OpenAI Timeline

Founders Fund hires former OpenAI exec Ryan Beiermeister (and not because of her Mafia skills)

Ryan Beiermeister, who demonstrated cool analysis in the Founders Fund YouTube series "Mafia," has joined the firm as a partner.

The agent security gap: 54% of enterprises have already had an AI agent incident, and most still let agents share credentials

<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.</p><p>The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.</p><p>What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.</p><p>Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.</p><h2>Finding 1: The incidents are already here</h2><p><b>More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.</p><p>Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident&#x27;s blast radius.</p><h2>Finding 2: The identity gap</h2><p><b>Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.</p><div></div><p>Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.) </p><p>The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.</p><p>Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.</p><h2>Finding 3: Observe and enforce, but rarely isolate</h2><p><b>Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents</b></p><p>We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.</p><div></div><p>Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.</p><h2>Finding 4: Security runs on borrowed, provider-native controls</h2><p><b>Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register</b></p><p>We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.</p><p>The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI&#x27;s controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.</p><p>(<i>A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)</i></p><h2>Finding 5: And enterprises are comfortable with it</h2><p><b>Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags</b></p><p>We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.</p><div></div><p>Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.</p><h2>Finding 6: Budgets haven’t caught up</h2><p><b>Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents</b></p><p>We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.</p><div></div><p>Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.</p><h1>Finding 7: The arms race is even, at best</h1><p><b>Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.</p><h2>Finding 8: A security reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle. </p><p>Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.</p><p>The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint. </p><p>What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: A security gap that autonomy will test first</h2><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.</p><p>The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.</p><hr/><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it&#x27;s best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.</i></p>

The AI compute gap: Enterprises are buying infrastructure faster than they can measure what it costs

<p>Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all.</p><p>The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own.</p><p>Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter — unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions — the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales — is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101–250 employees (36%) and 251–1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (22%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%).</p><p>At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators.</p><h2>Finding 1: Ambition outpaces production</h2><p><b>Only one in five run AI in production at scale</b></p><p>We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>38%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are experimenting — running proofs of concept, not yet in production</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>37%</b></p></td><td><p><b>have some workloads in production, but not across the organization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>21%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run AI in production at scale — the mature minority</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>4%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are not yet running AI workloads at all</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint — and whose costs — are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works.</p><h2>Finding 2: Enterprises run on hyperscalers and model APIs</h2><p><b>The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today</b></p><p>We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>48%</b></p></td><td><p><b>use Google Cloud — the most-used platform overall (Microsoft Azure 29%, AWS 22%, Oracle Cloud 22%)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>41%</b></p></td><td><p><b>use Google’s Gemini models, with OpenAI close behind at 40% and Anthropic at 12%</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>6%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run their own on-prem or co-located GPU clusters; 4% a custom open-source self-managed stack</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>&lt;2%</b></p></td><td><p><b>each use the specialized AI clouds — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius, Together, Fireworks and peers</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers — register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from — which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking.</p><p><i>(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses — an average of 2.1 selections each — so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google&#x27;s strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.)</i></p><h2>Finding 3: The next dollar goes to infrastructure they don’t yet run</h2><p><b>AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list</b></p><p>We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>45%</b></p></td><td><p><b>AI-specialized clouds (CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius) — the top planned evaluation area</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>32%</b></p></td><td><p><b>non-NVIDIA accelerators (AWS Trainium, Google TPU, AMD Instinct, Intel Gaudi, in-house ASICs)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>28%</b></p></td><td><p><b>Nvidia Blackwell (GB300) / next-generation GPUs</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>16%</b></p></td><td><p><b>decentralized or distributed compute networks</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>11%</b></p></td><td><p><b>sovereign or region-specific compute; 9% say none of the above</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Here is the report’s sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area — AI-specialized clouds, at 45% — is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental — it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud.</p><p>This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal — CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use.</p><h2>Finding 4: A switching wave is building</h2><p><b>Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter</b></p><p>We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>38%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within the next 0–3 months — tied for the most common answer</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>36%</b></p></td><td><p><b>have no plans to change</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>22%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within 3–6 months</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>7%</b></p></td><td><p><b>plan to change within 6–12 months</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months — and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents — Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) — which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share.</p><p>(<i>Method note: Respondents who selected both &quot;no plans to change&quot; and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule.</i>)</p><h2>Finding 5: Nobody buys on token price</h2><p><b>Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price</b></p><p>We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>41%</b></p></td><td><p><b>integration with the existing cloud and data stack — the top factor</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>35%</b></p></td><td><p><b>total cost of ownership (TCO)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>24%</b></p></td><td><p><b>performance — latency and throughput</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>19%</b></p></td><td><p><b>each cite security/compliance, autoscaling for spiky workloads, and GPU access/availability</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>8%</b></p></td><td><p><b>cost per 1M tokens — the least-cited factor</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric — cost per million tokens — is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 — enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step.</p><h2>Finding 6: Expensive GPUs, idle most of the time</h2><p><b>83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less</b></p><p>We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>37%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run at 26–50% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>34%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run at 10–25% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>15%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run under 10% utilization</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>12%</b></p></td><td><p><b>run over 50% — the efficient minority</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>8%</b></p></td><td><p><b>don’t measure utilization at all; a further 7% consume via API and run no GPUs of their own</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><i>Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50%</i></p><p>The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large — and largely unmeasured.</p><h2>Finding 7: Spending fast, measuring slowly</h2><p><b>Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>44%</b></p></td><td><p><b>track compute cost and ROI rigorously</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>39%</b></p></td><td><p><b>track it only partially</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>20%</b></p></td><td><p><b>can’t quantify it yet</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>6%</b></p></td><td><p><b>say it isn’t a priority</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion — enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly — the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly.</p><h2><b>Finding 8: The next bottleneck few are watching</b></h2><p><b>As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters</b></p><p>Finally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference — the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority.</p><div></div><table><tbody><tr><td><p><b>31%</b></p></td><td><p><b>would rely on Dell (PowerScale / Project Lightning) — the leading single answer</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>16%</b></p></td><td><p><b>would rely on Nvidia (Dynamo / ICMSP)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>18%</b></p></td><td><p><b>are not aware of this as a constraint (9%) or haven’t addressed inference-memory limits yet (8%)</b></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><b>10%</b></p></td><td><p><b>Hammerspace (Tier Zero); 9% DDN (Infinia); the rest split across open-source KV-cache tooling, model-level efficiency, VAST Data, and WEKA</b></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market — and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one.</p><h1><b>The bottom line: A compute gap that faster spending will widen, not close</b></h1><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack — toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today — and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly.</p><p>The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money — the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters — but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives — or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last.</p><hr/><p><i>Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.</i></p>

The AI context gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a trust problem, not a retrieval problem — and most are still building the fix

<p>Across 101 enterprises, the infrastructure that feeds AI agents their business context is being built faster than it can be trusted. Retrieval-augmented generation is already the default context source, and provider-native retrieval has quietly overtaken the dedicated vector databases that define the category — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched their agents produce confident, wrong answers traced to missing or inconsistent context. A governed semantic layer is emerging as the fix, but most are still building it; the field is converging on hybrid retrieval; and even as provider-native tools lead in practice, a plurality say they intend to keep best-of-breed. The result is a context gap — agents that sound authoritative running on a foundation their owners do not yet fully trust.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them.</p><p>The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production.</p><p>Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) — already leads every dedicated vector database, and enterprises expect hybrid retrieval to dominate by the end of 2026 (34%). Yet a plurality (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack, and a majority (57%) plan to switch or add a provider within the year. Stated preference and actual usage are pulling in opposite directions — the market is buying provider-native while insisting it wants independence.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series. This survey focused on enterprise RAG infrastructure and the context layer — the retrieval systems, semantic layers, and context sources that feed AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=101); the survey drew no responses from organizations of 100 or fewer, so the full sample qualifies. All responses are from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave, so the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 251–1,000 employees (31%) and 101–250 (31%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (20%), 5,001–10,000 (12%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (39%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (16%), and VPs and directors (14%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 46% final decision-makers and another 26% recommenders or influencers. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 20%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (11%) and a broad spread across retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.</p><p>At 101 respondents this is a modest sample and should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up RAG and context infrastructure rather than from the largest operators.</p><h2>Finding 1: Confident and wrong</h2><p><b>More than half have traced agent errors to bad context</b></p><p>We asked whether, in the past six months, enterprises had traced a confident but wrong agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context. Most had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. A majority of enterprises (57%) have already had an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer they traced to bad context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, or missing documents — and more than half of those have seen it happen more than once. Only 28% report no such failure, and a small remainder either don’t run agents on enterprise data or don’t trace root cause closely enough to know. </p><p>The failure mode is specific and dangerous: the model is not obviously hallucinating; it is confidently wrong because the context feeding it was thin or inconsistent. Everything else in this report — what enterprises retrieve, how they govern it, and what they plan to build — is downstream of this problem.</p><h2>Finding 2: RAG is the default context source</h2><p><b>Retrieval feeds more agents than any other method</b></p><p>We asked what an enterprise’s AI agents primarily use to understand its data. Retrieval leads by a wide margin.</p><div></div><p>Retrieval is the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way agents understand the business — nearly twice the share of the next approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%). Mixed approaches (14%), direct live-system queries (10%), and long-context loading (6%) fill out the rest, and only 2% let agents run on the model’s general knowledge alone. The concentration matters in light of Finding 1: because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. When RAG is the default source, thin retrieval is not an edge case — it is the main failure surface.</p><p>One approach is notable for its absence from these answers: customizing model weights, also known as fine-tuning. Every leading source of business context is injected at run time. Our most recent direct measurement of fine-tuning comes from our April–May survey wave (a separate survey, n=136), where fine-tuning capabilities ranked last of six factors in model selection at 5% — even as 26% of that sample still named fine-tuning and customization an investment they expect to grow. Fine-tuning has fallen out of the primary selection conversation; context injection is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable about their business.</p><h2>Finding 3: Provider-native retrieval already leads the vector databases</h2><p><b>OpenAI file search and vertex AI search top the dedicated tools</b></p><p>We asked which retrieval systems enterprises run in production today. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the specialists.</p><div></div><p>The dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG stack. OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) lead — provider-native and hyperscaler-native retrieval — ahead of every purpose-built vector database. Among the specialists, the most-used is the one enterprises already run for other reasons (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, 20%) and the open, embedded option (pgvector, 12%); the pure-play vector databases that define the category — Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, Milvus — each sit in single digits to low double digits. Notably, 13% of enterprises say they still run no production RAG at all. As with the platforms in the parallel infrastructure wave, enterprises are gravitating to retrieval that comes bundled with tools they already buy.</p><p>The shape of this finding held across both Q2 waves. In April–May (n=161), provider-built retrieval led usage there too, while every dedicated vector database remained marginal — the most-used standalone vector database peaked at 8% of that sample — and the hybrid, pluralistic future was already the consensus expectation (34% expected hybrid retrieval to dominate, with another 29% expecting multiple architectures by use case). Two waves, consistent picture: the category that coined the “vector database” term is being collected by the platforms enterprises already buy from.</p><h2>Finding 4: But they say they want to keep best-of-breed</h2><p><b>A plurality resist consolidating onto a provider’s native stack</b></p><p>We asked how enterprises will respond as model providers bundle retrieval, memory, and orchestration into their platforms. Their stated intent cuts against their current usage.</p><div></div><p>Here is the tension at the heart of the stack. Even as provider-native retrieval leads in practice (Finding 3), a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack — well ahead of the 21% who plan to consolidate. Another 21% expect a mix, and 9% intend to build and own the layer themselves. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category: they are adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while asserting they will preserve independence. Which impulse wins — the pull of the provider bundle or the stated preference for modular control — will shape the retrieval market more than any single tool.</p><h2>Finding 5: Hybrid retrieval is the consensus bet</h2><p><b>Vector-only retrieval is already seen as insufficient</b></p><p>We asked which retrieval architecture enterprises expect to dominate their production RAG systems by the end of 2026. The field is converging — with a large share still unsure.</p><div></div><p>The architecture is settling on hybrid. A third (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026, three times the 11% who expect vector-only retrieval to prevail. That is a notable signal: the pure vector-search approach that launched the category is already viewed as insufficient on its own, superseded by pipelines that add reranking for accuracy and access controls for governance — the very access controls whose absence produces the failures in Finding 1. Tellingly, the second-largest answer is uncertainty: 17% simply don’t know, and another 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus is not a single tool but a layered pipeline — and it is not yet fully formed.</p><h2>Finding 6: The governed context layer is being built now</h2><p><b>Most run or are building a semantic layer — few in production</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises use a governed semantic or context layer to give agents and BI a shared understanding of their data. Most are on the path; fewer have arrived.</p><div></div><p>The fix for the context gap is under construction. Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%), and a further 17% are actively evaluating — meaning three-quarters are engaged with the idea in some form. But the balance is telling: more are building than have shipped, so for most enterprises the shared, governed definition layer that would prevent the &quot;confident but wrong&quot; failures of Finding 1 is still a work in progress. The semantic layer is the industry’s answer to inconsistent context; this wave catches it mid-construction, ambition well ahead of production.</p><h2>Finding 7: Bought on ingestion and simplicity, watched for correctness</h2><p><b>Selection favors operability; monitoring favors correctness and security</b></p><p>We asked what matters most when enterprises choose a retrieval system, and what they track once it is running. Both answers lean practical.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures in Finding 1. Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust: the most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%). </p><p>Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive but not enthusiastic — on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation and value for money both near 3.9. Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted.</p><h2>Finding 8: A retrieval reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>A majority plan to change providers — and the vector specialists are gaining interest</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to change or add a retrieval provider, and which they are considering. The consideration set differs from today’s stack.</p><div></div><p>The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months, and a quarter (26%) within the next quarter. The consideration set is where it gets interesting: provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint — Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest. Read with Finding 4, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle.</p><h1>The bottom line: A context gap that more retrieval alone won’t close</h1><p>Organizations with more than 100 employees are wiring agents into their business faster than they can guarantee the context those agents run on. Retrieval is the default source of enterprise context, and it increasingly comes from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than the dedicated vector databases — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched agents answer confidently and wrongly because that context was thin or inconsistent. The failure is not exotic; it is the predictable result of pointing authoritative-sounding agents at an unreliable foundation.</p><p>The industry’s answer — a governed semantic layer, hybrid retrieval with reranking and access controls — is being built but is mostly not yet in production, and enterprises are pulled between the convenience of provider-native bundles and a stated preference for best-of-breed independence. At 101 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: the context layer is the next contested tier of the AI stack, and right now agents are running ahead of it. The context gap is not a retrieval-volume problem that more documents or bigger indexes will solve on their own; it is a problem of governed, consistent, access-aware context. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises finish building that layer before the confident-but-wrong failures move from the lab into decisions that matter.</p><hr/><p><i>Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. At this sample size the results should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — it&#x27;s a self-selected sample, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with strong purchasing authority, across technology, healthcare, retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.</i></p>

The agent evaluation gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a reality-alignment problem, not a coverage problem — and most are shipping to production anyway

<p>Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop.</p><p>The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent.</p><p>What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same time, the evaluation stack that would have to earn that trust is fragmented and immature: the most common primary tools are the model providers’ native evals, tied with having no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); and only about a quarter of enterprises run real-time quality checks on live production traffic. The autonomy is arriving faster than the assurance.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey — the Agentic Reliability &amp; Evals tracker — focused on how technical leaders evaluate agent performance and reliability. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=157), drawn from a single survey in June 2026; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Where questions were multiple-select, those shares can sum to more than 100%.</p><p>By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 38% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 34% recommenders or influencers. Product and program managers (15%), consultants and advisors (10%), directors of engineering/IT (8%), and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (8%) lead the named titles, alongside a large “Other” function (37%). By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 100–499 (37%) and 500–2,499 (27%) employees lead, with 2,500–9,999 (20%), 10,000–49,999 (10%), and 50,000+ (6%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Retail/Consumer (15%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (12%), and Manufacturing (10%).</p><p>At 157 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent evaluation practices rather than from the largest operators.</p><p><i>Note: This survey was rebuilt for the June wave from the earlier “LLM observability and evaluations” survey; because the questions and sample differ, no comparisons are made to the April–May data.</i></p><h1>Finding 1: A passing eval is not a working agent</h1><p><b>Half have shipped an agent that passed evals, then failed a customer</b></p><p>We asked whether, in the past 12 months, organizations had deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations but then caused a customer-facing failure. Half of those that run evaluations had.</p><div></div><p>This is the report’s defining number. Half of organizations (50%) have shipped an AI feature that cleared their internal evaluations and then failed in front of a customer — an incorrect output, a broken workflow, or a quality incident — and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Only 36% report no such failure, and the remainder either run no pre-deployment evaluations (8%) or don’t track the root cause closely enough to know (6%). The failure is precise and expensive: the evaluation said the agent was ready, and it was not. Everything that follows — how enterprises trust their evals, what they monitor, and how much autonomy they grant — is shaped by this experience.</p><h2>Finding 2: Almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation</h2><p><b>The top complaint: Evals don&#x27;t match real-world outcomes</b></p><p>We asked which limitation most reduces trust in automated agent evaluations today. Only a sliver of enterprises had no complaint at all.</p><div></div><p>Trust in automated evaluation is scarce, and specific. Only 5% of organizations say they fully trust automated evaluation as it stands — meaning 95% name a limitation that holds them back. The most common, at 29%, is the one that most directly explains Finding 1: evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes, passing agents that later fail. Bias or inconsistency (21%) and a lack of explainability (18%) follow — enterprises cannot always tell why an evaluation reached its verdict — and 17% cite data-leakage or privacy concerns in the evaluation process itself. The tests meant to certify agents are not yet trusted to certify them, which is precisely why the autonomy trajectory in Finding 3 is so striking.</p><h2>Finding 3: The autonomy ceiling is rising anyway</h2><p><b>Two-thirds already allow, or are building toward, zero-human deployment</b></p><p>We asked whether organizations would let an autonomous agent deploy a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human-in-the-loop validation. The trajectory runs straight through the trust gap.</p><div></div><p>Here is the paradox at the heart of the report. Even though almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation (Finding 2), two-thirds of organizations (66%) either already allow zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to permit it within a year (33%). Only 22% rule it out for the foreseeable future. The direction is unambiguous: enterprises are moving to let evaluations gate production autonomously — removing the human check — at the same moment they say those evaluations don’t reliably match reality. The autonomy ceiling is rising faster than the assurance beneath it, which is the mechanism by which the false-confidence failures of Finding 1 will scale rather than shrink.</p><p>Notably, the autonomy bet is not just a small company phenomenon. Splitting the sample by company size, larger enterprises are slightly further down the path toward zero human review than smaller companies (70% versus 64%) and slightly more likely to have shipped an evaluation-passing agent that then failed a customer (54% versus 48%). The assumption that large, regulated organizations are holding the human in the loop longest is, in this sample, backwards.  To be sure, these are directional figures, since the survey was not a huge sample — 57 respondents from companies with 2,500+ employees and 100 from companies smaller than that. </p><h2>Finding 4: The evaluation stack is fragmented and provider-led</h2><p><b>Provider-native evals lead — tied with no dedicated tool at all</b></p><p>We asked which agent reliability or evaluation platform enterprises primarily use today. The market has no clear leader — and a large share has nothing dedicated.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation layer is early and unconsolidated. Provider-native tooling leads — OpenAI’s native evals and traces (17%) and Anthropic’s Claude Console evals (13%) together outweigh any independent platform — but it is tied at the top by a striking answer: 17% of enterprises use no dedicated agent-evaluation tooling at all, a notable gap for organizations shipping agents to customers. The specialist evaluation vendors — DeepEval (12%), Braintrust (8%), LangSmith, Weave, Promptfoo, Langfuse, Arize — are scattered across single to low double digits, and 11% have built their own. No independent platform has yet become the category standard, which leaves most enterprises evaluating agents with provider-native tools, home-grown scripts, or nothing.</p><h2>Finding 5: Production monitoring rarely watches output quality</h2><p><b>Only a quarter run real-time quality checks on live traffic</b></p><p>Production monitoring for an AI agent can watch two very different things. It can watch whether the system is <b>functioning</b> — is the agent up and responding, did each request complete, how fast, at what cost, with any errors. Or it can watch whether the agent&#x27;s output is <b>correct</b> — automated checks that evaluate the content of each answer as it goes out: did the agent give the right answer, take the right action, stay within policy. The distinction matters because a confidently wrong answer is invisible to the first kind of monitoring: the request completes, the response is fast, no error is thrown, and every functioning-metric reads healthy. We asked organizations which kind their live production monitoring is built for today.</p><div></div><p>Grouped by what is actually being watched, the split is stark: 51% of organizations monitor only whether the agent is functioning, while 23% monitor whether its answers are right. Counting the ad-hoc reviewers and the don&#x27;t-knows, roughly three-quarters of organizations run no automated, real-time evaluation of output correctness in production — they can see that the system is up and what it costs, and they are taking the correctness of its answers on faith. That blind spot is the runtime counterpart to the pre-deployment gap in Finding 1: the same organizations engineering the human out of the deployment decision mostly cannot see, in real time, when the deployed agent starts getting things wrong.</p><h2>Finding 6: Bought on cost, measured on consistency</h2><p><b>Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal</b></p><p>We asked what most influenced enterprises’ choice of an evaluation vendor, and what they treat as their primary measure of success. Both answers are pragmatic.</p><div></div><p>Enterprises buy evaluation tooling on economics and trust it on repeatability. Cost of evaluations (28%) narrowly leads selection, just ahead of ease of integration (27%) and evaluation accuracy (24%) — breadth of observability (13%) and vendor roadmap (4%) matter far less. On what success looks like, more than a third (36%) name evaluation consistency — getting the same verdict on the same behavior every time — well ahead of speed of experimentation (19%), reduction in failures (18%), production visibility (13%), and compliance (11%). The emphasis on consistency is telling: before enterprises can trust an evaluation’s verdict, they need it to be stable — the very property whose absence (bias and inconsistency) ranked among the top trust limitations in Finding 2. Satisfaction with current tooling is only moderate, averaging 3.8 on a five-point scale across overall satisfaction, ease of implementation, and value for money.</p><h2>Finding 7: The next dollar goes to humans and observability</h2><p><b>Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation</b></p><p>We asked which reliability and evaluation investment will grow most over the next year. The money is going toward watching agents more closely — including with people.</p><div></div><p>The second-largest planned investment — behind only production observability — is human review workflows, at 26%. Read against Finding 1, that is the report&#x27;s quietest contradiction: at the same moment two-thirds of enterprises are engineering the human out of the deployment decision, more of them plan to grow spending on human reviewers (26%) than on the automated evaluation pipelines (16%) that would replace them. The zero-human trajectory and the human-review budget are rising in the same companies at the same time. Indeed, only 8% report that their budget is not increasing. </p><p>Taken together, enterprises are hedging: building toward autonomy while spending to watch agents more closely and keep humans available for the calls that automated evaluation cannot yet be trusted to make.</p><h2>Finding 8: A tooling reshuffle is coming</h2><p><b>Nearly two-thirds plan to adopt or switch platforms within a year</b></p><p>We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement evaluation platform, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.</p><div></div><p>The evaluation market is wide open. While 36% have no plans to change, a clear majority (64%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement platform within twelve months, and 31% within the next quarter. The consideration set points where current usage is thinnest: Confident AI’s DeepEval leads what enterprises are evaluating (20%), ahead of OpenAI’s native evals (13%) and Braintrust (9%) — the open-source specialists drawing more interest than their present footprint. </p><p>Given that so many enterprises today rely on provider-native tools or nothing at all (Finding 4), this is less a defection than a first real wave of tooling adoption — the moment the evaluation layer starts to consolidate. Which platforms earn that trust, in a market where almost no one trusts automated evaluation yet, is the open question this series will keep tracking.</p><h2>The bottom line: An evaluation gap that autonomy will widen, not close</h2><p>Organizations with 100 or more employees are granting AI agents more independence than they trust their evaluations to support. Half have already shipped an agent that passed its evals and then failed a customer; almost none fully trust automated evaluation, chiefly because it doesn’t match real-world outcomes; and most watch production for uptime and cost rather than for whether the agent’s answers are right. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively building toward, deploying to production on automated evaluation alone.</p><p>The vendor market is early and unsettled: the most common primary evaluation tools are provider-native evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all, and a clear majority plan to adopt or switch platforms within the year. Encouragingly, the next dollar is going to observability and — pointedly — human review, suggesting enterprises sense the gap even as they engineer past it. At 157 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: autonomy is being granted on the strength of evaluations that the people granting it do not yet trust. The evaluation gap is not a coverage problem that more tests alone will close; it is a problem of evaluations that reflect reality and can be trusted to gate it. The open question for later waves is whether assurance catches up to autonomy — or whether the false-confidence failures move from customer incidents into changes that deploy themselves.</p><hr/><p><i>Based on survey responses from 157 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include product and program managers, consultants and advisors, directors of engineering/IT, and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs, among other functions, across technology/software, retail/consumer, healthcare/life sciences, manufacturing, and other industries.</i></p>

Why is OpenAI selling a ChatGPT basketball?

You may have heard that OpenAI released its first piece of hardware this week. You may not have heard about the ChatGPT basketball.

Microsoft is reportedly training salespeople to talk down OpenAI and Anthropic

Microsoft is looking to sell its in-house AI models as more efficient and cost-effective than its competitors' models.

Agentic orchestration: Enterprise AI organizations have a deployment problem, not a platform problem — and most are calling chatbots agents

<p>Across 101 enterprises, agent orchestration is consolidating onto model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads by a wide margin — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model and judged on reliable multi-step execution. But the ambition runs well ahead of the reality: most deployed “agents” are still chatbot wrappers, the control plane enterprises expect is deliberately hybrid to avoid lock-in, and real-time fiscal control over token burn remains the exception.</p><p>This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise agent orchestration: which platforms enterprises run on, what drives the choice, what they optimize for, how they expect agent control to be structured, and — most revealingly — how orchestrated their deployed “agents” actually are and how tightly they control the cost of running them.</p><p>The central finding is a gap between orchestration ambition and orchestration reality. Enterprises are consolidating fast onto the major model platforms: Anthropic’s Claude is the primary platform for 40%, more than double any rival, followed by Microsoft (18%) and OpenAI (13%). The choice is driven by “model gravity” — native alignment with a state-of-the-art base model (21%) — and success is judged by reliable, multi-step execution (task completion reliability 32%, multi-step workflow management 28%). Yet asked to assess their portfolios honestly, 71% say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows rather than single-prompt chatbot wrappers, and only 10% have crossed the halfway mark. The orchestration layer is being built well ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run.</p><p>That gap shapes the architecture enterprises are putting in place. By the end of 2026 a clear majority (51%) expect a hybrid control plane — provider-native plus external orchestration — and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service, because vendor lock-in (35%) is the risk they fear most if control lives inside a model provider. Investment follows the build-out: agent workflow tooling leads the spend (34%), with security and permissions enforcement (25%) behind. And fiscal control lags throughout — more than a quarter (27%) have no real-time way to stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives.</p><h2>Methodology</h2><p>VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent orchestration. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=101), drawn from a single June 2026 wave; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends.</p><p>By organization size the sample is spread evenly across the enterprise bands: 100–499 employees, 2,500–9,999, and 50,000+ (21% each), with 10,000–49,999 and 500–2,499 (19% each). By role it is senior and buyer-credible: product and program managers (15%), CIO/CTO/CISO (13%), consultants and advisors (13%), and a spread of data, AI, and engineering directors and VPs, with an “Other” function at 18%. On purchasing, 81% are recommenders, influencers, or final decision-makers for AI solutions (66% recommender/influencer, 15% final decision-maker). Technology/Software is the largest industry at 44%, followed by Financial Services (17%) and Healthcare/Life Sciences (8%).</p><p>At 101 respondents the sample is robust enough to read directionally with reasonable confidence, though it remains self-selected and is not a probability sample.</p><h2>Finding 1: Orchestration runs on model-provider platforms</h2><p><b>Anthropic’s Claude leads; open frameworks are marginal</b></p><p>We asked which agent orchestration platform enterprises primarily use today. The answer concentrates on the major model providers — and on one in particular.</p><div></div><p>A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondents are self-selected, and this question asked them for a single primary platform — so the figures measure which platform leads each enterprise&#x27;s deployment, within a self-selected audience of AI-active technical decision-makers. A sample built this way can diverge substantially from spend-weighted market measures, and each VB Pulse survey draws its own sample with its own company-size mix, so vendor figures should not be compared across our surveys either. Read these shares as a portrait of where this cohort has placed its primary orchestration bet today, rather than as market share.</p><p>The model platforms dominate. Anthropic, Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and Amazon together account for roughly 80% of deployments (81 of 101), while the open frameworks (LangChain/LangGraph) and custom in-house builds that anchor engineering discussion sit in single digits. Anthropic’s lead — 40%, more than double the next platform — mirrors the “model gravity” selection logic in Finding 2: enterprises are choosing the orchestration layer that comes with the model they want to build on. As with the security vendors in the prior agent-security wave, the tools that define the category in technical circles are not yet where enterprise deployment concentrates. A small 3% are not orchestrating at all.</p><p>Respondents rate the platforms they run at 3.94 out of 5 overall (109 answered), with “value for money” specifically at 3.94 and “ease of implementation” the weakest score, at 3.85 — placing orchestration near the bottom of our five-tracker satisfaction range, ahead of only evaluation tooling. A rating just under 4 out of 5, from users of whom 96% plan to change their orchestration approach within the year, reads as provisional acceptance: the platforms work well enough to run today, and not well enough to stop the search for something better. The ratings sit alongside near-universal intent to change; this is a layer enterprises tolerate more than they love.</p><h2>Finding 2: Model gravity drives platform selection</h2><p><b>The base model, not the tooling, decides the platform</b></p><p>We asked what most influenced the orchestration platform choice. The single largest factor is the pull of the underlying model — though flexibility and ease of development follow close behind.</p><div></div><p>Model gravity leading is the selection-side explanation for Anthropic’s platform lead: enterprises pick the orchestration environment closest to the frontier model they have standardized on. But the next tier complicates the picture — flexibility across models and tools (17%) and ease of development (17%) say enterprises also want to avoid being trapped by that choice, foreshadowing the lock-in fear in Finding 6. Security and permissions (14%) and total cost of ownership (11%) round out a pragmatic buying logic. Performance (latency/memory) sits last at 4%, a reminder that at this stage of adoption the binding constraints are model fit and optionality, not raw speed.</p><h2>Finding 3: The job is reliable multi-step execution</h2><p><b>Enterprises just orchestration by whether it completes the work</b></p><p>We asked what enterprises optimize for — their primary success metric for orchestration. Reliability and multi-step workflow management dominate; developer- and user-facing metrics trail.</p><div></div><p>Task completion reliability (32%) and multi-step workflow management (28%) together account for 59% of responses (60 of 101): orchestration succeeds, in the enterprise view, when it reliably carries a task through multiple steps to completion. Developer productivity (17%) matters but is secondary — the inverse of its prominence in framework discussion — and end-user experience (9%) is a minor concern, consistent with orchestration being an internal execution problem rather than a UX one. This reliability-first standard is exactly what makes the Chatbot Trap finding so pointed: enterprises define success as dependable multi-step execution, yet most of their deployed “agents” do not yet do multi-step work at all.</p><p>The trap is not evenly distributed. Splitting the sample by organization size, 77% of smaller enterprises say a quarter or fewer of their agents do true multi-step work, against 62% of larger ones. Larger enterprises are meaningfully further into genuine multi-step deployment; the chatbot trap is, directionally, a mid-market condition.</p><h2>Finding 4: Consolidate, productionize, and build in-house </h2><p><b>Three strategic moves are nearly tied for the year ahead</b></p><p>We asked what major change enterprises anticipate in their orchestration strategy over the next 12 months. Three moves cluster at the top, almost evenly split.</p><div></div><p>The top three — building in-house control (25%), standardizing on one framework (24%), and moving agents from sandbox to production (23%) — are statistically indistinguishable and tell a single story: enterprises are moving from experimentation to operational consolidation. They want fewer frameworks, more production exposure, and more ownership of the control layer; only 4% expect no change. The appetite for custom in-house control planes is notable alongside the platform concentration in Finding 1 — enterprises are standardizing on model-provider platforms while simultaneously planning to wrap them in control logic they own, the hybrid posture that Finding 6 makes explicit.</p><h2>Finding 5: Investment flows to workflow tooling</h2><p><b>Tooling and permissions lead the spend; monitoring trails</b></p><p>We asked which orchestration-related investment will grow most next year. Agent workflow tooling leads, with security and permissions enforcement behind.</p><div></div><p>Workflow tooling leading (34%) is the budget-side expression of the reliability-and-multi-step priority in Finding 3: the money is going to the machinery that strings steps together dependably. Security and permissions enforcement (25%) and scaling infrastructure (20%) follow — the investments required to take agents from sandbox into production, the strategic move in Finding 4. Monitoring and debugging draws a smaller 11%, with another 11% reporting flat budgets. The weight on tooling, permissions, and scaling over pure observability signals that enterprises are spending to build and harden orchestration, not merely to watch it run.</p><h2>Finding 6: The control plane will be hybrid — and lock-in is why</h2><p><b>Enterprises expect to split control between providers and their own layer</b></p><p>We asked where enterprises expect the primary control plane for agents to live by the end of 2026, and what worries them most if that control sits inside a model-provider platform. A clear majority expect a hybrid model — and vendor lock-in is the reason.</p><div></div><p>Hybrid control is the dominant expectation by a wide margin (51%), and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service outright. Read together, the hybrid, custom, and externally-abstracted options — every architecture that keeps control at least partly outside the provider — sum to 88% (89 of 101). The reason surfaces directly when we asked about the risk of provider-resident control: vendor lock-in leads at 35% (35 of 101), ahead of security and permissioning limitations (28%) and inflexibility across models and tools (21%). The pattern echoes the prior wave’s “don’t trust the model to police itself” posture — here, enterprises will build on a provider’s platform but decline to be governed entirely by it. The hybrid control plane is the architectural hedge against the lock-in they most fear.</p><p>The June figure asserting a preference for a hybrid control plane marks movement from earlier. In the April–May survey (n=145), only 34% expected a hybrid control plane, and a greater number (12%) expected to hand control fully to a provider-managed service. These two snapshots don’t yet measure a confirmed longitudinal trend — but the direction of the conversation is unambiguous: toward keeping control.</p><p>Lock-in is also a new arrival as a top concern. In the April–May wave, the leading concern was security and permissioning limitations (32%), with lock-in second at 24%; by June the two had traded places. The worry about provider platforms appears to be maturing from whether they can be secured to whether they can be replaced.</p><h2>Finding 7: The chatbot trap — most “agents” aren’t agents yet</h2><p><b>Enterprises admit most deployments are still chatbot wrappers</b></p><p>We asked enterprises to assess their portfolios honestly: what share of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows versus simple single-prompt chatbot wrappers. The answer is the defining finding of this wave.</p><div></div><p>This is the gap at the center of the report. Combining the bottom two bands, 71% of enterprises (72 of 101) say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are genuinely orchestrated — and just 10% (10 of 101) have crossed the halfway mark. The ambition documented in the earlier findings — model-provider platforms, reliability-first success metrics, production rollouts, a deliberate control architecture — runs well ahead of the deployed reality, which remains overwhelmingly single-prompt assistants dressed as agents. This is less a contradiction than a roadmap: the platforms, budgets, and strategies are being put in place precisely because the orchestrated portfolio is still so thin. The open question for later waves is how fast the reality closes on the ambition.</p><h2>Finding 8: Fiscal control is still reactive</h2><p><b>Only a minority can stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives</b></p><p>Finally, we asked how enterprises enforce fiscal control over agent token consumption — the risk that an autonomous loop exhausts a budget before anyone intervenes. Most rely on native caps or after-the-fact monitoring; real-time programmatic control is the exception.</p><div></div><p>More than a quarter of enterprises (27%) admit they have no real-time, programmatic way to stop an agent before a budget-breaking bill arrives — they learn of it from the logs afterward. Another 32% lean entirely on the native caps and throttles built into their primary platform, a control only as good as the provider’s tooling and one that ties back to the lock-in concern of Finding 6. The enterprises building custom gateways (23%) or exploiting cross-model routing to arbitrage cost (19%) are the ones treating token burn as an engineering problem to be controlled deterministically. As with orchestration maturity, fiscal control is an area where the operational reality lags the ambition: agents are moving toward production faster than the cost-control plane around them is being built.</p><p>It’s worth noting, a split appears according to company size: roughly one in three enterprises under 2,500 employees (34%) exercises only reactive control of agent spend, against 20% of larger enterprises — directional figures, but consistent with the chatbot-trap split. The mid-market is running the least mature agents on the least instrumented budgets.</p><h2>The bottom line: The layer is real; most of the agents aren&#x27;t yet</h2><p>Organizations with 100 or more employees describe an orchestration strategy that is consolidating quickly and maturing slowly. They are standardizing on model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads at 40% — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model, and they judge success by reliable multi-step execution. Investment is flowing to workflow tooling and permissions, the strategy is to consolidate frameworks and push agents into production, and the control plane they expect is deliberately hybrid, because vendor lock-in is the risk they fear most.</p><p>But the honest self-assessment punctures the ambition. Seventy-one percent say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are truly orchestrated, only 10% are past the halfway mark, and more than a quarter cannot stop a runaway agent in real time. The orchestration layer — the platforms, the budgets, the control architecture — is being built ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run. At 101 respondents in a single June wave this reads as a clear directional signal rather than a precise measurement: enterprises have decided how they want to orchestrate agents well before most of their agents are doing anything an orchestration layer is for. The question for subsequent waves is whether the deployed reality closes the gap on the ambition — or whether the chatbot trap proves stickier than the roadmap assumes.</p><hr/><p><i>Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, results read directionally rather than as a confirmed trend. Respondents include product and program managers, CIOs, CTOs and CISOs, consultants and advisors, and directors and VPs of data, AI, and engineering, across Technology/Software, Financial Services, Healthcare, and other sectors.</i></p>

Amid hardware legal battle, OpenAI releases a $230 keyboard for Codex

OpenAI, which is in the middle of a legal battle with Apple over hardware trade theft allegations, just released a light-up keyboard designed to be paired with its agentic coding app.

OpenAI's first branded hardware is... a light-up keyboard?

The Codex Micro is designed to monitor multiple agentic threads at a glance.

I let ChatGPT Work and Claude Cowork loose on my files - only one made me nervous

How does ChatGPT Work compare with Claude Cowork for desktop automation? My testing reveals similar results, similar strengths, and one major reason Claude currently feels considerably safer right now.

OpenAI Staffers Are Funding a Rival Super PAC to Take on Their Boss

OpenAI employees have donated more than $215,000 to a political effort opposing Leading the Future, a group backed by the company’s president, Greg Brockman.

OpenAI researcher Miles Wang in talks to launch AI drug discovery startup valued at $2B

Lightspeed is in discussions to lead the funding round, sources say.

OpenAI’s first hardware device is reportedly a screenless speaker that can move

OpenAI's first hardware device is reported to be a screenless, AI-guided smart speaker that can move. Weird enough for you?

OpenAI pushes back on Apple trade secret lawsuit

OpenAI has issued another statement on the lawsuit, this time suggesting it lacks merit.

OpenAI’s new flagship model deletes files on its own, people keep warning

A number of social media posts claim that GPT-5.6 Sol deleted files and data without warning. OpenAI had basically disclosed the problem in June.

Spotify expands its AI push with a ChatGPT-like music assistant

Spotify is rolling out a new AI-powered conversational feature that lets Premium subscribers chat with the app to discover music, podcasts, audiobooks, and more.

The Chatbot That Foretold Why People Share Secrets With ChatGPT

In the 1960s an MIT professor named Joseph Weizenbaum created a chatbot called ELIZA. The conversations people had with it set precedents for the chatbots to come.

Apple says former employee exploited ‘rare’ bug to download confidential files after leaving for OpenAI

Apple would not comment on the "security breach," which allegedly allowed a former employee to download sensitive files from Apple's network long after he departed the company for rival OpenAI.

Apple sues OpenAI after ex-engineer allegedly used bug to steal trade secrets

OpenAI accused of conspiring with former Apple employees to steal trade secrets.

The wildest allegations in Apple’s trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI

Apple’s trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI contains allegations that range from employees joking about unauthorized access to Apple’s systems to claims that job candidates were asked to bring Apple hardware to interviews. Here are the complaint’s most eye-catching claims.

I loved ChatGPT Desktop until OpenAI gutted it to make room for Codex and Work

OpenAI just merged the ChatGPT desktop app with Codex - and removed my favorite productivity features. What were they thinking?

Iran strikes, Lindsey Graham, Apple takes OpenAI to court and more in Morning Squawk

Here are five key things investors need to know to start the trading day.

Elon Musk and Sam Altman spar on X after Apple files OpenAI lawsuit

Sam Altman insisted that Elon Musk was again obsessed with him because of an OpenAI model release earlier this week.

OpenAI bets on families as ChatGPT goes deeper into households

ChatGPT is hiring a dedicated product manager to build experiences for families, caregivers, and older adults, according to a job posting.

OpenAI’s Head of Safety Is Leaving the Company

Johannes Heidecke’s departure comes as OpenAI tries to further integrate its research and safety teams.

Apple Is Suing OpenAI for Allegedly Stealing Hardware Secrets

The iPhone-maker claims OpenAI encouraged poached employees to bring over confidential presentations, secret prototypes, and key supplier details.

Apple sues OpenAI alleging trade secret theft, says scheme was 'at every level'

The two companies entered into a high-profile partnership in 2024 when ChatGPT was integrated into the iPhone's operating system.

Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft

Apple alleges the misconduct was directed by OpenAi's senior leadership, including a long-time former employee.

OpenAI power consolidates under co-founder Greg Brockman ahead of prospective IPO

With Fidji Simo's official departure from OpenAI due to a chronic medical issue, Greg Brockman's role has become clearer.

OpenAI says GPT 5.6 is the ‘preferred model’ for Microsoft Copilot 365 amid breakup chatter

OpenAI's new family of models will continue to power Microsoft's suite of workplace and productivity apps.

Fidji Simo steps down from OpenAI’s no. 2 role

OpenAI's No. 2 executive, Fidji Simo, is stepping down from her full-time role after her medical leave proved longer than expected — a leadership vacuum that comes at a tricky time as the company eyes a possible IPO and races to catch Anthropic in the enterprise market.

OpenAI exec Fidji Simo says she will step down and transition to part-time advisor

Simo stepped away from OpenAI in April for a medical leave.

OpenAI’s CEO of AGI Deployment, Fidji Simo, Is Stepping Down

The move comes after Simo took significant medical leave. She will stay on as a part-time adviser.

OpenAI launches its new family of models with GPT-5.6

OpenAI's latest family of models promise improvements across a range of areas, including cybersecurity.

OpenAI is shutting down Atlas, but its AI browser ambitions are still growing

OpenAI is sunsetting its AI-powered browser after less than a year. But it's moving some agentic browsing features to its desktop app and a Chrome extension. 

OpenAI wants its new tool to do your work for you and with you

Rebranded Codex promises independent workflows that can run "for hours if needed."

OpenAI's GPT-5.6 and ChatGPT Work aim to beat Anthropic on price, speed, and productivity

OpenAI's latest announcement looks like a lot more than a model upgrade.

New York Times says OpenAI hid evidence in ChatGPT copyright trial

News publishers say OpenAI hid tools and datasets that could identify copyrighted journalism in ChatGPT outputs, escalating their lawsuit with a new motion for sanctions.

OpenAI may have made a fatal misstep in copyright fight with news orgs

OpenAI may be sanctioned for hiding, deleting ChatGPT logs in NYT copyright fight.

I tested ChatGPT's Live Voice upgrade, and it almost felt human - how to try it

The latest GPT Live Voice models can listen, speak, and conduct online research all at the same time. Does it feel like you're talking with a real person? Almost.

How did the government decide OpenAI’s frontier model was safe to release?

"Exactly what that dialog looked like between the government and Anthropic and OpenAI is unclear."

OpenAI's newest AI model is 54% more token efficient on agentic coding, Altman tells CNBC

The company is rolling out GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna after an initial limited launch.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX are bigger than the last 25 years of tech exits

Three big AI IPOs are set to generate more value than all the U.S. VC-backed exits since 2000.

Meta jumps into AI coding market in effort to chase Anthropic and OpenAI

Meta is upgrading its Muse Spark artificial intelligence model under the leadership of AI chief Alexandr Wang.

This startup thinks robotics is about to have its ChatGPT moment

General Intuition is betting millions of hours of video game data can train the foundation models for physical AI, making it easier to build smarter robots with minimal real-world data.

OpenAI releases new voice models for more natural live conversations

OpenAI says its new voice mode can speak and listen at the same time, a key ability for live translation.

OpenAI to publicly release GPT-5.6 AI models, ending government-requested limits

OpenAI's chief rival, Anthropic, recently restored access to its latest models following a weeks-long clash with the government.

Former OpenAI exec Kevin Weil is now on the board of Stoke Space

Kevin Weil's new role at Stoke Space suggests reusable rockets are the next hot thing in Silicon Valley.

OpenAI secures U.S. regulatory green light for GPT-5.6 rollout, Axios report says