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.

The failure mode for enterprise AI in 2026 is not what most people expected. It is not that the models are wrong, or that agents cannot reason, or that the technology is overhyped. The failure mode is that the data feeding those systems is fragmented, inconsistently labelled, and spread across dozens of applications that were never designed to share context. 

Boomi calls this the agentic AI data activation problem, and after tracking 75,000 AI agents running in production across its customer base, the company says solving it comes before everything else. That figure comes from February, when Boomi reported its strongest momentum to date: more than 30,000 customers globally, 75,000 AI agents in production, and a customer base that includes over a quarter of the Fortune 500. 

Yet the consistent pattern across those deployments, according to Steve Lucas, chairman and CEO of Boomi, is that AI value only materialises once the data problem is resolved. “AI only delivers value when data is properly activated, trusted and governed first,” Lucas said when the company announced its latest platform capabilities on March 9.

The fragmentation problem

Enterprise data is not missing; it exists in abundance, distributed across ERP systems, CRMs, data lakes, SaaS platforms, and legacy applications that have accumulated over decades. What is missing is the shared context that allows an AI agent to treat data from one system as reliably compatible with data from another. 

An agent drawing customer records from a CRM and pricing data from an ERP may be working from conflicting definitions of what a customer or a product actually is. The outputs it produces are only as coherent as the data standards beneath them.

Boomi’s answer is Meta Hub, a central system of record announced in its March 9 platform update, designed to standardise business definitions across the enterprise and extend that context to every AI agent operating within it. The goal is to ensure agents reason from a consistent understanding of business logic rather than generating outputs based on fragmented interpretations pulled from disconnected systems.

The same release introduced real-time SAP data extraction via change data capture, addressing one of the most common integration bottlenecks in large enterprises, where SAP data is often inaccessible due to slow, manual export processes that render it effectively unavailable to AI workflows in real-time. 

New governance capabilities for Snowflake Cortex agents within Boomi’s Agent Control Tower added audit trails and session logs, addressing a concern that has moved steadily up enterprise priority lists: AI agents operating as a black box, taking actions with no visible reasoning chain.

What the analyst’s recognition signals

Two independent assessments in March gave Boomi external validation of its positioning. On March 16, Gartner named Boomi a Leader in its 2026 Magic Quadrant for Integration Platform as a Service–the twelfth consecutive time–and positioned it highest for Ability to Execute. 

On March 31, the IDC MarketScape for Worldwide API Management named Boomi a Leader, specifically noting its AI-centric strategy that treats APIs as both the fuel and the control plane for AI workloads. The Gartner framing is pointed. 

The report stated that AI-ready integration is a strategic capability that aligns architecture, integration, and governance to enable AI agents to effectively access enterprise data and operate within business processes. That framing validates the problem Boomi is addressing and signals that iPaaS platforms are now being evaluated on AI readiness rather than traditional integration capabilities alone.

The broader pattern

By now, we are aware that the shift from pilot to production in enterprise AI is stalling in a predictable place. Organisations have models. They have agents. What many do not have is the data infrastructure that makes those agents reliable enough to trust with real business processes.

Data activation–moving data from static storage into live, governed, context-rich flows that agents can actually reason from–is one articulation of what that missing layer needs to look like. Whether that framing becomes the industry standard or gets absorbed into a broader category is a question 2026 will start to answer. 

What is not in question is that the enterprises finding ROI from agentic AI are the ones that sorted the data layer first.

Boomi will be exhibiting at the AI & Big Data Expo at TechEx North America, taking place 18–19 May 2026 at the San Jose McEnery Convention Centre.

(Photo by Boomi)

See also: Autonomous AI systems depend on data governance

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

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

The post Boomi calls it “data activation” and says it’s the missing step in every AI deployment appeared first on AI News.

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) has announced a major evolution of Istio, introducing new capabilities aimed at making service meshes “future-ready” for AI-driven workloads.

By Craig Risi

The Anthropic UK expansion story is less about diplomatic courtship and more about what happens when a government punishes a company for having principles. In late February, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth gave Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei a stark ultimatum: remove guardrails preventing Claude from being used for fully autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance, or face consequences. 

Amodei didn’t budge. He wrote that Anthropic could not “in good conscience” grant the Pentagon’s request, arguing that some uses of AI “can undermine rather than defend democratic values.” Washington’s response was swift. 

Trump directed every federal agency to immediately cease all use of Anthropic’s technology, and the Pentagon designated the company a supply chain risk, a label ordinarily reserved for adversarial foreign entities like Huawei. The US$200 million Pentagon contract was pulled. 

Defence tech companies instructed employees to stop using Claude and switch to alternatives. London, watching all of this unfold, saw something different.

The UK’s pitch

Staff at the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) have drawn up proposals for the US$380 billion company, ranging from a dual stock listing on the London Stock Exchange to an office expansion in the capital, according to multiple people with knowledge of the plans. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office has backed the effort, which will be put to Amodei when he visits in late May. 

Anthropic already has around 200 employees in Britain and appointed former prime minister Rishi Sunak as a senior adviser last year. The infrastructure for a meaningful UK presence is already there. What the British government is now offering is an explicit signal that Anthropic’s approach to AI–built on embedded ethical constraints–is an asset, not an obstacle.

A dual listing in London, if it materialised, would give Anthropic access to European institutional investors at a moment when its domestic regulatory standing remains under active legal challenge. The Pentagon’s appeal of the court-ordered injunction blocking the supply chain designation is still before the Ninth Circuit, and the outcome remains uncertain.

Ethics as a competitive advantage

The dispute has been framed largely as a legal and political fight. But its implications for global AI governance run deeper. Anthropic’s lawyers argued in court filings that Claude was not developed to be used for lethal autonomous weapons without human oversight, nor deployed to spy on US citizens, and that using the tools in these ways would represent an abuse of its technology. 

US District Judge Rita Lin, who granted a preliminary injunction blocking the blacklist in March, found the government’s actions “troubling” and concluded they likely violated the law. That judicial finding matters in the UK context. Britain is positioning itself as a regulatory environment sitting between Washington’s current posture, which demands unrestricted military access, and Brussels, where the EU AI Act imposes its own constraints. 

The UK government presents itself as offering a less constrained environment for AI companies than either the US or the European Union. Crucially, that pitch doesn’t ask Anthropic to abandon the guardrails it went to court to defend.

The courtship also sits alongside broader UK efforts to build domestic AI capability, including a recently announced £40 million state-backed research lab, after officials acknowledged the absence of a homegrown competitor to the leading US frontier labs.

Competition in London

The UK’s play for Anthropic is not happening in a vacuum. OpenAI has already committed to making London its biggest research hub outside the US. Google has anchored itself in King’s Cross since acquiring DeepMind in 2014. The race to secure frontier AI in London is already competitive, and Anthropic’s current circumstances make it the most consequential target yet.

Anthropic has been expanding internationally regardless of its domestic legal battles, including opening a Sydney office as its fourth Asia-Pacific location. The global growth strategy is already in motion. What remains to be seen is how much of it London gets to claim.

The company Washington blacklisted for having an AI ethics policy is now being actively courted by another G7 government that wants exactly that. The late May meetings with Amodei will be telling.

See Also: Anthropic selected to build government AI assistant pilot

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

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

The post Anthropic’s refusal to arm AI is exactly why the UK wants it appeared first on AI News.

About 20 years ago, I stepped on stage at one of our Geisinger town halls and looked out upon a sea of people: thousands of full-time employees at an integrated health system charged with the health and well-being of millions of Pennsylvanians. 

Only a fraction of the people in that room were clinicians. 

That was the first time I fully visualized the problem: We employed more people in our revenue cycle department to process bills and reconcile data than we did doctors. And we weren’t alone. It’s the same story at every health system in America, large and small, and over the past two decades, the ratio has become dramatically more disparate. 

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

© Adobe

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

Within Silicon Valley’s orbit, an AI-fueled jobs apocalypse is spoken about as a given. The mood is so grim that a societal impacts researcher at Anthropic, responding Wednesday to a call for more optimistic visions of AI’s future, said there might be a recession in the near term and a “breakdown of the early-career ladder.” Her less-measured colleague Dario Amodei, the company’s CEO, has called AI “a general labor substitute for humans” that could do all jobs in less than five years. And those ideas are not just coming from Anthropic, of course. 

These conversations have unsurprisingly left many workers in a panic (and are probably contributing to support for efforts to entirely pause the construction of data centers, some of which gained steam last week). The panic isn’t being helped by lawmakers, none of whom have articulated a coherent plan for what comes next.

Even economists who have cautioned that AI has not yet cut jobs and may not result in a cliff ahead are coming around to the idea that it could have a unique and unprecedented impact on how we work. 

Alex Imas, based at the University of Chicago, is one of those economists. He shared two things with me when we spoke on Friday morning: a blunt assessment that our tools for predicting what this will look like are pretty abysmal, and a “call to arms” for economists to start collecting the one type of data that could make a plan to address AI in the workforce possible at all. 

On our abysmal tools: consider the fact that any job is made up of individual tasks. One part of a real estate agent’s job, for example, is to ask clients what sort of property they want to buy. The US government chronicled thousands of these tasks in a massive catalogue first launched in 1998 and updated regularly since then. This was the data that researchers at OpenAI used in December to judge how “exposed” a job is to AI (they found a real estate agent to be 28% exposed, for example). Then in February, Anthropic used this data in its analysis of millions of Claude conversations to see which tasks people are actually using its AI to complete and where the two lists overlapped.

But knowing the AI exposure of tasks leads to an illusory understanding of how much a given job is at risk, Imas says. “Exposure alone is a completely meaningless tool for predicting displacement,” he told me.

Sure, it is illustrative in the gloomiest case—for a job in which literally every task could be done by AI with no human direction. If it costs less for an AI model to do all those tasks than what you’re paid—which is not a given, since reasoning models and agentic AI can rack up quite a bill—and it can do them well, the job likely disappears, Imas says. This is the oft-mentioned case of the elevator operator from decades ago; maybe today’s parallel is a customer service agent solely doing phone call triage. 

But for the vast majority of jobs, the case is not so simple. And the specifics matter, too: Some jobs are likely to have dark days ahead, but knowing how and when this will play out is hard to answer when only looking at exposure.

Take writing code, for example. Someone who builds premium dating apps, let’s say, might use AI coding tools to create in one day what used to take three days. That means the worker is more productive. The worker’s employer, spending the same amount of money, can now get more output. So then will the employer want more employees or fewer? 

This is the question that Imas says should keep any policymaker up at night, because the answer will change depending on the industry. And we are operating in the dark. 

In this coder’s case, these efficiencies make it possible for dating apps to lower prices. (A skeptic might expect companies to simply pocket the gains, but in a competitive market, they risk being undercut if they do.) These lower prices will always drive some increase in demand for the apps. But how much? If millions more people want it, the company might grow and ultimately hire more engineers to meet this demand. But if demand barely ticks up—maybe the people who don’t use premium dating apps still won’t want them even at a lower price—fewer coders are needed, and layoffs will happen.

Repeat this hypothetical across every job with tasks that AI can do, and you have the most pressing economic question of our time: the specifics of price elasticity, or how much demand for something changes when its price changes. And this is the second part of what Imas emphasized last week: We don’t currently have this data across the economy. But we could. 

We do have the numbers for grocery items like cereal and milk, Imas says, because the University of Chicago partners with supermarkets to get data from their price scanners. But we don’t have such figures for tutors or web developers or dietitians (all jobs found to have “exposure” to AI, by the way). Or at least not in a way that’s been widely compiled or made accessible to researchers; sometimes it’s scattered across private companies or consultancies. 

“We need, like, a Manhattan Project to collect this,” Imas says. And we don’t need it just for jobs that could obviously be affected by AI now: “Fields that are not exposed now will become exposed in the future, so you just want to track these statistics across the entire economy.”

Getting all this information would take time and money, but Imas makes the case that it’s worth it; it would give economists the first realistic look at how our AI-enabled future could unfold and give policymakers a shot at making a plan for it.

For years Mike McClary sold the Guardian LTE Flashlight, a heavy-duty black model, online through his small outdoor brand. The product, designed for brightness and durability, became one of his most popular items ever. Even after he stopped offering it around 2017, customers kept sending him emails asking where they could buy it. 

When McClary decided to revisit the Guardian flashlight in 2025, he didn’t begin the way he might have in the past, by combing through supplier listings and sending inquiries to factories. Instead, he opened Accio, an AI sourcing and researching tool on Alibaba.com.

For small entrepreneurs in the US, deciding what to sell and where to make it has traditionally been a slow, labor-intensive process that can take months. Now that work is increasingly being done by AI tools like Accio, which help connect businesses with manufacturers in countries including China and India. Business owners and e-commerce experts told MIT Technology Review that these AI tools are making sourcing more accessible and significantly shortening the time it takes to go from product idea to launch. 

McClary, 51, who runs his business from his Illinois living room, has sold products ranging from leather conditioner to camping lights, including one rechargeable lantern that brought in half a million dollars. Like many small online merchants, he built his business by being extremely scrappy—spotting demand for a product, tweaking existing designs, finding a factory, doing modest marketing, and getting the goods in front of customers fast. 

This time, though, he began by telling Accio about the flashlight’s original design, production cost, and profit margin. Then Accio suggested several changes, making it smaller and slightly less bright and switching its charging method to battery power. It also identified a manufacturer in Ningbo, China, that McClary said could cut the manufacturing cost from $17 to about $2.50 per unit.

McClary took the process from there, contacting the supplier himself to discuss the revised design. Within a month, the new version of the Guardian flashlight was back up for sale on Amazon and on his brand’s website.

The new factory hunt

Although Alibaba is better known for owning Taobao, the biggest shopping site in China, its first business was Alibaba.com, the primary website that lists Chinese factories open for bulk orders. Placing an order with a manufacturer usually requires far more than clicking “Buy.” Sellers often spend days or weeks browsing listings, comparing suppliers’ reviews and manufacturing capacities, asking about minimum order quantities, requesting samples, and negotiating timelines and customization options. 

But Accio has gained significant momentum by changing how that sourcing gets done. Launched in 2024, Accio exceeded 10 million monthly active users in March 2026, according to the company. That means about one in five Alibaba users consults with AI about product sourcing.

Accio’s interface looks a lot like ChatGPT or Claude: Users type a question into an empty box and choose between “fast” and “thinking” modes. But when asked about products, the tool returns more than text, offering charts, links, and visuals and asking follow-up questions to clarify the buyer’s needs. It then narrows the field to one or a handful of suppliers that appear capable of delivering. After that, the human work begins: Users still have to reach out to suppliers themselves and negotiate the details.

Zhang Kuo, the president of Alibaba.com, told MIT Technology Review that the tool is built on multiple frontier models, including the company’s own Qwen series, a popular family of open-source large language models. The system is able to pull from the site’s millions of supplier profiles and is trained on 26 years of proprietary transaction data.

For tasks like product research and sourcing analysis, the tool “blows it away” compared with general AI tools like ChatGPT, says Richard Kostick, CEO of the beauty brand 100% Pure.

Many websites have tried using AI to assist shopping, but Alibaba has been one of the most aggressive. In March, Eddie Wu, CEO of the site’s parent company Alibaba Group, told managers that integrating the company’s core services with Qwen’s AI capabilities is a top priority. During a Chinese New Year promotion of Qwen’s personal shopping AI agent, where the company gave away cash, customers placed 200 million orders, the firm says.

Vincenzo Toscano, an e-commerce seller and consultant, recommended Accio to his clients before deciding to try it himself for a new sunglasses brand. He came in with a rough vision: a brand shaped by his Italian heritage, his personal style, and a boutique aesthetic. He says the AI helped turn that concept into something more concrete, suggesting materials, refining the look, and pointing to design ideas that felt current.

But the tool has clear limits. McClary, who uses AI tools regularly, says Accio is strongest when it comes to product ideation, but less helpful on marketing questions such as advertising and social media outreach. To use it well, he says, buyers still need to challenge its recommendations, since some can be generic.

The rest of the business

As platforms become more AI-driven, manufacturers are adjusting too. Sally Li, a representative at a makeup packaging company in Wuhan, China, says her firm has started writing more detailed product descriptions and adding information about its equipment and manufacturing experience on Alibaba.com because it suspects those details make its listings more likely to be surfaced by AI.

Yan says manufacturers cannot tell whether an inquiry from a customer was generated or guided by AI, and that her firm is not using AI to negotiate pricing or product details.

“AI agents are increasingly used by people to assist purchase decisions and even directly making transactions, and with clear guardrails, they can become extremely useful,” says Jiaxin Pei, a research scientist at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, “but agents need to act transparently, securely, and in the customer’s best interest.” Pei says developers of these tools should disclose the data they collect and the incentives built into them to ensure that the marketplace remains fair.

Zhang, of Alibaba.com, says Accio currently does not include advertising. Suppliers can pay for higher placement in Alibaba.com’s regular search results, but Zhang says Accio is “not integrated” with that system. “We haven’t had a clear answer in terms of how to monetize this tool,” he says. For now, users can pay for additional tokens to continue chatting with the agent after their free queries run out.

Sellers say that while AI tools have made it easier to come up with ideas and get a business off the ground, they do not replace the core skills that make someone good at e-commerce. McClary believes that even when sellers have access to the same market information, some are still better at making decisions, acting quickly, and actually delivering on orders. Those differences, he says, still go a long way.

Toscano, the brand founder and e-commerce consultant, feels good about officially launching his new brand of sunglasses in just a few months: “We [small business owners] always have to bootstrap a lot of decisions. Deciding what to sell often comes down to an educated guess,” he says, “And we’re now in an era when making those decisions is easier than ever.”

In this episode, Thomas Betts and Adi Polak talk about the need for context engineering when interacting with LLMs and designing agentic systems. Prompt engineering techniques work with a stateless approach, while context engineering allows AI systems to be stateful.

By Adi Polak

A 600-run benchmark by Ruby committer Yusuke Endoh tested Claude Code across 13 languages, implementing a simplified Git. Ruby, Python, and JavaScript were the fastest and cheapest, at $0.36- $0.39 per run. Statistically typed languages cost 1.4-2.6x more. Adding type checkers to dynamic languages imposed 1.6-3.2x slowdowns. Full dataset available on GitHub.

By Steef-Jan Wiggers