The AI boom is becoming a materials challenge. As AI pushes computing into new territory, the materials behind that infrastructure are becoming just as crucial as the algorithms running on it. Semiconductors and data centers are approaching physical limits around performance, thermal management, electrical efficiency, and reliability, creating new demands for materials that can do more at once. At the same time, AI is giving materials scientists new ways to search the enormous universe of possible molecules and accelerate the development of solutions.

For Mike Finelli, chief technology and innovation officer and chief North America officer at Syensqo, that convergence is transforming what advanced materials can enable. “AI is now, from a material standpoint, really pushing semiconductors and the data centers to their physical limits,” he says.

As requirements accumulate, including high temperature, purity, electrical performance, chemical resistance, plasma resistance, and long-term stability, materials move toward what Finelli calls the “top of the pyramid.” Beyond supporting AI innovation, he contends that advanced materials are “actually increasingly defining what’s going to be possible.”

That challenge is playing out across the infrastructure powering the AI surge. Syensqo is developing materials for high-voltage data center architectures, advanced sealing materials for semiconductor manufacturing, and thermal-management solutions including fluids for direct immersion cooling. Some of those innovations can also cross industry boundaries. Materials developed for electric vehicles, for example, can help address the higher voltage and energy-density demands that are emerging in data centers.

The definition of performance is also changing. More customers are expecting materials to meet technical requirements while reducing environmental impact. “Our goal is to remove the trade-off between performance and sustainability,” Finelli says. That means considering sustainability at the beginning of the research process instead of treating it as an additional requirement once a material has been developed.

AI is changing how those materials are discovered, too. Syensqo is using AI agents to digitally synthesize millions of potential molecular combinations, predict their performance and sustainability characteristics, and narrow them to a much smaller group for laboratory testing. The result, Finelli says, is the ability to go “broader, deeper, and faster” while giving scientists more time to solve complex engineering problems.

Looking to the future, Finelli sees the possibility of a reinforcing cycle: AI helps develop materials that improve AI infrastructure, which in turn enables better AI to accelerate materials discovery. That feedback loop could create a cycle of innovation and expand what future technologies can achieve.

“You end up in this accelerated materials, innovative cycle of materials innovation,” says Finelli. “That really excites me, and it gives us the opportunity to continue enabling technologies that will shape the future.”

This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with Syensqo.

Full Transcript:

Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.

This episode is produced in partnership with Syensqo.

Now asked to name the key enablers to AI advancement, many of us might list algorithms, data centers, or even computing power, but just as critical to the performance are the advanced materials that underpin each layer of that innovation. As AI continues to evolve, it’s pushing the likes of semiconductors and data centers to new physical limits, putting new pressure on the advanced material sector to keep pace. But the relationship goes both ways. As the sector rises to this challenge, AI is also emerging as a powerful tool for accelerating materials discovery and development, significantly shortening development timelines for new solutions.

Two words for you: materials innovation.

My guest today is Mike Finelli, chief technology and innovation officer and chief North America officer at Syensqo.

Welcome, Mike.

Mike Finelli: Thank you, Megan. Nice to be here.

Megan: Thank you so much for joining us. Mike, can I start by asking you to tell us a little bit more about Syensqo and the role it plays in developing advanced materials?

Mike: Yeah, absolutely. Syensqo is a global leader in specialty materials. Our job is to help customers solve their toughest technology challenges. We serve a lot of different markets, but the way I like to say it simply is if it flies, we’re on it. If it drives, we’re in it. In healthcare, our products literally are saving lives every day. And if you like your mobile devices, if you like AI, it’s our products that are actually enabling the advanced semiconductor chips that are required to produce all of this. Our role is to enable innovation through advanced chemistry. We develop materials that deliver higher performances, greater reliability, and increasingly more sustainable solutions. The way I would say this, it’s at the heart of our business. Actually, it’s in our name, Syensqo. And to put some numbers around it, 20% of our annual revenues come from new products and applications that we’ve launched in the last five years, which is really evidence of a really strong innovation engine.

Megan: Yeah, absolutely. And as you sort of described there, you’re in all sorts of different industries with an emphasis perhaps on electronics and semiconductors. Can you talk a bit more about that work and where those industries are headed perhaps?

Mike: Sure. So look, electronics and semiconductors have been strategic markets for Syensqo for literally decades. I don’t want to date myself, but 33 years ago when I started in the company, semiconductors were one of the first industries that I worked in. And we’ve supported successive waves of innovation from enabling smaller, more powerful mobile devices, helping the industry get to the smaller and smaller profiles and the chips. We’ve helped to advance hyperconnectivity, supporting increasingly sophisticated semiconductor manufacturing. And today we’re helping to advance the AI era.

We have one of the industry’s broadest portfolios of high performance polymers and advanced materials. We support applications across the entire electronics value chain from semiconductor fabrication, electronic components, to smart devices and telecommunications, even hyperconnectivity. And our materials are helping customers solve increasingly demanding challenges around miniaturization, thermal management, electrical performance, chemical resistance, higher and higher purities, and long-term reliability and sustainability. And today we work with leading semiconductor manufacturers and electronics companies all around the world.

Megan: Fantastic. And as you alluded to there in the last 30 years, we’ve seen huge evolutions in those sectors.

Mike: Oh my God, yes.

Megan: And now AI is putting these new demands on semiconductors and data centers. What does that mean for the materials they’re built from and to what extent will AI innovation be constrained or enabled by materials science finding a solution?

Mike: Yeah, so I mean, you’re absolutely right. But AI is now, from a material standpoint, really pushing semiconductors and the data centers to their physical limits, and materials are becoming a key enabler of that continued progress.

The way I try to describe it, think of a pyramid, I call it the performance pyramid. You have commodity materials at the bottom of the pyramid and you have high performing specialty materials at the top of the pyramid. At Syensqo, all we do is we operate at the top of the pyramid and we’re continually trying to raise the top of that pyramid by bringing newer and newer and more higher performing materials out.

Now you might say, okay, but why doesn’t a data center or a semiconductor manufacturing fab need a specialty versus something in the commodity space? Well, I call it the and, and, and principle. If you just need a polymer or a material that can sit at the table at room temperature and stay there for 10 years and not change, well, there’s a lot of commodity materials that will do that and you don’t have a problem. The minute you start adding requirements, and I call it the and, and, and so if you need a polymer that can handle high temperature and have to have high purity and electrical performance and chemical resistance and plasma resistance and it’s got to have long-term stability, all of these ands, you start moving to the top of the pyramid.

Now what AI is doing with semiconductors, because of the speed at which it’s advancing, it’s requiring semiconductor chips and data centers, the number of requirements are increasing the number of ands which is pushing the limits of the materials. That’s where we come in. And I really believe that advanced materials, they’re no longer just supporting AI innovation, we’re actually increasingly defining what’s going to be possible.

Megan: Right. That’s fascinating. And in terms of rising to that challenge of focusing on that top of the pyramid and that and, and, and principle you’re talking about, could you talk us through perhaps an example or two of those top of the pyramid solutions you’ve created or that you’re working on at the moment?

Mike: Like I said, our focus is enabling higher performance, but it’s also without compromising on reliability or safety. We develop advanced polymers, elastomers, specialty fluids, fluids meaning lubricants and heat transfer fluids, and they’re used throughout the semiconductor manufacturing process and also increasingly in AI data center infrastructure. One example of our work on specialty materials for next generation AI data centers is the work we’re doing around high voltage architectures. Data centers are moving towards high voltage architectures because they can enable greater computing power while also improving energy efficiency. We know that’s a big issue for that segment of the industry, and these high voltage architectures will help them reduce and improve energy efficiency because it reduces energy losses and they can ultimately help lower the environmental footprint of the data centers. And we’re developing new materials that can help them get there.

Another example is our high performing sealing materials found inside semiconductor fabs and wafer tools. If you can picture, many people have seen what a semiconductor looks like during processing. It’s a big, big silicon disc that’s then later diced into the tiny little chips that go into the computer. But that wafer is put inside a giant chamber where it has a very extreme environment, aggressive plasmas, reactive chemicals, and they need higher and higher performing materials. And all of the seals that are around that chamber to keep those gases in the environment inside have to be able to withstand that environment. And that’s what we’re developing and we’re pushing the limits. They’re asking for higher temperatures, more aggressive environment with lower out gassing and purity. And that’s what we’re developing for this industry to allow that next chip to be developed and produced industrial.

Megan: It’s so fascinating that people wouldn’t give much though necessarily to the seal in something like that. As you’re outlining, it’s just absolutely critical in terms of performance. And in developing those solutions, I understand you also looked across different markets to see what may be applicable perhaps in more than one space, and that includes an overlap between the automotive sector and data centers, I understand. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Mike: As I mentioned just previously, the data centers are shifting to higher voltage architectures. This is the next generation data center, which can be more energy efficient, but it’s got a higher energy density. The power density increases, which increases temperatures. And many of the material challenges that we will be facing there, we’ve already developed for the automotive industry in electric vehicles. I’ll give you an example of an application. I mean, think about an electric vehicle. The powerhouse in electric vehicle is no longer the motor, it’s the battery. That’s where all the energy sits. And when you’re putting a hundred kilowatts of energy, driving that to the electric motor through wires and through what they call bus bars, you got to get that car up to 60 miles an hour pretty quick. You’re driving massive amounts of energy that’s increasing temperatures dramatically.

And all the electrical connections are in these bus bars that there’s a polymer that’s an insulating polymer with copper in between for all the connections. That’s got to withstand that temperature increase, which could come pretty rapidly. We’ve developed new materials there and those materials will be translatable over to these data centers where they’re going to have the higher voltages with a higher energy density.

Another thing we’ve been doing in automotive, we have a lot of knowledge in both automotive and semiconductor around fluid circulation and how to use dielectric materials to do direct immersion cooling. That’s something that will be very valuable for data centers and server farms. Using air to cool semiconductors is really inefficient and energy intensive. If you could submerse them in a liquid, you have direct immersion cooling, that’s extremely efficient, so that’s another thing we’re working on.

Another thing we developed in automotive that will be translated over is battery energy storage systems. Inside the battery, we’ve developed a binder. It’s the highest performing binder on the market, which is using the cathode of a lithium ion battery, and it keeps all the ingredients doing its job working together so that battery can actually last for 10 years and perform. Now that’s moving over to the data centers because they’re moving more towards renewables and they need to have these energy storage systems to smooth the peak loads and provide resilient backup power. That’s one of the things that we’re doing. By transferring our knowledge across the markets, we can accelerate new power and new thermal management solutions while supporting reliability required by next generation AI infrastructure.

Megan: Fantastic. So many transferable applications there that necessarily wouldn’t have sprung to mind. And it isn’t only technical advancements that you need to contend with, of course. Companies today are also demanding the materials are developed and manufactured more responsibly too. So how is sustainability shaping your innovation process?

Mike: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. I will say performance is still the entry ticket. Our customers want performance. Now what’s changing is that definition of performance is now broader and it is including sustainability targets and requirements. Our customers expect materials that deliver outstanding technical performance while also being developed and manufactured more responsibly.

At Syensqo, we believe that operating as a responsible company means we’re providing true sustainable business solutions to our customers. And this is why we developed what we call the Sustainable Portfolio Management tool, SPM. It’s a matrix, and it defines what a sustainable solution is. For us, it’s a product that in a given application improves our product’s social and environmental performance while also demonstrating a lower environmental impact in its production, creating values for our customers. In short, we want to develop products, and this is where it starts. Every one of our research projects before we even start them is assessed on whether it’s going to be a sustainable product or not.

And 88% of our portfolio now is a sustainable product. We’re developing materials that are better for the environment, lower environmental footprint when we produce it, but also they contribute to improvements for our customers as well so they could operate with a lower carbon footprint or they can operate in a safer way or less water consumption. There’s a lot of different lists in there.

Another example is our longer-term development of next generation heat transfer fluids. Semiconductor manufacturing and data centers have become more powerful. I mentioned before the heat that they’re generating, especially when they move to the higher voltage architectures. Managing that heat is increasingly important. And again, I talked about direct immersion cooling. We’re developing those solutions because today there are fluids out there that will work, but they got high global warming. That’s not good for the environment. We’re developing the next generation heat transferred fluids that will reduce the potential environmental impact compared to the fluids today. In the end, our goal is to remove the trade-off between performance and sustainability. You notice that’s another and, we can be performing and sustainable.

Megan: That’s so important, isn’t it though, to think about sustainability in terms of performance? As you say, when we’re thinking about commercially scaling up these solutions, it’s such an important part of it. And as I talked about in the introduction, AI isn’t only a challenge, but it’s also an opportunity within the advanced material space. I’d love to explore how you’re using AI tools at Syensqo to inform and accelerate the development of solutions as well.

Mike: Absolutely. We embarked on this journey about two years ago, where we’re using AI in our research and development, and we’ve partnered with Microsoft and their Microsoft discovery tool, and it’s helping us to rapidly identify and evaluate promising molecular candidates.

Now, in the normal research approach, historically, you would design your experiment and you’d look at all the potential combinations of materials and chemicals that you could make all these different molecules. And the combinations of potential and molecules that you could develop to solve a problem could be in the millions, but it’s impossible to develop a million molecules or tens of millions of molecules in your laboratory and actually physically do that. But you have to select a small area based on your expertise and knowledge, based on the literature searches, based on the state of the art that’s out there and looking at patents, et cetera. And you pick a small area and you go through the process, you develop the materials, you test them, you learn something, you go back to the drawing board, you start again. Eventually you find something that works, but it doesn’t mean you found the best possible combination that’s out there.

But what we’re doing with AI is we have developed AI agents with Microsoft that are literally digitally synthesizing the entire millions and millions of combinations of potential molecules. And we have another AI agents that are using physics-based simulation to look at all those molecules and predict the performance of them, and not just performance on physical chemical properties, but also on toxicity, on sustainability, et cetera. Then we have another agent that takes all that information and ranks them all. In the end, we have explored all of the potential molecules out there. We understand roughly what the performance should be, and we end up with a priority list of maybe a hundred, instead of millions and millions, a hundred that we actually synthesize in the lab.

And at the end, you end up getting the solution faster, much, much faster. You’ve explored the entire space. I basically say it allows us to go broader, deeper, and faster. And the important thing is it’s not replacing our scientists, it’s not replacing our scientific expertise. In a way, it’s giving them superpowers. It’s allowing them to spend less time searching and more time solving the industry’s toughest engineering challenges.

Megan: Amazing. It sounds like it’s genuinely a really transformative tool by what you’re explaining.

Mike: Completely, completely.

Megan: I mean, just to finish, Mike, it’d be great to take a look ahead if we could, because there’s so much activity in both AI and the advanced material space. I wonder what is coming down the pipeline that you are most excited about next?

Mike: I’ve talked a lot about AI and how we’re using AI to develop new materials. I think to me, what’s really exciting, and I’m starting to see it actually happen, I’m just curious how fast this is going to go, is that we’re using AI to develop new materials that will enable AI to get better, and then that AI will use the new AI to develop new materials to get AI to go better. I see this loop of developing for AI, for AI to improve, and then we use that AI to improve ourselves. You end up in this accelerated materials, innovative cycle of materials innovation. That really excites me, and it gives us the opportunity to continue enabling technologies that will shape the future. That’s what we do at Syensqo.

Megan: Fantastic. Yeah, real sort of virtuous circle of innovation, it sounds like that. Amazing. Thank you so much, Mike.

Mike: Thank you.

Megan: Thank you so much. That was Mike Finelli, chief technology and innovation officer and chief North America officer at Syensqo, whom I spoke with from Brighton in England.

That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor and host for Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print on the web and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.

This show is available wherever you get your podcasts, and if you enjoyed it, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review, and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thanks so much for listening. Goodbye.

This content was produced by Insights, MIT Technology Review’s custom content arm, not its editorial staff. It was researched and written by humans, with any AI tools that may have been used limited to production processes under human oversight.

On July 22, 2026, a transmission line fault in Ashburn, Virginia—the heart of the world’s largest data center cluster—knocked more than 3 gigawatts of load off the grid in seconds. And it wasn’t the first time. Two years earlier, a single failed surge arrester dropped roughly 60 Virginia facilities and 1,500 megawatts at once. No one could anticipate so much uniform load responding to grid faults the same way, at the same time.

The AI power debate is mostly about generation: more turbines, more solar, more transmission. The grid needs more electrons. But the outages in Virginia weren’t supply failures; they were architecture failures. And a giant wave of interconnections is arriving on that same architecture, putting grid reliability at risk. It’s a problem nobody wants to own.

Asking more from the grid

The grid was built around predictable loads: steel mills, refineries, and houses at dinnertime. Different load sizes, same process—drawing power smoothly, misbehaving occasionally, and recovering gracefully.

But AI data centers don’t behave that way.

An AI campus can swing 70% of its load in milliseconds during a training run, then trip offline just as fast at the first sign of trouble upstream to protect billions in compute. Each is rational alone. Together, at gigawatt scale, they’re a problem the grid has never solved—and the next wave of data center campuses is planned at exactly that scale.

Where the old stack breaks

The standard data center power stack hasn’t changed in decades. Medium-voltage power arrives, transformers step it down, low-voltage uninterruptible power supply (UPS) units condition it, and it reaches the racks. Push that design to AI scale, and it cracks in three places.

First, the UPS sits deep inside the building, close to the racks. But its batteries are an undersized spare tire, designed to handle an outage for a few minutes, not to absorb load swings this fast and volatile around the clock.

Second, the UPS spends most of its life in bypass. Legacy converters waste enough power that operators run in eco-mode: A static switch feeds the racks directly from the grid and nothing filters in either direction. The compute’s swings go out raw, and grid transients—sub-millisecond events that can damage or take down equipment—come in too fast for any switch to catch.

Third, the protection logic was written when “large load” meant 50 megawatts. This protection logic can’t see the grid it is now a part of, so when trouble hits upstream, it does exactly the wrong thing: it drops out. In the 2024 Virginia event, most of the lost load traced to protection schemes that count voltage dips and disconnect on the third one—as designed, at the worst moment.

This isn’t sloppy engineering. It’s careful engineering the load has outgrown.

Moving into the path

The fix is three moves, made together.

Move it up—from 480 volts to medium voltage (13.8 kilovolts and higher), the voltage large sites draw from the grid.

Move it out—from the data hall to modular enclosures near the substation so the building holds only compute and the cooling that keeps it alive.

Move it into the path—instead of a battery that watches and reacts, a system every electron runs through, all the time. There’s nothing to detect and nothing to switch because nothing was ever routed around it.

On paper, three straightforward upgrades. In practice, they rewrite every line item downstream.

Making the change

When thousands of GPUs spin up together, the system absorbs the swing and hands the grid a flat load profile. When a disturbance hits, the equipment behind it never notices. A difficult neighbor becomes a predictable one. And when the utility needs help, it becomes a useful one.

Interconnection changes, too. The utility certifies one medium-voltage box instead of untangling every transformer, UPS, chiller, pump, and switchgear lineup behind it. Engineers swap chip generations without a fresh interconnection study. Months come off the permitting timeline.

Inside the fence, UPS rooms become compute or cooling space. Density per construction dollar climbs.

And the economics flip. Equipment that runs at medium voltage, sits outside, and stores its own energy can qualify for tax credits, and earn revenue in grid programs like peak shaving and demand response. Backup power stops being insurance and starts paying for itself.

The architecture test

In early 2026, we tested a full-scale system at the National Laboratory of the Rockies, a U.S. Department of Energy facility and the only place in the Western Hemisphere that can replicate real grid faults and AI-scale load swings concurrently in the same loop.

We hit it from both directions: real AI load profiles hit the compute side at full medium voltage. Grid faults hit the utility side, including a full zero-voltage event. The compute side didn’t flinch. Neither did the grid side. It cleared the large-load voltage ride-through requirements from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the grid operator, with room to spare.

Those rules exist because operators no longer take facilities this size on faith, and more are coming. Most of the industry treats them as hurdles. A medium-voltage, inline system clears them out of the box. Compliance isn’t an added feature. It’s what the architecture does.

The new layer

Much of what looks like a grid problem in the AI buildout sits inside the fence, in equipment sized for a load that no longer exists. Move the right pieces up, out, and into the path, and a grid liability becomes a grid asset. Density goes up. Permitting time comes down. Backup power earns its keep.

The engineering works—and the next wave of AI factories is being built on it. The industry hasn’t named this layer yet. We call it the medium-voltage AI UPS. The name matters less than the choice: those factories can arrive as a strain on the grid or as strength for it. We already know how to build the second kind.    

This content was produced by ON.energy. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

The entrance of major AI companies into healthcare is a meaningful and welcome development, accelerating the technical foundation available to the industry.

Their models are increasingly capable of processing long clinical records, interpreting complex terminology, comparing documentation against evidence and generating coherent summaries from large volumes of information. For clinicians, operators, and administrative teams who spend significant time searching through fragmented data, these advances are helping reduce cognitive burden and make high-value information easier to access.

But healthcare leaders should not confuse model capability with operational capability.

Healthcare’s administrative challenges are caused by fragmented information, fragmented workflows, and fragmented accountability, not a lack of information. The industry has spent decades investing in systems that capture activity: electronic health records, billing platforms, payer portals, scheduling systems, call center platforms, and analytics applications. Each system records something important. But few were designed to reason across the full chain of decisions that determines whether patients get timely access, clinicians have the right documentation and providers are reimbursed appropriately.

This is the problem that AI must now confront.

Revenue cycle is becoming one of healthcare AI’s proving grounds

The revenue cycle is the process healthcare providers use to get paid for care — from scheduling and registration through coding, billing, payer follow-up, and payment collection.

It is unusually suited to rigorous AI deployment because it combines high transaction volume, complex reasoning, structured and unstructured data, measurable outcomes, and significant operational variation. It also sits at the intersection of financial performance, patient access, and administrative workload.

A single claim can be influenced by patient insurance information, clinical documentation, coding rules, payer-specific policies, prior authorization requirements, medical necessity criteria, and many other data sources and operational processes. A breakdown in any one of those areas can create downstream consequences weeks or months later.

This is why generic automation has often fallen short.

Traditional robotic process automation works well when workflows are stable and rules are predictable, but healthcare administration is neither. Payer requirements change. Documentation expectations evolve. Exceptions are common and often material.

Large language models improve part of the equation, extracting meaning from narrative text, summarizing records and supporting reasoning over complex documentation. But when used alone, they inherit important limitations. They may produce plausible outputs without sufficient traceability. They may lack awareness of local workflow constraints. They may miss payer-specific history or context that determines whether an action is likely to change an outcome.

Why foundation models will become necessary but insufficient

The major AI firms are solving real technical problems for healthcare.

Better context windows make it easier to process longitudinal records. Stronger reasoning improves the interpretation of complex clinical scenarios. Better multimodal capabilities may eventually help connect text, imaging, structured data, and clinical signals in more useful ways. Safer model behavior and healthcare-specific tuning will continue to improve adoption.

These capabilities will make healthcare work faster, more consistent and easier to navigate. But they will not, on their own, solve deep-rooted administrative complexity.

Much of healthcare’s operational knowledge does not live in general medical literature, coding manuals, or public payer guidance. It lives in the accumulated experience of what actually happens after decisions are made. For example:

• Why does one appeal strategy outperform another?
• Which documentation gaps are most likely to cause reimbursement delay?
• How does a specific payer respond to a particular clinical argument?

These insights are behavioral, operational, and longitudinal. They emerge from years of transactions, outcomes, exceptions, and human judgment.

As foundation models become more capable, access to baseline healthcare knowledge will become less differentiating. Most leading systems will be able to interpret ICD-10 codes, recognize medical terminology, summarize payer policies, and reason over public clinical criteria. The durable advantage will come from how organizations combine that model intelligence with proprietary operational data, structured knowledge, workflow context, and governance.

The technical shift: From automation to orchestration

Agentic orchestration turns foundation model understanding into coordinated action — intelligence that can follow work across systems, apply the right rules, adapt when something changes, and keep learning from what happens next.

A prior authorization workflow, for example, may require retrieving clinical documentation through fast healthcare interoperability resources (FHIR) APIs, mapping patient history to payer criteria, identifying missing evidence, generating a submission packet, routing exceptions to a specialist, monitoring payer response, adjusting patient care pathways, and learning from the outcome.

This type of workflow requires coordination. It also requires guardrails: regulatory requirements, privacy standards, clinical policies, coding rules, payer criteria, and organizational risk thresholds. One promising approach is hybrid architecture that combines LLMs with structured knowledge bases, symbolic logic, reinforcement learning, and deterministic validation layers.

At Ensemble, this is the design principle behind EIQ, our revenue cycle intelligence engine. EIQ brings together operational activity, clinical documentation, payer behavior, and reimbursement outcomes into a continuously learning intelligence layer that’s integrated with the hospital’s electronic health record (EHR). It supplements the system of record with a system of intelligence, designed to connect information and surface actions most likely to improve outcomes.

EIQ uses a neuro-symbolic approach that combines LLMs and custom small language models with rules-based reasoning. That architecture is built on one of the most robust datasets in healthcare, informed by more than a decade of award-winning operational performance, transaction history, payer behavior, and operator decision-making. The language models help interpret information and generate human-readable outputs. The symbolic layer represents policies, rules, payer requirements, and workflow constraints so the system can apply guardrails, make reasoning steps more traceable and recommend actions that fit the specific operational context.

What the next decade will reward

The contribution of major AI firms to healthcare will be significant. Their models will become faster, safer, more capable, and more accessible.

But the next decade of healthcare AI will be defined by integration, not model capability alone.

The organizations that create the most value will be those that connect models to governed data, operational workflows, domain expertise, human oversight, and measurable outcomes. They will understand that healthcare intelligence cannot live in a separate interface. It has to exist inside the decisions that shape access, documentation reimbursement, and patient experience.

This content was produced by Ensemble. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Plug a phone into a modern charger and the first 10 minutes are impressive. The next 20 are not.

This is not a defect. It’s the connected device protecting itself. As temperature rises during charging, a smartphone’s battery management system reduces the current it will accept, because heat accelerates the chemical degradation that permanently reduces battery capacity. The charger may be capable of delivering more, but the device simply stops taking it.

For anyone building products in the portable power category, this creates an uncomfortable gap between specification and experience. A device rated at 25 watts is accurate in the sense that it can deliver 25 watts. Whether it delivers 25 watts for the duration of a charge is a different question, and one the specification does not answer.

The specification gap

The gap matters commercially because it is invisible at the point of purchase and obvious in use.

Consumers compare wattage figures on packaging. They don’t compare thermal curves, because thermal curves are not published publicly. The result is a category where products differentiate on a number that describes peak output rather than sustained output, and where the actual user experience of two products with identical specifications can diverge substantially.

This is particularly acute in magnetic wireless charging. Inductive power transfer generates heat at both the transmitting and receiving coils, and the magnetic attachment that makes these products convenient also places the heat source in direct contact with the device it is charging. Convenience and thermal performance are working against each other by design.

The industry’s response for the past several years has been materials science. Graphite sheets, thermal interface materials, conductive housings, and heat-spreading layers have all improved how efficiently accumulated heat moves away from the source. Each generation has been incrementally better than the last.

But passive dissipation has a structural limitation: it can only move heat that has already been generated, and only as fast as the surrounding air will accept it. In a sealed, pocket-sized enclosure, that ceiling arrives quickly. Improving the materials slows the rate of temperature rise. It does not prevent the temperature rise.

Moving from dissipation to removal

The alternative is active thermal management, which is standard in stationary electronics and largely absent from portable ones for reasons that are easy to understand. Fans add volume, weight, moving parts, and noise. In a product category defined by portability, each of those is a meaningful cost.

At Anker, which manufactures charging and power products, engineering teams spent the past several development cycles working on whether that tradeoff could be made acceptable rather than eliminated. The approach involves several interacting systems: a micro centrifugal fan, dual airflow channels routed to avoid interference with the magnetic array, a three-layer graphene heat-spreading layer, and a control algorithm that modulates fan speed based on real-time temperature and battery state rather than running at a fixed rate. The result is that the Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro has become the world’s fastest and coolest wireless power bank.

In internal testing, at 77 °F (25 °C) ambient, the back of the power bank stays below 96.8 °F (36 °C) throughout wireless charging, 21.6 °F (12 °C) below the international standard limit of 118.4 °F (48 °C), for a comfortable grip. Comparable magnetic power banks in the same testing typically reached 113 °F (45 °C) or higher within 20 minutes. The functional consequence is that the connected device does not reach the threshold at which it begins reducing charge acceptance, so 25 watts of Qi2.2 magnetic wireless charging is delivered as a working rate rather than an opening rate. In practice, an iPhone 17 Pro reaches 50% charge in 25 minutes. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro’s premium performance in both charging speed and thermal management is certified by SGS, an independent testing and certification company.

The same principle applies in reverse. Recharging a power bank generates heat too, which is why devices in this category are often slow to recharge, leaving users with an empty accessory at the moment they need it. Active cooling during input allows the unit to accept 45 watts and reach 80% in 52 minutes.

What this suggests about the category

There is a broader pattern here worth naming, because it is not unique to charging.

When a category improves along a single axis for long enough, the constraint usually migrates somewhere else. Charging spent a decade optimizing power delivery. Power delivery is now, for most practical purposes, solved: the electronics can supply more energy than the receiving device is willing to accept. The binding constraint moved to thermal management, and the industry continued optimizing the axis it had always optimized, because that is the axis the specifications describe.

Recognizing when a constraint has moved is difficult precisely because the old metric keeps improving. Wattage figures have continued to climb. Products have continued to get faster on paper. The measurement stayed valid while quietly ceasing to describe the thing users experience.

For product organizations, the practical question is whether their specifications still measure the constraint or merely measure the capability. The two align until the constraint shifts and specifications rarely shift with it.

The transparency problem

A second implication follows from the first. If sustained performance differs meaningfully from peak performance, and if only peak performance is disclosed, then buyers cannot evaluate the products in front of them.

This is one reason Anker is adding displays on charging products. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro shows real-time power, temperature, battery level, and estimated time remaining. Some of that is user convenience. But some of it is a Anker stating a deliberate position—this category deserves to have the complete and accurate data made transparent to all.

Anker expects independent reviewers to test these claims and considers our internal numbers to be the correct outcome. The gap between specification and experience closes faster when the experience is measurable. The Anker MagGo Power Bank 2 Pro will be available in the U.S. on September 17, 2026.

This content was produced by Anker. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Amid rapidly growing adoption of enterprise-level AI agents, there’s a disconnect emerging between ambition and execution. 

Although 85% of organizations say they want to be agentic within the next three years, 76% say their current operations and infrastructure can’t support that change. They cite a lack of readiness across people, processes, and workflows. 

The sticky tape problem

The challenge is that many organisations are often layering AI agents onto existing operations, rather than reimagine the operating model and how work will need to be rewired, explains Prasun Shah, global CTO for workforce consulting and chief AI officer at PwC UK Consulting. “They’re embedding AI employees into what is a human operating model,” layering on AI agents to existing workplace structures when “this is like adding sticky tapes to parts of an operating model that is breaking.”

Doing so may be preventing organizations from unlocking the full value agentic AI offers, creating circumstances where disillusionment can quickly creep in. That full value lies in agents’ capacity to execute entire workflows with limited human input. They can coordinate complex tasks, make independent decisions, adjust to changing conditions, and iterate performance. 

In early proving grounds that span customer service, HR, and sales, it’s already estimated that AI agents could accelerate business processes by as much as 30% to 50% and low-value work time by 25% to 40% when deployed at scale. But with this capability comes greater complexity and the need for an enterprise-wide change.

Growing the AI vocabulary 

Enterprise agentic AI platform Ema describes this change as agentic business transformation (ABT), a term it coined last year in partnership with HFS Research, in an attempt to plug what it sees as a gap in the existing lexicon about AI agents, and to provide enterprises with a new framework with which to think about their own adoption of the technology. 

“None of the existing vocabulary captures the full scope of the change,” explains Ema CEO and founder Surojit Chatterjee. “Digital transformation was about moving from paper to software. AI transformation was about adding artificial intelligence to existing processes. Co-pilot is about AI assisting in various human tasks. But ABT is something categorically different: It’s the integration of AI agents into the fabric of the organization.” 

For Shah, the dedicated term (ABT) “helps drive the need to redesign an organization in its entirety: its operating model, its workflows, decision rights, and performance management systems.” He emphasizes that “everything that’s needed to ensure those agents are actually active participants in value creation, rather than just point tools or productivity aids.”

According to Ema, ABT encompasses three core pillars: an organization’s technology stack, its workforce, and the metrics used for success. 

AI agents as connective tissue

The first pillar of ABT is the technology stack. “Your existing tech stack was designed for human-operated, application-centric workflows,” says Chatterjee. “It needs to be reconsidered when the actor is an AI agent operating at machine speed across multiple systems simultaneously.”

 As AI agents are integrated into an organization, enterprises will need to pivot from a set of linear processes and steps, to rewiring work in a very different way, explains Shah. That’s because the value in AI agents isn’t as another layer in an existing technology stack but as a connective tissue, he explains, moving between or across layers to coordinate a high-level task or retrieve and interpret data from multiple discrete applications. AI agents can create “a true competitive differentiation for an enterprise” by making decisions based on this capacity to contextualize, he says. “That is where the next battleground will be.”

To build this connective tissue, leaders need to adapt their technology stack to surface higher quality decisions from AI agents, prioritizing access to multiple datasets and applications simultaneously to develop tacit knowledge. “Organizations that make this architectural shift become genuinely more adaptive,” says Chatterjee. “When a new business requirement emerges, you don’t wait six months for a software vendor to build a feature. You configure an AI employee using natural language and connect it to the systems it needs. The time from business to production workflow drops from months to days.”

The workforce, redesigned

As AI agents are deployed for more use cases, enterprise leaders must consider what this means for dynamics across their workforce, the second pillar of ABT.

Workforce structures today deviate little from the hierarchical model of the early days of industrialization. To maximize efficiency and scale, processes are standardized, tasks are clearly delineated between strategic business units (SBUs), and employees progress up through an organization based on their capacity to optimize output from teams below them. But with AI agents that can execute, coordinate, and optimize tasks—often without managerial coordination—the lines of that established hierarchy become blurred.

In a workforce that blends AI agents and human employees, managers will be freed up from many execution-based tasks but take on new responsibilities associated with managing hybrid teams. Managers “will need to be able to manage issues around trust, explainability, psychological safety, and even status dynamics” to navigate new tensions that could arise in a hybrid workforce, says Shah.

The impact of agentic AI on existing workforce structures goes far beyond the management layer, too. McKinsey predicts that by 2030, three-quarters of current jobs will require redesign, upskilling, or redeployment, and organizations will need to act swiftly to amend recruitment, retention, and remuneration. 

From output to outcome

Success metrics are the third and final pillar of ABT. 

As AI agents assume greater ownership of core enterprise processes, taking on collaborative roles alongside human employees, traditional workforce metrics that focus on activity or output—such as calls handled or reports filed—no longer make sense. 

“When you add AI employees into the workforce, activity metrics become meaningless or actively misleading,” says Chatterjee. “An AI employee can handle a thousand customer interactions in the time it takes a human to handle ten. If you measure success by interactions handled, you’ll conclude the AI is working brilliantly while missing whether any of those interactions actually drove customer satisfaction, retention, or revenue.” To correct this, enterprises must develop a new set of metrics that focus on outcome rather than output. That is, metrics on the broader benefits or changes achieved, rather than individual deliverables. 

For example, when one of Ema’s large enterprise customers overhauled its own metrics, switching from tool metrics like cost per query and AI accuracy, to outcomes like the percentage of contracts reviewed without human escalation, the measured ROI from agentic AI tripled within two quarters. The changes meant “this customer stopped building point solutions in high-volume, low-complexity workflows and started deploying AI employees where the outcome value was highest,” says Chatterjee.

Integrating new metrics may also require a complete reconfiguration of reward and talent management processes, as well as accountability and ownership within organizations, points out Shah. In human-AI teams, for example, although ethical and fiduciary responsibilities will likely remain with human employees, operational accountability will become significantly more diffused to reflect the systemic role of AI agents.

This change will raise new questions that senior leadership teams will need to wrestle with, Shah adds. They’ll need to consider: Who is accountable when an AI employee makes a mistake? What happens when AI and humans disagree? What guardrails should be erected to safeguard customers? 

Laying the groundwork for systems-level change

Systems-level change is gradual. These are complex lines of inquiry that experts continue to grapple with. But in kickstarting internal dialogue about the core pillars of ABT—the workforce, the technology stack, and the metrics by which success can be gauged—leaders can lay the groundwork for an enterprise better poised to embrace AI agents at a systems level and start to close the gap between their ambition and execution. 

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

Storytelling is core to humanity’s DNA, stemming from our impulse to express ideals, warnings, hopes, and experiences. Technology has always been woven through the medium and the distribution: from early humans’ innovation of natural pigments and charcoals for cave paintings to literal representation by the camera.

The landscape of storytelling continues to shift under our feet. Social and streaming platforms have multiplied, audiences have fragmented, and our demand for fresh, unique media is insatiable. A recent McKinsey podcast cites that we are watching upwards of 12 hours of video content daily, often on multiple devices and multiple platforms.

All this content is expensive to produce: With a baseline budget of $150M, a Hollywood feature runs $1M per minute of finished film; prestige streaming content is in the hundreds of thousands per minute. And since consumers want to engage with authentic, original material, every company is now effectively a media company. That means we all face the same pressure: more content, with the same time and budget constraints.

There is no longer a question whether to use AI for content; the math doesn’t work any other way. What leaders need to focus on now is how to adapt responsibly, protect brand integrity, uplift team creativity, and build customer trust.

A few things worth holding onto as this era accelerates:

• AI amplifies what’s already there, both good and bad. Weak strategy stays weak.
• Responsible adoption means knowing what’s in your tools and models. Provenance and transparency are the foundation, not the finish line.
• Scale without taste is just noise. Investing in your team’s judgment is what makes more content matter.
• Fundamentals of great storytelling have not changed. Regardless of format or channel, what makes audiences lean in are still characters, arc, ingenuity, and surprise.

The permanent sprint

Creative teams are trapped on the endless hamster wheel of production, and it’s not slowing down. According to Adobe research, content demand will grow 5x over the next two years. Social content shelf life is now measured in hours, not weeks. Keeping fresh work in the pipeline is a permanent sprint, requiring teams to rethink how creative production functions.

The first move is freeing creative teams by having AI absorb the repetitive work so they have space for the strategic creative decisions that require human ingenuity. In a recent study from Adobe, 94% of creatives report that AI helps them produce content faster, saving an average of 17 hours per week. That recovered time is not a productivity metric; it is renewed creative capacity.

As a use case, Nestlé offers a useful blueprint. Its teams operate across 180 countries with a portfolio of iconic brands including Nescafé, KitKat, and Purina. Using Adobe Firefly Custom Models embedded in existing content workflows allows teams to generate assets in a brand-informed style without disrupting creative flow. At Nestlé, workflow cycle times dropped 50%. “With Firefly Custom Models, we can react at the speed of culture. It’s the closest thing we’ve had to magic.” says Wael Jabi, global strategic comms lead for KitKat.

As we move into the agentic era, the possibilities expand further. Adobe’s Creative Agent thinks in systems, not tasks, orchestrating across workflows, apps, and processes to close the gap between idea and execution, and get teams out of the production cycles that consume their productivity.

Build for your brand, not every brand

A company’s brand is how the world recognizes and connects with them. And it’s more than a collection of assets—it is dynamic, subjective, and expressed in thousands of micro-decisions made every day by the people who know it best. As production scales, keeping everything tuned to the brand gets more challenging. Off-the-shelf AI cannot replicate the level of nuance creative teams bring to content, and there’s a real cost to getting it wrong; diluting a brand in market with almost-right output is not an acceptable option. Customer trust is fragile.

Starting with a bespoke AI model built with Adobe Firefly Foundry addresses this directly. Firefly Foundry starts with a commercially safe base model and trains further on a company’s IP, making it possible to produce content that genuinely reflects the team’s vision.

And to ensure that Firefly Foundry models truly represent the creatives at the helm, Adobe has partnered with film studios like Wonder Studios, Promise.ai, and B5 Studios, and the “big three” talent agencies CAA, UTA, and WME to deeply understand what it means (and what it takes) to build an IP-immersive model that keeps creatives at the center as these film studios and talent agencies scale their visions. These brand ecosystems can accelerate nearly every phase of the production process, from ideation and storyboarding to production and promotion, all while preserving artistry and authorship. And to power the next generation of creativity and content, Adobe has recently announced a strategic partnership with NVIDIA, delivering best-in-class creative control along with enterprise-grade, commercially safe content at scale.

Generic AI gives teams a starting point. But a model trained on a brand’s own IP gets them to the finish line, while still leaving room for the creative calls that matter most.

When agents become the audience

AI is not only reshaping how we create; it is reshaping how customers find and engage with brands entirely. According to Adobe Digital Insights, AI-powered shopping has surged 4,700%. Agentic web traffic is up 7,851% year over year. Yet, most businesses still have significant gaps in AI-led brand visibility. If content is invisible to AI agents, then a brand is invisible to customers.

Major League Baseball is ahead of this curve. Using Adobe LLM Optimizer, the league monitors how its content surfaces across AI interfaces and makes real-time adjustments to maintain visibility. As fans search for tickets, stats, or game-day experiences, the league ensures its brand shows up wherever that search is happening. And with Adobe’s recent acquisition of Semrush, brand visibility goes even further.

The agentic web created an entirely new content surface that did not exist two years ago, and this exponential proliferation of content illustrates precisely why scaled, on-brand content production has become a strategic imperative. A well-built agentic foundation offers full visibility into (and control over) every piece of content, from production to performance.

How to prepare for AI integration

Here are a few steps to get started:

Audit before automation. Content supply chains usually include duplicated processes, unclear ownership, and assets living in many different places. Before AI can accelerate anything, develop a clear map of how content moves through the organization today: who creates it, who approves it, where it lives, and where it breaks down. AI applied to a broken process just breaks it faster.

Walk through workflows. Resist the urge to overhaul everything at once. Start with production tasks that are high-volume, low-stakes, and well-defined: asset resizing, localization, and background generation. Use those wins to build internal confidence before expanding into more complex creative territory.

Build responsible governance from the start. Governance added as an afterthought becomes a bottleneck. Building it in from the beginning creates a competitive advantage that lets teams move fast with confidence. And this means clear policies on model training, content provenance, human review thresholds, and communicating AI use to customers. The brands that earn lasting trust will treat transparency as a feature, not a footnote.

This content was produced by Adobe. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Unlike static, rules-based systems, AI agents can learn, adapt, and optimize processes dynamically. As they interact with data, systems, people, and other agents in real time, AI agents can execute entire workflows autonomously.

But unlocking their potential requires redesigning processes around agents rather than bolting them onto fragmented legacy workflows using traditional optimization methods. Companies must become agent first.

In an agent-first enterprise, AI systems operate processes while humans set goals, define policy constraints, and handle exceptions.

“You need to shift the operating model to humans as governors and agents as operators,” says Scott Rodgers, global chief architect and U.S. CTO of the Deloitte Microsoft Technology Practice.

The agent-first imperative

With technology budgets for AI expected to increase more than 70% over the next two years, AI agents, powered by generative AI, are poised to fundamentally transform organizations and achieve results beyond traditional automation. These initiatives have the potential to produce significant performance gains, while shifting humans toward higher value work.

AI is advancing so quickly that static approaches to task automation will likely only produce incremental gains. Because legacy processes aren’t built for autonomous systems, AI agents require machine-readable process definitions, explicit policy constraints, and structured data flows, according to Rodgers.

Further complicating matters, many organizations don’t understand the full economic drivers of their business, such as cost to serve and per-transaction costs. As a result, they have trouble prioritizing agents that can create the most value and instead focus on flashy pilots. To achieve structural change, executives should think differently.

Companies must instead orchestrate outcomes faster than competitors. “The real risk isn’t that AI won’t work—it’s that competitors will redesign their operating models while you’re still piloting agents and copilots,” says Rodgers. “Nonlinear gains come when companies create agent-centric workflows with human governance and adaptive orchestration.”

Routine and repetitive tasks are increasingly handled automatically, freeing employees to focus on higher value, creative, and strategic work. This shift improves operational efficiency, fosters stronger collaboration, and generates faster decision-making—helping organizations modernize the workplace without sacrificing enterprise security.

Download the article.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

In the early days of large language models (LLMs), we grew accustomed to massive 10x jumps in reasoning and coding capability with every new model iteration. Today, those jumps have flattened into incremental gains. The exception is domain-specialized intelligence, where true step-function improvements are still the norm.

When a model is fused with an organization’s proprietary data and internal logic, it encodes the company’s history into its future workflows. This alignment creates a compounding advantage: a competitive moat built on a model that understands the business intimately. This is more than fine-tuning; it is the institutionalization of expertise into an AI system. This is the power of customization.

Intelligence tuned to context

Every sector operates within its own specific lexicon. In automotive engineering, the “language” of the firm revolves around tolerance stacks, validation cycles, and revision control. In capital markets, reasoning is dictated by risk-weighted assets and liquidity buffers. In security operations, patterns are extracted from the noise of telemetry signals and identity anomalies.

Custom-adapted models internalize the nuances of the field. They recognize which variables dictate a “go/no-go” decision, and they think in the language of the industry.

Domain expertise in action

The transition from general-purpose to tailored AI centers on one goal: encoding an organization’s unique logic directly into a model’s weights.

Mistral AI partners with organizations to incorporate domain expertise into their training ecosystems. A few use cases illustrate customized implementations in practice:

Software engineering and assisting at scale: A network hardware company with proprietary languages and specialized codebases found that out-of-the-box models could not grasp their internal stack. By training a custom model on their own development patterns, they achieved a step function in fluency. Integrated into Mistral’s software development scaffolding, this customized model now supports the entire lifecycle—from maintaining legacy systems to autonomous code modernization via reinforcement learning. This turns once-opaque, niche code into a space where AI reliably assists at scale.

Automotive and the engineering copilot: A leading automotive company uses customization to revolutionize crash test simulations. Previously, specialists spent entire days manually comparing digital simulations with physical results to find divergences. By training a model on proprietary simulation data and internal analyses, they automated this visual inspection, flagging deformations in real time. Moving beyond detection, the model now acts as a copilot, proposing design adjustments to bring simulations closer to real-world behavior and radically accelerating the R&D loop.

Public sector and sovereign AI: In Southeast Asia, a government agency is building a sovereign AI layer to move beyond Western-centric models. By commissioning a foundation model tailored to regional languages, local idioms, and cultural contexts, they created a strategic infrastructure asset. This ensures sensitive data remains under local governance while powering inclusive citizen services and regulatory assistants. Here, customization is the key to deploying AI that is both technically effective and genuinely sovereign.

The blueprint for strategic customization

Moving from a general-purpose AI strategy to a domain-specific advantage requires a structural rethinking of the model’s role within the enterprise. Success is defined by three shifts in organizational logic.

1. Treat AI as infrastructure, not an experiment.  Historically, enterprises have treated model customization as an ad hoc experiment—a single fine-tuning run for a niche use case or a localized pilot. While these bespoke silos often yield promising results, they are rarely built to scale. They produce brittle pipelines, improvised governance, and limited portability. When the underlying base models evolve, the adaptation work must often be discarded and rebuilt from scratch.

In contrast, a durable strategy treats customization as foundational infrastructure. In this model, adaptation workflows are reproducible, version-controlled, and engineered for production. Success is measured against deterministic business outcomes. By decoupling the customization logic from the underlying model, firms ensure that their “digital nervous system” remains resilient, even as the frontier of base models shifts.

2. Retain control of your own data and models. As AI migrates from the periphery to core operations, the question of control becomes existential. Reliance on a single cloud provider or vendor for model alignment creates a dangerous asymmetry of power regarding data residency, pricing, and architectural updates.

Enterprises that retain control of their training pipelines and deployment environments preserve their strategic agency. By adapting models within controlled environments, organizations can enforce their own data residency requirements and dictate their own update cycles. This approach transforms AI from a service consumed into an asset governed, reducing structural dependency and allowing for cost and energy optimizations aligned with internal priorities rather than vendor roadmaps.

3. Design for continuous adaptation. The enterprise environment is never static: regulations shift, taxonomies evolve, and market conditions fluctuate. A common failure is treating a customized model as a finished artifact. In reality, a domain-aligned model is a living asset subject to model decay if left unmanaged.

Designing for continuous adaptation requires a disciplined approach to ModelOps. This includes automated drift detection, event-driven retraining, and incremental updates. By building the capacity for constant recalibration, the organization ensures that its AI does not just reflect its history, but it evolves in lockstep with its future. This is the stage where the competitive moat begins to compound: the model’s utility grows as it internalizes the organization’s ongoing response to change.

Control is the new leverage

We have entered an era where generic intelligence is a commodity, but contextual intelligence is a scarcity. While raw model power is now a baseline requirement, the true differentiator is alignment—AI calibrated to an organization’s unique data, mandates, and decision logic.

In the next decade, the most valuable AI won’t be the one that knows everything about the world; it will be the one that knows everything about you. The firms that own the model weights of that intelligence will own the market.

This content was produced by Mistral AI. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Imagine telling a digital agent, “Use my points and book a family trip to Italy. Keep it within budget, pick hotels we’ve liked before, and handle the details.” Instead of returning a list of links, the agent assembles an itinerary and executes the purchase.

That shift, from assistance to execution, is what makes agentic AI different. It also changes the operating speed of commerce. Payment transactions are already clear in milliseconds. The new acceleration is everything before the payment: discovery, comparison, decisioning, authorization, and follow-through across many systems. As humans step out of routine decisions, “good enough” data stops being good enough. In an agent-driven economy, the constraint isn’t speed; it’s trust at machine speed and scale.

Automated markets already work because identity, authority, and accountability are built in. As agents transact across businesses, that same clarity is required. Master data management (MDM)—the discipline of creating a single master record—becomes the exchange layer: tracking who an agent represents, what it can do, and where responsibility sits when value moves. Markets don’t fail from automation; they fail from ambiguous ownership. MDM turns autonomous action into legitimate, scalable trust.

To make agentic commerce safe and scalable, organizations will need more than better models. They will need a modern data architecture and an authoritative system of context that can instantly recognize, resolve, and distinguish entities. It is the difference between automation that scales and automation that needs constant human correction.

The agent is a new participant

Digital commerce has long been built on two primary sides: buyers and suppliers/merchants. Agentic commerce adds a third participant that must be treated as a first-class entity: the agent acting on the buyer’s behalf.

That sounds simple until you ask the questions every enterprise will face:

• Who is the individual, across channels and devices, with enough certainty for automation?
• Who is the agent, and what permissions and limits define what it can do?
• Who is the merchant or supplier, and are we sure we mean the right one?
• Who holds liability if the agent acts with permission, but against user intent?

The practical risk is confusion. Humans, for example, can infer that “Delta” means the airline when they are booking a flight, not the faucet company. An agent needs deterministic signals. If the system guesses wrong, it either breaks trust or forces a human confirmation step that defeats the promise of speed.

Why ‘good enough’ data breaks at machine speed

Most organizations have learned to live with imperfect data. Duplicate customer records are tolerable. Incomplete product attributes are annoying. Merchant identities can be reconciled later.

Agentic workflows change that tolerance. When an agent takes action without a human checking the output, it needs data that is close to perfect, because it cannot reliably notice when data is ambiguous or wrong the way a person can.

The failure modes are predictable, and they show up in places that matter most:

• Product truth: If the catalog is inconsistent, an agent’s choices will look arbitrary (“the wrong shirt,” “the wrong size,” “the wrong material”), and trust collapses quickly.
• Payee truth: Agentic commerce expands beyond cards to account-to-account and open-banking-connected experiences, broadening the universe of payees and the need to recognize them accurately in real time.
• Identity truth: People operate in multiple contexts (work versus personal). Devices shift. A system that cannot distinguish amongst these contexts will either block legitimate activity or approve risky activity, both of which damage adoption.

This is why unified enterprise data and entity resolution move from nice to have to operationally required. The more autonomy you want, the more you must invest in modern data foundations that ensure it is safe.

Context intelligence: The missing layer

When leaders talk about agentic AI, they often focus on model capability: planning, tool use, and reasoning. Those are necessary, but they are not sufficient.

Agentic commerce also requires a layer that provides authoritative context at runtime. Think of it as a real-time system of context that can answer instantly and consistently:

• Is this the right person?
• Is this the right agent, acting within the right permissions?
• Is this the right merchant or payee?
• What constraints apply right now (budget, policy, risk, loyalty rules, preferred suppliers)?

Two design principles matter.

First, entity truth must be deterministic enough for automation. Large language models are probabilistic by nature. That is helpful for creating options for writing and drawing. It is risky for deciding where money goes, especially in B2B and finance workflows, where “probably correct” is not acceptable.

Second, context must travel at the speed of interaction and remain portable across the entire connected network value chain. Mastercard’s experience optimizing payment flows is instructive: the more services you layer onto a transaction, the more you risk slowing it down. The pattern that scales pre-resolves, curates, and packages the signal so that execution is lightweight.

This is also where tokenization is heading. Initiatives like Mastercard’s Agent Pay and Verifiable Intent signal a future in which consumer credentials, agent identities, permissions, and provable user intent are encoded as cryptographically secure artifacts — enabling merchants, issuers and platforms to deterministically verify authorization and execution at machine speed.

What leaders should do in the next 12 to 24 months

Adoption will not be uniform. Early traction will often depend less on industry and more on the sophistication of an organization’s systems and data discipline.

That makes the next two years a window for practical preparation. Five moves stand out.

1. Treat agents as governed identities, not features. Define how agents are onboarded, authenticated, permissioned, monitored, and retired.
2. Prioritize entity resolution where the cost of being wrong is highest. Start with payees, suppliers, employee-versus-personal identity, and high-volume product categories.
3. Build a reusable context service that every workflow and agent can call. Do not force each system to reconstruct identity and relationships from scratch.
4. Precompute and compress signals. Resolve and curate context upstream so that runtime decisioning stays fast and predictable.
5. Expand autonomy only as trust is earned. Build a governance framework to address disputes, keep humans in the loop for higher-risk actions, measure accuracy, and expand automation as outcomes prove reliable.

A tsunami effect across industries

Agentic AI will not be confined to shopping carts. It will touch procurement, travel, claims, customer service, and finance operations. It will compress decision cycles and remove manual steps, but only for organizations that can supply agents with clean identity, precise entity truth, and reliable context.

The winners will treat entity truth and context as core infrastructure for automation, not as a back-office cleanup project. In commerce at machine speed, trust is not a brand attribute; it is an architectural decision encoded in identity, context, and control.

This content was produced by Reltio. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Parents of young children face a lot of fears about developmental milestones, from infancy through adulthood. The number of months it takes a baby to learn to talk or walk is often used as a benchmark for wellness, or an indicator of additional tests needed to properly diagnose a potential health condition. A parent rejoices over the child’s first steps and then realizes how much has changed when the child can quickly walk outside, instead of slowly crawling in a safe area inside. Suddenly safety, including childproofing, takes a completely different lens and approach.

Generative AI hit toddlerhood between December 2025 and January 2026 with the introduction of no code tools from multiple vendors and the debut of OpenClaw, an open source personal agent posted on GitHub. No more crawling on the carpet—the generative AI tech baby broke into a sprint, and very few governance principles were operationally prepared.

The accountability challenge: It’s not them, it’s you

Until now, governance has been focused on model output risks with humans in the loop before consequential decisions were made—such as with loan approvals or job applications. Model behavior, including drift, alignment, data exfiltration, and poisoning, was the focus. The pace was set by a human prompting a model in a chatbot format with plenty of back and forth interactions between machine and human.

Today, with autonomous agents operating in complex workflows, the vision and the benefits of applied AI require significantly fewer humans in the loop. The point is to operate a business at machine pace by automating manual tasks that have clear architecture and decision rules. The goal, from a liability standpoint, is no reduction in enterprise or business risk between a machine operating a workflow and a human operating a workflow. CX Today summarizes the situation succinctly: “AI does the work, humans own the risk,” and   California state law (AB 316), went into effect January 1, 2026, which removes the “AI did it; I didn’t approve it” excuse.  This is similar to parenting when an adult is held responsible for a child’s actions that negatively impacts the larger community.

The challenge is that without building in code that enforces operational governance aligned to different levels of risk and liability along the entire workflow, the benefit of autonomous AI agents is negated. In the past, governance had been static and aligned to the pace of interaction typical for a chatbot. However, autonomous AI by design removes humans from many decisions, which can affect governance.  

Considering permissions

Much like handing a three-year-old child a video game console that remotely controls an Abrams tank or an armed drone, leaving a probabilistic system operating without real-time guardrails that can change critical enterprise data carries significant risks.  For instance, agents that integrate and chain actions across multiple corporate systems can drift beyond privileges that a single human user would be granted. To move forward successfully, governance must shift beyond policy set by committees to operational code built into the workflows from the start.  

A humorous meme around the behavior of toddlers with toys starts with all the reasons that whatever toy you have is mine and ends with a broken toy that is definitely yours.  For example, OpenClaw delivered a user experience closer to working with a human assistant;, but the excitement shifted as security experts realized inexperienced users could be easily compromised by using it.

For decades, enterprise IT has lived with shadow IT and the reality that skilled technical teams must take over and clean up assets they did not architect or install, much like the toddler giving back a broken toy. With autonomous agents, the risks are larger: persistent service account credentials, long-lived API tokens, and permissions to make decisions over core file systems. To meet this challenge, it’s imperative to allocate upfront appropriate IT budget and labor to sustain central discovery, oversight, and remediation for the thousands of employee or department-created agents.

Having a retirement plan

Recently, an acquaintance mentioned that she saved a client hundreds of thousands of dollars by identifying and then ending a “zombie project” —a neglected or failed AI pilot left running on a GPU cloud instance. There are potentially thousands of agents that risk becoming a zombie fleet inside a business. Today, many executives encourage employees to use AI—or else—and employees are told to create their own AI-first workflows or AI assistants. With the utility of something like OpenClaw and top-down directives, it is easy to project that the number of build-my-own agents coming to the office with their human employee will explode. Since an AI agent is a program that would fall under the definition of company-owned IP, as a employee changes departments or companies, those agents may be orphaned. There needs to be proactive policy and governance to decommission and retire any agents linked to a specific employee ID and permissions.

Financial optimization is governance out of the gate

While for some executives, autonomous AI sounds like a way to improve their operating margins by limiting human capital, many are finding that the ROI for human labor replacement is the wrong angle to take. Adding AI capabilities to the enterprise does not mean purchasing a new software tool with predictable instance-per-hour or per-seat pricing. A December 2025 IDC survey sponsored by Data Robot indicated that 96% of organizations deploying generative AI and 92% of those implementing agentic AI reported costs were higher or much higher than expected.

The survey separates the concepts of governance and ROI, but as AI systems scale across large enterprises, financial and liability governance should be architected into the workflows from the beginning. Part of enterprise class governance stems from predicting and adhering to allocated budgeting. Unlike the software financial models of per-seat costs with support and maintenance fees, use of AI is consumption and usage costs scale as the workflow scales across the enterprise: the more users, the more tokens or the more compute time, and the higher the bill. Think of it as a tab left open, or an online retailer’s digital shopping cart button unlocked on a toddler’s electronic game device.

Cloud FinOps was deterministic, but generative AI and agentic AI systems built on generative AI are probabilistic. Some AI-first founders are realizing that a single agents’ token costs can be as high as $100,000 per session. Without guardrails built in from the start, chaining complex autonomous agents that run unsupervised for long periods of time can easily blow past the budget for hiring a junior developer.

Keeping humans in the loop remains critical

The promise of autonomous agentic AI is acceleration of business operations, product introductions, customer experience, and customer retention. Shifting to machine-speed decisions without humans in and or on the loop for these key functions significantly changes the governance landscape. While many of the principles around proactive permissions, discovery, audit, remediation, and financial operations/optimizations are the same, how they are executed has to shift to keep pace with autonomous agentic AI.

This content was produced by Intel. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

For decades, manufacturers have pursued automation to drive efficiency, reduce costs, and stabilize operations. That approach delivered meaningful gains, but it is no longer enough.

Today’s manufacturing leaders face a different challenge: how to grow amid labor constraints, rising complexity, and increasing pressure to innovate faster without sacrificing safety, quality, or trust. The next phase of transformation will not be defined by isolated AI tools or individual robots, but by intelligence that can operate reliably in the physical world.

This is where physical AI—intelligence that can sense, reason, and act in the real world—marks a decisive shift. And it is why Microsoft and NVIDIA are working together to help manufacturers move from experimentation to production at industrial scale.

The industrial frontier: Intelligence and trust, not just automation

Most early AI adoption focused on narrow optimization: automating tasks, improving utilization, and cutting costs. While valuable, that phase often created new friction, including skills gaps, governance concerns, and uncertainty about long‑term impact. Furthermore, the use cases were plentiful but not as strategic.

The industrial frontier represents a different approach. Rather than asking how much work machines can replace, frontier manufacturers ask how AI can expand human capability, accelerate innovation, and unlock new forms of value while remaining trustworthy and controllable.

Across industries, companies that successfully move into this frontier phase share two non‑negotiables:

• Intelligence: AI systems must understand how the business actually handles its data, workflows, and institutional knowledge.
• Trust: As AI begins to act in high‑stakes environments, organizations must retain security, governance, and observability at every layer.

Without intelligence, AI becomes generic. Without trust, adoption stalls.

Why manufacturing is the proving ground for physical AI

Manufacturing is uniquely positioned at the center of this shift.

AI is no longer confined to planning or analytics. It is moving into physical execution: coordinating machines, adapting to real‑world variability, and working alongside people on the factory floor. Robotics, autonomous systems, and AI agents must now perceive, reason, and act in dynamic environments.

This transition exposes a critical gap. Traditional automation excels at repetition but struggles with adaptability. Human workers bring judgment and context but are constrained by scale. Physical AI closes that gap by enabling human‑led, AI‑operated systems, where people set intent and intelligent systems execute, learn, and improve over time. Humans are essential for scaled success.

Microsoft and NVIDIA: Accelerating physical AI at scale

Physical AI cannot be delivered through point solutions. It requires agentic-driven, enterprise-grade development, deployment, and operations toolchains and workflows that connect simulation, data, AI models, robotics, and governance into a coherent system.

NVIDIA is building the AI infrastructure that makes physical AI possible, including accelerated computing, open models, simulation libraries, and robotics frameworks and blueprints that enable the ecosystem to build autonomous robotics systems that can perceive, reason, plan, and take action in the physical world. Microsoft complements this with a cloud and data platform designed to operate physical AI securely, at scale, and across the enterprise.

Together, Microsoft and NVIDIA are enabling manufacturers to move beyond pilots toward production‑ready physical AI systems that can be developed, tested, deployed, and continuously improved across heterogeneous environments spanning the product lifecycle, factory operations, and supply chain.

From intelligence to action: Human-agent teams in the factory

At the industrial frontier, AI is not a standalone system, but a digital teammate.

When AI agents are grounded in the proper operational data, embedded in human workflows, and governed end to end, they can assist with tasks such as:

• Optimizing production lines in real time
• Coordinating maintenance and quality decisions
• Adapting operations to supply or demand disruptions
• Accelerating engineering and product lifecycle decisions

For example, manufacturers are beginning to use simulation‑grounded AI agents to evaluate production changes virtually before deploying them on the factory floor, reducing risk while accelerating decision‑making.

Crucially, frontier manufacturers design these systems so humans remain in control. AI executes, monitors, and recommends, while people provide intent, oversight, and judgment. This balance allows organizations to move faster without losing confidence or control.

The role of trust in scaling physical AI

As physical AI systems scale, trust becomes the limiting factor.

Manufacturers must ensure that AI systems are secure, observable, and operating within policy, especially when they influence safety‑critical or mission‑critical processes. Governance cannot be an afterthought; It must be engineered into the platform itself.

This is why frontier manufacturers treat trust as a first‑class requirement, pairing innovation with visibility, compliance, and accountability. Only then can physical AI move from promising demonstrations to enterprise‑wide deployment.

Why this moment matters—and what’s next

The convergence of AI agents, robotics, simulation, and real‑time data marks an inflection point for manufacturing. What was once experimental is becoming operational. What was once siloed is becoming connected.

At NVIDIA GTC 2026, Microsoft and NVIDIA will demonstrate how this collaboration supports physical AI systems that manufacturers can deploy today and scale responsibly tomorrow. From simulation‑driven development to real‑world execution, the focus is on helping manufacturers cross the industrial frontier with confidence.

For manufacturing leaders, the question is no longer whether physical AI will reshape operations, but how quickly they can adopt it responsibly, at scale, and with trust built in from the start.

Discover more with Microsoft at NVIDIA GTC 2026.

This content was produced by Microsoft. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

The impact of artificial intelligence extends far beyond the digital world and into our everyday lives, across the cars we drive, the appliances in our homes, and medical devices that keep people alive. More and more, product engineers are turning to AI to enhance, validate, and streamline the design of the items that furnish our worlds.

The use of AI in product engineering follows a disciplined and pragmatic trajectory. A significant majority of engineering organizations are increasing their AI investment, according to our survey, but they are doing so in a measured way. This approach reflects the priorities typical of product engineers. Errors have concrete consequences beyond abstract fears, ranging from structural failures to safety recalls and even potentially putting lives at risk. The central challenge is realizing AI’s value without compromising product integrity.

Drawing on data from a survey of 300 respondents and in-depth interviews with senior technology executives and other experts, this report examines how product engineering teams are scaling AI, what is limiting broader adoption, and which specific capabilities are shaping adoption today and, in the future, with actual or potential measurable outcomes.

Key findings from the research include:

Verification, governance, and explicit human accountability are mandatory in an environment where the outputs are physical—and the risk high. Where product engineers are using AI to directly inform physical designs, embedded systems, and manufacturing decisions that are fixed at release, product failures can lead to real-world risks that cannot be rolled back. Product engineers are therefore adopting layered AI systems with distinct trust thresholds instead of general-purpose deployments.

Predictive analytics and AI-powered simulation and validation are the top near-term investment priorities for product engineering leaders. These capabilities—selected by a majority of survey respondents—offer clear feedback loops, allowing companies to audit performance, attain regulatory approval, and prove return on investment (ROI). Building gradual trust in AI tools is imperative.

Nine in ten product engineering leaders plan to increase investment in AI in the next one to two years, but the growth is modest. The highest proportion of respondents (45%) plan to increase investment by up to 25%, while nearly a third favor a 26% to 50% boost. And just 15% plan a bigger step change—between 51% and 100%. The focus for product engineers is on optimization over innovation, with scalable proof points and near-term ROI the dominant approach to AI adoption, as opposed to multi-year transformation.

Sustainability and product quality are top measurable outcomes for AI in product engineering. These outcomes, visible to customers, regulators, and investors, are prioritized over competitive metrics like time to-market and innovation—rated of medium importance—and internal operational gains like cost reduction and workforce satisfaction, at the bottom. What matters most are real-world signals like defect rates and emissions profiles rather than internal engineering dashboards.

Download the report.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

In the race to adopt and show value from AI, enterprises are moving faster than ever to deploy agentic AI as copilots, assistants, and autonomous task-runners. In late 2025, nearly two-thirds of companies were experimenting with AI agents, while 88% were using AI in at least one business function, up from 78% in 2024, according to McKinsey’s annual AI report. Yet, while early pilots often succeed, only one in 10 companies actually scaled their AI agents.

One major issue: AI agents are only as effective as the data foundation supporting them. Experts argue that most companies are seeing delays in implementing AI, not because of shortcomings in the models, but because they lack data architectures that deliver business context to be reliably used by humans and agents.

Companies need to be ready with the right data architecture, and the next few months — years, at most — will be critical, says Irfan Khan, president and chief product officer of SAP Data & Analytics.

“The only prediction anybody can reliably make is that we don’t know what’s going to happen in the years, months — or even weeks — ahead with AI,” he says. “To be able to get quick wins right now, you need to adopt an AI mindset and … ground your AI models with reliable data.”

While data has always been important for business, it will be even more so in the age of AI. The capabilities of agentic AI will be set more by the soundness of enterprise data architecture and governance, and less by the evolution of the models. To scale the technology, businesses need to adopt a modern data infrastructure that delivers context along with the data.

More business context, not necessarily more data

Traditional views often conflate structured data with high value, and unstructured data with less value. However, AI complicates that distinction. High-value data for agents is defined less by format and more by business context. Data for critical business functions — such as supply-chain operations and financial planning — is context dependent. While fine-grained, high-volume data, such as IoT, logs, and telemetry, can yield value, but only when delivered with business context.

For that reason, the real risk for agentic AI is not lack of data, but lack of grounding, says Khan.

“Anything that is business contextual will, by definition, give you greater value and greater levels of reliability of the business outcome,” he says. “It’s not as simple as saying high-value data is structured data and low-value data is where you have lots of repetition — both can have huge value in the right hands, and that’s what’s different about AI.”

Context can be derived through integration with software, on-site analysis and enrichment, or through the governance pipeline. Data lacking those qualities will likely be untrusted — one reason why two-thirds of business leaders do not fully trust their data, according to the Institute for Data and Enterprise AI (IDEA). The resulting “trust debt” has held back businesses in their quest for AI readiness. Overcoming that lack of trust requires shared definitions, semantic consistency, and reliable operational context to align data with business meaning.

Data sprawl demands a semantic, business-aware layer

Over the past decade, the most important shift in enterprise data architecture has been the separation of compute and storage, cloud-scale flexibility, says Khan. Yet, that separation and move to cloud also created sprawl, with data housed in multiple clouds, data lakes, warehouses, and a multitude of SaaS applications.

As companies move to AI, that sprawl does not go away. In fact, the problem is growing with more than two-thirds of companies citing data siloes as a top challenge in adopting AI, with more than half of enterprises struggling with 1,000 data sources or more. While the last era was about laying the foundation on which to build software-as-a-service — separating compute and storage and building lakes — the next era is about delivering the right data to autonomous AI agents tasked with various business functions.

“Probably the biggest innovation that occurred in data management was the separation of compute and store,” Khan says. “But what’s really making a distinction now is the way that we harmonize the data and harvest the value of the data across multiple sources of content.”

To do that requires a semantic or knowledge layer that supports multiple platforms, encodes business rules and relationships, provides a business-contextual and governed view of data, and allows humans and agents to access the data in the appropriate ways. But legacy data architectures cannot power the autonomous AI systems of the future, consultancy Deloitte stated in its State of AI in the Enterprise report. Only four in 10 companies believe their data management process is ready for AI, and that’s down from 43% the previous year, suggesting that as companies explore AI deployment, they are realizing their infrastructure’s shortcomings.

Agentic AI does not replace SaaS

Some investors and technologists speculate that AI agents will make SaaS applications obsolete. Khan strongly disagrees. Over the past 15 years, value has steadily moved up the stack, from on-premises infrastructure to infrastructure as a service (IaaS) to platform as a service (PaaS) to SaaS. Agentic AI is simply the next layer. Agentic AI will have its own layer to access the data and interact with the business logic. The value rises up the stack, but nothing below disappears, he says.

“SaaS doesn’t go away,” he says. “It just means SaaS and these agents will cooperate with one another. Companies are not going to throw away their entire general ledger and replace it with an agent. What’s the agent going to do? It doesn’t know anything without business context and business processing.”

In this emerging model, the software stack is being reshaped so that applications and data provide governed context within which AI can act effectively. SaaS applications remain the systems of record, while the semantic layer becomes the business-context source of truth. AI agents become a new engagement layer, orchestrating across systems, and both humans and agents become “first-class citizens” in how they access business logic, he says.

Critically, agents cannot directly connect to every operational system. “If we’re saying agents are going to take over the world … you can’t have an agent talking to every operational backend system,” Khan warns. “It just doesn’t work that way.”

This further elevates the importance of a semantic or business-fabric layer.

Where to start

Most enterprises need to begin where their data already lives — in platforms like Snowflake, Databricks, Google BigQuery, or an existing SAP environment. Khan says that’s normal, but warns against rebuilding old patterns of vendor lock-in.

He suggests that companies prioritize the data that matters most by focusing on preserving and providing business context to operational and application data. Companies should also invest early in governance and semantics by defining shared policies, access rules, and semantic models before scaling pilots. Finally, businesses should prioritize openness and fabric-style interoperability rather than forcing all data into one stack.

Khan cautions against aiming for full automation too early. “There is a new brave opportunity to really engage in the agentic and AI world,” Khan says, “Fully automating [critical business processes] is maybe a stretch, because there’s going to be a lot of extra oversight necessary.” Early wins will likely come from less-critical processes and from agents that work off fresh, stateful data rather than stale dashboards, he adds. As AI begins to deliver value and adoption increases, leaders must decide how to reinvest those gains to drive top-line efficiency or enter new markets.

Register for “The Fabric of Data & AI” virtual event on March 24, 2026. Hear insights from executives and thought leaders who are shaping the future of data and AI.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

Loudoun County, Virginia, once known for its pastoral scenery and proximity to Washington, DC, has earned a more modern reputation in recent years: The area has the highest concentration of data centers on the planet.

Ten years ago, these facilities powered email and e-commerce. Today, thanks to the meteoric rise in demand for AI-infused everything, local utility Dominion Energy is working hard to keep pace with surging power demands. The pressure is so acute that Dulles International Airport is constructing the largest airport solar installation in the country, a highly visible bid to bolster the region’s power mix.

Data center campuses like Loudoun’s are cropping up across the country to accommodate an insatiable appetite for AI. But this buildout comes at an enormous cost. In the US alone, data centers consumed roughly 4% of national electricity in 2024. Projections suggest that figure could stretch to 12% by 2028. To put this in perspective, a single 100-megawatt data center consumes roughly as much electricity as 80,000 American homes. Data centers being built today are gearing up for gigawatt scale, enough to power a mid-sized city.

For enterprise leaders, energy costs associated with AI and data infrastructure are quickly becoming both a budget concern and a potential bottleneck on growth. Meeting this moment calls for a capability most organizations are only beginning to develop: energy intelligence. The emerging discipline refers to understanding where, when, and why energy is consumed, and using that insight to optimize operations and control costs.

These efforts stand to address both immediate financial pressures and longer-term reputational risks, as communities like Loudoun County grow increasingly concerned about the energy demands associated with nearby data center development.

In December 2025, MIT Technology Review Insights conducted a survey of 300 executives to understand how companies are thinking about energy intelligence today, as well as where they’re anticipating challenges in the future.

Here are five of our most notable findings:

• Energy intelligence is becoming a universal business priority. One hundred percent of executives surveyed expect the ability to measure and strategically manage power consumption to become an important business metric in the next two years.
  
• AI workloads are already driving measurable cost increases, and the surge is just beginning. Two-thirds of executives (68%) report their companies have faced energy cost increases of 10% or more in the past 12 months due to AI and data workloads. Nearly all respondents (97%) anticipate their organization’s AI-related energy consumption will increase over the next 12-18 months.
  
• Mounting costs are the top energy-related threat to AI innovation. Half of executives (51%) rank rising costs as the single greatest energy-related risk to their digital and AI initiatives. Most companies currently tracking and attempting to optimize data center energy consumption are motivated by cost management.
  
• Organizations are responding through infrastructure optimization and energy-efficient partnerships. To address mounting energy demands, three in four leaders (74%) are optimizing existing infrastructure, while 69% are partnering with energy-efficient cloud and storage providers. More than half are also implementing AI workload scheduling (61%) and investing in more efficient hardware (56%).
  
• Closing the measurement gap is the next frontier. Most enterprises still lack the granular data needed for true energy intelligence. This gap is especially pronounced for companies relying on third-party cloud providers and managed services for their data compute and storage needs, where 71% say rising consumption-based costs originate, yet energy metrics are often opaque.

Download the full report.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

When Tony Fadell started working on the iPod, usability often trumped security. The result was an iterative process. Every time someone would find a security weakness or a way to hack the device, the development group would iterate to add measures and fix the issues. Yet, flaws would frequently be found, and the secure design of the product became a moving target.

But when it came to designing a device specifically for security purposes, there could be no iterative process after rolling it out: Security had to be the number one priority. 

“As you develop these things, you’re a victim of your own development speed,” says Fadell, who developed Ledger Stax, a signing device for securing digital assets, and is now a board member at digital asset security firm Ledger. “If you introduced these features and functions without the proper review, and now customers are demanding security, you’ll realize that you should have designed it differently from the start, and it’s very hard to undo what you’ve already done.”

A critical aspect of designing secure technology, however, must be ease of use too. Without it, it is all too simple for users to make a mistake or use an unsafe workaround that undermines device protections. Think a post-it stuck to a monitor or some variation of “123456” or “admin” for passwords.

With digital asset security devices like signers—more commonly called “wallets”—such errors could lead to seriously detrimental outcomes. If, for example, a user’s private key falls into the wrong hands, bad actors can use it to steal their digital assets. Estimates suggest that around 20% of all Bitcoin—worth around $355 billion—are inaccessible to owners. One of the reasons for this is likely because they lost their private keys.

In the past, crypto devices have been notoriously difficult to use. As cryptocurrency becomes ever more popular, valuable, and mainstream—attracting greater attention from criminals as the stakes rise—designers and engineers are prioritizing both security and usability when developing digital asset devices, drawing on in-depth research to iterate.

The three components of security

Strong security models for devices like signers, which are used to secure blockchain transactions,  require three major components. First, a secure operating system. Second, a secure element to bind the software to the hardware. And third, a secure user interface. Each of which need to be frequently tested by researchers and white hat hackers to simulate real-world attacks and improve product resilience and usability.

The first two elements focus on securing the device software and hardware. Secure software has always been a problem, but one that has improved over the last decade, as security architectures and processes have been refined. Meanwhile, hardware security components have become widely available—from trusted platform modules on computers to secure enclaves in smartphones—allowing digital information to essentially be locked to a device.

For crypto signers, hardware must provide encryption capabilities. And the security of the software must be frequently tested. Ledger, for example, has a secure OS and a Secure Element that handles encryption primitives, and a secure display that prevents device takeover.

Security and usability working hand in hand

Asset recovery is a major consideration when designing signers. If recovery options are not easy to use, an owner could lose access. But if recovery processes are not secure enough, attackers could exploit the system. With SIM swapping attacks, for example, attackers can tap into a mobile communications channel used for account recovery and “recover” a victim’s password to steal their assets.

In the digital-asset ecosystem, the creation of the seed phrase, a sequence of 12 to 24 words that could act as a passphrase for wallets is an example of improving usability and security. Known more formally as Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 39 (BIP-39), the approach gives users a master password to unlock their hierarchical deterministic (HD) wallets. 

There is a lot of creative tension between the security team and the UX team that happens to achieve the proper balance between convenience and safety, Fadell says, referring to Ledger’s security research team, the Donjon. “We mock things up, we prototype things from a UX UI perspective, we walk through it, then we walk the Donjon team through it,” Fadell explains. “We push back and forth to find the absolute optimal solution to balance the two.” 

Through the research the Donjon team has conducted, Ledger designed its Recovery Key—an NFC-based physical card to back up your 24 words—to be both user-friendly and secure. “What we did, as a first in the industry, was include an NFC card,” says Fadell. “Instead of only writing it down, you can also have an NFC card called a Recovery Key. You can have multiple Recovery Keys and store them in a lockbox, a safety deposit box, or give them to someone you trust for safekeeping.”

A number of government initiatives are working to regulate this balance between security and usability. This includes the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s Secure by Design, which aims to build cybersecurity into the design and manufacture of technology products. And the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre’s Software Security Code of Practice, which outlines security principles expected of all organizations that develop or sell software. 

Enterprise security presents distinct challenges

Embedding usability and security into devices for companies adds further complexity as businesses need features such as multi-signature capabilities to protect against single points of failure, whether from external attacks or internal bad actors. 

Security design can take these requirements into account, with secure governance using multiple signatures (multisig), hardware security modules (HSMs) for key storage, trusted display systems, and other usable security capabilities.

These technologies are critically important for companies who have roles in the blockchain ecosystem. Failure to establish robust security measures can have dire consequences. In 2024, for example, unknown cybercriminals made off with more than $300 million worth of assets from DMM Bitcoin, leading the Japanese cryptocurrency platform to close six months later. Japan’s Financial Services Agency discovered severe risk management issues, including inadequate oversight, lack of independent audits, and poor security practices.

For companies, allowing a multi-stage process that involves a required number of stakeholders is critical, says Fadell. “It’s making sure that the attack vector is not just one person, and so you need to support multiple people with multiple factors on all of their devices as well,” he says. “It gets to be a real combinatoric problem.”

R&D to stay one step ahead 

To keep up with requirements and offer strong security with improved visibility, crypto firms need to invest in research and development, Fadell says. Attack labs, such as Ledger Donjon, can conduct real-world testing on specific enterprise security requirements and create scenarios to educate both management and workers of the potential threats. 

Such research and development can support device designers and engineers in their never-ending mission to balance security measures with usability so that digital asset devices can support users to safeguard their digital assets in a constantly evolving crypto and cyber landscape.

Learn more about how to secure digital assets in the Ledger Academy.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

This content was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.