Latest Technology News

Home Top Ad

Responsive Ads Here

For organizations looking to gain an edge by adop...

For organizations looking to gain an edge by adopting AI tools, the decision has been dominated between large language models.

Every new release promises better reasoning, greater accuracy and more capabilities than the last.

But as foundation models become increasingly powerful and widely available, the real differentiator for organizations won't be which model they choose - it will be how effectively they deploy agentic AI to solve real business problems.

At the recent 2026 Gartner Data and Analytics Summit, the message from analysts was clear; standalone AI models are outdated and autonomous, interconnected AI agents are the future. But to get real value from agentic AI, IT leaders should prioritize “high-frequency, low-complexity use cases, apply guardrails and upskill the workforce.”

To this statement, I would add that the next phase of enterprise AI isn't about having access to the biggest model. It's about building better agents.

That means moving beyond seeing AI as simply another chatbot and instead treating it as an operational capability that can augment employees, automate repetitive work and unlock efficiencies throughout the organization.

The biggest AI opportunity isn't conversational

For many people, AI still means asking ChatGPT a question and receiving an answer. That's certainly one application, and conversational interfaces have played an important role in making AI accessible. But that’s only scratching the surface of what's possible.

Some of the most valuable agentic AI deployments are focused on operational work rather than conversation. For example, in higher education, AI agents are helping students navigate support services by answering routine questions about enrolment, campus facilities or administrative processes, freeing staff to deal with more complex issues.

In transport, agents can combine timetable information, onward travel options and customer support into a single interaction, saving users from having to search across multiple services.

Elsewhere, organizations are using AI agents to qualify sales enquiries, summarize complex documentation, and extract information from contracts. Tasks that previously required hours of manual effort.

The common thread isn't simply that these agents can answer questions. It's that they remove administrative burden and enable people to focus on work that requires judgement, expertise and human interaction.

Better agents start with better problems

One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding agentic AI is that organizations should begin by deciding where they want an AI agent.

In reality, for organizations looking to develop their AI offering, the first question shouldn't be, "Where can we deploy AI?" It should be, "What business problem are we trying to solve?"

Starting with technology often leads organizations to build agents that deliver little value because they're automating the wrong process. The organizations seeing the strongest returns are those identifying operational pain points first, in areas where employees spend large amounts of time on repetitive administration, searching for information or manually moving data between systems.

When those challenges are clearly understood, agentic AI becomes an effective operational tool rather than technology looking for a use case.

The model is becoming less important than the implementation

Today's leading AI models are improving at an extraordinary pace. They're becoming more capable, faster and increasingly cost-effective which means that the competitive advantage is shifting

Organizations are unlikely to outperform competitors simply because they've selected one foundation model over another. Instead, success will increasingly depend on everything that surrounds the model.

Data quality is one of the biggest differentiators. An AI agent is only as good as the information it's grounded on. Contradictory documentation, inconsistent policies, or poor knowledge management inevitably reduce the quality of outputs.

Prompt engineering is another often overlooked capability. Designing an agent isn't simply a matter of giving it instructions and expecting consistent results. Well-designed prompts establish clear guardrails, define the agent's responsibilities and ensure it stays focused on its intended purpose.

The same is true of governance. A good agent shouldn't answer every question it's asked. It should understand its role, know when to decline requests that fall outside its remit and operate only with the information and permissions it genuinely needs. Applying the principle of least privilege isn't just good security practice, it also improves efficiency by reducing unnecessary processing and keeps costs under control.

Ultimately, the quality of the implementation matters far more than the size of the underlying model.

Trust is built through iteration, not ambition

Another common mistake is assuming that agentic AI should be deployed through large-scale transformation programs. But, in practice, the opposite is usually true.

The organizations achieving meaningful outcomes tend to start with a tightly defined use case that delivers measurable value. This creates confidence among employees, demonstrates return on investment, and provides an opportunity to refine governance before expanding into more sophisticated workflows.

Agentic AI should be treated as a product that evolves over time rather than a project that's complete on launch day. However, that also changes the way organizations approach testing.

Traditional software is designed to deliver identical outputs every time. AI agents are probabilistic by nature, meaning consistency becomes just as important as functionality. Continuous testing, monitoring, and refinement therefore become integral to successful deployment.

Just as importantly, employees need to be part of the journey. Building trust isn't about unveiling an AI agent once it has been completed. It's about involving teams throughout development, helping them understand how decisions are made, where guardrails exist and how the technology is intended to augment and not replace their expertise.

Better agents will define the next phase of AI

It’s inevitable that the AI industry will continue producing faster, cheaper and more capable foundation models. But what isn't inevitable is whether organisations will be able to translate those capabilities into meaningful business value.

The next AI race won't be won by those with access to the biggest model. It will be won by those that build trusted, well-governed agents capable of solving real operational problems.

Understand your costs with the best accounting software for small business.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/TRBev2C

Premier League 2026/27: Fri, Aug 21, 2026 – Sun, ...

Watch Premier League 2026/27 live streams as Arsenal begin the season as champions for the first time in 22 years, having ended their drought last term. The Gunners are aiming to become the first club not called Manchester City to retain the title since 2009, but several sides will believe they can knock them off their perch.

Three of the expected front-runners are under new management, with Enzo Maresca tasked with following Pep Guardiola at Manchester City, Andoni Iraola replacing Arne Slot at Liverpool and Xabi Alonso becoming the latest in a long line of head coaches at Chelsea. The two other clubs in the 'Big Six' are led by bosses who enjoyed strong finishes to last season, albeit at different ends of the table, with Michael Carrick getting the Manchester United job full-time and Roberto De Zerbi aiming to kick on from his successful survival mission at Tottenham Hotspur.

Aston Villa look strong again under Unai Emery after winning the Europa League last term, but Newcastle United have lost several key players and long-serving manager Eddie Howe, with Matthias Jaissle coming in. Bournemouth, Brighton and Brentford will aim to continue punching above their weight, as the Cherries embark on their first-ever European campaign under new boss Marco Rose, who replaced Iraola. Elsewhere, Crystal Palace hired former Lens manager Pierre Sage after Oliver Glasner left for Nottingham Forest, while Álvaro Arbeloa has swapped Real Madrid for Fulham.

Everton will hope to kick on from their first campaign at Hill Dickinson Stadium, while there is a buzz at Sunderland after they qualified for Europe in their first season back in the top flight. Leeds United's mission will be to stay well clear of the relegation zone, which could be a tall order for promoted trio Coventry City, Ipswich Town and Hull City.

It is set up to be a cracking season - here's where to watch Premier League 2026/27 live streams online from anywhere.

Premier League Fixtures & Broadcast Info: Matchday 1

All times BST

Friday 21 August

8pm — Arsenal vs Coventry: Sky Sports (UK) | USA Network (US)

Saturday 22 August

12:30pm — Hull vs Man Utd: TNT Sports (UK) | USA Network (US)
3pm — Everton vs Crystal Palace: N/A (UK) | USA Network (US)
3pm — Ipswich vs Sunderland: N/A (UK) | NBCSN/Peacock (US)
3pm — Nottm Forest vs Leeds: N/A (UK) | NBCSN/Peacock (US)
5:30pm — Brentford vs Tottenham: Sky Sports (UK) | NBC/Peacock (US)

Sunday 23 August

2pm — Brighton vs Aston Villa: Sky Sports (UK) | NBCSN/Peacock (US)
2pm — Man City vs Bournemouth: Sky Sports (UK) | USA Network (US)
4:30pm — Newcastle vs Liverpool: Sky Sports (UK) | USA Network (US)

Monday 24 August

8pm — Fulham vs Chelsea: Sky Sports (UK) | USA Network (US)

Watch the Premier League for free

Free Premier League 2026/27 streams are scarce but there are a couple of options.

In the US, matches shown on USA Network or NBC can be accessed via YouTube TV, Fubo, Hulu + Live TV and DirecTV Stream, which all have free trials of varying lengths.

Fans in Brazil can also watch select Premier League games completely free on CazéTV's YouTube channel.

Not in Brazil or the US? You need a VPN to unlock your FREE stream — find out more below.

Use a VPN to watch any Premier League 2026/27 stream

Chances are you'll find yourself overseas when some Premier League 2026/27 games are taking place, but does that mean you have to miss the action? No, it doesn't... a VPN will ensure you get your coverage from anywhere.

Premier League live streams are geo-restricted on all streaming services, but a VPN (Virtual Private Network) is a neat way around this, unpicking the geo-locks by altering your device's digital location. It's great for accessing your usual streaming services while on the move, and it does wonders for your internet security, too.

We rate NordVPN as the best VPN — more details below.

NordVPN Mega Deal: Get 75% Off + 3 Months Free

🥇 World's best VPN service
💰 75% off right now
🆓 3 months extra free

Get your VPN and stream the Premier League 2026/27 from anywhere in the world.View Deal

How to watch Premier League 2026/27 live streams in the US

US flag banner

NBC Universal has the rights to show the Premier League live in the US with all 380 matches across flagship channel NBC, Peacock and cable TV channel USA Network.

Peacock shows roughly half of the Premier League matches every week, with plans starting from $12.99 a month, or $129.99 a year.

There is no dedicated streaming platform for USA Network, but it is available on cord-cutters like YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, DirecTV Stream and Sling (select markets), many of which carry free trials. You can also get NBC and NBCSN on these cord-cutters.

Outside the US during the Premier League season? Use NordVPN to access your usual streams.

How to watch Premier League 2026/27 live streams in the UK

UK flag

Sky Sports is the home of the Premier League in the UK, with at least 215 matches broadcast exclusively live across the season. Sky Sports packages cost £35 per month for new customers, or £22 per month if you already have a new 24-month Sky TV contract.

A further 52 games will be live on TNT Sports and its streaming partner HBO Max. A subscription costs £30.99 per month on a rolling monthly contract, or £25.99 per month for a minimum 12-month term.

And, don't forget that Match of the Day will continue for 2026/27 with extended highlight packages every Saturday and Sunday on BBC One.

If you're traveling outside the UK during the season, make sure you use NordVPN to tap into your home streams.

How to watch Premier League 2026/27 live streams in Australia

Australia

(Image credit: Other)

In Australia, Stan Sport has the rights to show every single Premier League game across the 2026/27 season.

Better still, it's now even cheaper to watch Down Under because Stan have introduced a new Basic tier with ads at AU$9.99. You'll also need the AU$20 Sport add-on, but you get every Premier League game, plus the Champions League, FA Cup, and more, all for AU$29.99 a month.

Abroad? You can use a NordVPN (try 100% risk-free) to watch all the action free of charge as if you were right at home.

Official Premier League 2026/27 broadcasters by region

Africa

Click to see more Premier League 2026/27 streams▼

The Premier League 2026/27 broadcast rights for Africa are largely split between BeIn SPORTS and SuperSport.

Residents in the Middle East and North Africa can watch Premier League 2026/27 live streams with a BeIn SPORTS subscription, while Satellite TV provider SuperSport has the Premier League TV rights across these regions in Africa:

Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, St Helena and Ascension, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  • South Africa

SuperSport will host the Premier League 2026/27 on its satellite channels.

Americas

Click to see more Premier League 2026/27 streams▼

  • Canada

Fubo once again has the rights to broadcast the Premier League during the 2026/27 season.

  • Latin America

A combination of FOX and TNT Sports will show Premier League action in 2026/27 across the following regions in Latin America:

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama.

  • Latin America

South American countries – including Brazil – will be able to watch live Premier League 2026/27 matches on ESPN, which also holds the rights in the Caribbean.

Remember, you can also watch one match per gameweek completely free on CazéTV's YouTube channel in Brazil.

Europe

Click to see more Premier League 2026/27 streams▼

The Premier League 2026/27 season will be shown by various broadcasters and streaming services throughout Europe. You can check out specific information about your country below.

  • Albania

Digitalb has the rights to show Premier League action this season.

  • Andorra

Soccer fans in Andorra can watch the action on a combination of CANAL+ and DAZN.

  • Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Romania

Premier League coverage comes from Saran Media channels in these countries.

  • Austria

Sky in Austria will show coverage of the Premier League in 2026/27.

  • Belgium

Telenet will broadcast the Premier League 2026/27 in Belgium.

  • Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia

You can watch the Premier League 2026/27 season on Arena Sport in these counties.

  • Cyprus

You can view the Premier League 2026/27 on Cytavision in Cyprus.

  • Czechia, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovakia

The Premier League 2026/27 season will be shown on CANAL+ in these territories.

  • Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden

Fans in these countries can watch the Premier League 2026/27 on Viaplay.

  • Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

TV3 has the Premier League live stream rights in these countries this season.

  • France

There will be coverage of Premier League 2026/27 in France on CANAL+.

  • Germany

In Germany, the Premier League 2026/27 rights are owned by Sky.

  • Greece

Greeks should head to IMG and Nova for the Premier League 2026/27 season.

  • Hungary

Premier League 2026/27 live streams will go out on TV2 in Hungary.

  • Iceland

Syn is the place to watch Premier League football in Iceland.

  • Ireland

Premier Sports, TNT Sports and Sky Sports will broadcast coverage of the Premier League 2026/27 in Ireland.

  • Israel

Charlton has won the Premier League coverage rights in Israel.

  • Italy

Viewers in Italy can watch the Premier League 2026/27 on Sky Italia.

  • Malta

Maltese soccer fans will be able to watch Premier League action on TSN.

  • Portugal and Spain

DAZN has the rights to air the Premier League 2026/27 in Portugal and Spain.

  • Switzerland

Fans in Switzerland can watch the Premier League 2026/27 on CANAL+ for French language commentary, or Sky for German and Italian commentary.

  • Turkey

BeIn SPORTS in Turkey will host some coverage of the Premier League 2026/27.

  • Ukraine

Setanta Sports will show the Premier League 2026/27 in Ukraine.

Asia

Click to see more Premier League 2026/27 streams▼

  • Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

The Premier League 2026/27 rights for these Central Asian countries are held by Saran Media.

  • Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand

Make your way to Jasmine if you want to watch the Premier League 2026/27 in these three countries.

  • China

In China, the Premier League 2026/27 will be shown by Migu.

  • Chinese Taipei

ELTA is the current Premier League rights holder here.

  • Hong Kong

PCCW is the place to go for the Premier League 2026/27 in Hong Kong.

  • India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka

Star Sports (and the JioStar app) is the Premier League 2026/27 broadcaster for India plus Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

  • Indonesia

Head to EMTEK channels in Indonesia for the rights to the Premier League 2026/27.

  • Japan

U-NEXT will show the Premier League 2026/27 in Japan.

  • Malaysia

Astro is the home of the Premier League 2026/27 in the Malaysia.

  • Mongolia

Unitel will show the coverage of the Premier League 2026/27 in Mongolia.

  • Singapore

StarHub provides coverage of the Premier League 2026/27 in Singapore.

  • South Korea

Coverage of the Premier League 2026/27 in South Korea can be found at Coupang.

  • Vietnam

Mono is the Premier League rights holder in Vietnam this season.

Oceania

Click to see more Premier League 2026/27 streams▼

  • Australia

As detailed above, Stan Sport has the rights to the Premier League 2026/27 in Australia.

  • New Zealand

Sky Sport is the Premier League 2026/27 TV rights holder in New Zealand.

  • Pacific Islands

Coverage in the Pacific Islands comes from Digicel. That covers:

Cook Islands, Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

Middle East

Click to see more Premier League 2026/27 streams▼

BeIN Sports MENA is the Premier League 2026/27 broadcaster across the Middle East.

You can watch the Premier League 2026/27 live streams with a subscription to BeIN SPORTS in the following Middle East countries:

Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

When does the Premier League 2026/27 season start?

The Premier League 2026/27 season kicks off on Friday, August 21, with the final day of the campaign on Sunday, May 30.

Can I watch Premier League 2026/27 on my mobile?

Of course, most broadcasters have streaming services that you can access through mobile apps or via your phone's browser. For example, Sky Go in the UK.

You can also stay up-to-date with all key moments from the EPL on the official social media channels on X/Twitter (@PremierLeague), Instagram (@PremierLeague), TikTok (@PremierLeague) and YouTube (@PremierLeague).

We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example:1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service).2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad.We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/Epy8JcO

Have you noticed that ChatGPT has suddenly start...

Have you noticed that ChatGPT has suddenly started dropping f-bombs? I have, and it seems that I’m not the only one.

It first happened in a casual chat, and it really caught me off guard. We were discussing Netflix’s Jujutsu Kaisen and before I had sworn in our chat, ChatGPT used the f-bomb to describe a character’s actions as “f**** awful”. Before that, I’d said things like “God damn,” in the conversation, but ChatGPT was the one to introduce the f-word. It did so completely unprompted, to add emphasis to how awful the person was, and that strikes me as a big change in its personality.

I wondered if it was doing that for other people, so I asked around on the team and they’d noticed it too. A quick online search turned up two Reddit threads almost immediately, from people who’d found the same thing.

It seems like in the last few days ChatGPT has developed a potty mouth. I actually like it — I’m not offended and for me, it makes the conversation better — but I don’t think everybody wants this. The question is, why has it started doing this now?

Here comes the science

The most interesting clue is that OpenAI's Model Spec, was updated this week. They made it public and it explicitly says the default is to avoid swearing — but crucially, that's only a guideline rather than a hard rule. And OpenAI says guidelines can be implicitly overridden by things such as “contextual cues, background knowledge, or user history.”

Its own example is that asking ChatGPT to speak like a realistic pirate implicitly overrides the no-swearing guideline. So, while I’d been having my informal conversation I’d passionately expressed the opinion that I didn’t care much for some of the characters in the show, and ChatGPT had matched the conversational tone, eventually leading it to start swearing.

That's consistent with a broader direction OpenAI has publicly acknowledged ChatGPT is moving in. Recent model updates have emphasized conversational quality, personalization and adapting tone contextually. OpenAI's model notes specifically describe personality updates designed to make ChatGPT “more conversational” and better at adapting its tone to context.

OpenAI has previously explained that ChatGPT’s personality isn't simply produced by one prompt somewhere. Model behavior is shaped through training, baseline instructions and user feedback, and seemingly small personality adjustments can have unintended effects. This was something it discussed very openly after the notorious GPT-4o sycophancy update.

It broke my mental model

Whether OpenAI deliberately made ChatGPT more willing to swear or it's simply an unintended consequence of making it more conversational, I don't know. But it’s a significant change in its behaviour either way.

Language matters, and when ChatGPT swore at me, I noticed immediately because it broke my mental model of how ChatGPT talks. It suddenly felt less like the carefully neutral AI assistant I'd been using for years and more like someone matching the tone of an informal conversation.

I happen to prefer this version of ChatGPT. Other people undoubtedly won't. And that's the strange thing about increasingly conversational AI: relatively small changes to the way it talks can make the thing on the other side of the screen feel surprisingly different.

For now, mine seems to have developed a potty mouth and I'm okay with that.



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/FZ8oEqR

UK Prime Minister was targeted by a scammer posin...

  • UK Prime Minister was targeted by a scammer posing as a top US aide
  • Personal devices bypass "national security perimeters," warns Surfshark
  • GenAI tools allow low-level criminals to clone high-profile identities

The recent revelation that UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham was targeted by an impersonator pretending to be top Donald Trump aide Susie Wiles has sent shockwaves through the cybersecurity community.

While the immediate political fallout dominates headlines, security experts are sounding the alarm over a far more terrifying technical reality — elite government defenses are essentially useless if the human holding the device can be tricked.

For everyday users, the incident serves as a stark reminder that even the most powerful figures are vulnerable to the same social engineering tactics deployed against the general public. Securing your digital life with the best VPN and robust security software is crucial, but as AI impersonation scams are skyrocketing, the ultimate vulnerability remains the personal smartphone itself.

Miguel Fornes, Information Security Manager at Surfshark, argues that personal devices have become a permanent, wide-open door into the world's most protected rooms. Speaking on why Burnham was such an easy target for this impersonation scam, Fornes painted a grim picture of modern cybersecurity perimeters.

“It proves that billion-dollar national security perimeters are completely useless when every high-value target carries an unmonitored attack vector in their pocket 24 hours a day,” Fornes told TechRadar.

Surfshark – the best cheap VPN
Surfshark is a fast, easy-to-use VPN that seriously beats the competition when it comes to subscription pricing. Its two-year Starter plan works out at $2.49 a month (plus tax), but we think Surfshark One is the best value plan as it adds an antivirus, data breach monitor, alternative ID, and anti-scam tools. All of this starting from the equivalent of just $2.79 a month. View Deal

Hacking the human, not the firewall

The Burnham incident highlights a fundamental shift in how cybercriminals operate. Rather than attempting to break through the front door of government agencies, bad actors are simply slipping through the side window of personal communication apps.

"The attackers behind high-profile spoofing campaigns, like the recent impersonation of top Trump aide Susie Wiles to contact high-level officials like Andy Burnham, didn't waste time attempting to breach the world-class cryptographic shields of GCHQ or MI5," Fornes explained. "They simply exploited the chaotic, unmonitored environment of personal smartphones and private messaging apps."

The shift in threat models is precisely why cybersecurity providers are pivoting.

For example, Surfshark recently shifted focus to fighting scams and introduced real-time scam text protection. This evolution in consumer security mirrors the reality of enterprise and government vulnerabilities, reinforcing why scam protection now matters more than traditional antivirus.

The message is clear. As Fornes said: "Cybercriminals aren't wasting time trying to break enterprise-grade encryption; they are simply hacking the human holding the screen."

Leave No Trace logo

(Image credit: Future)

NEW: Leave No Trace — A weekly newsletter on digital privacy and online surveillance.

Leave No Trace investigates the companies and governments putting our digital freedom at risk — and the people fighting back.

📩 Subscribe now to get every edition delivered to your inbox every Friday, launching this September.

The terrifying asymmetry of GenAI

The barrier to entry for executing intelligence-agency-level operations has collapsed, largely thanks to advancements in generative AI. With a reported $3.7B lost to deepfakes and social engineering, the landscape has fundamentally changed.

As Fornes explained, readily available GenAI has democratized state-level cyber warfare. "A random individual with a poor internet connection and a mediocre computer can now perfectly clone the voice, cadence, and mind of the world's most powerful political operatives," he told TechRadar.

This technological democratization creates a terrifying asymmetry where the barrier to entry for globally destabilizing social engineering is essentially gone, allowing low-level criminals to execute intelligence-agency-level operations.

"We should consider ourselves lucky that this time they were, again, common cyberscammers asking for money," Fornes concluded.



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/POroQuI

Across the UK, "will AI take my job?" h...

Across the UK, "will AI take my job?" has become one of the nation's most searched fears, a concern echoed in a recent open letter signed by more than 200 economists and technology leaders, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

The letter warned that without the right guardrails, increasingly powerful AI could drive large-scale job displacement.

This anxiety around job stability has, unsurprisingly, increased in line with some of the world's largest employers - including Microsoft and Meta - announcing cuts to thousands of roles over the last year.

Left to interpret what that means for their own futures, employees globally have become accustomed to fear and uncertainty.

The impact is far-reaching, with recent research indicating that widespread anxiety is now impacting career decisions. In fact, as many as one in three workers say they are planning to retire earlier than planned, while 25% of workers are considering moving into industries less exposed to AI.

Although concerning, this potential “white-collar exodus” isn't a rejection of AI itself; most workers say the technology makes them productive when introduced with proper training and clear goals. However, it’s a response to how AI is being rolled out: often with little clarity, minimal support and not enough acknowledgement of the potential impact on employees’ confidence in their own expertise.

Left unaddressed, the impact will be felt in retention, engagement and institutional knowledge. Designing and prioritizing ways of working that incorporate transparency and training, while prioritizing job satisfaction and performance, has become a board-level priority.

The cost of the exodus

Many workers feel that AI could reduce the need for their role within a few years, and that fear is not misplaced. Finance, professional services, and IT jobs have already felt this pressure, with PwC cutting 200 entry-level roles this year.

But we must not fall into the trap of reading this as solely a graduate or entry-level problem. In reality, according to a Gartner survey of C-level executives, 56% are extremely likely to quit due to the impact of AI and burnout. This is in some ways more harmful, presenting a clear risk of knowledge attrition across organizations as expertise born of human experience is lost.

Job security writes only the first chapter. Knowledge workers are increasingly frustrated that AI allows tasks once requiring years of expertise to be completed by almost anyone. The concern is about whether experience, judgement and specialist knowledge still carry value. And when organizations fail to redefine what human expertise contributes, disengagement festers.

Compounding this is the growing issue of AI fatigue. More than half of all content online is now AI-generated. So workers clocking off from AI at work are simply wading into more of the same at home, extending far beyond the 9-5 that businesses can measure or manage. Harvard Business Review has linked AI fatigue to decision fatigue, errors, and higher intent to quit.

In response, employees are actively cutting back their use of AI tools. However, investment shows little sign of slowing. Enterprise AI spending reached £1.2 million last year, up 108% on the year before, highlighting the growing gap between organizational investment and employee adoption and engagement.

This combined effect results in a workforce that's disengaging, under-using costly tools and potentially planning their exit. This demands urgent action from businesses, who need to address how AI is implemented and communicated, and act before disengagement turns into departure.

The path forward: Building trust through transparency

Positively, some organizations are already demonstrating what successful AI adoption looks like, grounded in an understanding that communication and culture should be taken as seriously as the technology itself.

IBM, for example, is both expanding and redefining entry-level hiring for an AI-first workplace, detailing where the organization is headed. Since workers often don't understand why they're expected to use AI in their role, moves like IBM’s can help to close a critical communication gap.

Transparency, clear guardrails and genuine dialogue are what turn AI spend into engagement. When people understand where they fit into the future of work, they're far more likely to embrace the technology shaping it.

Reducing digital noise

The instinct in most organizations is to let AI creep into everything at once. In practice, AI delivers the most value - and does the least damage to worker purpose and confidence - when it targets administrative burden and repetitive tasks.

AI tools shouldn’t undermine the judgement, experience and specialist knowledge that people bring to their roles. Careless implementation of AI is the fastest route to the fear of expertise erosion that drives people toward the exit.

Investing in reskilling and upskilling

Adaptavist’s recent research into the human cost of AI reveals that 74% of workers are already taking the initiative to build AI skills, showing that willingness to adapt isn't the problem. But organizations must match that commitment. Rather than treating AI training as a one-off exercise during rollout, businesses should implement continuous learning and support that evolves alongside the technology.

The value of this approach is already being recognized widely. The UK Government has introduced its AI skills program with the ambition of training 10 million workers, backed by partners including the NHS. The recent “skills compact” plan also puts the onus on employers to address skills gaps in AI across financial services.

Both initiatives reflect a growing understanding that successful AI adoption depends as much on investing in people as it does on technology and tools. Effective training should help employees understand how their expertise continues to add value, giving them confidence that AI is there to enhance their role, not to replace it.

Building psychological safety around experimentation

An important reality is that none of the above works if people are afraid to use the tools they're being trained on. Infosys has acknowledged the importance of psychological safety by framing AI adoption as an opportunity to experiment and improve without fear that mistakes will damage confidence or career prospects.

A study published in Occupational Medicine found employees who had 1:1s five times or more within two months reported significantly higher psychological safety than those with fewer meetings. Direct conversations to understand concerns, discuss how AI fits into their career development, and address uncertainty also show a marked improvement.

None of these approaches requires organizations to pare back their AI ambitions. Ultimately, the businesses that retain their best employees will be those that treat AI anxiety as a change management problem, measured by whether their most experienced people still feel essential to the work.

We've listed the best job sites.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/I9ZOoVe

The prospect of bringing more of Britain's cr...

The prospect of bringing more of Britain's critical national infrastructure into public ownership has prompted plenty of debate about investment, governance and accountability.

Far less attention has been paid to what it could mean for cybersecurity.

Regardless of where you stand politically, one thing is clear. Public ownership does not make cyber risk disappear.

If anything, it raises expectations that essential services will be more resilient, more coordinated and better prepared to withstand disruption.

That expectation reflects the reality of the threat landscape. Energy providers, water companies, transport operators and healthcare organizations all sit at the center of complex digital ecosystems. Their ability to deliver essential services depends on thousands of suppliers, technology vendors and third parties.

When one organization is compromised, the effects can spread well beyond its own network. Resilience therefore depends on far more than protecting individual organizations. It depends on understanding and managing the relationships between them.

If the government is serious about strengthening national infrastructure, cybersecurity must become part of that conversation from day one. That means moving beyond isolated security programs and towards a model where organizations share intelligence, understand common risks and coordinate their response before disruption spreads.

Critical infrastructure extends beyond organizational boundaries

Some of the defining cyber attacks of recent years have demonstrated that attackers are rarely interested in a single target. They look for opportunities to compromise one organization in order to reach many others.

The SolarWinds attack remains one of the clearest examples. By compromising trusted software updates, attackers gained access to thousands of organizations around the world. More recently, the ransomware attack on Synnovis disrupted pathology services across several NHS trusts, leading to cancelled operations, delayed appointments and widespread disruption to patient care.

Neither incident remained confined to the organization that was initially compromised. Both exposed the reality that critical infrastructure now depends on interconnected supply chains as much as physical assets.

That presents a challenge for every operator of critical national infrastructure. Security can no longer be viewed solely through the lens of protecting your own estate. Organizations also need visibility into the threats affecting suppliers, partners and the wider ecosystem. A vulnerability within a software provider or outsourced service can quickly become a problem for every organization that depends on it.

This is where many existing security programs begin to show their limitations. Organizations have invested heavily in detection technologies, vulnerability management platforms and threat intelligence feeds. They are collecting more information than ever before. Yet many still struggle to translate that information into confident operational decisions.

Better decisions start with better intelligence

The cybersecurity industry has spent years focusing on visibility. The assumption has been that if organizations can discover every vulnerability, identify every asset and collect every threat feed, they will naturally become more secure.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Filigran's recent State of Threat Management report found that organizations consume an average of fourteen different threat intelligence feeds, yet fewer than half have fully operationalized that intelligence across their security programs.

At the same time, 84% of respondents said the attacks they experience exploit risks that were already known but had not been prioritized. Almost every organization surveyed also reported difficulty determining whether identified exposures were genuinely exploitable.

Those findings illustrate a wider industry problem. The challenge is no longer discovering risk. It is deciding which risks deserve immediate attention.

Security teams are surrounded by alerts, vulnerability reports and intelligence updates. Every tool claims to identify another critical issue demanding urgent action. Without context, everything starts to look important. Analysts spend valuable time investigating vulnerabilities that may never be exploited while genuinely dangerous attack paths remain hidden among the noise.

That has consequences beyond operational efficiency. Every hour spent investigating a low priority issue is an hour that cannot be spent reducing real business risk. Organizations are not simply overwhelmed by the volume of information. They are overwhelmed by the number of decisions they are expected to make every day.

Threat intelligence should shape decisions long before an incident

One reason this happens is that threat intelligence is still too often treated as a function of the Security Operations Centre. Intelligence is gathered, analyzed and used to help detect or investigate malicious activity once attackers have already reached the network.

Yet, threat intelligence has far greater value when it informs decisions much earlier in the security lifecycle.

Used effectively, it should help organizations understand which vulnerabilities are actively being targeted, which attack paths present the greatest business risk and which remediation activities will deliver the greatest reduction in exposure. Rather than treating every vulnerability as equally urgent, security teams can focus on the threats that genuinely matter to their environment.

This is also where Continuous Threat Exposure Management, or CTEM, has an important role to play. CTEM should not be viewed as another technology category or another security acronym. It provides a structured framework for connecting threat intelligence, exposure management, validation and remediation into a continuous process. Instead of relying on assumptions or theoretical risk scores, organizations can validate whether a vulnerability is genuinely exploitable before committing time and resources to fixing it.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is not technical at all. Many organizations still operate with threat intelligence, vulnerability management, penetration testing and governance teams working independently, each with different priorities, processes and tooling. Breaking down those silos often delivers greater improvements than introducing another security platform.

Building a national capability

If critical infrastructure is expected to become more resilient, collaboration has to become part of everyday operations rather than something that only happens during a major incident. That thinking is already beginning to take shape.

Earlier this month, the National Cyber Security Centre and GCHQ issued a call for industry, academia and critical infrastructure operators to help define Cyber Shield, a proposed national cyber defense capability designed to combine AI, shared intelligence and coordinated defense at national scale.

Significantly, the initiative recognizes that the government cannot build this capability alone. It will depend on close collaboration with the organizations responsible for protecting the UK's essential services.

Additionally, the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill provides an opportunity to strengthen that approach by encouraging greater consistency across essential sectors. Frameworks such as the National Cyber Security Centre's Cyber Assessment Framework already give organizations a common language for measuring resilience.

They become even more valuable when they encourage organizations to learn from one another instead of tackling similar challenges in isolation.

Open standards have an important role to play as well. The Dutch National Cyber Security Centre recently made STIX and TAXII 2.1 the mandatory standard for sharing cyber threat intelligence across government.

While technical on the surface, the decision reflects a broader principle. When organizations exchange intelligence using common standards, they remove friction from collaboration and can respond to threats more quickly.

Technology alone will not deliver that outcome. Artificial intelligence, automation and modern security platforms can help organizations process more information and reduce manual effort, but they still depend on good intelligence, sound governance and trusted relationships.

For the simple reason that fast decisions only become good decisions when they are supported by the right context.

Resilience is a shared responsibility

Whether more of Britain's critical national infrastructure ultimately moves into public ownership is only part of the story. Cyber attackers do not distinguish between public and private organizations. They target weak links, trusted suppliers and interconnected systems wherever they find them.

The organizations that will be best prepared for the years ahead will be those that treat resilience as a collective responsibility. They will operationalize threat intelligence before incidents occur, validate real-world risk rather than relying on assumptions, and collaborate across organizational boundaries as readily as attackers do.

Protecting critical infrastructure has never been solely about defending individual organizations. It is about strengthening the entire ecosystem that keeps essential services running. If the UK wants to build genuinely resilient national infrastructure, that is where the conversation needs to begin.

We've listed the best path management software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/HvxX5k3

The reality for many organizations is that their ...

The reality for many organizations is that their employees are already being deceived. So, probably are their customers, their investors, and their board.

For years, the warnings have focused on the impact of deepfakes, such as fake CEOs on video calls, cloned voices authorizing payments, and fraudulent emails.

The tactics themselves are not new, but over the past few years, AI has made them cheaper to produce, harder to spot, and far more convincing within the ordinary flow of business.

It’s this trend that means that the principle of Zero Trust is becoming as relevant to how information is treated as it has been to access.

In cybersecurity, Zero Trust starts from a simple assumption: no user, device, application or request should be trusted by default.

In the age of AI-generated misinformation, businesses need to apply that same mindset to the information that moves throughout their organization.

The new trust crisis

Employees, customers, investors and partners are all making decisions based on what they see, read and hear. If that information is false, manipulated or stripped of context, the consequences can move quickly from confusion to commercial damage. Which is why misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation need to be treated as business risks.

Misinformation – the false content that spreads without deliberate intent – has always been an issue. Disinformation, constructed specifically to deceive, is now easier to manufacture at scale than ever before. And malinformation – true information, often deliberately stripped of context and weaponized – might be the most insidious of the three. A competitor, a criminal group, or an activist campaign no longer needs to breach a network to cause serious damage. They can influence those associated and concerned with an organization simply by shaping what those people see and believe.

What makes this particularly difficult for businesses is that it mirrors something individuals are already struggling with. In an environment saturated with AI-generated content, the habits that people must employ to protect themselves – pause before reacting, questioning the source, verifying before acting – are the same habits that organizations must build into how they operate.

Essentially, the instinct to trust has become a vulnerability. And addressing that requires something closer to a structural response than an awareness campaign.

The importance of verified trust

This is where Zero Trust becomes the strategy. Traditionally, organizations have thought about Zero Trust through the lens of least privilege, ensuring that the right users have access to the right applications, and nothing more. But in an AI-driven information environment, that principle needs to evolve. Businesses can no longer focus just on who is requesting access. They also need to interrogate what information is being used, what action is being taken, and whether the intent behind the action can be trusted.

The next stage is going beyond authentication and investigating authenticity, and asking questions such as “Is this information verified?”, “Is this image real or AI-generated?”, and “Has this content been edited?”. Zero Trust gives businesses a framework for answering those questions. It forces organizations to verify before they act, limit exposure where they can, and reduce the risk of false, manipulated, or decontextualised information moving unchecked through the business.

Standards bodies such as the C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity) show the direction that this is heading: a future where provenance and integrity are embedded in digital content itself, the same way a padlock in a browser indicates that the connection is secure. Essentially trust won’t be something that businesses need to check for, rather it will be something that travels with the information as provenance feeds verifications. Every piece of content therefore becomes a signal in a continuous trust decision.

Developing Trust in the agentic era

The need to trust intent has become even more pressing as AI agents enter the workplace. These agents will increasingly operate like another person working alongside us, mirroring our behaviors, such as reading documents, interpreting data, making decisions, and acting. The difference, however, is that these non-human identities are moving at machine speed, where human-speed verification has no hope of keeping up.

That means AI agents must be governed through a Zero Trust model from the outset. An agent should not be trusted just because it sits inside the enterprise, has been approved by a user, or is connected to corporate systems. Its identity, permissions, behavior and outputs all need to be continuously validated. Just as importantly, agents should be governed by least privilege, the principle of least information, and least function, granting only the minimum access, data, and capability required for a specific task.

However, these agents create a trust challenge that identity management alone can’t solve. Businesses will need to know whether they are dealing with a human or a machine, whether an agent is behaving responsibly, and whether its actions reflect an organization’s values and boundaries. Effectively, businesses will need to adopt an operating constitution that agents are continuously measured against.

And in this AI era, enterprises must interrogate information, content, intent, behavior, and action in realtime and continuously as identity is generally just checked as front door access. However, given the scale of the task at hand, it will take AI to audit, flag, and govern as needed and keep the chain of trust intact.

Engineering trust into the business

The organizations that succeed will be those that treat trust as something to be engineered, rather than assumed. Misinformation, disinformation, malinformation are security, resilience, and leadership challenges, and AI is making them harder to ignore.

As technology continues to shape how information is created, shared, and acted upon, businesses need to build the same discipline around authenticity that they’ve always applied to access. That means verifying content, questioning intent, and limiting what AI systems can do to what they actually need to do.

Trust can no longer be the default setting. Instead, in today’s operating environment, it must be a decision that’s made continuously, at machine speed, across information, intent, behavior, and action. The good news is that the framework already exists in Zero Trust. What needs to change however is how organizations apply it, broadening the scope to include information, intent, behavior, and action.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best internet security suites.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/dM2SR5K

Artificial intelligence is entering a new phase,...

Artificial intelligence is entering a new phase, one defined not by experimentation, but by operational deployment in environments where the stakes are high and the margin for error is narrow.

Nowhere is this shift more visible than in critical services such as healthcare, where organizations are beginning to rely on AI not just for efficiency gains, but for decisions that directly affect lives, outcomes and public trust.

As a result, the conversation around AI capability is expanding, and there’s a real need for AI systems to be sovereign, trusted and aligned to the legal, ethical and operational frameworks of the jurisdictions they serve.

Sovereign AI is emerging as a response to this need.

It is not a marketing term or a technical preference; it is a structural requirement for organizations that operate under strict regulatory oversight and handle sensitive citizen data.

For these sectors, sovereignty is the mechanism that ensures AI systems remain under the control of the people and institutions accountable for their outcomes.

Data residency

The distinction between data residency and true sovereignty is central to this shift. Data residency simply describes where data is stored or processed. It is a geographical statement, not a legal one. Data sovereignty, by contrast, defines who controls the data, who can access it and which laws apply. It is a statement of legal authority and operational control.

Sovereign AI goes further still. A sovereign by design AI system ensures that every stage of the AI lifecycle, from training and fine tuning to inference, deployment and monitoring, sits entirely within the sovereign perimeter. This includes the IT infrastructure, the data pipelines, the model governance processes and the personnel who operate and maintain the system. Nothing crosses borders, and nothing falls under the jurisdiction of external authorities.

For critical services such as national healthcare systems, this level of assurance is not optional. These organizations must protect patient confidentiality, maintain public trust and comply with regulatory frameworks that are among the most stringent in the world. They cannot rely on AI systems whose training data is opaque, whose operational footprint spans multiple jurisdictions or whose governance structures are not aligned to local laws.

They need systems that are transparent, explainable and auditable, systems that can demonstrate not only what they do, but how and why they do it.

Regulated sectors

This is one of the reasons why organizations in regulated sectors are increasingly looking beyond general purpose AI models. These models have driven much of the recent excitement around AI, but they are not always suitable for environments where accuracy, safety and accountability are paramount.

Their training data is broad and often scraped from the open internet. Their provenance is difficult to verify. Their operational controls vary widely. And their governance frameworks are not always designed with regulatory compliance in mind. In contrast, domain specific AI models built on trusted, curated datasets offer a level of precision and contextual understanding that general purpose models struggle to match.

They can be aligned to clinical workflows, diagnostic pathways and sector specific terminology. They can be governed with the level of transparency and auditability that regulators increasingly expect. And when built within a sovereign architecture, they can operate entirely within the legal and ethical boundaries required by critical services.

The rise of sovereign AI signals a broader transformation in how regulated sectors will adopt and govern AI over the next decade. AI architectures will become more localized, with sovereign cloud regions, isolated compute environments and jurisdiction specific MLOps pipelines becoming the norm. Governance will become as important as model performance, with explainability, auditability and lifecycle control treated as first class requirements.

Regulators will demand greater transparency around model provenance, training data lineage and operational controls. And AI supply chains, from data ingestion to model deployment, will be scrutinized with the same rigor applied to other critical infrastructure.

What this future looks like

Healthcare offers a clear illustration of what this future looks like. When deployed responsibly, sovereign AI can automate clinical workflows while maintaining strict data protection, support diagnostic decision making with transparent and explainable models, improve patient flow through predictive analytics and optimize resource allocation across hospitals and care pathways.

By reducing administrative burden and helping ensure patients are directed to the most appropriate care pathway more efficiently, it also has the potential to improve productivity and support better use of constrained healthcare resources.

It can also enable population level insights without compromising privacy, allowing healthcare systems to plan more effectively and respond more rapidly to emerging challenges. These benefits are only achievable when the underlying AI systems are trusted, transparent and sovereign.

Sovereign AI represents a turning point in how critical services approach digital transformation. It acknowledges that trust, governance and domain expertise are just as important as model capability.

It recognizes that AI must be built to serve the needs, values and legal frameworks of the communities it supports. And it reflects a broader truth: as AI becomes more deeply embedded in essential services, sovereignty will not be a niche requirement. It will be the standard.

Check out our list of the best cloud backup services.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/yVRkvnW

The legal sector’s use of AI is maturing, and its...

The legal sector’s use of AI is maturing, and its use is going beyond simply being an external chatbot or standalone tool. The focus is shifting to embedding AI into everyday legal work, giving it access to the documents, matters, knowledge and systems lawyers use every day.

As firms increase their investment in AI technology, they need to look beyond what AI models can generate and focus on a more practical question: how do those models connect to the information lawyers rely on, where does that information sit, and how is access governed?

That connection challenge is why Model Context Protocol (MCP) has started to attract so much attention.

Separating the standard from the assumptions

MCP is an open standard that gives AI tools a more consistent way to connect to external systems, data sources and applications. For all the excitement around MCP, firms need to be clear about what it does, and just as importantly, what it does not do. Otherwise, there is a risk that firms either overestimate what MCP can solve on its own or dismiss it as just another technical acronym.

The reality sits somewhere in the middle. MCP can help AI tools connect to the systems and data sources firms already use, but it does not automatically solve challenges around governance, integration, permissions or legal context. With misconceptions starting to spread across the legal sector, here are five common myths to clear up.

Myth 1: MCP is only for Claude

Although MCP was created by Anthropic, it is not just a Claude feature. It is an open-source framework and is now becoming part of the broader conversation around how AI agents connect to external tools, data sources and systems.

That distinction matters for law firms and legal organizations generally. If MCP is treated as a single-vendor feature, it can be dismissed as something tied to one model or product roadmap. But as a broader connectivity standard, firms need to think about how it fits into their wider AI strategy, integration architecture and governance model.

Myth 2: MCP replaces APIs

APIs still matter. They remain the backbone of platform-to-platform connections, allowing software systems to exchange data and trigger actions. MCP does something different: it acts as a protocol layer on top of APIs, giving AI agents a more standard way to discover and interact with approved legal systems, tools and data sources.

Put simply, MCP is closer to a universal adapter for AI, than an alternative to APIs. Just as USB gives different devices a common way to connect, MCP gives AI tools a more consistent way to understand what systems and functions are available to them, and how they can interact with those systems.

But it does not remove the need for APIs, authentication, system owners or clear rules about what AI tools can and cannot access.

Myth 3: MCP means moving documents into AI tools

There is a common misconception that connecting AI to legal systems means copying a large volume of documents into external AI platforms. In practice, AI should only be given controlled access to governed systems. Documents, precedents and matter files can remain within the firm’s trusted environment, with AI tools using MCP to retrieve only the information they are authorized to access.

Rather than creating another uncontrolled copy of sensitive material, firms can let AI work with the right information while existing permissions, security policies and governance controls remain intact. To hit the right balance, legal IT leaders should be asking “Where does the data stay, what is exposed, and how is access controlled?

Myth 4: All MCP integrations are the same

As MCP becomes more common, there will be a temptation to treat any MCP-compatible integration as broadly equivalent. That would be a mistake. MCP standardizes the connection, rather than the value of what comes through it. One integration may provide a basic route to retrieve files.

Another may provide richer information about permissions, matter relationships, document history, metadata and audit trails. Both may be MCP-compatible, but they will not deliver the same outcome.

Law firms need to focus on what the AI receives, whether access rights are enforced and whether activity can be audited.

MCP creates the route into systems, but it does not decide what the AI receives or understands. Connection does not mean context. In legal, this is more than a simple retrieval problem. An AI tool does not just need access to a document in a DMS. It needs to understand the matter, client, permissions, version history, related work and institutional knowledge around it.

For example, an AI tool may be able to find a precedent agreement, but does it know whether that precedent is current, whether it belongs to a similar matter, whether it reflects the firm’s preferred position, or whether the lawyer has permission to access the related material? Without that context, AI may generate an answer, but the answer may not be reliable enough for legal work.

That is why MCP should be seen as the access layer, not the intelligence layer. It can help AI tools connect to legal systems, but the value comes from what those systems expose through MCP: governed, matter-aware and permission-sensitive context.

Connection is only half the story

MCP gives law firms a more standard way to connect AI tools to the systems they already use. But legal AI depends on more than connection. The firms that benefit most will be those that treat MCP as the starting point, not the destination. The quality of the information, the controls around it and the context that gives it meaning will determine whether connected AI makes a genuine impact in legal work.

We've featured the best AI website builder.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/kqPDdoR

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming ...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming embedded in the modern workplace, with employees are increasingly turning to AI tools to work more efficiently and boost productivity.

This growing demand for faster, more effective ways of working is driving the rise of shadow AI - the use of AI tools outside approved organizational controls and governance frameworks – which results in organizations quickly losing visibility into data usage and potential risks.

The scale of this challenge is significant. While 90% of executives are confident in their organizations' visibility into AI tools, just 52% of employees admit to using AI tools without approval, often through personal accounts.

As a result, organizations are left grappling with a widening gap between AI adoption and AI governance.

The next frontier of AI risk

When AI is used without formal oversight, it can bypass governance controls, increasing the risk of errors, regulatory breaches and sensitive data leakages. Organizations are most exposed when AI is already influencing business-critical activities, from customer service and operational decision-making to software development and content creation.

The challenge will intensify as businesses move beyond large language models, which generate information, to large action models and agentic systems that can take action. These systems can diagnose issues, recommend actions and execute workflows with minimum human input, increasing both the speed and scale at which mistakes occur.

A shadow agent operating outside approved governance frameworks could trigger harmful actions before organizations have the visibility and governance capabilities needed to intervene.

There is also a longer-term risk that future AI systems will be trained on synthetic or lower-quality data, weakening performance and decision-making over time. Transparency and traceability will be critical to maintaining accountability, protecting ethical standards and preserving the effectiveness of AI systems as adoption continues to accelerate.

AI governance as an enabler

What works is AI governance that enables innovation while putting clear guardrails in place that are integrated, transparent, auditable, and aligned with existing risk and compliance frameworks. If AI is to be used safely, firms must be able to successfully identify exactly what went wrong and why when issues arise.

In practice, mature governance starts with an approved AI tool stack that provides safe and trusted options for common use cases. This should be supported by risk-based policies that make clear the data being handled, what can and cannot be shared, which tools are permitted, and where human approval is required.

Low-risk tasks such as drafting or summarizing content should not be governed in the same way as high-risk uses involving customer data, regulated information or business-critical decisions.

Training is equally important. The challenge, beyond only enforcing controls, involves helping employees understand why those controls exist and how to use AI responsibly. As agents increasingly diagnose issues, recommend actions, and execute workflows with minimum input, human oversight and approval processes must scale alongside them.

Interoperability will be critical to making this workable at scale, allowing organizations to operate across jurisdictions and multiple AI models without repeatedly rebuilding governance processes and systems from scratch.

Making responsible adoption the easy choice

For security and compliance leaders, the goal should be to make responsible AI adoption the path of least resistance. Employees turn to shadow AI when approved tools are unavailable, difficult to access or fail to meet their needs. Companies that focus solely on restricting usage risk driving activity further underground and losing out on the efficiency and innovation gains that AI can deliver.

Organizations that successfully balance AI productivity and control over their systems recognize that shadow AI use is often a symptom of unmet demand. Employees typically turn to unauthorized tools because they are easier to access, faster to use or better suited to the task at hand. Rather than focusing on restrictions alone, leaders should understand where AI is already being used across the business and ensure approved alternatives are available for the most common use cases.

With three-quarters of office professionals saying they would be likely to look for a new job that offered better AI skills development, firms that combine governance with opportunities to build AI skills are likely to see stronger adoption of approved tools and, as a result, less reliance on shadow AI.

Building an AI-enabled culture means giving employees the tools, knowledge and confidence to innovate within clear boundaries. By doing so, shadow AI can be reduced while the speed and agility that workers increasingly expect is maintained.

The organizations best positioned to succeed

The businesses that strike the right balance for AI success will be those that view governance as a foundation for AI adoption and not a barrier to it. By making the secure, approved path the easiest path, shadow AI risk is reduced without sacrificing productivity.

Embedding strong governance, supported by trusted and well-managed data foundations, avoids costly mistakes and allows AI to be deployed and scaled with greater safety and confidence.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best small business software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/n28h5zM

Lanterns has finally premiered on HBO Max — and...

Lanterns has finally premiered on HBO Max — and, in a move reminiscent of Invincible's first-ever episode on Prime Video, the new DC Universe (DCU) TV show wastes no time in delivering an almighty shock in its first chapter.

Indeed, the sci-fi show's premiere, titled 'Pilot', ends with a moment that'll completely stun viewers and likely upset DC comic book fanatics.

I'm about to dig into the biggest talking point from Lanterns' debut episode, so consider this your one and only warning: full spoilers immediately follow after the poll below. Turn back now if you haven't seen 'Pilot' yet, or else.

Is Kyle Chandler's Hal Jordan really dead in Lanterns?

A close up of a dead Hal Jordan with a bullet wound in his head in Lanterns episode 1

Green Lantern fans and DC purists are going to have a lot to say about this... (Image credit: John Johnson/HBO Max)

It certainly seems that way. Of course, this could be a massive fake out — after all, there are all manner of shapeshifting alien species that can impersonate humans in DC Comics, so it's possible that this is the case here. Nonetheless, I believe that Chandler's Jordan has taken his last breath in the DCU.

Okay, but how did we get here? For starters, this season's premiere wasn't shy about teasing Jordan's demise. Indeed, minutes before his death, which takes place during the show's 2026 storyline, is shown, Jordan, Aaron Pierre's John Stewart, and Kelly Macdonald's Sheriff Kerry Kane survive an attack from a suicidal bomber at Rushville's police station.

This incident, which happens as part of Lanterns' 2016 storyline, is caused by an alien masquerading as a human truck driver called Waylon Sanders. As the unidentified extraterrestrial reveals, their skeleton is retrofitted with a biometric neutron device that they can activate with a single thought.

Hal Jordan interrogating a crook as Sheriff Kerry watches on in Lanterns episode 1

Hal Jordan interrogates Waylon Sanders, who the former correctly identifies as an alien (Image credit: John Johnson/HBO Max)

Prior to detonating the explosive gadget, Sanders goads Jordan over the latter's fearless nature, which Sanders interprets as Jordan wanting someone or something to kill him. In that respect, then, the DCU Chapter One series telegraphs his death before it happens.

Rather than bump off Jordan in 2016, though, Lanterns withholds his passing until a decade later. Indeed, Jordan uses his power ring to form a protective bubble around Sanders just before the assailant detonates his skeletal device, thereby restricting the blast radius and saving the lives of everyone nearby.

But, that's not the end of the story. Five minutes before 'Pilot' ends, we skip ahead to 2026, which reteams us with Stewart as he heads to the same college football field that he and Jordan first met Sheriff Kane, and where their 2016 investigation into the deaths of four football fans began.

There, Stewart reunites with Kane and, after a bit of small talk about Kane's now-teenage son Noah, they head to a section of the bleacher seating where Jordan's snow-covered corpse is eventually revealed to be sitting.

Who killed Hal Jordan in Lanterns episode 1? Assessing the most likely candidates

Kerry Kane and John Stewart on the floor looking shocked in Lanterns episode 1

Anybody else react like this when they saw Hal Jordan's dead body? (Image credit: John Johnson/HBO Max)

Alright, so who murdered Earth's first-ever Green Lantern? We don't know, but we can speculate on who pulled the trigger.

The first two — and arguably most likely candidates — are Sheriff Kane and the stadium's groundskeeper. Kane tells Stewart that the latter is the only other individual who currently knows that Jordan is dead. However, it's incredibly unlikely that the groundskeeper will be a prominent character moving forward, so we can rule them out.

We can do likewise with Kane. Sure, she's got a firearm to hand at all times, but I just don't see her wanting to draw heat over Jordan's death, and the potential ire of Stewart, the Green Lantern Corps, and/or the Guardians of the Universe.

A close up of a dead Hal Jordan's right hand, which is missing its Green Lantern ring, in Lanterns episode 1

Did Jordan's murderer steal his ring, too? (Image credit: HBO Max)

So, who else could it be? Of the other characters we've met, I wouldn't be shocked if Garret Dillahunt's Will Macon is behind it, regardless of whether he actually committed the deed or not. Right now, though, he's formed something of an uneasy alliance with Jordan and Stewart, so a massive, relationship-breaking event would need to happen for Macon to be involved in Jordan's demise.

There are bound to be other would-be murderers who could've taken Jordan's life who we've yet to encounter, so we might be adding more names to our shortlist in the weeks ahead.

That said — and hear me out on this before you pass judgement — what if Jordan killed himself? He's a former special forces pilot, so he knows how to handle a gun. For all we know, Waylon was telling the truth about Jordan wanting is life to be over, too — especially if, as an alien, the former has some form of perceptive superpower that allows his species to read someone else.

Who do you think killed Hal Jordan? Let me know in the comment section below. And, for more on the HBO Max show, read my Lanterns review.



from Latest from TechRadar https://ift.tt/ACLxnKs