Agregátor RSS

The newest member of the corporate workforce never sleeps, never asks for a raise, and can be cloned before lunch. It can also confidently make the wrong decision thousands of times before anyone notices.

That helps explain why some technology leaders have started talking about AI agents as employees, co-workers, or interns rather than software. Once an agent can update records, issue refunds, send communications, or act across multiple enterprise systems, deploying it no longer looks much like installing another application.

Recent Harvard Business Review articles have pushed that analogy further. One argues that agents should be treated like a new workforce, with defined roles, authority, sources of truth, supervision, and audit trails. Another recommends giving agents names and job descriptions, onboarding them, evaluating their performance, and increasing their responsibilities after they prove themselves.

But there is a catch: People may start believing the metaphor.

A separate HBR study of 1,261 managers found that when AI was framed as an employee rather than a tool, managers with experience working around AI agents took less personal responsibility for results and assigned more responsibility to the AI. They also escalated more problems and caught fewer errors. In the study, 31% of respondents said their companies already framed AI as a teammate or employee, while 23% said agents appeared on organizational or work charts.

For IT leaders, the answer may therefore be to borrow freely from the employee-management playbook — without extending the metaphor too far.

Don’t put software on the org chart

Amy Loomis, group vice president at IDC, draws a hard line around one word: responsibility.

Humans, she says, have obligations to their companies and to one another, and they bring an understanding of corporate culture and values that an agent can mimic linguistically without possessing.

That makes calling an agent a co-worker potentially more than harmless anthropomorphism. The label suggests a peer relationship and can encourage people to cede judgment to a system that’s very good at giving what was requested, Loomis says, but not necessarily at recognizing what was actually needed.

“Accountability is something that has qualities associated with it that are uniquely human,” she says. “Agents may be given permission to access data, but the accountability for what they do with that access lies with the person who gave the agent access, not the agent itself.”

That distinction still leaves plenty to borrow from employee management. It makes sense to give an agent traceable access and tightly scoped permissions — and to institute a kill switch to prevent the agent from having continued access. But Loomis finds it more effective to think in terms of giving an agent an operations charter rather than a human identity: define what the system does, what it may access, and what humans remain responsible for.

In other words, give the agent a security badge. Just don’t put its picture on it.

The employee metaphor has a job to do

Raja Iqbal, founder of agentic AI governance company Ejento AI and co-author of the HBR article “To Scale AI Agents Successfully, Think of Them Like Team Members,” is closer to Loomis than the headline suggests.

Iqbal says the metaphor is intended to put CIOs, CISOs, and other technology leaders into the right “cognitive posture.” Thinking about an agent as a team member, he argues, can remind an enterprise to impose familiar management disciplines: a unique identity, clear human oversight, defined authority, spending limits, approved information sources, and an audit trail.

If another term produces the same discipline, he’s fine with that too.

In fact, Iqbal explicitly rejects synthetic employees with human personas and seats on the org chart. That creates exactly the accountability problem critics worry about: “Bob did it” becomes an excuse even though Bob is software.

“The metaphor is dangerous when it’s decorative,” Iqbal says. By that, he means companies get into trouble when they adopt the human trappings — names, personas, or the language of colleagues — without also imposing the supervision, limits, and accountability that make the analogy useful.

His preferred distinction is simpler: the agent needs a technical identity so the enterprise can reconstruct what it did, while a human must remain responsible for those actions. “The identity is the audit primitive, and the human owner is the accountability primitive,” he says. Put more plainly, the agent identity answers what acted; the human owner answers who is accountable.

The employee analogy becomes more useful again when deciding how much freedom an agent should receive. Iqbal recommends graduated autonomy. An agent might begin with a human approving every action, progress to performing low-risk actions independently, and eventually receive bounded autonomy if its observed performance justifies it. A serious error can send it back down the ladder — or out the door entirely.

That sounds a lot like a probation period for a new employee. It’s also simply good software governance for a probabilistic system.

At DXC, professional agents are software

Russell Jukes has had plenty of opportunity to test that distinction. As chief digital and information officer at DXC Technology, he oversees AI in an IT services organization with roughly 115,000 employees.

“We think about [an AI agent] as a superpower, not as a person,” he says.

DXC separates agents into two categories. Personal agents work for individual employees and generally operate using the employee’s identity and access. Professional agents are enterprise systems built for broader workflows. On one of DXC’s major AI platforms, employees have so far created roughly 8,000 personal agents, compared with about 100 professional agents.

The professional variety receives much stricter oversight. It can have its own nonhuman identity, credentials, permissions, and authority boundaries. Activity passes through control planes that allow DXC to see what agents are doing and, when necessary, shut them down.

Jukes thinks many of these agents will eventually disappear from users’ view altogether. An agent might scan internal resource requirements overnight and recommend employees for projects. Nobody needs to greet it in the morning or consider it a colleague; they simply receive the result.

That’s where he parts company with the worker metaphor.

Jukes says he learned early on that AI cannot be deployed like conventional SaaS. His first attempt followed the familiar software model: make the application available, let employees use it within the prescribed workflow, and expect adoption to follow. “I did that, and nobody used it,” he says. The experience convinced him that AI requires a different approach, and he vowed to “never deploy AI like it’s SaaS again.”

Conventional SaaS is largely deterministic: the software constrains users to a defined workflow and produces predictable outputs. Agentic AI is different. It can interpret a goal, choose among tools and data sources, and decide how to get to an outcome. For Jukes, that means CIOs have to design the policies, permissions, data access, guardrails, and authority around the agent rather than simply deploy another application.

That also creates a clearer chain of responsibility. If a person approves the agent’s action, Jukes says that person owns the decision. If an autonomous agent behaves according to a business policy, accountability belongs with the people responsible for that policy. If the technology fails to operate as designed, responsibility moves to IT.

The agent itself never gets handed the blame.

Maybe treat it like an intern after all

Nina Tatsiy, global CIO of Quadient, an automation technology company, takes a position somewhere between Iqbal and Jukes. She calls agents interns, but deliberately uses the term as an analogy, not an organizational designation.

Agents must be managed as software, with security, governance, and technical controls, while recognizing that their probabilistic behavior requires additional supervision. “You have to do both,” Tatsiy says.

An intern does not receive every password and authorization on the first morning. Neither should an agent. It has to be onboarded, trained, watched, retrained when its environment changes, and eventually retired when it’s obsolete.

Quadient generally avoids giving agents human names. Tatsiy worries that doing so encourages people to see them as real colleagues capable of judgment.

“Overtrust is a problem,” she says, particularly because AI tends to state conclusions with such assurance. Tatsiy prefers using AI to challenge a hypothesis or surface questions people haven’t considered rather than allowing it to make the conclusion for them.

Yet the intern analogy has proved useful operationally.

In one accounts-payable deployment, Quadient had an agent effectively shadow human workers and learn from their feedback across different scenarios. Only after its performance had been tested across increasing levels of complexity did it begin providing recommendations. Humans still made the final decision.

The agent, in other words, earned more trust. It didn’t earn accountability.

Borrow from HR, but keep humans in charge

The emerging divide may therefore be less about whether agents are employees or software than about which parts of each management model IT leaders should retain.

Agents need individual technical identities, but not human identities. They need defined responsibilities, but not jobs in the human sense. They need monitoring and evaluation, but not annual performance reviews. They can receive progressively greater authority, but not progressively greater accountability.

And the stronger they become, the more important that distinction becomes.

Treating an autonomous agent like ordinary SaaS ignores the fact that it can interpret, choose, and act in ways conventional software cannot. Treating it like Steve from Accounting creates a different problem: sooner or later somebody may start assuming “Steve” knows what he’s doing.

IT leaders may indeed need to borrow heavily from HR as agentic AI spreads across the enterprise. They just shouldn’t start issuing employee badges.

Related reading:

• 6 ways to make AI accountability stick
• From chatbots to colleagues: How agentic AI is redefining enterprise automation
• Why AI adoption keeps outrunning governance — and what to do about it
• AI is spreading decision-making, but not accountability

When it comes to building robotic brains, many companies in the industry focus on putting intelligence directly into their robots. 

General Robotics is taking an alternate approach. The Redmond, WA company’s GRID system hosts its robotics intelligence layer in the cloud, allowing it to be delivered and deployed to robots operating remotely.

GRID hosts the models, simulations, robot representations, data and agents through which robotic skills are developed, tested, orchestrated and deployed to robots on site. “Having one layer that looks after 50 to 100 robots is way more important than 50 or 100… robots that operate completely independently,” said General Robotics CEO Ashish Kapoor.

While videos of sprinting robots crashing into pads — or humanoid robots kickboxing and breakdancing – often go viral, General Robotics focuses instead on industrial models. Its GPU-based GRID cloud provides a better base to ingest data and develop skills for specific verticals.

“Our ability to onboard new robots, our ability to take them to deployment with new skills, our ability to connect very complex simulations to the reality is enabled through GRID,” Kapoor said.

The company declined to talk in detail about its customers, but Kapoor offered an example of how the GRID-based system works. In a biolab, for instance, robots pouring liquid from beakers required in their modeling fluid tactile interaction and transparent materials.

“There exists no good way of modeling those kinds of behaviors in software right now because [of]…all of those things,” Kapoor said. “…This is where agents came in.”

AI agents were used to create a “hybrid simulator” that brought the pieces together in the cloud. The robots were then tested against the simulated model.

“The physics of the robot was coming from one simulator and… the calculation of fluid dynamics was actually created by [the] agent itself by looking at the literature,” Kapoor said. What “otherwise would have taken us at least a year to build…was done in minutes.

“GRID allows you to auto engineer those robots, retarget those skills, [and] create appropriate digital representations on its own,” Kapoor said.

Humans are involved in safety checks to make sure robots behave according to specifications.

While humanoid robots are the ones often drawing media attention, “the most value in robots in 18 months to 36 months is going to be realized in heavy industries,” he said. “These are ports, these are your energy infrastructures.”

Although the company’s cloud-based GRID architecture has advantages, the system also faces some challenges — namely, lagging cloud-to-robot communication.

“The round-trip time, the latency is of paramount importance,” Kapoor said. “The robot needs to have two loops.” He described that second loop as an “inner control loop…operating at a millisecond level…that’s on the edge.”

Another issue involves companies that must meet strict regulatory and security requirements. For example, car companies are generally against putting proprietary information —whether that be designs for new fuel injection systems or new battery designs — in the cloud.

Still, General Robotics remains optimistic its system can handle these kinds of issues long term. “Between commercial cloud deployment, between on-prem server deployment and…edge deployment, we do have a way of addressing many of these issues,” Kapoor said.

In addition to continually improving its stack, the company also seeks out partners that can help it resolve challenges, Kapoor said.

That robotics is a growing field seems obvious. Morgan Stanley in a 2025 study predicted the humanoid robot population would touch 1 billion by 2050 and be valued at $5 trillion. And a more recent study from Counterpoint Research estimated that between 50,000 and 85,000 humanoid robots would ship this year alone.

V USA od jara platí zákaz dovozu síťových zařízení vyrobených v zahraničí. Vláda kvůli obavám o bezpečnost prostřednictvím regulátora FCC individuálně posuzuje výrobce a schvaluje jim výjimky. Tento týden ji dostal i tchajwanský Asus, který tak až do 6. března 2028 může prodávat bezdrátové ...

Long before Taco Tuesday became part of the pop-culture vernacular, Tuesdays were synonymous with security — and for anyone in the tech world, they still are.  Patch Tuesday, as you most likely know, refers to the day each month when Microsoft releases security updates and patches for its software products — everything from Windows to Office to SQL Server, developer tools to browsers.

The practice, which happens on the second Tuesday of the month, was initiated to streamline the patch distribution process and make it easier for users and IT system administrators to manage updates. Like tacos, Patch Tuesday is here to stay.

Patch Tuesday coverage has long been a staple of Computerworld’s commitment to provide critical information to the IT industry. That’s why we’ve gathered together this collection of recent patches, a rolling list we’ll keep updated each month.

In case you missed a recent Patch Tuesday announcement, here are the latest six months of updates.

September Patch Tuesday: 963 CVEs, 2 exploited flaws, 1 message

September’s Patch Tuesday is Microsoft’s biggest of 2026, with 963 CVEs, two exploited flaws and a clear message: prioritize Windows, Office and SQL Server.

Two vulnerabilities are already exploited: CVE-2026-81963 in the Windows Update Stack and CVE-2026-85880 in Advanced Local Procedure Call. Nothing in this release was publicly disclosed ahead of the patch. Readiness recommends a Patch Now scheduling for Windows, Office, SQL Server and the developer tooling, and standard patch release for Exchange.

Get more info on the September 2026 Microsoft security updates.

August’s Patch Tuesday is a monster: 751 fixes, with an exploited Windows flaw

Microsoft’s August 2026 Patch Tuesday closes at 751 CVE entries (across all product families), with 108 rated as critical. One flaw is already exploited, CVE-2026-68820, an elevation of privilege in the Windows WinSock driver (afd.sys). Two more were disclosed but not exploited.

This security-only release earns Patch Now for Windows, Office and Exchange; no SQL Server updates this month. Unfortunately, several critical issues affect server roles: Windows DNS Server carries a cluster of critical RCEs; Windows DHCP Server is the most-populated Microsoft product family at 14 entries. Testing should lead with printing and fonts and the Remote Desktop client, then a WinSock smoke test given the exploited afd.sys flaw.

Get more info on the August 2026 Microsoft security updates.

July’s Patch Tuesday sees an end-of-support collision amidst a massive, record-setting patch wave

Microsoft addressed 722 CVEs this month once the 427 Chromium upstream relays are set aside — roughly three times a normal cycle and one of the largest single months in recent memory. Two vulnerabilities arrive under active exploitation: an elevation of privilege in Active Directory Federation Services (CVE-2026-56155), and an elevation of privilege in SharePoint Server (CVE-2026-56164). A third, a BitLocker security feature bypass (CVE-2026-50661) is publicly disclosed but not yet exploited.

The July 2026 Patch Tuesday earns Patch Now recommendations for Windows, Office, Exchange, and SQL Server. SharePoint has two critical RCEs on top of its exploited zero-day, and Exchange Server returns with a critical on-premises spoofing flaw. Adding to our (dear) administrator’s efforts, SharePoint Server 2016/2019 and SQL Server 2016 all reach end of support today.

More info is available here on Microsoft Security updates for July 2026.

For June, Patch Tuesday means an IT scramble

Microsoft this month released 206 updates affecting Windows, Office, Exchange Server, and its developer tools — including three Windows vulnerabilities already publicly disclosed. That trio includes an elevation of privilege in the Collaborative Translation Framework (CVE-2026-45586), a denial of service in HTTP.sys (CVE-2026-49160), and a BitLocker security feature bypass (CVE-2026-50507). At the moment, none appear to be under active exploitation, but all three are rated “Exploitation More Likely.” 

Even without an exploited zero-day, the June 2026 Patch Tuesday release requires Patch Now recommendations for Windows, Office, and Exchange. The latter is back in the patch picture with a consolidated security update that Microsoft recommends installing “as soon as possible.”

More info is available here on Microsoft Security updates for June 2026.

For May, Patch Tuesday means 139 updates — but no zero-days

Microsoft this month released 139 updates affecting Windows, Office, .NET, and SQL Server (though there were no updates for Microsoft Exchange Server). Despite the absence of zero-days, the May Patch Tuesday update still requires Patch Now recommendations for Windows and Office. 

The combination of three unauthenticated network RCEs (Netlogon, DNS Client, and SSO Plugin for Jira and Confluence), four Word Preview Pane RCEs, the large TCP/IP vulnerability cluster, and the carry-over BitLocker recovery condition (still active on Windows 10 and Windows Server) warrants an accelerated deployment release schedule. 

More info is available here on Microsoft Security updates for May 2026.

Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday release for April is a whopper

Windows admins are going to be busy this month, dealing with the largest Patch Tuesday cycle in memory. The April release involves 165 updates and roughly 340 unique CVEs from Microsoft — including two zero-days, one of which is already being actively exploited in the wild. 

The Readiness team recommends “Patch Now” schedules for nearly every major product family: Windows, Office (with a zero-day), Microsoft Edge (Chromium), SQL Server, and Microsoft Developer Tools (.NET). April also brings Phase 2 of Microsoft’s Kerberos RC4 hardening with full enforcement set for July. There is a lot to cover, so here’s a useful infographic mapping the deployment risk for each platform.

More info is available here on Microsoft Security updates for April 2026.

Linux může běžet nativně na ESP32-S3 – bez emulace a rovnou s 9,7″ e-paperem.

Microsoft has confirmed reports that the September 2026 security updates cause Remote Desktop Services (RDS) failures on Windows Server systems. [...]

The UK government is giving more than 23 million people the chance to ditch passwords for passkeys – and could save itself a tidy sum on authentication texts in the process. Passkeys are being rolled out more widely across GOV.UK One Login following a trial involving more than 300,000 users, allowing people to sign in using a fingerprint, Face ID, or device PIN instead of entering a password and waiting for a two-factor authentication (2FA) code. The government says nearly one in ten daily One Login sign-ins are already being made using passkeys, which it claims are up to eight times faster than logging in with a username, password and 2FA code. There is also a less glamorous incentive for Whitehall: text messages cost money. The switch is already saving taxpayers nearly £600 a day in SMS costs, according to the government. Passkeys are designed to resist phishing. Rather than relying on a password that can be stolen, reused, or handed over to a convincing fake login page, a passkey uses cryptographic credentials tied to the website or app for which it was created. The biometric data or PIN used to unlock it remains on the user's device and isn't seen or stored by GOV.UK One Login. "Cyber criminals often look for the easiest route to access important accounts, which means login details remain a common target," said Jonathon Ellison, director for national resilience at the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). "But passkeys offer a highly phishing-resistant alternative to passwords, frustrating attackers and saving the public time." The NCSC is encouraging users to switch, although passwords aren't disappearing just yet. Passkeys remain optional, and anyone who would rather continue signing in the old-fashioned way can do so. GOV.UK One Login is intended to provide a single account for accessing government services rather than requiring users to navigate a collection of separate sign-in systems. It is already used for services including checking State Pension details, managing tax services, and accessing childcare support. Digital Government Minister Stephanie Peacock said the rollout was intended to make government services both easier to access and harder for fraudsters to exploit. "Nobody enjoys hunting for a forgotten password or waiting for a text message code just to check their tax return or renew a document," she said. Whether Britain's 23 million One Login users share Whitehall's enthusiasm for replacing passwords is unclear. But with passkeys already accounting for almost 10 percent of daily logins – and every authentication text adding to the government's phone bill – there are at least a couple of reasons to keep nudging them in that direction. ®

Samsung odpovídá na iPhone Duo vlastní marketingovou kampaní • Pozval si do ní Tima Cooka z Nového Zélandu • Používá stejné fráze i podobné oblečení jako Tim Cook z Applu

Fintech company Revolut has disclosed a data breach after sharing data from an undisclosed number of customers with a threat actor impersonating a government agency. [...]

LibreOffice 26.8 nativně podporuje OpenType Font Variations. • Writer rychleji otevírá velké dokumenty s obrázky. • Nástroje jsou barevně odlišené s některými typy uživatelského prostředí.

Microsoft has confirmed that USB audio devices may fail on some Windows systems after installing the KB5124008and KB5124012 September 2026 security updates. [...]

Poslední dobou to vypadá, že na co CXMT sáhne, to se jí podaří. Zdá se však, že to má jednu výjimku. S HBM to nejde až tak hladce, jak se mohlo podle počátečních informací zdát…

Televizor LG OLED42C57 zlevnil na historicky nejnižších 15 743 Kč. • Nabízí skvělý obraz, čtyři HDMI 2.1 a frekvenci až 144 Hz. • Vzhledem k úhlopříčce poslouží i jako velký počítačový monitor.

A malicious cross-store Twitch browser extension has leaked OAuth tokens associated with nearly 31,000 users to proxy servers operated by a Russian commercial bot service. The extension, named "Twitch Enhanced Viewer | JeetBot," lists HISHIMIRO/jeetbot.cc as its developer and has the following identifiers on the Google Chrome Web Store and Mozilla Firefox Add-Ons store - Chrome - Ravie Lakshmananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/[email protected]

Samsung, Apple a Xiaomi se sešli u jednoho stolu • Všichni giganti nabízejí vzájemně si konkurující skládací knížky • Každá je zaměřená na trochu jinou cílovou skupinu

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) warned that hackers are now exploiting a maximum-severity GitLab vulnerability in attacks. [...]

Strážci internetu, lákavý early access u škodlivých aplikací, phishing, který vidíte jedině vy, tučný balík falešných e-shopů, insecure secure boot, ruské útoky na Signál a řada dalších postřehů.

Íránské Islámské revoluční gardy zkraje září oznámily, že poblíž ústí Hormuzského průlivu „zajaly“ americkou bezpilotní ponorku Dive-LD od Andurilu. V reakci na to Americké velitelství CENTCOM uvedlo, že se dotyčný podvodní dron porouchal během průzkumné mise a zůstal více než 24 hodin nefunkční. ...