Background: Computer perception (CP) technologies hold significant promise for advancing precision mental health care systems, given their ability to leverage algorithmic analysis of continuous, passive sensing data from wearables and smartphones (eg, behavioral activity, geolocation, vocal features, and ambient environmental data) to infer clinically meaningful behavioral and physiological states. However, successful implementation critically depends on cultivating well-founded stakeholder trust. Objective: This study aims to investigate, across adolescents, caregivers, clinicians, and developers, the contingencies under which CP technologies are deemed trustworthy in health care. Methods: We conducted 80 semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of adolescents (n=20) diagnosed with autism, Tourette syndrome, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and their caregivers (n=20); practicing clinicians across psychiatry, psychology, and pediatrics (n=20); and CP system developers (n=20). Interview transcripts were coded by 2 independent coders and analyzed using multistage, inductive thematic content analysis to identify prominent themes. Results: Across stakeholder groups, 5 core criteria emerged as prerequisites for trust in CP outputs: (1) epistemic alignment—consistency between system outputs, personal experience, and existing diagnostic frameworks; (2) demonstrable rigor—training on representative data and validation in real-world contexts; (3) explainability—transparent communication of input variables, thresholds, and decision logic; (4) sensitivity to complexity—the capacity to accommodate heterogeneity and comorbidity in symptom expression; and (5) a nonsubstitutive role—technologies must augment, rather than supplant, clinical judgment. A novel and cautionary finding was that epistemic alignment—whether outputs affirmed participants’ preexisting beliefs, diagnostic expectations, or internal states—was a dominant factor in determining whether the tool was perceived as trustworthy. Participants also expressed relational trust, placing confidence in CP systems based on endorsements from respected peers, academic institutions, or regulatory agencies. However, both trust strategies raise significant concerns: confirmation bias may lead users to overvalue outputs that align with their assumptions, while surrogate trust may be misapplied in the absence of robust performance validation. Conclusions: This study advances empirical understanding of how trust is formed and calibrated around artificial intelligence–based CP technologies. While trust is commonly framed as a function of technical performance, our findings show that it is deeply shaped by cognitive heuristics, social relationships, and alignment with entrenched epistemologies. These dynamics can facilitate intuitive verification but may also constrain the transformative potential of CP systems by reinforcing existing beliefs. To address this, we recommend a dual strategy: (1) embedding CP tools within institutional frameworks that uphold rigorous validation, ethical oversight, and transparent design; and (2) providing clinicians with training and interface designs that support critical appraisal and minimize susceptibility to cognitive bias. Recalibrating trust to reflect actual system capacities—rather than familiarity or endorsement—is essential for ethically sound and clinically meaningful integration of CP technologies.

npj Digital Medicine, Published online: 13 December 2025; doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02157-1

Legal implications of AI standard of care integration on patients’ informed consent: lessons from surgery

Generative AI’s experimental phase is concluding, making way for truly autonomous systems in 2026 that act rather than merely summarise.

2026 will lose the focus on model parameters and be about agency, energy efficiency, and the ability to navigate complex industrial environments. The next twelve months represent a departure from chatbots toward autonomous systems executing workflows with minimal oversight; forcing organisations to rethink infrastructure, governance, and talent management.

Autonomous AI systems take the wheel

Hanen Garcia, Chief Architect for Telecommunications at Red Hat, argues that while 2025 was defined by experimentation, the coming year marks a “decisive pivot towards agentic AI, autonomous software entities capable of reasoning, planning, and executing complex workflows without constant human intervention.”

Telecoms and heavy industry are the proving grounds. Garcia points to a trajectory toward autonomous network operations (ANO), moving beyond simple automation to self-configuring and self-healing systems. The business goal is to reverse commoditisation by “prioritising intelligence over pure infrastructure” and reduce operating expenditures.

Technologically, service providers are deploying multiagent systems (MAS). Rather than relying on a single model, these allow distinct agents to collaborate on multi-step tasks, handling complex interactions autonomously. However, increased autonomy introduces new threats.

Emmet King, Founding Partner of J12 Ventures, warns that “as AI agents gain the ability to autonomously execute tasks, hidden instructions embedded in images and workflows become potential attack vectors.” Security priorities must therefore shift from endpoint protection to “governing and auditing autonomous AI actions.”

As organisations scale these autonomous AI workloads, they hit a physical wall: power.

King argues energy availability, rather than model access, will determine which startups scale. “Compute scarcity is now a function of grid capacity,” King states, suggesting energy policy will become the de facto AI policy in Europe.

KPIs must adapt. Sergio Gago, CTO at Cloudera, predicts enterprises will prioritise energy efficiency as a primary metric. “The new competitive edge won’t come from the largest models, but from the most intelligent, efficient use of resources.”

Horizontal copilots lacking domain expertise or proprietary data will fail ROI tests as buyers measure real productivity. The “clearest enterprise ROI” will emerge from manufacturing, logistics, and advanced engineering—sectors where AI integrates into high-value workflows rather than consumer-facing interfaces.

AI ends the static app in 2026

Software consumption is changing too. Chris Royles, Field CTO for EMEA at Cloudera, suggests the traditional concept of an “app” is becoming fluid. “In 2026, AI will start to radically change the way we think about apps, how they function and how they’re built.”

Users will soon request temporary modules generated by code and a prompt, effectively replacing dedicated applications. “Once that function has served its purpose, it closes,” Royles explains, noting these “disposable” apps can be built and rebuilt in seconds.

Rigorous governance is required here; organisations need visibility into the reasoning processes used to create these modules to ensure errors are corrected safely.

Data storage faces a similar reckoning, especially as AI becomes more autonomous. Wim Stoop, Director of Product Marketing at Cloudera, believes the era of “digital hoarding” is ending as storage capacity hits its limit.

“AI-generated data will become disposable, created and refreshed on demand rather than stored indefinitely,” Stoop predicts. Verified, human-generated data will rise in value while synthetic content is discarded.

Specialist AI governance agents will pick up the slack. These “digital colleagues” will continuously monitor and secure data, allowing humans to “govern the governance” rather than enforcing individual rules. For example, a security agent could automatically adjust access permissions as new data enters the environment without human intervention.

Sovereignty and the human element

Sovereignty remains a pressing concern for European IT. Red Hat’s survey data indicates 92 percent of IT and AI leaders in EMEA view enterprise open-source software as vital for achieving sovereignty. Providers will leverage existing data centre footprints to offer sovereign AI solutions, ensuring data remains within specific jurisdictions to meet compliance demands.

Emmet King, Founding Partner of J12 Ventures, adds that competitive advantage is moving from owning models to “controlling training pipelines and energy supply,” with open-source advancements allowing more actors to run frontier-scale workloads.

Workforce integration is becoming personal. Nick Blasi, Co-Founder of Personos, argues tools ignoring human nuance – tone, temperament, and personality – will soon feel obsolete. By 2026, Blasi predicts “half of workplace conflict will be flagged by AI before managers know it exists.”

These systems will focus on “communication, influence, trust, motivation, and conflict resolution,” Blasi suggests, adding that personality science will become the “operating system” for the next generation of autonomous AI, offering grounded understanding of human individuality rather than generic recommendations.

The era of the “thin wrapper” is over. Buyers are now measuring real productivity, exposing tools built on hype rather than proprietary data. For the enterprise, competitive advantage will no longer come from renting access to a model, but from controlling the training pipelines and energy supply that power it.

See also: BBVA embeds AI into banking workflows using ChatGPT Enterprise

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events. Click here for more information.

AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.

The post AI in 2026: Experimental AI concludes as autonomous systems rise appeared first on AI News.

Nature, Published online: 12 December 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-04048-7

The United States tops the remaining areas in an assessment of 74 technologies.

Trump signed an AI executive order targeting state laws and promising one national rulebook. Critics warn it could trigger court battles and prolong uncertainty for startups while Congress debates federal rules.