How cloud and AI transform and improve customer experiences

As AI technologies become increasingly mainstream, there’s mounting competitive pressure to transform traditional infrastructures and technology stacks. Traditional brick-and-mortar companies are finding cloud and data to be the foundational keys to unlocking their paths to digital transformation, and to competing in modern, AI-forward industry landscapes. 

In this exclusive webcast, experts discuss the building blocks for digital transformation, approaches for upskilling employees and putting digital processes in place, and data management best practices. The discussion also looks at what the near future holds and emphasizes the urgency for companies to transform now to stay relevant. 

Learn from the experts

  • Digital transformation, from the ground up, starts by moving infrastructure and data to the cloud
  • AI implementation requires a talent transformation at scale, across the organization
  • AI is a company-wide initiative—everyone in the company will become either an AI creator or consumer

Featured speakers

Mohammed Rafee Tarafdar, Chief Technology Officer, Infosys

Rafee is Infosys’s Chief Technology Officer. He is responsible for the technology vision and strategy, sensing & scaling emerging technologies, advising and partnering with clients to help them succeed in their AI transformation journey and building high technology talent density. He is leading the AI First transformation journey for Infosys and has implemented population and enterprise scale platforms. He is the co-author of “The Live Enterprise” book and has been recognized as a top 50 technology global leader by Forbes in 2023 and Top 25 Tech Wavemaker by Entrepreneur India magazine in 2024.

Sam Jaddi, Chief Information Officer, ADT

Sam Jaddi is the Chief Information Officer for ADT. With more than 26 years of experience in technology innovation, Sam has deep knowledge of the security and smart home industry. His team helps to drive ADT’s business platforms and processes to improve both customer and employee experiences in the future. Sam has helped set the technology strategy, vision and direction for the company’s Digital transformation. Prior to Sam’s role at ADT, he served as Chief Technology Officer at Stanley, overseeing the company’s new security division, leading global integration initiatives, IT strategy, transformation and international operations.

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

The business of the future is adaptive

Manufacturing is in a state of flux. From supply chain disruptions to rising costs, tougher environmental regulations, and a changing consumer market, the sector faces a series of competing challenges.

But a new way of operating offers a way to tackle complexities head-on: adaptive production hardwires flexibility and resilience into the enterprise, drawing on powerful tools like artificial intelligence, digital twins, and robotics. Taking automation a step further, adaptive production allows manufacturers to respond in real time to demand fluctuations, adapt to supply chain disruptions, and autonomously optimize operations. It also facilitates an unprecedented level of personalization and customization for regional markets.

Time to adapt

The journey to adaptive production is not just about addressing today’s pressures, like rising costs and supply chain disruptions—it’s about positioning businesses for long-term success in a world of constant change. “In the coming years,” says Jana Kirchheim, director of manufacturing for Microsoft Germany, “I expect that new key technologies like copilots, small language models, high-performance computing, or the adaptive cloud approach will revolutionize the shop floor and accelerate industrial automation by enabling faster adjustments and re-programming for specific tasks.” These capabilities make adaptive production a transformative force, enhancing responsiveness and opening doors to systems with increasing autonomy—designed to complement human ingenuity rather than replace it.

These advances enable more than technical upgrades—they drive fundamental shifts in how manufacturers operate. John Hart, professor of mechanical engineering and director of MIT’s Center for Advanced Production Technologies, explains that automation is “going from a rigid high-volume, low-mix focus”—where factories make large quantities of very few products—“to more flexible high-volume, high-mix, and low-volume, high-mix scenarios”—where many product types can be made in custom quantities. These new capabilities demand a fundamental shift in how value is created and captured.

Download the full report.

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

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

Enabling human-centric support with generative AI

It’s a stormy holiday weekend, and you’ve just received the last notification you want in the busiest travel week of the year: The first leg of your flight is significantly delayed.

You might expect this means you’ll be sitting on hold with airline customer service for half an hour. But this time, the process looks a little different: You have a brief text exchange with the airline’s AI chatbot, which quickly assesses your situation and places you in a priority queue. Shortly after, a human agent takes over, confirms the details, and gets you rebooked on an earlier flight so you can make your connection. You’ll be home in time to enjoy mom’s pot roast.

Generative AI is becoming a key component of business operations and customer service interactions today. According to Salesforce research, three out of five workers (61%) either currently use or plan to use generative AI in their roles. A full 68% of these employees are confident that the technology—which can churn out text, video, image, and audio content almost instantaneously—will enable them to provide more enriching customer experiences.

But the technology isn’t a complete solution—or a replacement for human workers. Sixty percent of the surveyed employees believe that human oversight is indispensable for effective and trustworthy generative AI.

Generative AI enables people and increases efficiencies in business operations, but using it to empower employees will make all the difference. Its full business value will only be achieved when it is used thoughtfully to blend with human empathy, ingenuity, and emotional intelligence.

Generative AI pilots across industries

Though the technology is still nascent, many generative AI use cases are starting to emerge.

In sales and marketing, generative AI can assist with creating targeted ad content, identifying leads, upselling, cross-selling, and providing real-time sales analytics. When used for internal functions like IT, HR, and finance, generative AI can improve help-desk services, simplify recruitment processes, generate job descriptions, assist with onboarding and exit processes, and even write code.

Download the full report.

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

Pairing live support with accurate AI outputs

A live agent spends hours each week manually documenting routine interactions. Another combs through multiple knowledge bases to find the right solution, scrambling to piece it together while the customer waits on hold. A third types out the same response they’ve written dozens of times before.

These repetitive tasks can be draining, leaving less time for meaningful customer interactions—but generative AI is changing this reality. By automating routine workflows, AI augments the efforts of live agents, freeing them to do what they do best: solving complex problems and applying human understanding and empathy to help customers during critical situations.

“Enterprises are trying to rush to figure out how to implement or incorporate generative AI into their business to gain efficiencies,” says Will Fritcher, deputy chief client officer at TP. “But instead of viewing AI as a way to reduce expenses, they should really be looking at it through the lens of enhancing the customer experience and driving value.”

Doing this requires solving two intertwined challenges: empowering live agents by automating routine tasks and ensuring AI outputs remain accurate, reliable, and precise. And the key to both these goals? Striking the right balance between technological innovation and human judgment.

A key role in customer support

Generative AI’s potential impact on customer support is twofold: Customers stand to benefit from faster, more consistent service for simple requests, while
also receiving undivided human attention for complex, emotionally charged situations. For employees, eliminating repetitive tasks boosts job satisfaction and reduces burnout.The tech can also be used to streamline customer support workflows and enhance service quality in various ways, including:

Automated routine inquiries: AI systems handle straightforward customer requests, like resetting passwords or checking account balances.

Real-time assistance: During interactions, AI pulls up contextually relevant resources, suggests responses, and guides live agents to solutions faster.

Fritcher notes that TP is relying on many of these capabilities in its customer support solutions. For instance, AI-powered coaching marries AI-driven metrics with human expertise to provide feedback on 100% of customer interactions, rather than the traditional 2%
to 4% that was monitored pre-generative AI.

Call summaries: By automatically documenting customer interactions, AI saves live agents valuable time that can be reinvested in customer care.

Download the full report.

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

The 8 worst technology failures of 2024

They say you learn more from failure than success. If so, this is the story for you: MIT Technology Review’s annual roll call of the biggest flops, flimflams, and fiascos in all domains of technology.

Some of the foul-ups were funny, like the “woke” AI which got Google in trouble after it drew Black Nazis. Some caused lawsuits, like a computer error by CrowdStrike that left thousands of Delta passengers stranded. We also reaped failures among startups that raced to expand from 2020 to 2022, a period of ultra-low interest rates. But then the economic winds shifted. Money wasn’t free anymore. The result? Bankruptcy and dissolution for companies whose ambitious technological projects, from vertical farms to carbon credits, hadn’t yet turned a profit and might never do so.

Read on.

Woke AI blunder

ai-generated image of a female pope

GOOGLE GEMINI VIA X.COM/END WOKENESS

People worry about bias creeping into AI. But what if you add bias on purpose? Thanks to Google, we know where that leads: Black Vikings and female popes.

Google’s Gemini AI image feature, launched last February, had been tuned to zealously showcase diversity, damn the history books. Ask Google for a picture of German soldiers from World War II, and it would create a Benetton ad in Wehrmacht uniforms. 

Critics pounced and Google beat an embarrassed retreat. It paused Gemini’s ability to draw people and agreed its well-intentioned effort to be inclusive had “missed the mark.” 

The free version of Gemini still won’t create images of people. But paid versions will. When we asked for an image of 12 CEOs of public biotech companies, the software produced a photographic-quality image of middle-aged white men. Less than ideal. But closer to the truth. 

More: Is Google’s Gemini chatbot woke by accident, or by design? (The Economist), Gemini image generation got it wrong. We’ll do better. (Google)


Boeing Starliner

Boeing CST-100 Starliner

THE BOEING COMPANY VIA NASA

Boeing, we have a problem. And it’s your long-delayed reusable spaceship, the Starliner, which stranded NASA astronauts Sunita “Suni” Williams and  Barry “Butch” Wilmore on the International Space Station.

The June mission was meant to be a quick eight-day round trip to test Starliner before it embarked on longer missions. But, plagued by helium leaks and thruster problems, it had to come back empty. 

Now Butch and Suni won’t return to Earth until 2025, when a craft from Boeing competitor SpaceX is scheduled to bring them home. 

Credit Boeing and NASA with putting safety first. But this wasn’t Boeing’s only malfunction during 2024. The company began the year with a door blowing off one of its planes midflight, faced a worker strike, agreed to a major fine for misleading the government about the safety of its 737 Max airplane (which made our 2019 list of worst technologies), and saw its CEO step down in March.

After the Starliner fiasco, Boeing fired the chief of its space and defense unit. “At this critical juncture, our priority is to restore the trust of our customers and meet the high standards they expect of us to enable their critical missions around the world,” Boeing’s new CEO, Kelly Ortberg, said in a memo.

More: Boeing’s beleaguered space capsule is heading back to Earth without two NASA astronauts (NY Post), Boeing’s space and defense chief exits in new CEO’s first executive move (Reuters), CST-100 Starliner (Boeing)


CrowdStrike outage

MITTR / ENVATO

The motto of the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike is “We stop breaches.” And it’s true: No one can breach your computer if you can’t turn it on.

That’s exactly what happened to many people on July 19, when thousands of Windows computers at airlines, TV stations, and hospitals started displaying the “blue screen of death.” 

The cause wasn’t hackers or ransomware. Instead, those computers were stuck in a boot loop because of a bad update shipped by CrowdStrike itself. CEO George Kurtz jumped on X to say the “issue” had been identified as a “defect” in a single computer file.

So who is liable? CrowdStrike customer Delta Airlines, which canceled 7,000 flights, is suing for $500 million. It alleges that the security firm caused a “global catastrophe” when it took “uncertified and untested shortcuts.” 

CrowdStrike countersued. It says Delta’s management is to blame for its troubles and that the airline is due little more than a refund. 

More: “Crowdstrike is working with customers(George Kurtz), How to fix a Windows PC affected by the global outage (MIT Technology Review), Delta Sues CrowdStrike Over July Operations Meltdown (WSJ)


Vertical farms

a blighted brown leaf of lettuce

MITTR / ENVATO

Grow lettuce in buildings using robots, hydroponics, and LED lights. That’s what Bowery, a “vertical farming” startup, raised over $700 million to do. But in November, Bowery went bust, making it the biggest startup failure of the year, according to the business analytics firm CB Insights. 

Bowery claimed that vertical farms were “100 times more productive” per square foot than traditional farms, since racks of plants could be stacked 40 feet high. In reality, the company’s lettuce was more expensive, and when a stubborn plant infection spread through its East Coast facilities, Bowery had trouble delivering the green stuff at any price.

More: How a leaf-eating pathogen, failed deals brought down Bowery Farming (Pitchbook), Vertical farming “unicorn” Bowery to shut down (Axios)


Exploding pagers

an explosion behind a pager

MITTR / ADOBE STOCK

They beeped, and then they blew up. Across Lebanon, fingers and faces were shredded in what was called Israel’s “surprise opening blow in an all-out war to try to cripple Hezbollah.” 

The deadly attack was diabolically clever. Israel set up shell companies that sold thousands of pagers packed with explosives to the Islamic faction, which was already worried that its phones were being spied on. 

A coup for Israel’s spies. But was it a war crime? A 1996 treaty prohibits intentionally manufacturing “apparently harmless objects” designed to explode. The New York Times says nine-year-old Fatima Abdullah died when her father’s booby-trapped beeper chimed and she raced to take it to him.

More: Israel conducted Lebanon pager attack… (Axios), A 9-Year-Old Girl Killed in Pager Attack Is Mourned in Lebanon (New York Times), Did Israel break international law? (Middle East Eye)


23andMe

The 23 and me logo protruding from a cardboard box of desk items held by an office worker.

MITTR / ADOBE STOCK

The company that pioneered direct-to-consumer gene testing is sinking fast. Its stock price is going toward zero, and a plan to create valuable drugs is kaput after that team got pink slips this November.

23andMe always had a celebrity aura, bathing in good press. Now, though, the press is all bad. It’s a troubled company in the grip of a controlling founder, Anne Wojcicki, after its independent directors resigned en masse this September. Customers are starting to worry about what’s going to happen to their DNA data if 23andMe goes under.

23andMe says it created “the world’s largest crowdsourced platform for genetic research.” That’s true. It just never figured out how to turn a profit. 

More:  23andMe’s fall from $6 billion to nearly $0 (Wall Street Journal), How to…delete your 23andMe data (MIT Technology Review), 23andMe Financial Report, November 2024 (23andMe)


AI slop

ai-generated image of a representation of Jesus with outspread arms and body composed of shrimp parts

AUTHOR UNKNOWN VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

Slop is the scraps and leftovers that pigs eat. “AI slop” is what you and I are increasingly consuming online now that people are flooding the internet with computer-generated text and pictures.  

AI slop is “dubious,” says the New York Times, and “dadaist,” according to Wired. It’s frequently weird, like Shrimp Jesus (don’t ask if you don’t know), or deceptive, like the picture of a shivering girl in a rowboat, supposedly showing the US government’s poor response to Hurricane Helene.

AI slop is often entertaining. AI slop is usually a waste of your time. AI slop is not fact-checked. AI slop exists mostly to get clicks. AI slop is that blue-check account on X posting 10-part threads on how great AI is—threads that were written by AI. 

Most of all, AI slop is very, very common. This year, researchers claimed that about half the long posts on LinkedIn and Medium were partly AI-generated.

More: First came ‘Spam.’ Now, With A.I., We’ve got ‘Slop’ (New York Times), AI Slop Is Flooding Medium (Wired)


Voluntary carbon markets

a spindly tree with a cloud of emissions hovering around it

MITTR / ENVATO

Your business creates emissions that contribute to global warming. So why not pay to have some trees planted or buy a more efficient cookstove for someone in Central America? Then you could reach net-zero emissions and help save the planet.

Neat idea, but good intentions aren’t enough. This year the carbon marketplace Nori shut down, and so did Running Tide, a firm trying to sink carbon into the ocean. “The problem is the voluntary carbon market is voluntary,” Running Tide’s CEO wrote in a farewell post, citing a lack of demand.

While companies like to blame low demand, it’s not the only issue. Sketchy technology, questionable credits, and make-believe offsets have created a credibility problem in carbon markets. In October, US prosecutors charged two men in a $100 million scheme involving the sale of nonexistent emissions savings. 

More: The growing signs of trouble for global carbon markets (MIT Technology Review), Running Tide’s ill-fated adventure in ocean carbon removal (Canary Media), Ex-carbon offsetting boss charged in New York with multimillion-dollar fraud (The Guardian) 

Delivering the next-generation barcode

The world’s first barcode, designed in 1948, took more than 25 years to make it out of the lab and onto a retail package. Since then, the barcode has done much more than make grocery checkouts faster—it has remade our understanding of how physical objects can be identified and tracked, creating a new pace and set of expectations for the speed and reliability of modern commerce.

Nearly eighty years later, a new iteration of that technology, which encodes data in two dimensions, is poised to take the stage. Today’s 2D barcode is not only out of the lab but “open to a world of possibility,” says Carrie Wilkie, senior vice president of standards and technology at GS1 US.

2D barcodes encode substantially more information than their 1D counterparts. This enables them to link physical objects to a wide array of digital resources. For consumers, 2D barcodes can provide a wealth of product information, from food allergens, expiration dates, and safety recalls to detailed medication use instructions, coupons, and product offers. For businesses, 2D barcodes can enhance operational efficiencies, create traceability at the lot or item level, and drive new forms of customer engagement.

An array of 2D barcode types supports the information needs of a variety of industries. The GS1 DataMatrix, for example, is used on medication or medical devices, encoding expiration dates, batch and lot numbers, and FDA National Drug Codes. The QR Code is familiar to consumers who have used one to open a website from their phone. Adding a GS1 Digital Link URI to a QR Code enables it to serve two purposes: as both a traditional barcode for supply chain operations, enabling tracking throughout the supply chain and price lookup at checkout, and also as a consumer-facing link to digital information, like expiry dates and serial numbers.

Regardless of type, however, all 2D barcodes require a business ecosystem backed by data. To capture new value from advanced barcodes, organizations must supply and manage clean, accurate, and interoperable data around their products and materials. For 2D barcodes to deliver on their potential, businesses will need to collaborate with partners, suppliers, and customers and commit to common data standards across the value chain.

Driving the demand for 2D barcodes

Shifting to 2D barcodes—and enabling the data ecosystems behind them—will require investment by business. Consumer engagement, compliance, and sustainability are among the many factors driving this transition.

Real-time consumer engagement: Today’s customers want to feel connected to the brands they interact with and purchase from. Information is a key element of that engagement and empowerment. “When I think about customer satisfaction,” says Leslie Hand, group vice president for IDC Retail Insights, “I’m thinking about how I can provide more information that allows them to make better decisions about their own lives and the things they buy.”

2D barcodes can help by connecting consumers to online content in real time. “If, by using a 2D barcode, you have the capability to connect to a consumer in a specific region, or a specific store, and you have the ability to provide information to that consumer about the specific product in their hand, that can be a really powerful consumer engagement tool,” says Dan Hardy, director of customer operations for HanesBrands, Inc. “2D barcodes can bring brand and product connectivity directly to an individual consumer, and create an interaction that supports your brand message at an individual consumer/product level.”

Download the full report.

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

AI search could break the web

In late October, News Corp filed a lawsuit against Perplexity AI, a popular AI search engine. At first glance, this might seem unremarkable. After all, the lawsuit joins more than two dozen similar cases seeking credit, consent, or compensation for the use of data by AI developers. Yet this particular dispute is different, and it might be the most consequential of them all.

At stake is the future of AI search—that is, chatbots that summarize information from across the web. If their growing popularity is any indication, these AI “answer engines” could replace traditional search engines as our default gateway to the internet. While ordinary AI chatbots can reproduce—often unreliably—information learned through training, AI search tools like Perplexity, Google’s Gemini, or OpenAI’s now-public SearchGPT aim to retrieve and repackage information from third-party websites. They return a short digest to users along with links to a handful of sources, ranging from research papers to Wikipedia articles and YouTube transcripts. The AI system does the reading and writing, but the information comes from outside.

At its best, AI search can better infer a user’s intent, amplify quality content, and synthesize information from diverse sources. But if AI search becomes our primary portal to the web, it threatens to disrupt an already precarious digital economy. Today, the production of content online depends on a fragile set of incentives tied to virtual foot traffic: ads, subscriptions, donations, sales, or brand exposure. By shielding the web behind an all-knowing chatbot, AI search could deprive creators of the visits and “eyeballs” they need to survive. 

If AI search breaks up this ecosystem, existing law is unlikely to help. Governments already believe that content is falling through cracks in the legal system, and they are learning to regulate the flow of value across the web in other ways. The AI industry should use this narrow window of opportunity to build a smarter content marketplace before governments fall back on interventions that are ineffective, benefit only a select few, or hamper the free flow of ideas across the web.

Copyright isn’t the answer to AI search disruption

News Corp argues that using its content to extract information for AI search amounts to copyright infringement, claiming that Perplexity AI “compete[s] for readers while simultaneously freeriding” on publishers.That sentiment is likely shared by the New York Times, which sent a cease-and-desist letter to Perplexity AI in mid-October.

In some respects, the case against AI search is stronger than other cases that involve AI training. In training, content has the biggest impact when it is unexceptional and repetitive; an AI model learns generalizable behaviors by observing recurring patterns in vast data sets, and the contribution of any single piece of content is limited. In search, content has the most impact when it is novel or distinctive, or when the creator is uniquely authoritative. By design, AI search aims to reproduce specific features from that underlying data, invoke the credentials of the original creator, and stand in place of the original content. 

Even so, News Corp faces an uphill battle to prove that Perplexity AI infringes copyright when it processes and summarizes information. Copyright doesn’t protect mere facts, or the creative, journalistic, and academic labor needed to produce them. US courts have historically favored tech defendants who use content for sufficiently transformative purposes, and this pattern seems likely to continue. And if News Corp were to succeed, the implications would extend far beyond Perplexity AI. Restricting the use of information-rich content for noncreative or nonexpressive purposes could limit access to abundant, diverse, and high-quality data, hindering wider efforts to improve the safety and reliability of AI systems. 

Governments are learning to regulate the distribution of value online

If existing law is unable to resolve these challenges, governments may look to new laws. Emboldened by recent disputes with traditional search and social media platforms, governments could pursue aggressive reforms modeled on the media bargaining codes enacted in Australia and Canada or proposed in California and the US Congress. These reforms compel designated platforms to pay certain media organizations for displaying their content, such as in news snippets or knowledge panels. The EU imposed similar obligations through copyright reform, while the UK has introduced broad competition powers that could be used to enforce bargaining. 

In short, governments have shown they are willing to regulate the flow of value between content producers and content aggregators, abandoning their traditional reluctance to interfere with the internet.

However, mandatory bargaining is a blunt solution for a complex problem. These reforms favor a narrow class of news organizations, operating on the assumption that platforms like Google and Meta exploit publishers. In practice, it’s unclear how much of their platform traffic is truly attributable to news, with estimates ranging from 2% to 35% of search queries and just 3% of social media feeds. At the same time, platforms offer significant benefit to publishers by amplifying their content, and there is little consensus about the fair apportionment of this two-way value. Controversially, the four bargaining codes regulate simply indexing or linking to news content, not just reproducing it. This threatens the “ability to link freely” that underpins the web. Moreover, bargaining rules focused on legacy media—just 1,400 publications in Canada, 1,500 in the EU, and 62 organizations in Australia—ignore countless everyday creators and users who contribute the posts, blogs, images, videos, podcasts, and comments that drive platform traffic.

Yet for all its pitfalls, mandatory bargaining may become an attractive response to AI search. For one thing, the case is stronger. Unlike traditional search—which indexes, links, and displays brief snippets from sources to help a user decide whether to click through—AI search could directly substitute generated summaries for the underlying source material, potentially draining traffic, eyeballs, and exposure from downstream websites. More than a third of Google sessions end without a click, and the proportion is likely to be significantly higher in AI search. AI search also simplifies the economic calculus: Since only a few sources contribute to each response, platforms—and arbitrators—can more accurately track how much specific creators drive engagement and revenue.  

Ultimately, the devil is in the details. Well-meaning but poorly designed mandatory bargaining rules might do little to fix the problem, protect only a select few, and potentially cripple the free exchange of information across the web. 

Industry has a narrow window to build a fairer reward system

However, the mere threat of intervention could have a bigger impact than actual reform. AI firms quietly recognize the risk that litigation will escalate into regulation. For example, Perplexity AI, OpenAI, and Google are already striking deals with publishers and content platforms, some covering AI training and others focusing on AI search. But like early bargaining laws, these agreements benefit only a handful of firms, some of which (such as Reddit) haven’t yet committed to sharing that revenue with their own creators. 

This policy of selective appeasement is untenable. It neglects the vast majority of creators online, who cannot readily opt out of AI search and who do not have the bargaining power of a legacy publisher. It takes the urgency out of reform by mollifying the loudest critics. It legitimizes a few AI firms through confidential and intricate commercial deals, making it difficult for new entrants to obtain equal terms or equal indemnity and potentially entrenching a new wave of search monopolists. In the long term, it could create perverse incentives for AI firms to favor low-cost and low-quality sources over high-quality but more expensive news or content, fostering a culture of uncritical information consumption in the process.

Instead, the AI industry should invest in frameworks that reward creators of all kinds for sharing valuable content. From YouTube to TikTok to X, tech platforms have proven they can administer novel rewards for distributed creators in complex content marketplaces. Indeed, fairer monetization of everyday content is a core objective of the “web3” movement celebrated by venture capitalists. The same reasoning carries over to AI search. If queries yield lucrative engagement but users don’t click through to sources, commercial AI search platforms should find ways to attribute that value to creators and share it back at scale.

Of course, it’s possible that our digital economy was broken from the start. Subsistence on trickle-down ad revenue may be unsustainable, and the attention economy has inflicted real harm to privacy, integrity, and democracy online. Supporting quality news and fresh content may require other forms of investment or incentives. 

But we shouldn’t give up on the prospect of a fairer digital economy. If anything, while AI search makes content bargaining more urgent, it also makes it more feasible than ever before. AI pioneers should seize this opportunity to lay the foundations for a smart, equitable, and scalable reward system. If they don’t, governments now have the frameworks—and confidence—to impose their own vision of shared value.

Benjamin Brooks is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard scrutinizing the regulatory and legislative response to AI. He previously led public policy for Stability AI, a developer of open models for image, language, audio, and video generation. His views do not necessarily represent those of any affiliated organization, past or present. 

Avoiding value decay in digital transformation

Mission-critical digital transformation projects too often end with a whimper rather than a bang. An estimated three-quarters of corporate transformation efforts fail to deliver their intended return on investment.

Given the rapidly evolving technology landscape, companies often struggle to deliver short-term results while simultaneously reinventing the organization and keeping the business running day-to-day. Post-implementation, some companies cannot even perform basic functions like processing orders efficiently or closing the books quickly at the end of a quarter. The problem: Leaders often fail to consider how to sustain value creation over time as programs scale from the pilot phase to wide-scale execution.

“Most implementations are viewed as IT projects,” says Tim Hertzig, a principal in Deloitte’s Technology practice and global product owner of Deloitte’s Ascend digital transformation solution. “These projects fail to achieve the value they initially aspire to, because they don’t factor in change management that ensures adoption and they don’t consider industry-leading practices.”’

Technology rarely drives value alone, according to Kristi Kaplan, Deloitte principal and US executive sponsor of Deloitte’s Ascend platform. “Rather it’s how technology is implemented and adopted in an organization that actually creates the value,” she says. To deliver business results that gain momentum rather than fade away, executives need a long-term transformation plan.

According to Deloitte’s analysis, the right combination of digital transformation actions can unlock as much as $1.25 trillion in additional market capitalization across all Fortune 500 companies. On the other hand, implementing digital change for its own sake without a strategy and technology-aligned investments—“random acts of digital”—could cost firms $1.5 trillion.

Best practices for implementation

To unlock this potential value, there are a number of best practices leading companies use to design and execute digital transformations successfully, Deloitte has found. Three stand out:

Ensure inclusive governance: Project governance needs to span business, HR, finance, and IT stakeholders, creating transparency in reporting and decision-making to maintain forward momentum. Successful projects are jointly owned; all executives understand where they are in the project lifecycle and what decisions need to be made to keep the program moving.

“Where that transparency doesn’t exist, or where all the stakeholders are not at the table and do not feel ownership in these programs, the result can be an IT organization that’s driving what truly needs to be a business transformation,” says Kaplan. “When business leaders fail to own things like change management, technology adoption, and organizational retraining, the risk profile goes way up.”

“Executives need the assurance and the visibility that the ROI of their technology investments is being realized, and when there are risks, they need transparency before problems grow into full blown issues,” Hertzig adds. “That transparency becomes embedded into the governance rhythms of an organization.”

Download the full report.

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

Readying business for the age of AI

Rapid advancements in AI technology offer unprecedented opportunities to enhance business operations, customer and employee engagement, and decision-making. Executives are eager to see the potential of AI realized. Among 100 c-suite respondents polled in WNS Analytics’ “The Future of Enterprise Data & AI” report, 76% say they are already implementing or planning to implement generative AI solutions. Among those same leaders, however, 67% report struggling with data migration, and others cite grappling with data quality, talent shortages, and data democratization issues. 

MIT Technology Review Insights recently had a conversation with Alex Sidgreaves, chief data officer at Zurich Insurance; Bogdan Szostek, chief data officer at Animal Friends; Shan Lodh, director of data platforms at Shawbrook Bank; and Gautam Singh, head of data, analytics, and AI at WNS Analytics, to discuss how enterprises can navigate the burgeoning era of AI.

AI across industries

There is no shortage of AI use cases across sectors. Retailers are tailoring shopping experiences to individual preferences by leveraging customer behavior data and advanced machine learning models. Traditional AI models can deliver personalized offerings. However, with generative AI, these personalized offerings are elevated by incorporating tailored communication that considers the customer’s persona, behavior, and past interactions. In insurance, by leveraging generative AI, companies can identify subrogation recovery opportunities that a manual handler might overlook, enhancing efficiency and maximizing recovery potential. Banking and financial services institutions are leveraging AI to bolster customer due diligence and enhance anti-money laundering efforts by leveraging AI-driven credit risk management practices. AI technologies are enhancing diagnostic accuracy through sophisticated image recognition in radiology, allowing for earlier and more precise detection of diseases while predictive analytics enable personalized treatment plans.

The core of successful AI implementation lies in understanding its business value, building a robust data foundation, aligning with the strategic goals of the organization, and infusing skilled expertise across every level of an enterprise.

  • “I think we should also be asking ourselves, if we do succeed, what are we going to stop doing? Because when we empower colleagues through AI, we are giving them new capabilities [and] faster, quicker, leaner ways of doing things. So we need to be true to even thinking about the org design. Oftentimes, an AI program doesn’t work, not because the technology doesn’t work, but the downstream business processes or the organizational structures are still kept as before.” Shan Lodh, director of data platforms, Shawbrook Bank

Whether automating routine tasks, enhancing customer experiences, or providing deeper insights through data analysis, it’s essential to define what AI can do for an enterprise in specific terms. AI’s popularity and broad promises are not good enough reasons to jump headfirst into enterprise-wide adoption. 

“AI projects should come from a value-led position rather than being led by technology,” says Sidgreaves. “The key is to always ensure you know what value you’re bringing to the business or to the customer with the AI. And actually always ask yourself the question, do we even need AI to solve that problem?”

Having a good technology partner is crucial to ensure that value is realized. Gautam Singh, head of data, analytics, and AI at WNS, says, “At WNS Analytics, we keep clients’ organizational goals at the center. We have focused and strengthened around core productized services that go deep in generating value for our clients.” Singh explains their approach, “We do this by leveraging our unique AI and human interaction approach to develop custom services and deliver differentiated outcomes.”

The foundation of any advanced technology adoption is data and AI is no exception. Singh explains, “Advanced technologies like AI and generative AI may not always be the right choice, and hence we work with our clients to understand the need, to develop the right solution for each situation.” With increasingly large and complex data volumes, effectively managing and modernizing data infrastructure is essential to provide the basis for AI tools. 

This means breaking down silos and maximizing AI’s impact involves regular communication and collaboration across departments from marketing teams working with data scientists to understand customer behavior patterns to IT teams ensuring their infrastructure supports AI initiatives. 

  • “I would emphasize the growing customer’s expectations in terms of what they expect our businesses to offer them and to provide us a quality and speed of service. At Animal Friends, we see the generative AI potential to be the biggest with sophisticated chatbots and voice bots that can serve our customers 24/7 and deliver the right level of service, and being cost effective for our customers. Bogdan Szostek, chief data officer, Animal Friends

Investing in domain experts with insight into the regulations, operations, and industry practices is just as necessary in the success of deploying AI systems as the right data foundations and strategy. Continuous training and upskilling are essential to keep pace with evolving AI technologies.

Ensuring AI trust and transparency

Creating trust in generative AI implementation requires the same mechanisms employed for all emerging technologies: accountability, security, and ethical standards. Being transparent about how AI systems are used, the data they rely on, and the decision-making processes they employ can go a long way in forging trust among stakeholders. In fact, The Future of Enterprise Data & AI report cites 55% of organizations identify “building trust in AI systems among stakeholders” as the biggest challenge when scaling AI initiatives. 

“We need talent, we need communication, we need the ethical framework, we need very good data, and so on,” says Lodh. “Those things don’t really go away. In fact, they become even more necessary for generative AI, but of course the usages are more varied.” 

AI should augment human decision-making and business workflows. Guardrails with human oversight ensure that enterprise teams have access to AI tools but are in control of high-risk and high-value decisions.

“Bias in AI can creep in from almost anywhere and will do so unless you’re extremely careful. Challenges come into three buckets. You’ve got privacy challenges, data quality, completeness challenges, and then really training AI systems on data that’s biased, which is easily done,” says Sidgreaves. She emphasizes it is vital to ensure that data is up-to-date, accurate, and clean. High-quality data enhances the reliability and performance of AI models. Regular audits and data quality checks can help maintain the integrity of data.

An agile approach to AI implementation

ROI is always top of mind for business leaders looking to cash in on the promised potential of AI systems. As technology continues to evolve rapidly and the potential use cases of AI grow, starting small, creating measurable benchmarks, and adopting an agile approach can ensure success in scaling solutions. By starting with pilot projects and scaling successful initiatives, companies can manage risks and optimize resources. Sidgreaves, Szostek, and Lodh stress that while it may be tempting to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, accessing the greatest returns from expanding AI tools means remaining flexible, strategic, and iterative. 

In insurance, two areas where AI has a significant ROI impact are risk and operational efficiency. Sidgreaves underscores that reducing manual processes is essential for large, heritage organizations, and generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing this aspect by significantly diminishing the need for manual activities.

To illustrate her point, she cites a specific example: “Consider the task of reviewing and drafting policy wording. Traditionally, this process would take an individual up to four weeks. However, with LLMs, this same task can now be completed in a matter of seconds.”  

Lodh adds that establishing ROI at the project’s onset and implementing cross-functional metrics are crucial for capturing a comprehensive view of a project’s impact. For instance, using LLMs for writing code is a great example of how IT and information security teams can collaborate. By assessing the quality of static code analysis generated by LLMs, these teams can ensure that the code meets security and performance standards.

“It’s very hard because technology is changing so quickly,” says Szostek. “We need to truly apply an agile approach, do not try to prescribe all the elements of the future deliveries in 12, 18, 24 months. We have to test and learn and iterate, and also fail fast if that’s needed.” 

Navigating the future of the AI era 

The rapid evolution of the digital age continues to bring immense opportunities for enterprises globally from the c-suite to the factory floor. With no shortage of use cases and promises to boost efficiencies, drive innovation, and improve customer and employee experiences, few business leaders dismiss the proliferation of AI as mere hype. However, the successful and responsible implementation of AI requires a careful balance of strategy, transparency, and robust data privacy and security measures.

  • “It’s really easy as technology people to be driven by the next core thing, but we would have to be solving a business problem. So the key is to always ensure you know what value you’re bringing to the business or to the customer with the AI. And actually always ask yourself the question, do we even need AI to solve that problem?” — Alex Sidgreaves, chief data officer, Zurich Insurance

Fully harnessing the power of AI while maintaining trust means defining clear business values, ensuring accountability, managing data privacy, balancing innovation with ethical use, and staying ahead of future trends. Enterprises must remain vigilant and adaptable, committed to ethical practices and an agile approach to thrive in this rapidly changing business landscape.

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

The US physics community is not done working on trust

In April 2024, Nature released detailed information about investigations into claims made by Ranga Dias, a physicist at the University of Rochester, in two high-profile papers the journal had published about the discovery of room-temperature superconductivity. Those two papers, which showed evidence of fabricated data, were eventually retracted, along with other papers from the Dias group on related physics, including one in Physical Review Letters

This work made it into top journals because reviewers are used to being able to trust that data have not been so completely manipulated, and Dias’s experiments required very high pressures that other labs could not easily replicate. One natural reaction from the physics community would be “How could we ever have let this happen?” But another should be “Here we go again!” 

Alas, a pattern of similar behavior has been known for at least two decades. The history of such deceptions led the American Physical Society (APS) to study occurrences of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and harassment, and to create structures to address the issue. The APS work helped solidify community standards, but ethical violations are still a critical problem. 

Back in 2003, in response to two high-profile cases of premeditated fraud in physics, one of them remarkably similar to the cases being discussed now, the APS created a Task Force on Ethics. It conducted surveys to learn about the kind of ethics training physics researchers receive, and to determine the community’s awareness of a variety of ethics issues. The most compelling responses came from a survey of APS “junior members” (those who had earned their PhD in the previous three years). Approximately 50% of these members responded, illustrating tremendous concern about a number of ethics violations they had either observed or been forced to participate in. A 2004 Physics Today article that presented the survey data showed the types of ethics violations reported, including instances of data fabrication, fraud, and plagiarism (the federal definition of research misconduct). It also brought to light serious accusations of bullying and sexual harassment. The survey data revealed that ethics education was casual at best. 

Following the publication of the survey results and many discussions within the physics community, the APS issued an ethics statement focused on respectful treatment of subordinates. It also charged a task force with improving resources for ethics education, resulting in a collection of physics-centric case studies to facilitate training and discussion on ethical matters. And together with the scientific community, the APS’s journals established an explicit focus on publication ethics. 

In 2018 the APS updated and consolidated its ethics statements and expanded the scope of ethical misbehaviors to include harassment, sexual misconduct, conflicts of commitment, and misuse of public funds. The resulting Ethics Guidelines were adopted by the APS Council in 2019, and at the same time a standing Ethics Committee was established to monitor ethics issues in the physics community. Continuing its focus on education, the APS collaborated with the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) to develop additional materials. The online guide Effective Practices for Physics Programs (known as EP3) is an excellent resource, designed to facilitate efforts by departments and other groups to educate our community through discussions. We particularly recommend the chapter titled “Guide to Ethics.” The APS has joined the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers to combat the threat posed by paper mills

What sort of impact have these actions had? In 2020, the APS Ethics Committee, in partnership with the Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics, conducted two additional surveys, described in 2023 and 2024 articles in Physics Today. One targeted early-career members (those who had earned their PhD within the previous five years) and graduate students for comparison to the 2004 survey results, and the other focused on physics department chairs in the US. The surveys showed that ethics education in physics departments had improved in the intervening 15 years, but that bullying and sexual harassment were still problems for a number of members. Importantly, most cases of ethical violations experienced or observed by this group go unreported, for fear of inaction or reprisals. When the results of the two surveys were compared, clear differences emerged between the perspectives of department chairs and those of students and postdocs on the extent of ethical violations and the best way to deliver ethics training.

These surveys showed that improved education alone is not enough to sustain a culture of ethics in physics. They uncovered suggestive patterns to explain why some complaints about ethical violations are reported and resolved but most are not. The main reason young scientists keep quiet about fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or harassment is that they fear complaints will destroy their careers while the perpetrators go untouched. In cases that were resolved, there were people that those with complaints trusted well enough to share their concerns, and those people in turn had enough power and connections to follow through and find a resolution. We call this a trust network. Key figures in a trust network could be an associate chair, an ombudsperson, or a faculty member. These people take it on themselves to listen to concerns, whoever raises them, and bring them to the institution’s attention. Indeed, similar networks would be highly valuable in any institution that employs professional scientists for research and development, since unethical behavior can happen anywhere. How to create and nurture such networks is a matter that needs more attention. 

Just as reviewers and journal editors need to be able to trust that data in a paper are not fabricated or falsified, all participants in the scientific enterprise need to be able to trust that their institutions fully support them as ethical people. Ranga Dias’s graduate students had worries about data quality early on but were caught in a power dynamic. Problems might have been recognized earlier if the students had been able to be fully engaged in the institutional response.

Fostering trust networks and continuing to use education to build an understanding of all the nuances involved in ethical decision-making are powerful tools to reinforce ethical behavior. We need to ingrain them as deeply as technical expertise.

Frances Houle is a senior scientist in the Chemical Sciences and Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging Divisions at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and was chair of the APS Ethics Committee in 2021. 

Kate Kirby is chief executive officer emerita of the APS and senior physicist (retired) and former associate director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Laura Greene is the chief scientist of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, the Marie Krafft Professor of Physics at Florida State University, and the 2017 APS president. She presently serves on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 

Michael Marder is professor of physics, director of the Center for Nonlinear Dynamics, and executive director of UTeach at the University of Texas at Austin and was the founding chair of the APS Ethics Committee, serving in 2019 and 2020.