Sarah Deitke discusses how Duolingo drives cultural AI adoption beyond tooling access. She explains their internal AI literacy workshops and observability dashboards, then shares a case study on redesigning code review using an automated PR risk-assessment bot. Deitke demonstrates how pairing targeted developer education with safe AI guardrails speeds up delivery without increasing defect rates. By Sarah Deitke
Sarah Deitke discusses how Duolingo drives cultural AI adoption beyond tooling access. She explains their internal AI literacy workshops and observability dashboards, then shares a case study on redesigning code review using an automated PR risk-assessment bot. Deitke demonstrates how pairing targeted developer education with safe AI guardrails speeds up delivery without increasing defect rates.
Postgres can serve as the durable state store and coordination layer for workflows, eliminating the need for an external orchestrator. SKIP LOCKED enables concurrent work processing, primary-key checkpoints enforce idempotency, and leases support crash recovery. Workflow sleeps and human approvals can also be persisted as database state and survive restarts. By Raman Varma
Postgres can serve as the durable state store and coordination layer for workflows, eliminating the need for an external orchestrator. SKIP LOCKED enables concurrent work processing, primary-key checkpoints enforce idempotency, and leases support crash recovery. Workflow sleeps and human approvals can also be persisted as database state and survive restarts.
Supply chain disruption cost businesses about $184 billion in 2025, according to the J.S. Held Global Risk Report, and most of that bill still buys faster detection, not faster action.
That figure is usually treated as weather (i.e. storms happen, costs follow.) Treated as a product specification instead, it highlights an operating model that can spot a problem hours or days earlier than it used to, and still cannot move until a person has opened a ticket, convened a call, and re-entered the
Supply chain disruption cost businesses about $184 billion in 2025, according to the J.S. Held Global Risk Report, and most of that bill still buys faster detection, not faster action.
That figure is usually treated as weather (i.e. storms happen, costs follow.) Treated as a product specification instead, it highlights an operating model that can spot a problem hours or days earlier than it used to, and still cannot move until a person has opened a ticket, convened a call, and re-entered the same data into three systems.
Visibility platforms, control towers, risk scores, digital twins, and exception dashboards have defined the last decade of AI in the supply chain. That decade has been very good at collapsing the time between an event and awareness of it, but it has been far less good at collapsing the time between awareness and a commercial act.
Detection is a ‘solved-enough’ problem
Ask a chief supply chain officer where the AI budget went and the answer tends to follow a familiar list: demand sensing, ETA prediction, supplier risk scoring, inventory optimisation, and lane analytics. These tools work. Forecast error comes down. A vessel delay is flagged before the container misses the cut-off. A second-tier fab outage shows up on a heat map instead of in a customer email.
None of that accounts for the $184 billion. The bill is the interval after the flag: expedite or wait; split the order or accept the miss; retender the lane or pay the spot rate; consolidate two half-empty movements or ship both; swap ocean for air on the SKUs that actually justify the premium. These are bounded, repeatable decisions that sit inside policy, contract, and inventory limits the company already set—and they still queue behind a human inbox.
Surveys keep describing the same lag in different language. A 2026 Knosc survey of mid-market manufacturers and distributors found that supply-chain teams spend 28 percent of their working time responding to disruptions, most of it investigating what happened rather than changing what happens next.
Logistics executives still rank AI as a strategic priority (Capgemini’s 2025 research put an AI-driven “new-gen” supply chain among the top three technology trends for 70 percent of large-company executives) and then report that measurable financial impact remains rare. Gartner found in 2025 that only 23 percent of supply-chain organisations even have a formal AI strategy. The shortfall is not a shortage of models, but a shortage of authority granted to software.
The ticket is the product
Most current deployments are built around the ticket. The model produces a recommendation, the recommendation becomes an alert, the alert becomes a work item, and the work item waits for a planner already occupied with other work items. By the time the planner acts, the option set has narrowed—the alternative carrier’s capacity is gone, the consolidation window has closed, and the supplier’s next production slot is allocated.
That workflow is not a temporary step on the way to autonomy but the product companies bought. Vendors sold insight because insight is easy to demonstrate and easy to govern; action touches money, contracts, service levels, and blame. So the industry automated the part of the job that does not require a signature. FourKites and ABI Research reported in 2025 that only 27 percent of organisations allow AI to take autonomous action, while 52 percent confine it to decision support.
Adding another dashboard to a delayed shipment rarely moves EBITDA as a result. The decision cycle has not changed; it has only been decorated.
Bounded action as the next model
The firms set to take share are not the ones with the tidiest control tower but the ones that pre-authorise a narrow class of moves and let agents execute them while the exception is still cheap.
Retender a lane when the contracted carrier’s ETA slips beyond a threshold and a qualified alternate sits inside the approved rate band. Consolidate outbound waves when fill rates and cut-off times make a combined movement cheaper than two. Swap mode on a defined SKU set when the cost of air is lower than the cost of a missed retail window. Reallocate safety stock across two distribution centres when a forecast miss and a transport constraint line up.
None of that requires a strategy offsite. Each can be written as: if these conditions, then this action, within this spend cap, with this audit trail, and a human only if the case falls outside the fence. That is not a “lights-out” supply chain—it is the same discipline manufacturers already apply to machine control, where the agent may act inside the interlock and escalates outside it. The difference here is commercial rather than physical: the interlock is a policy object – category, supplier tier, mode, dollar limit, and service class – not a PLC.
Three conditions for real change
First, decisions have to be written as policies, not tribal knowledge. If the only place “we will pay air on A-items after 48 hours of ocean slip” lives is in a planner’s head, no agent can execute it. The work of the next two years is less model training than decision design: which moves are reversible, which are capped, and which suppliers and modes are pre-cleared.
Second, execution systems have to accept machine-initiated transactions. An agent that can draft an RFQ but cannot post it is still a detection tool. TMS, WMS, sourcing suites, and carrier APIs need to treat a bounded agent the way they treat a junior buyer with a spend limit—authenticated, logged, and reversible.
Third, accountability has to move with the action. If a retender inside policy goes wrong, the post-mortem should inspect the policy, the data, and the fence, not hunt for the person who “should have checked”. Until that cultural change happens, every agent will be designed to wait, because waiting is how careers survive.
The competitive split
For a while, both models will look alike on a slide—both will have AI, and both will have a control tower. The difference will show up in cycle time from detection to commercial act, and then in service and cost.
Companies that keep buying detection will know about the storm earlier. Companies that authorise bounded action will already have retendered the lane, consolidated the wave, and moved the A-items before the incident call is booked.
Disruption is not going away. Lead times in critical components, mode volatility, and multi-tier opacity are structural features of the network. What remains optional is whether the response waits for a human to open a queue. The product that created the lag was insight without authority. The product that ends it is an agent allowed to spend a little money, inside a fence, before anyone is free to look.
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 including the Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Click here for more information.
AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.
Arm has launched Arm Total Design for Physical AI alongside a new robotics framework to establish common standards across automated systems.
Physical industries – spanning mining, agriculture, manufacturing, and global transport – account for trillions of dollars in economic activity and an estimated $200 billion annual compute opportunity by the 2030s.
To address engineering fragmentation across these sectors, Arm is convening more than 80 partner organisations spanning software, hardware
Arm has launched Arm Total Design for Physical AI alongside a new robotics framework to establish common standards across automated systems.
Physical industries – spanning mining, agriculture, manufacturing, and global transport – account for trillions of dollars in economic activity and an estimated $200 billion annual compute opportunity by the 2030s.
To address engineering fragmentation across these sectors, Arm is convening more than 80 partner organisations spanning software, hardware, and AI. Initial ecosystem participants include AWS, ECARX, Hugging Face, Liquid AI, NXP, PlusAI, PSYONIC, QNX, Qwen, Siemens, and Unitree Robotics.
The initiative targets physical systems that combine AI models, runtime software, compute silicon, sensors, and actuators to sense, reason, and act in operational environments. Hardware manufacturers and software developers require standardised baselines to reduce integration risk, optimise compute workloads, and move from proof-of-concept testing to deployment at scale.
Arm standardises capability tiers for robotics systems
Robotics currently lacks a common method to describe, compare, and communicate system capabilities, according to an architectural manifesto (PDF) published by Arm chief architect Richard Grisenthwaite. This fragmentation makes robotic systems harder to design, integrate, and scale across industrial deployments.
In response, Arm has introduced the Robotics Capability Framework as a collaborative starting point for a shared technical vocabulary, patterned after the SAE Levels used for driving automation.
Arm’s new framework categorises robotic systems across progressing tiers of operational sophistication, mapping machines from reactive setups to context-aware, cognitive, and self-improving systems.
Each capability tier links real-world use cases to machine behaviours, outputs, and hardware constraints. These criteria establish parameters for system latency, compute placement, memory allocation, power constraints, determinism, and safety standards.
Arm developed the initial baseline using feedback from across the robotics sector. Participating organisations contributing to the framework include Anaxi Labs, ANYbotics, FMC³ Robotics, Fourier, GALBOT, Gravis Robotics, Lenovo, McKinsey, and Robotec.ai.
Virtual platforms accelerate pre-silicon automotive physical AI development
Arm Total Design for Physical AI extends a collaborative development structure previously used for cloud AI infrastructure. The programme brings together AI models, virtual platforms, digital twins, sensors, compute silicon, and software stacks to enable earlier development and testing cycles.
Autonomous transport and robotics face common technical requirements across sensory perception, AI processing, real-time control, safety, and power-efficient compute. Arm demonstrated this collaborative methodology in the automotive sector alongside AWS, Google, HERE, RemotiveLabs, and Siemens.
The participating automotive companies developed an integrated digital cockpit reference solution. This environment enabled software engineering teams to develop, test, and validate complex automotive code on the Arm Zena CSS platform prior to physical silicon availability.
Arm is now soliciting technical contributions from the wider engineering community to expand the Robotics Capability Framework as physical AI implementations progress.
Learn more about physical AI during thePhysical AI Expoheld in Amsterdam, London, and North America.
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 including the Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Click here for more information.
AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.
A new open-source toolkit from Microsoft focuses on runtime security to force strict governance onto enterprise AI agents. The release tackles a growing anxiety: autonomous language models are now executing code and hitting corporate networks way faster than traditional policy controls can keep up.
AI integration used to mean conversational interfaces and advisory copilots. Those systems had read-only access to specific datasets, keeping humans strictly in the execution loop. Organisations ar
A new open-source toolkit from Microsoft focuses on runtime security to force strict governance onto enterprise AI agents. The release tackles a growing anxiety: autonomous language models are now executing code and hitting corporate networks way faster than traditional policy controls can keep up.
AI integration used to mean conversational interfaces and advisory copilots. Those systems had read-only access to specific datasets, keeping humans strictly in the execution loop. Organisations are currently deploying agentic frameworks that take independent action, wiring these models directly into internal application programming interfaces, cloud storage repositories, and continuous integration pipelines.
When an autonomous agent can read an email, decide to write a script, and push that script to a server, stricter governance is vital. Static code analysis and pre-deployment vulnerability scanning just can’t handle the non-deterministic nature of large language models. One prompt injection attack (or even a basic hallucination) could send an agent to overwrite a database or pull out customer records.
Microsoft’s new toolkit looks at runtime security instead, providing a way to monitor, evaluate, and block actions at the moment the model tries to execute them. It beats relying on prior training or static parameter checks.
Intercepting the tool-calling layer in real time
Looking at the mechanics of agentic tool calling shows how this works. When an enterprise AI agent has to step outside its core neural network to do something like query an inventory system, it generates a command to hit an external tool.
Microsoft’s framework drops a policy enforcement engine right between the language model and the broader corporate network. Every time the agent tries to trigger an outside function, the toolkit grabs the request and checks the intended action against a central set of governance rules. If the action breaks policy (e.g. an agent authorised only to read inventory data tries to fire off a purchase order) the toolkit blocks the API call and logs the event so a human can review it.
Security teams get a verifiable, auditable trail of every single autonomous decision. Developers also win here; they can build complex multi-agent systems without having to hardcode security protocols into every individual model prompt. Security policies get decoupled from the core application logic entirely and are managed at the infrastructure level.
Most legacy systems were never built to talk to non-deterministic software. An old mainframe database or a customised enterprise resource planning suite doesn’t have native defenses against a machine learning model shooting over malformed requests. Microsoft’s toolkit steps in as a protective translation layer. Even if an underlying language model gets compromised by external inputs; the system’s perimeter holds.
Security leaders might wonder why Microsoft decided to release this runtime toolkit under an open-source license. It comes down to how modern software supply chains actually work.
Developers are currently rushing to build autonomous workflows using a massive mix of open-source libraries, frameworks, and third-party models. If Microsoft locked this runtime security feature to its proprietary platforms, development teams would probably just bypass it for faster, unvetted workarounds to hit their deadlines.
Pushing the toolkit out openly means security and governance controls can fit into any technology stack. It doesn’t matter if an organisation runs local open-weight models, leans on competitors like Anthropic, or deploys hybrid architectures.
Setting up an open standard for AI agent security also lets the wider cybersecurity community chip in. Security vendors can stack commercial dashboards and incident response integrations on top of this open foundation, which speeds up the maturity of the whole ecosystem. For businesses, they avoid vendor lock-in but still get a universally scrutinised security baseline.
The next phase of enterprise AI governance
Enterprise governance doesn’t just stop at security; it hits financial and operational oversight too. Autonomous agents run in a continuous loop of reasoning and execution, burning API tokens at every step. Startups and enterprises are already seeing token costs explode when they deploy agentic systems.
Without runtime governance, an agent tasked with looking up a market trend might decide to hit an expensive proprietary database thousands of times before it finishes. Left alone, a badly configured agent caught in a recursive loop can rack up massive cloud computing bills in a few hours.
The runtime toolkit gives teams a way to slap hard limits on token consumption and API call frequency. By setting boundaries on exactly how many actions an agent can take within a specific timeframe, forecasting computing costs gets much easier. It also stops runaway processes from eating up system resources.
A runtime governance layer hands over the quantitative metrics and control mechanisms needed to meet compliance mandates. The days of just trusting model providers to filter out bad outputs are ending. System safety now falls on the infrastructure that actually executes the models’ decisions
Getting a mature governance program off the ground is going to demand tight collaboration between development operations, legal, and security teams. Language models are only scaling up in capability, and the organisations putting strict runtime controls in place today are the only ones who will be equipped to handle the autonomous workflows of tomorrow.
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 including the Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Click here for more information.
AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.
Login
