency across its organization, according to Yahoo Tech.

May 13, 2026: Cisco to cut nearly 4,000 jobs despite strong growth in AI, enterprise networking

Despite reporting positive financial news — including record third-quarter revenue of $15.8 billion, a 12% year-over-year increase — Cisco said it will eliminate almost 4,000 jobs.

May 7, 2026: Cloudflare to cut 1,100 jobs in AI-focused restructuring

About 20% of Cloudflare’s global workforce will be culled as the company pivots for the agentic AI era, Reuters reported.

April 1, 2026: Oracle to cut up to 30,000 jobs globally, putting enterprise support and roadmaps at risk

Oracle began laying off employees on March 31 in what could be the largest workforce reduction in the company’s history. Employees received termination emails at 6 a.m. local time with immediate system lockouts and no prior warning. (Note: in June, CNBC put the final layoff tally at 21,000.)

March 12, 2026: Atlassian cuts 1,600 jobs to fund AI and enterprise expansion

Atlassian will reduce its global workforce by approximately 10%, eliminating around 1,600 roles, as the collaboration software maker redirects capital toward artificial intelligence development and enterprise sales.

March 11, 2026: Tech layoffs surpass 45,000 in early 2026

A recent analysis by RationalFX found 45,363 job cuts globally so far this year—with roughly 68% or more than 30,000 occurring in the U.S. — highlighting ongoing workforce cuts even as many tech companies report strong revenue growth.

February 10, 2026: Salesforce lays off staffers as executive leadership churn continues

Salesforce has reduced close to 1,000 roles earlier this month across teams, including marketing, product management, data analytics, and its Agentforce AI unit, Business Insider reported, quoting employees familiar with the matter.

January 23, 2026: Amazon layoffs expected to disproportionately hit AWS and tech talent

As the market slows down, AWS and other Amazon units are preparing for another round of layoffs, which is expected to overwhelmingly impact tech talent. An email from HR leader Beth Galetti on Jan. 28 confirmed 16,000 job cuts.

January 15, 2026: Ericsson plans to shed 1,600 jobs in Sweden

 Ericsson lans to cut some 1,600 jobs in Sweden, the telecommunications equipment maker said doubling down on recent cost-saving measures that have helped it weather a prolonged downturn in telecoms spending, Reuters reports.

January 13, 2026: Meta plans to cut around 10% of employees in Reality Labs business

Meta plans to cut around 10% of the employees in its Reality Labs division who work on products including the metaverse, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions, according to The New York Times.

Layoffs in 2025

• Cisco
• Oracle
• Windsurf
• Intel
• Microsoft
• Crowdstrike
• HPE
• Autodesk
• HPE
• CISA
• Workday
• Salesforce
• Meta

Global tech-sector layoffs surpass 244,000 in 2025

Economic uncertainty, elevated interest rates, and AI adoption have driven workforce reductions across tech companies worldwide, according to a RationalFX report.

October 28, 2025: Amazon to cut 14,000 jobs across company

Amazon will reduce its overall workforce by 14,000, cutting layers of management across the company and hiring in some areas to support its “biggest bets”.

August 18, 2025: Cisco and Oracle to cut hundreds of Bay Area jobs

Tech companies Cisco and Oracle are cutting hundreds of jobs across the Bay Area. Cisco will eliminate 221 positions at its Milpitas and San Francisco offices, effective Oct. 13. Oracle is reducing 101 positions in Santa Clara on the same date 

August 5, 2025: 3 weeks after acquiring Windsurf, Cognition offers staff the exit door

Cognition, the AI coding startup that acquired rival company Windsurf three weeks ago, laid off 30 employees last week and is offering buyouts to the roughly 200 remaining employees on the team, reports The Information.

July 25, 2025, Intel to lay off 22% of workforce, CEO Tan signals ‘no more blank checks’

Intel will reduce its workforce to 75,000 employees by the end of 2025 as new CEO Lip-Bu Tan implements sweeping changes designed to transform the struggling chipmaker

July 8, 2025, Intel layoffs begin: Chipmaker is cutting many thousands of jobs

Intel has begun laying off employees across the company. CEO Lip-Bu Tan told workers back in April to expect major layoffs at Intel in the coming months as the chipmaker slashes costs and overhauls its organization after years of technical setbacks and falling sales.

July 2, 2025: Microsoft will cut 9,000 workers

Microsoft will lay off about 9,000 employees, a source familiar with the workforce cut told CNBC.  The cuts will reportedly affect less than 4% of Microsoft’s global workforce and will impact different teams, geographies and levels of experience. This is the latest in a string of cuts the tech giant has made this year.

June 17, 2025: Intel looks to factory layoffs to return to profitability

Intel will lay off up to 20% of its manufacturing sector employees starting in July, according to media reports, as the company looks for options as it seeks a return to profitability. The cuts reportedly will be made around the world, but some of the layoffs will be closer to home, according to a report in The Oregonian citing an internal company memo from Intel manufacturing Vice President Naga Chandrasekaran.

May 7, 2025: CrowdStrike to lay off 5% of staff

CrowdStrike announced a plan to cut about 500 roles, roughly 5% of its workforce, to streamline operations and reduce costs. The cybersecurity company will incur about $36 million to $53 million in charges related to the layoffs

March 6, 2025: HPE cuts 2,500 jobs, remains committed to Juniper buy

CEO Antonio Neri told Wall Street analysts that HPE would begin implementing a cost-cutting program involving layoffs of about 2,500 employees over the next 18 months. HPE employs about 61,000 people worldwide.

Feb. 27, 2025: Autodesk to lay off 9% of workforce

Software maker Autodesk is laying off 1,350 staff. With the rise of subscription and multi-year contracts billed annually, and self-service enablement, it finds it needs fewer sales staff, CEO Andrew Anagnost said in a message to employees. And with its cloud, platform, and AI products proving most profitable, it’s concentrating its staff and investments there.

Feb. 27, 2025: HP to lay off 2,000 more

As part of an ongoing restructuring, HP plans to lay off up to another 2,000 workers. In recent weeks, the company has tried — unsuccessfully — to do away with telephone support staff by forcing callers to wait for at least 15 minutes if they refuse to use self-service support resources online. The company swiftly backtracked, but wider job cuts are still on.

Feb. 21, 2025: CISA lays off 130

Government employees get laid off too: In this case, 130 workers at the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are being shown the door as a result of a DOGE decision. Cybersecurity experts are concerned that the cuts will harm the international collaborations that CISA has fostered, quite apart from their concerns about the security of the DOGE layoff process itself.

Feb. 5, 2025: Workday lays off 1,750

As it moves to invest more in AI and international growth, Workday is laying off 8.5% of its workforce and disposing of unused office space. Some analysts fear the cutbacks will affect the company’s customer service — unless AI can pick up the slack.

Feb. 4, 2025: Salesforce lays off over 1,000

At the same time as it’s hiring sales staff for its new artificial intelligence products, Salesforce is laying off over 1,000 workers across the company, according to Bloomberg. As of June, 2024, the company had over 72,000 employees, according to its website. Salesforce did not comment on the report. In 2024 the company reportedly laid off around 1,000 staff too, in two waves: January and July.

Jan. 14, 2025: Meta will lay off 5% of workforce

Mark Zuckerberg told Meta employees he intended to “move out the low performers faster” in an internal memo reported by Bloomberg. The memo announced that the company will lay off 5% of its staff, or around 3,600 staff, beginning Feb. 10. The company had already reduced its headcount by 5% in 2024 through natural attrition, the memo said. Among those leaving the company will be staff previously responsible for fact checking of posts on its social media platforms in the US, as the company begins relying on its users to police content.

Tech layoffs in 2024

• Equinix
• AMD
• Freshworks
• Cisco
• General Motors
• Intel
• OpenText
• Microsoft
• AWS
• Dell

Nov. 26, 2024: Equinix to cut 3% of staff

Despite intense demand for its data center capacity, Equinix is planning to lay off 3% of its workforce, or around 400 employees. The announcement followed the appointment of Adaire Fox-Martin to replace Charles Meyers as CEO and the departures of two other senior executives, CIO Milind Wagle and CISO Michael Montoya.

Nov. 13, 2024: AMD to cut 4% of workforce

AMD will lay off around 1,000 employees as it pivots towards developing AI-focused chips, it said. The move came as a surprise to staff, as the company also reported strong quarterly earnings.

Nov. 7, 2024: Freshworks lays off 660

Enterprise software vendor Freshworks laid off around 660 staff, or around 13% of its headcount, despite reporting increased revenue and profits in its fourth fiscal quarter. The company described the layoffs as a realignment of its global workforce.

Sept. 17, 2024: Cisco lays off 6,000

After laying off around 4,200 staff in February, Cisco is at it again, laying off another 6,000 or around 7% of its workforce. Among the divisions affected were its threat intelligence unit, Talos Security.

Aug. 20, 2024: General Motors lays off 1,000 software staff

More than 1,000 software and services staff are on the way out at General Motors, signalling that it could be rethinking its digital transformation strategy. In an internal memo, the company said that it was moving resources to its highest-priority work and flattening hierarchies.

August 1, 2024: Intel removes 15,000 roles

Intel plans to cut its workforce by around 15% to reduce costs after a disastrous second quarter. Revenue for the three months to June 29 stagnated at around $12.8 billion, but net income fell 85% to $83 million, prompting CEO Pat Gelsinger to bring forward a company-wide meeting in order to announce that 15,000 staff would lose their jobs. “This is an incredibly hard day for Intel as we are making some of the most consequential changes in our company’s history,” Gelsinger wrote in an email to staff, continuing: “Our revenues have not grown as expected — and we’ve yet to fully benefit from powerful trends, like AI. Our costs are too high, our margins are too low. We need bolder actions to address both — particularly given our financial results and outlook for the second half of 2024, which is tougher than previously expected.”

July 4, 2024: OpenText to lay off 1,200

OpenText said it will lay off 1,200 staff, or about 1.7% of its workforce, in a bid to save around $100 million annually. It plans to hire new sales and engineering staff in other areas in 2025, it said.

June 4, 2024: Microsoft lays off staff in Azure division

Microsoft laid off staff in several teams supporting its cloud services, including Azure for Operations and Mission Engineering. The company didn’t say exactly how many staff were leaving.

April 4, 2024: Amazon downsizes AWS in a fresh cost-cutting round

Amazon announced hundreds of layoffs in the sales and marketing teams of its AWS cloud services division — and also in the technology development teams for its physical retail stores, as it stepped back from efforts to generalize the “Just Walk Out” technology built for its Amazon Fresh grocery stores.

April 1, 2024: Dell acknowledges 13,000 job cuts

Dell Technologies’ latest 10K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed that the company had laid off 13,000 employees over the course of the 2023 fiscal year; it characterized the layoffs and other reorganizational moves as cost-cutting measures. “These actions resulted in a reduction in our overall headcount,” the company said. A comparison to the previous year’s 10K filing, performed by The Register, found that Dell employed 133,000 people at that point, compared to 120,000 as of February 2024. Dell announced layoffs of 6,650 staffers on Feb. 6, but it is unclear whether those cuts were reflected in the numbers from this year’s 10K statement.

See news of earlier layoffs.

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

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

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

Jobs involving physical labor are at high risk of disruption from automation, with new technologies such as AI robots becoming more prevalent, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That means workers in construction and extraction, farming, fishing, forestry, production and material transportation could be affected by fast-moving technology changes.

“Routine and low-skilled jobs are at higher risk,” the Paris-based public policy group said, adding that “overall, jobs requiring non-routine cognitive, social and creative skills are less susceptible to automation.”

The kinds of creative and cognitive jobs still thought to be less exposed to automation include social work and community service roles. 

OECD also said management jobs — which often require workers to devise creative answers to solve problems — fall within the creative and cognitive category. “While AI has made some high-skill job requirements more susceptible to automation, many critical skills in these roles remain difficult to automate,” OECD said.

The same still holds true for some physical and manual labor jobs – including cleaners, agricultural workers, food-prep assistants, and laborers — which are less exposed to the affects of AI, OECD said.  

But people who work in programming, translating and interpretation positions could find their work affected by the quick rise of AI tools and services. According to the organization, global AI uptake rose from 7% in 2021 to 20% in 2025.

“In these occupations, GenAI could perform a significant share of tasks at least twice as fast today or in the near future,” OECD said.

The effects of the AI boom are not always uniform across industries or regions. In a separate 2026 Employment Outlook study released by the group, exposure to disruption from generative AI (genAI) ranges from about 16% in some areas to more than 70% elsewhere, depending on industries and occupations. 

Numerous research firms have said in recent years that AI is driving short-term job losses, though tech industry experts and analysts have argued AI will also create new careers and jobs as agentic AI takes over low-skilled work. 

AI technology has become so ubiquitous that it’s been compared to electricity — virtually all companies will need it or at least know how to use it. But it’s adoption has been hindered at times as companies struggle to find ROI from its use, and by regulatory and ethical hurdles.

In the US, AI blamed for June job losses

According to a Challenger, Gray & Christmas study released earlier this month, AI was cited as the top reason for job cuts in June. The outplacement firm said employers cut 45,849 job cuts in June, of which 14,029 were attributed to AI, with the tech industry leading the cuts.

“Tech remains the epicenter of this year’s cuts,” Challenger said. “AI is the dominant force as companies are restructuring around it, automating roles, and reallocating budgets toward new capabilities. The sector is being reshaped in real time.”

Overall, AI has been responsible for 173,568 job cuts since 2021, the company said.

AI is hurting jobs in customer service, internal reporting, telecommunications, and hosting automation, said Victor Janulaitis, a staffing consultant who was formerly CEO at Janco Associates Inc.

“C-level executives continue to be focused on eliminating ‘non-essential’ managers, staff, and services,” he said. “Coders and developers have limited opportunities with legacy applications.”

While jobs in the IT sector overall are declining, current hiring tends to skew in the direction of people with AI skills. A report this month by CompTIA put job listings with AI skills at around 500,000, which is close to double the number in January.

“Employers in other industries are accelerating digital transformation initiatives and moving from AI experimentation to implementation,” said Seth Robinson, CompTIA’s vice president for industry research.

That view dovetails with what ManpowerGroup, the recruitment firm, is seeing; demand for AI-related skills has nearly doubled over the past year, said Ger Doyle, regional president of North America at ManpowerGroup.

That growth extends well beyond traditional technology roles as companies move from experimenting to AI deployments at scale, Doyle said. “We’re seeing it influence hiring across occupations ranging from data science and engineering to project management and operational roles,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A consistent code of practice

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

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

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

Criteria for compliance

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

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

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

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

Creating a transparency pipeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Dozens of former Apple employees now working at OpenAI have been put on notice after Apple reportedly sent legal letters ordering them to preserve documents and communications relevant to its trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI. 

The Financial Times reports that “around 40” employees have been targeted with these letters, which repeat Apple’s claim that its confidential information might have been exfiltrated, alleging “trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.”  The letters also require them to arrange to meet with Apple’s lawyers.

The underlying lawsuit

This comes on the heels of Apple’s explosive lawsuit against OpenAI in which Apple accused the AI company (and former Apple Vice President Tang Tan) of extensive coordinated data theft. Tan was at Apple for 24 years and is now Chief Hardware Officer at OpenAI. 

Apple’s lawsuit is defined by claims OpenAI took a range of steps to pry confidential Apple data from existing Apple employees, including using information such as internal project code names, to gain even more knowledge during interviews. The company says the evidence it has presented so far is only the “tip of the iceberg” concerning OpenAI’s approach.

The lawsuit requests that OpenAI be prevented from using any Apple information during the development of its hardware. Apple is also seeking damages and suing two former employees for breach of contract for violating their employment agreements.

The letters are significant. They represent formal directives that require former Apple staff to preserve documents, messages, emails, and other communications that could be relevant to the case. The demand reflects Apple’s belief that the alleged misuse of confidential information could be more widespread across the competing company. What’s critical is that orders of this kind override any standard data destruction policy and deletion of the requested information becomes a legal offense. 

Why this matters beyond the protagonists

In making its move, Apple shows this is not a dispute about just one or two hires, but an attempt to constrain the movement of intellectual property between the two firms. With AI hardware emerging as the next major battleground in tech, the case could become a defining one; whatever resolution is eventually reached could define the extent to which former employees can carry experience and knowledge between competing firms. The case might also define what the line is between experience and knowledge and the sharing of trade secrets.

This is important, because modern hardware development relies on far more than just finished designs. Product design leans into supplier relationships, manufacturing assumptions, physics, extensive prototyping, and product-roadmap priorities. If courts treat those accumulated insights as protectable secrets, hiring between major technology companies could become far more legally sensitive.

The Jony Ive question

The case comes as Apple prepares to combat OpenAI in hardware. Its competitor is now working with legendary former Apple designer Jony Ive. Ive is not named in the litigation, but Apple will be keen to find out whether confidential product knowledge, design processes, or supply-chain insights have travelled with former staff into OpenAI’s device work.

Ultimately, for Apple, it’s about protecting its many blueprints for whatever hardware the company expects will come after the iPhone.

For its part, OpenAI has refuted Apple’s lawsuit, arguing that it is “not aware of any evidence” that the lawsuit has merit. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” said OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” The company’s lawyers also claim it did respond to Apple’s initial inquiries on the matter.

What’s at stake

The significance of Apple’s newly-shared communication preservation orders is that if discovery uncovers evidence supporting Apple’s claims, the case could complicate OpenAI’s hardware plans and create unwelcome scrutiny ahead of any future public offering.

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

China has created an international organization to set standards and introduce regulation for AI, inviting 28 other countries to join — but the US, a leading AI powerhouse is not part it.

The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) was established by 29 countries, including China, Russia and Brazil, at a ceremony in Shanghai, China, on July 16. Notably absent are the US, the European Union and its member states, the UK, Japan and South Korea.

Chinese AI companies have made a concerted effort to provide an alternative to US dominance. While the US is clearly ahead, Chinese enterprises are looking to narrow the gap in various areas: the open-weight model market, AI cyber protection and open source AI.

WAICO has been some years in development and has been designed to set some universal guidelines in AI. Researchers say WAICO differs in three ways from other initiatives to create global AI organizations: membership open to any sovereign state, there is no regime-type test for entry, and its agenda is built around development and the global capability divide.

The signing ceremony to create WAICO comes just days after Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, called on the US to take a lead in global AI regulation. “The US is well-positioned to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives,” Hassabis wrote.

Apple’s recently announced $30 billion multi-year agreement with Broadcom is significant because it means billions of chips for Apple devices will be made in the US, supporting hundreds of jobs. 

This is Apple’s biggest US procurement deal so far, but it won’t be the last; when it announced the arrangement, Apple confirmed it is, “working with the administration and businesses across the US to help create an end-to-end silicon supply chain in America.”

That statement implies that the 15 billion chips Broadcom will produce won’t be the only processors in Apple devices to carry tiny little “Made in the USA” slogans. Broadcom is making custom silicon components and wireless connectivity technologies such as RF/wireless chips (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular, FBAR filters) and ASIC work, rather than application processors. But they are still chips for Apple devices.

TSMC doubles down

That’s why it is significant that TSMC confirmed plans to extend its own manufacturing in America. It already has a $165 billion US commitment; now, it is investing an additional $100 billion in four more chip plants — including one dedicated to churning out the company’s most advanced 2nm (and smaller) processors. 

“We believe this investment will help to further foster the development of the US semiconductor ecosystem, strengthen the supply chain, and support an increasing number of high-tech, high-paying jobs in the United States,”  CEO C.C. Wei told analysts.

TSMC has also confirmed plans to invest in packaging facilities for processors, which is basically the process where memory, processor, and networking nodes can all be combined and packaged on the chip. That sort of packaging is needed to make the final SoC chip. That means TSMC factories in the US will be able to churn out the advanced processors used in Apple’s current and, presumably, future devices.

The bill so far

That’s three investments — in processor manufacturing, packaging, and Broadcom radios and chips — all of which are strategically important to Apple devices. TSMC makes the brains, Broadcom brings the connectivity. Total value so far: $295 billion, around 1.5 times Apple’s annual revenue in the Americas.

It isn’t all about Apple. TSMC has other clients, and Apple is no longer the company’s biggest customer thanks to the drive to AI. But it is still an important one. That means at least some of TSMC’s newly invested US manufacturing capacity will be dedicated to making chips for Apple. The open question is how much US-manufactured chips will cost in contrast to those made elsewhere.

It’s bigger than two deals

These aren’t the only chip-focused partnerships Apple has made domestically. Apple’s American Manufacturing Program (AMP) launched in August 2025 as part of a $600 billion four-year US investment commitment. TSMC and Broadcom were both named AMP partners, but they weren’t alone, and some arrangements have already been announced:

• GlobalFoundries is bringing mixed-signal chip manufacturing to make advanced ICs for Face ID.
• Texas Instruments expanded production for analog/power chips.
• Samsung is making a new chip-making process at its Austin, TX fab, described by Apple as having “never been used before anywhere in the world.”
• Apple became the “first and largest customer” of Amkor’s new advanced packaging/test facility in Arizona.
• Corning is expanding glass production.
• Applied Materials is making chip manufacturing equipment under AMP.

Bundle all these deals together and it’s crystal clear that Apple’s $600 billion investment is at least in part focused on the technologically advanced components on which its devices are built. These components also have the advantage in being incredibly small, which means they are easy and cheap to ship for final assembly at increasingly automated final production locations worldwide. 

So, is it coming home?

That’s the strategy: keep the high-value, hard-to-automate work — and the jobs it requires — in America, while leaving final assembly flexible enough to go wherever that makes sense now or in the future. Is Apple bringing manufacturing home? Partially, in that the bits that matter the most — brains and networking— are coming back, even if assembly is not.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, Mastodon, and subscribe to the human-curated daily Apple news briefing at The Core.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest of the world may have concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some love the proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on CIO.

When Apple sued OpenAI last week, the argument it made was that former employees had stolen Apple data and then used it to benefit OpenAI. 

The technical details — an employee used “a rare, previously unknown authentication bug to access Apple’s shared network folders” — are interesting. But the larger story is Apple’s ridiculous attempt to stop its people from using anything they learned at Apple in other jobs.

“Hiring managers don’t mind some files being brought into the org during onboarding, but suddenly take umbrage when that same employee exits with some files later on,” said Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security. “Legal should be equally concerned about both events.”

The lawsuit focused on Chang Liu, an employee who had been recruited to work at OpenAI after working at Apple for eight years as a Senior System Electrical Engineer. The full text of the filing depicts a comedy of errors by Apple, offering the perfect “do not do” list of handling employee resignations — especially when they’re going to a direct competitor. 

“When Apple contacted Mr. Liu to sign Apple’s confidentiality reminder, schedule an exit interview, and confirm that he had returned his devices and complied with other exit procedures, Mr. Liu did not respond.” And “after leaving Apple, Mr. Liu failed to return an Apple-issued work laptop that he had previously authenticated to Apple’s network.”

First, typical procedure for handling departures is to tie the return of all equipment and the signing of documents to any final payments. With Apple, that is likely to be a large amount of money. The lawsuit does not say whether Apple exerted any financial pressure on their employee for compliance. 

But in terms of equipment with high-level access, why weren’t all privileges revoked, both for the employee and any and all company-issued devices? Did they not maintain a remote-wipe capability for these devices? Although remote-wipe is usually used when devices are missing or stolen, it should work as well when a departing employee refuses to return company equipment. 

According to Apple, Liu apparently had help at Apple from Tang Yew Tan, who was supposedly also interviewing with OpenAI. “While employed by OpenAI, [Liu] accessed and used his former colleague’s Apple-issued work computer that was authenticated to Apple’s network, without Apple’s authorization.”

Apple tried to make much of this Liu’s fault. Legally, yes, there might be liability there; still, Apple made itself look as if it couldn’t protect its own data. “Upon discovering that he had this unauthorized access to Apple’s systems, [the former employee] did not report it, return his stolen Apple-issued work laptop or delete the program that allowed the access.” 

Really, Apple? Your data-protection plan relies on ex-employees to “delete the program that allowed the access”? I’m not so sure you didn’t bring some of this data-leakage on yourselves. 

This gets worse: “Over several weeks, while developing hardware for OpenAI, Mr. Liu surreptitiously accessed and downloaded dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files, including voluminous, detailed information about unreleased products, engineering presentations, technical specifications, and proprietary project data.”

Setting aside the issue of privileges, access, and unreturned equipment that apparently had its own privileges, that statement points to massive data exfiltration from Apple systems. Even if it is coming from a current employee, why didn’t that raise any red flags? 

Let’s get back to the broader implications. When professionals move from one company to another, they — of course — are bringing their experience and knowledge with them. Can Apple reasonably tell them that they can’t do so? Isn’t that experience and knowledge exactly why another company would want to hire them?

Now, to be sure, stealing diagrams and product spec sheets is a clear violation. Let’s say Apple spent a lot of money on some hardware research projects. A member of that technical team would learn an awful lot, all on Apple’s dime. 

But is it fair and reasonable for Apple to say that the former employee can’t leverage that knowledge at his or her next job? 

This brings us back to the point Wilkes made: If Apple is going to try to prevent any former employee from leveraging on-the-job experience, then it should instruct all new employees not to use anything they learned in a previous job. 

That would be ridiculous. Companies pay for experienced talent because of that experience. Why pay for expertise if you insist employees not leverage any of it?

Then there’s the amorphous nature of knowledge. So, it’s wrong to take detailed diagrams and spec details and hand them over to a new employer. But what if that worker heading out the door memorizes the documents (photographic memory) a day before resigning? Is a person prohibited from using something from memory?

There’s also the fruit-of-the-poisonous tree legal argument. Even if a former employee doesn’t directly use stolen data, what if their knowledge leads to other money-saving insights for the new employer? 

Given that Apple hires as many specialists as it loses to rivals, wouldn’t it make sense to leverage everything your workforce knows and then let new employers do the same? But before you do that, Apple, tighten your exiting employee tech controls. 

Then maybe you wont’t have to file lawsuits like this down the road.

The US government decision to force Anthropic to close down its latest and greatest AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, was only the next step in a burgeoning battle between AI providers and ignorant politicians. 

Anthropic was on top of the world. Its Mythos 5 LLM had everyone excited. (If you believe the hype, it was kind of scary, too.) Even Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei admitted — or boasted? — that Mythos would bring an “enormous increase in the amount of vulnerabilities, in the amount of breaches” to us all. But with that fear came the promise of more AI power than ever. 

Then, the roof caved in.

On June 12, the US Commerce Department used its export-control powers to demand that Anthropic cut off access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models for all foreign nationals, citing national security concerns and fears of jailbreaks. After figuring out it had no way to do that, Anthropic pulled both of its newest frontier AI models offline worldwide.

Just what an AI company needs! All other Claude models, like the Opus and Sonnet series, remain online. But, come on, AI sales are all about the newest and most powerful models.  

Adding insult to injury — and this is true at many high-tech companies — Anthropic has many employees who aren’t US citizens. This means Anthropic’s own programmers can’t work on their latest models.

Of course, this isn’t the first time US President Donald J. Trump and company have tried to put a spoke in Anthropic’s wheels. Back in February, Anthropic refused to give Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth the power to use its models to spy on American citizens and to power autonomous weapons.

This go-around, it wasn’t because Anthropic refused to kowtow to Trump’s officials. It was, they say, out of fear that these new models could be used to attack American interests. 

Mind you, no one in Trump’s regime has the tech chops to know just how dangerous, or not, any AI model is. As I recently noted, Trump’s AI executive order has no teeth. Nor, more to the point, is there anyone in the administration with a clue about AI.

Specifically, at the Department of Commerce, neither Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick nor William Kimmitt, undersecretary of commerce for international trade, knows a thing about AI. Just what we need, more political hacks deciding tech policy. 

So, how did they discover that Fable and Mythos were theoretically a danger to the US? Good question. According to The Wall Street Journal, it was Amazon CEO Andy Jassy who told the Trump administration that Fable was untrustworthy. Guess what? AWS offers its own full cloud AI stack, starting with Amazon Bedrock for foundation models, Amazon SageMaker for training and deployment, and a growing set of agentic AI tools and services. 

In other words, Amazon is not a neutral party; it’s a competitor. Funny, that.

Sure, Amazon also has partnerships with Anthropic. But, in case you haven’t noticed, all the big AI companies are in bed with each other. That doesn’t stop them from fighting. What’s heating this up is that the AI companies are no longer offering flat-rate subscriptions and are replacing them with far more expensive, token-based pricing schemes. 

Armed with this information, Commerce gave Anthropic 90 minutes to fix its “problem.” Right. AI development is fast, but it’s not that fast. In addition, according to Anthropic, officials haven’t spelled out exactly what’s wrong. They only know that Commerce claims there was a “narrow, non‑universal jailbreak” in Fable.   

That’s it. That’s all. 

Anthropic has also observed, with reason, that similar jailbreaks are possible on other leading models, like OpenAI’s GPT‑5.5. Those others, however, haven’t been hammered with comparable export controls.

The AI and security experts who do have an AI clue believe Commerce is behaving stupidly. (You won’t get any argument there from me.) For example, in an open letter, “On Transparent AI Cyber Protections,” they said Commerce’s directive “has taken the best models away from defenders, created market uncertainty, and risked America’s AI leadership without any real risk to justify it,” warning that pulling capabilities “away from defenders without a good reason when our adversaries are rapidly advancing is dangerous.”

Exactly so. 

Besides, as Alex Zenla, co-founder and CTO of security company Edera, observed, Fable’s capability to identify insecure code sections is the baseline for any model you’d trust to write secure code. The same capability exists in GPT-5.5, Opus, Sonnet, and Kimi 2.7 — it’s not unique to Fable. Pulling Fable from defenders doesn’t remove the capability from the threat landscape. It just removes it from the people trying to build safer systems.”

This is not about AI safety or security. 

What this is really about is opening a new front in Trump’s war against the liberal-leaning Anthropic. Mind you, Anthropic isn’t really liberal. This has more to do with Anthropic not following in other tech firms’ groveling to Trump. 

However, Trump doesn’t seem to realize that by essentially shutting down Anthropic’s biggest move to date, he’s also telling the world that they can’t rely on American AI companies down the road. Sure, in the short run, this hurts Anthropic. In the long run, it’s going to be another reason for Europe and other countries — taking digital sovereignty seriously — to avoid doing business with any American tech company. 

In the meantime, Anthropic and Trump administration officials are in tense talks over whether, and under what safeguards, the models could return to the marketplace. Commerce indicates it might allow a narrower relaunch if jailbreak issues are resolved and additional controls are in place — whatever those might be. 

Since it’s really all about massaging Trump’s ego, I’m not feeling terribly optimistic. Just ask Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu how well letting Trump set the terms of engagement goes. It’s not pretty. 

With the market capitalization of AI companies soaring, US Senator Bernie Sanders is looking to give the American people a piece of the action.

The veteran senator for Vermont has introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Bill, aiming to give the public a 50 percent ownership in the largest AI companies in the US. It’s a timely move with both OpenAI and Anthropic preparing for the imminent IPOs.

Sanders is not the only one pondering such a move. As the bill notes, OpenAI has proposed the creation of a “Public Wealth Fund” giving citizens a stake in “AI-driven economic growth,” while Anthropic has proposed a sovereign wealth fund to “shape the sector’s behavior.” President Trump’s advisors are also contemplating the possibility of the government grabbing a stake in major AI corporations, according to media reports.

Sovereign wealth funds are not a new idea: Many administrations across the world have implemented them, notably Norway which has about $2 trillion in its wealth fund.

Sanders’ proposal would give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest AI companies, but, he said, it wasn’t just about the wealth. “The foundation of AI is based on the collective knowledge of humanity and the creative work of tens of millions of people. The American people must have the ability to slow it down and make sure that AI benefits humanity, not just the richest people on the planet. That’s precisely what this legislation does,” he said.

As AI shifts from output-generating large language models (LLMs) to armies of agents taking actions on their own, there is a growing threat that failures could affect system reliability.

Temporal, a Bellevue, WA firm founded in 2019, hopes to solve that problem by stabilizing AI and long-running computing processes through “durable execution,” a technology that reliably resurrects failed computing processes on other hosts. If a machine crashes in the middle of agentic AI transactions, the company resurrects the function on a different host so it can continue exactly where it left off. Temporal says its durable execution process comes with a 100% durability guarantee.

The company was solving these kinds of distributed-systems problems long before the generative AI (genAI) rush, and today it powers infrastructure from Coinbase to Airbnb to OpenAI.

For IT decision-makers, Temporal’s offerings promise to bring reliability to AI operations — especially in regulated industries. Co-founder Samar Abbas spoke recently with Computerworld about his company’s technology, AI reliability, execution and what IT leaders need to keep in mind when evaluating and deploying agentic AI.

How did Temporal come to be a backbone powering AI system? “OpenAI recently announced we power many of their products underneath the cover — that’s where Temporal comes in.

“A couple of years ago, as LLMs got smarter, use cases were about generating outputs. Now, the industry is moving into agentic solutions, where AI isn’t just generating outputs, it’s taking actions. The longer these systems run, the more tools they invoke and the more value they create. 

“They’re evolving into a whole army of agents coordinating to get complex tasks done. This starts to look like distributed systems. We become that execution authority, the reliability backbone for those agentic systems to get their tasks done from A to Z.”

What is Temporal doing in the backend to keep them stable? “It’s a new paradigm for building applications, we call that durable execution. If you write a function and a failure happens, you lose all of your state. When a machine crashes, we maintain the state. We seamlessly resurrect that function on a different host and continue executing exactly where it left off, without you as a developer writing a single line of code. 

“It’s not just a cache, it’s an operating system guaranteeing execution in the presence of failure. We provide 100% durability guarantees behind it. People can use it for mission-critical use cases like transcribing doctor conversations, where even losing one [word] has big implications.”

Did this challenge exist before AI? “My co-founder and I have been at it pretty much our entire careers, spanning almost three decades. We’ve been solving this problem of distributed systems, at Amazon, Microsoft and then Uber, before starting Temporal. We are definitely pre-AI. 

“As more workloads move to cloud and become distributed, it introduces this class of failures. This is the fifth time I’m building this system. I built simple workflow, then [a] durable task framework at Azure, then Cadence at Uber, now Temporal. The company is roughly seven years old, but the code base is over 10 years old, because we started at Uber and it’s been running in production ever since.”

And now you tackle that same problem at AI scale? “The funny thing is, especially with AI, that same problem is now at such a massive scale, it’s gone on steroids, with agentic systems coming online and doing real work. We’ve been powering every Coinbase transaction, every Snap story, every Airbnb booking, every Yum Brands order —  KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell.

“A couple of years ago, it looked like we’d over-invested in the scale and reliability of the platform. Then AI showed up in such a big way that now I’m asking the team: how do we scale another 10x, 100x, even 1000x? These agents are hitting the market in a way we couldn’t have imagined.”

Can you give a concrete example of that 100% guarantee? “When you’re moving money — debit or credit — imagine a failure happens after you’ve debited an account. Temporal guarantees execution of the entire function from start to finish, in the presence of all sorts of failures. At the end of the day, we’re in the business of selling reliability. 

“Developers today spend 80% of their time building resiliency into their systems by working with low-level primitives like queues, databases, retry mechanisms and durable timers, and stitching them together. What we provide eliminates that. And that reliability is exactly what’s becoming critical as enterprises move agents into production.”

Why should CIOs and other IT leaders care about AI reliability? “These agents are now real, no longer prototypes or [proofs of concept]. They’re doing meaningful work in those organizations. Reliability and durability weren’t on the radar for CIOs 12 months ago. Now, it’s the blocker. Especially in regulated industries, if a transaction gets left in the middle, it has real regulatory concerns. 

“That’s what’s holding them back from transitioning into the AI stage. It comes up in pretty much every conversation, in the first 10 minutes I’m talking to a CIO.”

CW: Where do the hardest problems sit today? “Security, governance, identity, authorization, authentication. This is where majority of the problems exist, and the ecosystem is so immature. Even things like MCP, I see organizations struggling to implement MCPs to build these agents. This is an area ripe for innovation and a lot of work, including here at Temporal.”

What skills should developers and CIOs build for the AI age? “The biggest skill now is that developers need to be more product focused. Product-minded engineers are the ones who will thrive, because the whole software development flow, writing code by hand, debugging by hand, testing it, is going to look completely different. The job of an engineer is now building the system that builds the system. 

“Two things are happening in this AI world. First, a lot more engineers are coming into the fold, because companies like Replit or Lovable are making software development approachable for people who haven’t been professionally trained. Second, there’s going to be a lot more applications written than ever before. The problem space is shifting toward how we run all those applications safely and reliably, with all the guardrails. That’s where the industry is headed.”