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.

Thinking Machines Lab, the San Francisco startup founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, has released Inkling, its first general-purpose AI model. The launch adds another US-developed entrant to an open-weight market where Chinese developers produce several leading coding and reasoning models.

Inkling uses a mixture-of-experts architecture with 975 billion total parameters, of which 41 billion are active during processing. It supports a context window of up to 1 million tokens and was pretrained on 45 trillion tokens spanning text, images, audio, and video. Thinking Machines said it also trained the model for coding, tool use, and multimodal tasks.

The release follows the October 2025 launch of Tinker, Thinking Machines’ first product and an API-based platform for customizing AI models. Developers can fine-tune Inkling through the platform.

In a June 2026 assessment, AI model routing platform OpenRouter highlighted DeepSeek V4 Flash, GLM 5.2, MiniMax M3, and Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra as four notable open-weight models. Nemotron was the only US-developed model in the group.

Performance and developer access

Thinking Machines Lab’s benchmark table shows mixed results. Inkling scored 77.6% on SWE-Bench Verified, behind DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM 5.2 but ahead of Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra. It also recorded 74.1% on MCP Atlas, 77.1% on BrowseComp with context management, and 79.8% on IFBench.

Thinking Machines said Inkling’s result used a bash-only harness, while the comparison figures were reported by the competing models’ developers.

The model includes a reasoning-effort setting that developers can adjust from 0.2 to 0.99. Thinking Machines said the setting allows users to balance performance against the number of generated tokens. In the company’s testing, Inkling matched Nemotron 3 Ultra’s Terminal Bench 2.1 score while generating about one-third as many tokens.

Developers can fine-tune Inkling through Tinker using context lengths of 64,000 or 256,000 tokens and test it through the Inkling Playground. The model is available through APIs from Together AI, Fireworks, Modal, Databricks, and Baseten. It is also supported by inference software, including SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, llama.cpp, and Hugging Face Transformers.

Inkling’s full weights are available on Hugging Face as the original checkpoint and as a quantized NVFP4 checkpoint. Thinking Machines also previewed Inkling-Small, which has 276 billion total parameters and 12 billion active parameters. The company said it would release the smaller model’s full weights after completing testing.

Enterprise impact

Inkling’s differentiation lies in its open weights, multimodal capabilities, controllable reasoning, and integration with Tinker, rather than benchmark leadership, according to Biswajeet Mahapatra, principal analyst at Forrester.

“Enterprises are most likely to benefit in workloads where domain adaptation matters more than generic model performance, including knowledge-intensive copilots, multimodal customer service, document understanding, operational workflow automation, and agentic tasks that require organization-specific data, policies, and processes,” Mahapatra said.  

Inkling’s US origin could also influence adoption among Western enterprises, according to Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting. He said many Western organizations face regulatory or procurement barriers when considering Chinese-developed AI models.

“Inkling gives those organizations a US-developed open-weight option that they can deploy on their own infrastructure,” Jain said.

However, the benefits will need to be weighed against the cost of deploying the full model.

Running Inkling on private infrastructure requires a GPU cluster with at least 2 TB of aggregated VRAM for the BF16 checkpoint, according to the model card. Thinking Machines lists configurations of eight Nvidia B300 GPUs or 16 H200 GPUs. A quantized NVFP4 checkpoint lowers the requirement to at least 600 GB and can run on four B300 GPUs or eight H200 GPUs.

“Because Inkling is a massive model with 975 billion total parameters, running the full model still requires significant GPU infrastructure, making closed-model APIs more economical for many organizations,” Jain said.

Jain said Inkling-Small may be a more feasible option for many enterprises because it could reduce infrastructure costs and latency while retaining useful performance across key workloads.

Safety and governance

Thinking Machines said it trained Inkling for calibration, instruction following, and resistance to censorship. The company said the model showed “strong patterns of censorship non-compliance” when evaluated by Cognition on its Propaganda and Censorship Eval.

Inkling scored 98.6% on StrongREJECT, which Thinking Machines described as a test of whether models refuse unambiguous harmful requests.

The model’s safety behavior should be retested after an enterprise customizes it, according to Jain. “Model fine-tuning can weaken safety filters, so companies should retest safety after customizing the model rather than assuming it stays safe,” Jain said.

He added that self-hosted and modified versions could diverge from Thinking Machines’ official model over time without receiving automatic updates.

“CIOs need to ensure every AI agent action is logged, auditable, and governed by human approval for high-risk tasks,” Jain said.

The article originally appeared on InfoWorld.

Thinking Machines Lab, the San Francisco startup founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, has released Inkling, its first general-purpose AI model. The launch adds another US-developed entrant to an open-weight market where Chinese developers produce several leading coding and reasoning models.

Inkling uses a mixture-of-experts architecture with 975 billion total parameters, of which 41 billion are active during processing. It supports a context window of up to 1 million tokens and was pretrained on 45 trillion tokens spanning text, images, audio, and video. Thinking Machines said it also trained the model for coding, tool use, and multimodal tasks.

The release follows the October 2025 launch of Tinker, Thinking Machines’ first product and an API-based platform for customizing AI models. Developers can fine-tune Inkling through the platform.

In a June 2026 assessment, AI model routing platform OpenRouter highlighted DeepSeek V4 Flash, GLM 5.2, MiniMax M3, and Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra as four notable open-weight models. Nemotron was the only US-developed model in the group.

Performance and developer access

Thinking Machines Lab’s benchmark table shows mixed results. Inkling scored 77.6% on SWE-Bench Verified, behind DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM 5.2 but ahead of Nvidia Nemotron 3 Ultra. It also recorded 74.1% on MCP Atlas, 77.1% on BrowseComp with context management, and 79.8% on IFBench.

Thinking Machines said Inkling’s result used a bash-only harness, while the comparison figures were reported by the competing models’ developers.

The model includes a reasoning-effort setting that developers can adjust from 0.2 to 0.99. Thinking Machines said the setting allows users to balance performance against the number of generated tokens. In the company’s testing, Inkling matched Nemotron 3 Ultra’s Terminal Bench 2.1 score while generating about one-third as many tokens.

Developers can fine-tune Inkling through Tinker using context lengths of 64,000 or 256,000 tokens and test it through the Inkling Playground. The model is available through APIs from Together AI, Fireworks, Modal, Databricks, and Baseten. It is also supported by inference software, including SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, llama.cpp, and Hugging Face Transformers.

Inkling’s full weights are available on Hugging Face as the original checkpoint and as a quantized NVFP4 checkpoint. Thinking Machines also previewed Inkling-Small, which has 276 billion total parameters and 12 billion active parameters. The company said it would release the smaller model’s full weights after completing testing.

Enterprise impact

Inkling’s differentiation lies in its open weights, multimodal capabilities, controllable reasoning, and integration with Tinker, rather than benchmark leadership, according to Biswajeet Mahapatra, principal analyst at Forrester.

“Enterprises are most likely to benefit in workloads where domain adaptation matters more than generic model performance, including knowledge-intensive copilots, multimodal customer service, document understanding, operational workflow automation, and agentic tasks that require organization-specific data, policies, and processes,” Mahapatra said.  

Inkling’s US origin could also influence adoption among Western enterprises, according to Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting. He said many Western organizations face regulatory or procurement barriers when considering Chinese-developed AI models.

“Inkling gives those organizations a US-developed open-weight option that they can deploy on their own infrastructure,” Jain said.

However, the benefits will need to be weighed against the cost of deploying the full model.

Running Inkling on private infrastructure requires a GPU cluster with at least 2 TB of aggregated VRAM for the BF16 checkpoint, according to the model card. Thinking Machines lists configurations of eight Nvidia B300 GPUs or 16 H200 GPUs. A quantized NVFP4 checkpoint lowers the requirement to at least 600 GB and can run on four B300 GPUs or eight H200 GPUs.

“Because Inkling is a massive model with 975 billion total parameters, running the full model still requires significant GPU infrastructure, making closed-model APIs more economical for many organizations,” Jain said.

Jain said Inkling-Small may be a more feasible option for many enterprises because it could reduce infrastructure costs and latency while retaining useful performance across key workloads.

Safety and governance

Thinking Machines said it trained Inkling for calibration, instruction following, and resistance to censorship. The company said the model showed “strong patterns of censorship non-compliance” when evaluated by Cognition on its Propaganda and Censorship Eval.

Inkling scored 98.6% on StrongREJECT, which Thinking Machines described as a test of whether models refuse unambiguous harmful requests.

The model’s safety behavior should be retested after an enterprise customizes it, according to Jain. “Model fine-tuning can weaken safety filters, so companies should retest safety after customizing the model rather than assuming it stays safe,” Jain said.

He added that self-hosted and modified versions could diverge from Thinking Machines’ official model over time without receiving automatic updates.

“CIOs need to ensure every AI agent action is logged, auditable, and governed by human approval for high-risk tasks,” Jain said.

It’s not so much generosity that’s behind Anthropic’s decision to extend free access to its most advanced model, Fable, for paid subscribers until July 19, analysts say. Its a last-minute move to grab users, data and model evaluation results.

After the free-access period, Anthropic plans to convert Fable to a pay-per-use model, at $10 per million input tokens and a whopping $50 for 1 million output tokens.

That is double the price of its next most advanced model, Opus 4.8, for input and output tokens. “We’re extending Claude Fable 5 access on all paid plans, as well as keeping Claude Code’s weekly rate limits 50% higher, through July 19,” Anthropic’s team said in a July 12 tweet.

Anthropic keeps extending Fable because it does not yet know what its flagship is worth, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, principal analyst at Greyhound Research. “A vendor confident in its price does not move the same cutoff twice in six days, both times at the wire,” Gogia said.

Anthropic is essentially pushing deadlines to test its products, while users gain by being able to put their toughest tasks to Fable, Gogia said.

Anthropic, which did not immediately reply to a request for comment about the situation, has already seen plenty of action with Fable and its sister model Mythos. Both have been touted as the company’s most advanced models yet.

Fable stumbles, then reappears

Fable was officially launched June 9. Just three days later, on June 12, the US government put export controls on it after Amazon researchers bypassed Fable’s safeguards, prompting the model to identify software vulnerabilities and demonstrate an exploit. 

After Anthropic scrambled to address the issues — and after the export controls were lifted — Fable was relaunched July 1.

Fable’s freebie extension comes after OpenAI’s latest model, ChatGPT 5.6 Sol, became generally available July 9. Sol is cheaper at $5 per one million tokens input, and $30 for 1 million output tokens.

Anthropic and OpenAI are competing aggressively to build market share, said Jack Gold, principal analyst at J. Gold Associates. “Anthropic and OpenAI are looking to go public and the more users they have, the more attractive it is — even if they are not yet producing income,” he said.

In some ways, the two companies are following a well-trodden path to get customers hooked on their products and turned into paying customers. That’s what Meta, Google and Microsoft, for instance, have done over the years with various “free” offers that later morphed into paid products. 

Plus, said Gold, ”The more users you have, the better you can train your models across multiple data sets.”

That’s a potential boon for proprietary large language model (LLM) vendors offering free tokens in a bid to lock enterprises and vendors into their AI environments. But numerous experts have warned enterprises not to fall for that tactic. Instead, they argue enterprises should diversify AI development across multiple AI and cloud vendors, and adopt open-source models.

An LLM space race?

According to LLM benchmarks maintained by Artificial Analysis, Fable is the most intelligent model currently available, with Sol just behind it in second place. One benchmark by LiveBench places Sol as being better in reasoning, with Fable better at math, data analysis, instruction following and language. Both models have advantages in coding.

Meanwhile, Cursor and SpaceXAI on July 8 unveiled Grok 4.5, which the companies said can “handle difficult, long-running tasks that require creatively using tools to solve problems, whether in software engineering, data science, finance, legal work, or anything else you do on a computer,” the company said in a blog entry.

Its pricing is even more aggressive than Fable and ChatGPT 5.6 Sol. Grok 4.5 charges $2 for 1 million input tokens and $6 for 1 million output tokens.

There are growing concerns about tokenmaxxing, where enterprises rack up billions of dollars in token spending, blowing past usage limits before finance controls are implemented.

Enterprises might decide to spend more on models such as Mythos and Fable — if the benefits are tangible, said Max Leaming, head of data science and AI solutions at ManpowerGroup. Fable and Mythos may “actually be less expensive to use in spite of the spiked token cost because it’s far more efficient,” he said.

A company might find that the models use fewer tokens, are faster, and can reduce compute time, he said. “Even though the per-token costs may go up, we may see overall costs go down,” Leaming said.

A year ago, most enterprise AI systems generated recommendations. Today, AI systems are approving transactions, routing shipments, updating records, interacting with customers, and triggering downstream software actions with little or no human involvement.

For CIOs, that shift changes the central governance question. The challenge is no longer simply whether an AI model is accurate. It is whether the organization can explain, audit, and defend the decisions the system makes.

When an AI assistant suggests a meeting time or summarizes a document, mistakes are inconvenient. When an autonomous AI system issues a refund, reprices a product, modifies a customer record, or initiates a financial transaction, mistakes carry operational, legal, and reputational consequences.

When those consequences arrive, “the model decided” is not an acceptable explanation.

This is the accountability gap emerging at the center of enterprise AI adoption. Organizations are deploying increasingly autonomous systems while relying on technology that often provides little visibility into how decisions are made. The result is a growing mismatch between the level of authority organizations grant AI and their ability to understand or justify its actions.

Black-box AI may have been acceptable when AI primarily generated predictions. It becomes far more problematic when AI begins taking actions on behalf of the business.

The lesson software already learned

Fortunately, the technology industry has faced a similar challenge before.

As enterprise software systems became more distributed and complex, troubleshooting failures became increasingly difficult. Engineers could no longer rely on intuition to understand what happened when something broke. The solution was observability: the practice of instrumenting systems so their internal state could be understood through logs, metrics, traces, and monitoring.

The goal was not to predict every possible failure in advance. It was to create enough visibility that teams could reconstruct what happened after the fact and identify the root cause.

Enterprise AI now requires a similar discipline.

But AI observability must go beyond traditional software observability. It is not enough to know what action occurred. Organizations also need visibility into why the system believed that action was appropriate.

An auditable AI system should be able to answer questions such as:

• What information did the system rely on?
• Which tools or data sources did it access?
• What alternatives did it consider?
• What verification steps were performed?
• How confident was it in its conclusion?
• What events led to the final action?

These questions are rapidly becoming essential operational requirements rather than technical nice-to-haves.

Why visibility matters more as AI gains autonomy

As AI systems become more autonomous, failures become harder to detect and diagnose.

A human reviewing a single AI-generated recommendation can often spot obvious mistakes. A network of AI agents coordinating multiple tasks across business processes presents a different challenge. Decisions can build upon one another. A flawed assumption early in a workflow can propagate through subsequent actions, creating confident but incorrect outcomes.

The challenge is rarely identifying that something went wrong. Eventually, an error surfaces through a customer complaint, a failed transaction, an audit finding, or an operational disruption.

The challenge is determining why it happened.

Which information influenced the decision? Which tools were consulted? Which safeguards worked as intended? Which ones failed?

Without visibility into the reasoning process, troubleshooting autonomous AI workflows can become significantly more difficult than debugging traditional software systems.

For CIOs responsible for enterprise reliability, compliance, and governance, that lack of visibility creates unacceptable operational risk.

Moving toward glass-box AI

The answer is not to slow AI adoption. The answer is to make AI systems observable.

Increasingly, organizations are seeking AI systems that behave more like a glass box than a black box. The objective is not to expose every parameter inside a neural network. Rather, it is to provide a clear, auditable record of how decisions were reached and why actions were taken.

The most promising approaches share two common characteristics.

The first is verification. Instead of treating a single model’s output as ground truth, systems incorporate independent validation steps before actions are executed. Multiple agents, external checks, business rules, or verification workflows help identify errors before they become operational incidents.

The second is explainability. Effective systems maintain a decision trail that captures inputs, intermediate reasoning steps, tool usage, verification activities, and outputs in a form that human reviewers can understand.

Together, these capabilities create something that has long been expected of human decision-makers but is often missing from AI systems: the ability to show your work.

The regulatory and business reality

The push toward AI observability is not being driven solely by technologists.

Regulators increasingly expect organizations to demonstrate oversight of automated decision-making systems. Emerging AI governance frameworks place growing emphasis on transparency, traceability, accountability, and human oversight.

Customers are moving in the same direction. Whether the decision involves pricing, service, eligibility, or support, people increasingly want the ability to understand and challenge outcomes that affect them.

The result is a convergence of operational, regulatory, and market pressures around a single requirement: organizations must be able to explain what their AI systems are doing.

Three questions every CIO should ask

Before deploying autonomous AI systems, technology leaders should be able to answer three basic questions:

1. Can we reconstruct the complete decision path that led to an action?
2. Can we verify critical outputs before actions are executed?
3. Can a human auditor understand why the decision occurred?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, the organization may be granting more authority to AI than it can responsibly govern.

Accountability will become a competitive advantage

The organizations that succeed with autonomous AI will not necessarily be those that automate the most processes or deploy the largest models. They will be the organizations that combine automation with accountability.

Black-box systems made sense when AI primarily generated predictions. As AI increasingly acts on behalf of businesses, customers, and employees, visibility becomes essential.

The future of enterprise AI will belong not to systems that merely act, but to systems whose actions can be examined, understood, and trusted.

—

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

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

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

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

The agent workload is structurally different

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

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

What agent execution actually requires

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

The mismatch shows up fast in production

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

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

Security is not the same problem it was before

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

What teams that ship agents have already figured out

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

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

The ecosystem is catching up, but defaults are sticky

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

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

The structural advantage is available now

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

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

Enterprises that use AI in hiring and firing decisions continue to be under scrutiny, and this time it’s Meta under the microscope.

A legal complaint filed on July 13 in a US District Court in California alleges that Meta used AI systems that unfairly and illegally selected workers for termination while they were out on protected leave.

More than two dozen anonymous plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent the company from finalizing their separations or altering their compensation, benefits, or protected leave status.

Meta has countered that the claims lack merit and that its workforce decisions were, and continue to be, made by people, not AI.

An important lesson

These allegations should serve as an important lesson to other businesses using AI in their HR decision-making, analysts note.

“Enterprises must begin by rejecting the convenient assumption that AI improves workforce decisions simply by touching them,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.

There is “scant independent proof” that AI makes layoff choices more accurate or more lawful, he said. “It makes them faster, and faster has never been shown to be fairer.”

The claims against Meta

The complaint states that, on May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying roughly 10% of its workforce (around 8,000 employees) that they had been selected for termination. The company also announced that several thousand more would be reassigned to new AI initiatives. But this came even as Meta reported record revenues in Q1 2026 ($56.31 billion, a 33% year-over-year increase), and pledged to spend upwards of $100 billion on AI this year.

In addition to questioning the need for staff cuts, the filing alleges that Meta used a “constellation” of internal AI systems to score, rank, and select employees for termination. These tools included Meta’s internal AI coworker, “Metamate,” employee-trained “second-brain” agents that replicated their output, algorithms tracking keystrokes and other digital activity, and AI token usage dashboards.

“Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work,” the complaint claims.

The 26 plaintiffs, all current or former employees, requested, took, or were approved for “statutorily protected” leave within 24 months of the workforce reduction, and claim they were “disproportionately selected” for layoff based on scoring that essentially penalized them for exercising their legal right to take leave.

These practices are prohibited by federal and state law; The US Family and Medical Leave Act, for one, prohibits the use of protected leave as a “negative factor” in employment decisions. Further, the plaintiffs allege that Meta violated the US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act that requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide written notice 60 calendar days in advance of mass layoffs.

This notice gives employees reasonable time to seek alternate employment; however, the complaint argues, an employee undergoing “significant medical treatment” or providing “around the clock care” for a “weeks old newborn” or other loved ones “cannot also be told that during this exact same time period they must look for new work.”

In one scenario, according to the filing, a scientist was identified for termination just two days before she gave birth while on pregnancy leave. In another, an engineer’s manager tied his performance rating to “broken time” when an injury prevented him from working. In a third, a researcher was called out after requesting time off following a medical diagnosis.

The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction pending an independent audit of the “algorithmically assisted selection process” and “resolution of the merits of their claims” in arbitration.

Once terminations are finalized, the harm to plaintiffs “cannot be undone by money damages alone,” the complaint states. For employees out on leave, “every day that goes by constitutes additional harm, in that Meta is taking away the entire purpose of a protected leave.”

Considerations for enterprises

Any system that materially influences who keeps a job is not an HR tool, Gogia noted. “It is high-risk enterprise infrastructure.”

An “AI-determined” process delegates the outcome to the system, while an “AI-assisted” one gives the system the ability to rank, recommend, and summarize, with a human formally making the final decision. Exposure arises in either model, Gogia pointed out, because the output has often been compressed and eliminates detail by the time of executive approval.

There must be one non-negotiable role in the process, Gogia said: A single executive with the authority to halt the process, suspend the model, and delay decisions when evidence does not hold. This person should be “a meaningful reviewer [who] understands the model’s limits, knows the actual work, and holds the authority to challenge the recommendation, with every override visible and reviewable,” he said. At the same time, the objective is to “govern the machine and the manager together,” since human judgement brings its own “risks, favoritism, and proximity” bias.

Gogia advised enterprises to retain fixed memory for auditing, determine who chose the auditor, what was excluded, and whether the result can be reproduced. They should also inventory every source feeding the model and its origins, and run adverse-impact analysis before making any firing decisions.

Leave details must never be identified as inactivity or weak adoption; a protected absence is not ordinary missing data, and the system has to be informed of this. Rather, these circumstances belong in an “independent review lane,” where human reviewers get enough context to “neutralize” the period without receiving specific leave details, Gogia said.

He pointed to another important question: What should the “second brain” AI agent that ingested the employee’s communications and documents to replicate the employee’s output be allowed to do when humans are away, and who owns that output?

Ultimately, said Gogia, “the safest position is not to ban AI from workforce planning. Used with discipline, it can expose duplicated work and inconsistent assessment, and it can challenge human bias rather than automate it.”

How employees can protect their rights

Employees, for their part, need a genuine window in which to challenge inaccurate data before separation becomes “irreversible,” and they should “fight the record, not the algorithm,” Gogia advised.

That means that, while the model cannot explain itself, documented evidence can. Employees should lawfully retain their own reviews, leave approvals, and severance documents, and build a chronology of events: When leave was requested, when performance language changed, when new metrics appeared, Gogia said.

Impacted workers should ask in writing which criteria were used in the decision, whether automated systems materially influenced it, how protected leave was treated, and what information about them influenced the result and how that information was verified.

Further, it’s important to take note of deadlines; the federal discrimination window is typically six months, although that is extended to 10 in many places, and internal processes are “not obliged to respect it,” said Gogia.

His ultimate advice for workers: “Preserve the lawful record, and protect the deadline.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest of the world may have concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some love the proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.