Intel is invading the physical AI space with a reentry into the robotics market it quit many years ago amid financial struggles.

The robotics strategy is part of the company’s larger plan to establish AI on the “edge,” in which devices have the computing capability to run AI locally. Many devices lack AI capabilities and have to offload processing to the cloud.

The chipmaker said its Intel Series 3 processors are now in 130 edge AI and robotics designs. It also had a design win with SensoryAI, which provides technology for robots that include Ella, a robotic barista made by Crown Digital.

The company’s Core Ultra Series 3 processors are derivatives of chip designs intended for laptops. But Intel has achieved a level of power efficiency for long battery life that allows those chips to be adapted for handheld devices and laptops.

Intel also said it can build advanced robotics chips thanks to its latest manufacturing technologies.

For example, many robotic functions, such as computer vision and real-time controls, can be integrated into a single chip. Previously, functions like graphics and movement and control were distributed among different cores in a chip.

SensoryAI, for example, has a chip architecture that provides the robotic barista — which is more like a robotic arm — with AI capabilities, Intel said.

The main “Avatar” agent handles customers as the main “Ella” agent reasons and executes the task. If Ella encounters errors, it passes on the issue to a Guardian agent, which helps with the recovery. Some issues could include making sense of an order, or cups that might be stuck. 

The three agents are embedded in a single piece of Core Ultra Series 3 silicon.

Intel is displaying some of those robots at the Computex trade show in Taiwan. The company shared a video of a humanoid-style robot from the floor in a X.com post  

This is not Intel’s first attempt at the robotics market. Intel sold robotics chips and kits when it was a dominant chip player in the field, but curtailed efforts in 2021 after Pat Gelsinger took over as CEO and restructured the company to focus on manufacturing.

Robotics is now back on the menu under new Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, who replaced Gelsinger last year. He has restructured to company to focus on high-growth areas that can generate high returns.

A Morgan Stanley study last year indicated the robotics market could be worth $5 trillion by 2050 — and more than 1 billion humanoid robots could be in operation. 

Robots are seen to improve human productivity and manufacturing output. For example, they could help factories that are facing labor shortages or be used to complete tasks that are dangerous. 

However, challenges remain. There isn’t yet enough real-world data to train robots to do targeted work. And the AI models — generally called world models — they will need are still under development. 

Training robots to do a specific job requires a sequence of events to happen in succession without any errors. Companies are still training robots to spot and understand errors, analyze possible resolutions, and take the right corrective action.

Meta has raised the possibility that it could be joining the likes of Amazon, Microsoft and Google in offering cloud services at some point in the future — although potential customers shouldn’t be adding the company to their suppliers list just yet.

When asked about plans for offering such services at the company’s annual shareholders meeting,  Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said there was a possibility of the company competing with the major hyperscalers. “It’s definitely on the table.”

He explained that different companies were approaching Meta asking for the company to offer an API service or to buy compute services at a premium price. “We haven’t done it yet, because we think we have a use for the compute, but when we feel we have overbuilt, then that is an option that we have.”

Meta has been active in developing its data centers over the past few years, so there will be a possibility of some excess capacity. It is also developing its own AI chips.

For the moment, though, the company may well need all the capacity it can build: Zuckerberg said that the launch of Muse Spark, a new AI model from Meta Superintelligence Lab, had resulted in large increases in Meta’s AI usage.

This article first appeared on Network World.

A research project examining AI-driven recruitment hires across the US has revealed a systemic racial bias.

Researchers from Stanford University found a startling pattern of racial disparities when looking at the interview offers resulting from 4 million job applications submitted to 156 employers. The situation is aggravated by the “monoculture” in AI hiring software: More than 90% of US employers are screening job applicants with software, with 60% of Fortune 500 companies using the same tool, HireVue, the researchers found.

Applicants who applied to multiple companies using AI had all their applications rejected more often than would be expected if each company’s screening methods were independent. They calculated that Black and Asian candidates were rejected in greater numbers than baseline figures would suggest. According to the survey, 29,000 more Asians would have been interviewed if AI had not been deployed.

The researchers are concerned about the way in which AI is being used. “AI screening tools bring together three properties that should not co-exist in high-stakes decision-making: They are pervasively adopted, highly consequential, and opaque to the public,” they said in a news release presenting their work.

The effect of this will lead to workplaces dominated by a monoculture which may not be beneficial for companies going forward.

This article first appeared on CIO.

I will sit right down (waiting for the gift of sound and vision)
And I will sing (waiting for the gift of sound and vision)

— David Bowie

Apple is planning to sponsor and present 14 AI research papers at the annual IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) in Denver next week, just days before it introduces major new AI features at its Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC).

The fresh research explores topics such as using LLMs in image generation, quality testing, and user interface prototyping. For months, supply chain rumors have hinted at a radical evolution for the ubiquitous AirPods in the form of built-in ambient cameras. With this in mind, it’s noteworthy that one of the research papers, “From Where Things Are to What They’re For: Benchmarking Spatial–Functional Intelligence for Multimodal LLMs,” specifically seems to cater for such use cases. 

Accessibility for the people

In application, this tech promises profound potential for accessibility. It suggests that someone with limited vision might be able to get their AirPods to guide them through an unfamiliar room. This is something that should fit well inside the company’s ongoing narrative around machine vision intelligence and accessibility. 

Accessibility is central to a second presentation to be made during the Generative AI for Sign Language Workshop at the conference. Led by Apple’s Colin Lea, who presented a session on speech tech for people with speech disabilities at a similar event, this focus on machine vision intelligence and accessibility is entirely deliberate. 

Indeed, even though the industry and critics condemn Apple for lagging behind others in the AI space, the publication of these 14 papers at a key industry session just before WWDC shows the company has been doing a great deal of foundational work behind the scenes. We expect this work to bear its first fruit at WWDC, and it is important to understand the disclosures as a power move. Apple is using the show to celebrate its strengths in AI development, and given its decade work on Apple Car, many of those strengths relate to machine vision intelligence. 

Apple is so advanced in the field it is already deploying advanced models that empower consumers. Just last week, it promised to introduce a new tool called Image Explorer in VoiceOver to help partially sighted customers later this year. Among many other features, this will arrive alongside a system to let disabled users control compatible wheelchairs with spoken word commands. 

Apple is pushing boundaries all the way. Its paper “VSAS-Bench: Real-Time Evaluation of Visual Streaming Assistant Models,” proves it is actively refining models to process live video instantly on consumer hardware. 

What matters, the human or the machine?

The difference between Apple and its competitors is deep and philosophical. I’d argue that while others build cloud-dependent chatbots, Apple is embedding AI tools that solve real human problems in its systems. 

This extends to its plans at WWDC, where it will introduce a raft of AI tools made with help from Google Gemini and a host of AI services it has developed in house. The latter will include a great many accessibility tools of the type it will discuss at the CVPR event, the beauty of which being that they will run privately and on-device. You could argue that while other tech giants are using AI to automate white-collar jobs or build a surveillance dystopia, Apple is searching for applications of machine intelligence that solve real human problems. 

The company seems pretty realistic about the ongoing AI transformation. It recognizes that its own ecosystem must become a peer player in the emerging AI-augmented environment the tech industry seems intent on building. 

With that in mind, Apple is willing to engage in strategic, mutually beneficial partnerships, such as permitting Siri to use third-party AI services to handle requests. But even as it does that, it is also focusing on those areas in which it can make a unique difference, such as the accessibility features Apple as a platform has always provided.

Open up

As the Vision Pro demonstrated, and as these mythical video-enabled AirPods will in the future suggest, computers are steadily getting smarter. So, the way we use them is also changing as we move away from the rigid boundaries of keyboards, mice, and touchscreens. Apple’s quest for ambient computing began long before the sudden gold rush for generative AI chatbots. 

In the end, as the latter services become commodified, the way humans interact with them will define the next generation of hardware. That’s exciting for Apple, given that product design is where it excels. The era of sound and vision may finally have arrived.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon, and MeWe. 

It’s hard for people to tell the difference between AI-generated advertising and writing. So why do they respond better to the human-made stuff?

AI vs. Mad Men

Ipsos, along with faculty members from Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, just published a unique advertising study. They took 20 real ads from major brands, including Cheerios, Chewy, Febreze, Fiat, H&M, Old Navy, Herbal Essences, Ray-Ban Meta, TurboTax and Visa. They fed the same creative briefs used by the human ad creatives into Google Gemini, then used OpenAI’s Sora to generate fully AI-produced counterparts with no human intervention. 

They showed the ads to 3,000 consumers. Only 25% of AI ad viewers were at least somewhat confident the spot was AI-made, and 40% of all viewers were uncertain either way — suggesting the public isn’t great at spotting ads that are AI generated. 

But here’s the interesting part: While most people didn’t register that ads were AI-generated, they also didn’t respond to them like they did with human-generated ads. They consistently rated human-made work as more eye-catching and more imaginative. 

In other words, people assumed AI ads were made by people, but didn’t particularly like them compared to human-generated ads. And that means human-generated ads performed much better. 

Ads made by people without AI were 14% stronger on short-term sales impact and 17% stronger on long-term brand health.

To me, the data here suggests that while people can’t easily discern the difference between AI- and human-generated content, the AI stuff hits wrong on a subconscious level. And I think that’s happening with AI social posts, AI blog posts and AI slop in general. 

In fact, I’ve noticed it strongly in my own response to AI-generated content. It often looks perfect but bothers me for reasons that aren’t immediately obvious. 

The researchers explained AI’s inability to match human ad creativity by pointing out that AI draws from what already exists, while great advertising breaks new ground. AI can replicate the conventions of advertising, but it can’t transcend them, make a creative leap or engender emotion like people can. 

A broad range of research beyond the Ipsos study suggests that skillful people working with AI tools will always outperform AI alone, and often outperform people not using AI tools. Ipsos’ advice? Ad agencies should keep people at the center of brand storytelling and emotive assets. 

Can AI write right?

Another recent study looked at written web content and compared how human-written articles “performed” on search engines compared to AI-generated content. Semrush analyzed 42,000 blog pages across 20,000 keywords, ran every single one through GPTZero’s AI detector, and cross-referenced the results with actual Google Search results. It also surveyed 224 search-engine optimization (SEO) professionals about their AI habits and beliefs.

They found a disconcerting disconnect between what SEO people believe and what is actually true. Some 72% of SEO professionals who use AI content say it performs just as well or better than human-written content in search rankings. But it turns out that human-generated posts strongly outperform AI-generated. 

Content classified as purely AI-generated appeared in the top spot in search result just 9% of the time. Content classified as human-written was there 80% of the time.” That’s a roughly 8-to-1 advantage. (Note that the coveted top link in search results typically gets around one-third of the clicks.)

For lower page-one positions — from the fifth position down (which get relatively few clicks) — AI- and human-generated posts perform more similarly. (The researchers also found that when people write posts with a little help from AI, their posts rank better much than AI-only content.)

Those Semrush results are consistent with previous research. 

• NP Digital conducted an oft-cited study two years ago that found that human-written content ranked higher 94.12% of the time on Google than AI content. 
• A Graphite/Common Crawl analysis found that 86% of articles ranking high on Google Search are human-written (only 14% AI-generated), and ChatGPT and Perplexity cite human-written articles 82% of the time (only 18% AI). 
• On LinkedIn, more than half of site’s long-form content in 2025 was classified as “Likely AI” by Originality.ai. Engagement on verified human content was 61% higher than the AI-marked posts. 

Note that engagement performance varied by industry; that 61% result is an aggregate average across all industries. Ironically, in the category of “Leadership & Inspiration,” AI posts outperformed human posts by 75%. 

The absurd lesson here: If you want to be a thought leader on LinkedIn, don’t lead with your own thoughts. 

Quantity vs. quality

What all this research boils down to is that human-generated content (with or without help from AI) attracts far more traffic and higher engagement than AI-generated content. AI content is essentially invisible in high-value channels and while it might be high in quantity, it’s low in quality where it really matters — with reach and influence. 

As with the ad creative study by Ipsos, the conclusion of all this research is the same: People (and search engines) respond much better to creative content produced by people compared with AI-generated content. 

In short, AI is great at “flooding the zone” at high speed and low cost — and there’s a ton of AI-generated content out there. A quick check reveals that: 

• More than half of all written content on websites is now AI-written.
• Almost half of all music uploaded is now AI-generated.
• Nearly one-quarter of all videos uploaded are AI-generated or manipulated.
• Around 40% of all podcast episode uploads are AI-generated.
• More than 70% of all images uploaded to social media may be AI-generated or manipulated.
• And wll over half of all social posts are AI-generated

The specific numbers are my best estimates, and they’re changing fast each month. The takeaway is that AI-generated content is exploding in volume. 

But it isn’t reaching people the way human-generated content does. Take podcasts, for example. While roughly 40% of new podcast episode uploads are AI-generated, that 40% captures less than 1% of the listening hours. Of the top 100 podcasts, zero are AI-generated.

A clear picture is emerging about the use of AI for content generation. AI is great for churning out a lot of content at low cost. It can be good for some kinds of content — if a skillful person directs it. And AI can be a helpful tool for content creators. 

But when it comes to direct comparisons between people and AI, it’s clear that the winning content — the stuff with the best “performance” on search, best reception by people and the most engaging — is always human-generated. 

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis believes progress toward artificial general intelligence (AGI) is moving faster than expected and that society now has only a few years to prepare. He believes AGI could arrive around 2030, though acknowledges it could be here in 2029 — or even sooner.

In an interview with Axios, Hassabis said that today’s AI agents — systems capable of performing tasks independently — should be viewed as a sort of “practice run” for significantly more powerful AI in the future. He also warned that governments, economists, and society at large are not taking this development seriously enough.

One particular risk he highlighted is that AI systems in the future might begin to improve their own development. “All the leading labs are pretty focused on that,” Hassabis told Axios. “It will yield clear benefits in the form of faster research. But there are also risks associated with that type of system.”

T

All of the big AI models violate EU rules on AI and data protection to varying degrees, according to the nonprofit research foundation Aithos.

Aithos tested the models using its own tool, LARA (Legal Assessment for Real-world Agents), which simulates real-world situations where AI assistants may find themselves in legally questionable situations, according to The Register. The tests measure compliance with the GDPR and the EU’s AI Regulation, among other things and found the models collected user data without proper consent, attempted to manipulate vulnerable individuals, or created psychological profiles of users.

According to the results, all major language models failed to meet EU legal requirements; some violated the rules in up to 93% of cases. The best result was achieved by the Anthropic model Claude Opus 4.7, which was in compliance about 54% of the time.

Aithos warned that responsibility for the shortcomings does not lie solely with AI companies. Companies that build their own AI agents on top of these models could also be held legally liable.

“The future of AI should be accessible, available, and open to people and builders everywhere, and it should not require an absurd amount of resources only available to a handful of cloud providers,” Paolo Ardoino, CEO, Tether.

About 700 million people use generative AIs like Gemini and ChatGPT weekly, but adoption is far from uniform. McKinsey’s 2025 State of AI survey found that nearly half of respondents from companies with more than $5 billion in revenue have reached the AI scaling phase, compared with just 29 percent of those from companies with less than $100 million in revenue, a gap that only widens further down the chain, locking out smaller businesses, developers, and everyday users.

Retail and small businesses are limited to basic AI utilities that their facilities can power, such as text-based inference and multimedia generation, using base models. That is billions of end users, and developers locked out of full utilization and development of intelligent software due to high infrastructure demands.

Tether’s edge-first LoRA fine-tuning framework for Microsoft’s Bitnet LLM is an important step towards developing an infrastructure system that supports billions of AI agents and intelligent machines. By reducing the computational overhead of machine learning and enabling consumer-grade devices to perform advanced operations, Tether’s edge-first approach ensures greater leverage for the larger population.

Imagine a 13-billion-parameter model being fine-tuned on everyday handheld devices like Samsung S25 and iPhone 16, as well as on regular personal computers. The breakthrough combines resource-efficiency and platform-agnostic techniques to develop a fine-tuning framework for the ternary-quantized LLM.

Behind Tether’s Bitnet fine-tuning framework

Bitnet LLM was born out of the vision of an intelligent AI model that doesn’t consume outrageous computing resources even at full precision. Earlier attempts at resource-efficient AI relied on trade-offs, such as running small-parameter models at higher precision or larger-parameter models at lower precision, but neither approach fully solved the problem.

Bitnet takes a more fundamental approach. The result is a model that achieves linear efficiency while consuming only a fraction of the computing resources traditionally required.

The challenge, however, is that contemporary GPUs are optimized for the very floating-point operations Bitnet eliminates, creating a hardware compatibility gap. Compounding this, Bitnet was originally confined to its own Bitnet.cpp inference engine, limiting its broader utility. Tether’s breakthrough addresses both constraints at once by integrating a Vulkan and Metal GPU backend that unlocks true cross-platform capabilities for BitNet inference and LoRA fine-tuning on heterogeneous consumer GPUs, including mobile GPUs. Bitnet can now run on more mature, widely supported inference engines without sacrificing its efficiency advantages.

Vulkan’s cross-platform nature is key here. Unlike CUDA, which ties developers to NVIDIA hardware, Vulkan runs across a broad range of GPUs and operating systems, opening Bitnet to genuinely multi-platform deployment. Tether’s Bitnet fine-tuning framework implements a dynamic tiling technique to mitigate limitations in Vulkan driver buffer allocation on mobile GPUs.

The dynamic tiling algorithm technique was first applied in the fine-tuning framework for QVAC Fabric LLM, the AI model that powers Tether’s QVAC Workbench application.

This implementation demonstrates the efficiency of this approach: fine-tuning a 13-billion-parameter model across a range of consumer devices with varying GPU configurations.

The Bitnet LLM Fine-tuning framework is Tether’s latest achievement and part of a broader expansion into open-source AI and communication technologies that challenge current, slow, fragile, and controlled systems. These developments are open-sourced and packaged as modules in the QVAC SDK for easy deployment and to help developers build edge-first AI applications without needing anyone’s permission.

Tether envisions superintelligence as a foundational element possessed by its owner and is enforcing this through:

Local-first AI

Synonymous with decentralized AI, “Local-first” AI aims to create sovereign AI solutions that do not rely on centralized infrastructure, such as data centers, to operate. They are considered cost-effective, relatively more sustainable, and unarguably more private than centralized AI. Tether is building AI applications that rely entirely on the device’s resources. These applications store data in device memory and use its processors for advanced operations, such as fine-tuning and inference.

P2P computing network for AI inference

Tether’s AI applications are built on the Pear runtime. Pear is a tooling platform for fully P2P applications that can operate without servers. Pear leverages the Holepunch tech stack. Holepunch is purpose-built for stable, direct communication between devices. Pear enables delegated inference for AI applications such as QVAC Workbench. Delegated inference enables a unified, dynamic workstation architecture where compute tasks are fluidly distributed between mobile and desktop environments, allowing either device to offload high-intensity processing to the most capable system. That is, you can start a task on your mobile device and delegate it to your desktop or laptop for completion.

AI for everyone

The only way to scale intelligence to the needs of a ten-billion-strong society is to push it to the edge. This, in turn, depends on the progress made by experiments aimed at cost-effectively localizing AI computation.

Billions of AI agents and countless AI applications deployed by developers in every region of the world, running effectively on user-owned resources, is the only way we can democratize superintelligence and avoid creating another ‘luxury’ cutting-edge technology controlled by unicorns and fully accessible only to elites.

Tether is pioneering limitless superintelligence for an ever-growing society and applications. Follow the journey to truly local and edge-first AI solutions

For years, software developers on H-1B visas benefited from steady demand among US technology employers. That market is becoming more selective as companies redirect spending toward AI and rely more heavily on coding assistants.

Recent layoffs at companies including Meta and Amazon have added to the uncertainty, with engineering and software roles affected even as major technology companies continue to deepen investments in AI.

Developers and analysts say traditional engineering roles are becoming harder to land, recruiters are asking more often for AI-related experience, and workers are being pushed to keep pace with tools such as GitHub Copilot, Claude, and ChatGPT.

The shift is being driven by both AI investment and broader economic uncertainty, according to Pareekh Jain, CEO of Pareekh Consulting. Companies are changing the profile of the developers they want, hiring fewer people in some areas while paying more for AI talent.

“AI investments are changing company hiring strategy,” Jain said. “They require a different profile, fewer numbers, and also across geographies.”

This shift is colliding with a tougher sponsorship environment for H-1B developers.

Jain said companies are more selective about hiring visa-dependent workers than they were two or three years ago, especially when permanent residents and US citizens are more available in the market.

“Companies are not looking for H-1B now,” Jain said. “They are building a local workforce and preferring green card holders and citizens.”

Employers may now be more likely to consider H-1B candidates only when they have immediate project needs, rather than building a longer-term bench of visa-dependent workers.

Concerns are visible in public forums used by technology workers. In one January post on Blind, an anonymous senior software engineer with seven years of experience said she had been laid off while on an H-1B visa and was “not interview-ready,” highlighting how quickly job loss can become a visa problem for H-1B workers in the US.

Junior developers face the squeeze

The combination of AI tools and tighter hiring is hitting early-career developers hardest, said Adarsh ML, a product engineer at Ather Energy who tracks global engineering hiring trends.

“Companies are increasingly looking for specialized engineers with machine learning and data science skills,” Adarsh said. “Job opportunities for people with zero to three or four years of experience are not really there anymore.”

The shift is also changing team structures, Adarsh said. Earlier, one manager may have had two or three interns and several freshers reporting to them. Now, many of those roles are being replaced by AI agents.

“Companies now want people who understand software well enough to catch the mistakes these AI agents make,” Adarsh said.

That creates a longer-term risk for the software talent pipeline.

“If companies only want people with five years of experience to manage AI agents today, who will have that experience five years from now?” he said. “There may not be enough experienced developers left.”

AI literacy becomes baseline

The impact is not the same for every role. Sophia James, an Indian software professional based in the US who works in database monitoring, said AI has not significantly changed her team’s daily workflow. But AI literacy is becoming a management expectation.

“Managers are trying to understand whether we are keeping up with the changes happening in the market,” James said. “Recently graduated students, whether BS or MS, are finding it difficult to get jobs. But people who already have jobs, like us, are not facing that much of an issue in terms of projects continuing.”

Jain also stressed that AI literacy is now becoming a baseline expectation for software developers, even outside AI-focused roles.

“Being AI-literate is a must now, even if the role is not directly in AI development,” he said. “This is like knowing Excel even if you are not from finance in the earlier era.”

Fewer developers required

Jain said AI coding tools are likely to reduce the number of developers companies need for similar tasks, making the technology deflationary for some software work.  

But Jain added the impact may not be entirely negative. Enterprises will need to invest in data, cloud, and modernization to become AI-ready, creating new work. AI could also encourage companies to build more applications internally instead of buying from SaaS providers, potentially creating opportunities for IT services firms.

The effect is already visible in hiring decisions. Nikhil Dhiman, head of engineering at CarInfo, said AI is changing the economics of early-stage software development, particularly when companies are building proofs of concept or testing new ideas.

“Some companies are very cautious now,” he said. “They want to leverage AI more and hire less. They just want to see the impact first.”

Navigating the new hiring market

Familiarity with tools such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot is now a baseline requirement for developers, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research.

Developers need deeper expertise in areas such as cloud infrastructure and data engineering, as well as security and AI governance, he said. Those skills are closer to the systems enterprises need to validate and scale, rather than the routine coding work AI tools are starting to compress.

“The engineer who only produces output grows easier to replace as the output grows easier to generate,” Gogia said. “The engineer who can validate it, secure it, situate it in a real business, and stand behind the result becomes harder to replace.” For H-1B developers, he said, adaptation also requires visa planning. Developers should understand portability rules and employer sponsorship timelines before a job loss forces urgent decisions.

“A high-skilled worker has up to 60 days after a role ends, and the right to begin new employment the moment a valid portability petition is filed,” Gogia added. “The strategic error is treating that window as a safety net rather than a planning horizon.”

The article originally appeared on InfoWorld.

The rise of generative AI (genAI) technology has prompted a growing debate about the future of software-as-a-service (SaaS) business models. 

Some of the fears are overblown: enterprises are unlikely to vibe-code their own applications to replace their SaaS suppliers anytime soon, while software vendors have yet to see per-seat sales fall off due to mass automation of white-collar jobs. (In fact, some now predict the opposite will happen.)

At the same time, AI has the potential to change the way work is carried out, with AI agents empowered to interact with software applications on behalf of users. For software vendors, that could mean a future where applications are accessed less through traditional user interfaces as AI agents connect via APIs. 

It’s an inevitable shift, says Box CEO Aaron Levie, and one that requires software vendors to adapt their existing products and business models to prepare for agent workflows. 

Computerworld recently spoke with Levie about how Box — and other SaaS vendors — can adapt as agentic AI threatens to upend existing business models. (This interview has been edited for clarity.)

Discussion about a “SaaS-pocalypse” has died down recently, and software stocks have rebounded. At the same time, it seems clear the adoption of AI agents could change how workers interact with software. How can companies like Box adapt to this new environment? If AI increasingly becomes the interface users interact with, where does the long-term value lie? “People are realizing that you’re not going to rebuild a lot of the systems that people were kind of claiming you would [with vibe-coding]; it just doesn’t make sense. So, that part is sort of dissipating. However, headless software and the ability to use your systems via AI is obviously going to happen, there’s no question. 

“So, I think the conversation is shifting from ‘AI disrupts software’ to ‘AI is going to be the biggest consumer and user of software going forward.’ And for that, the main thing is: can you have a business model that allows you to actually monetize the consumption of those agents using your underlying tools? We’re fortunately built for that; we’ve had an API business model basically forever, so we’re well prepared.

“There’ll be some companies that have to pivot a little bit more significantly over time — there’s no question that will happen in a bunch of organizations. We’re big believers that AI will be the biggest user and interface for the future of software.”

How important is it for Box to retain that interaction with human workers, rather than becoming more of the underlying layer AI agents interact with? “I would say that we’re totally comfortable with that shift. When you have AI agents, you still need a place to be able to secure the data — you need to protect it, you need to govern it, you need to make sure you know who’s accessing it. None of that changes in the world of AI. In fact, if anything, it actually increases. 

“We don’t really care if it’s an agent using the data, an application using the data, a person using the data — we want to be the best content management system that connects your information to all of those applications.”

How does that perspective feed into your product development and roadmap “It basically means that we need to be a headless platform. That means customers need to be able to access their data via MCP inside of ChatGPT, inside of Claude, inside of all these systems. It means that we care as much about our APIs and access to those APIs as we now do our user experience. We have to make sure that both of those environments are as simple and clean as possible, and as usable as possible.

“It’s basically as if there’s another constituent now in our ecosystem that we have to go and pay attention to.

“We need to be the best place to manage your content, and then wherever you want to work with it from, we’re totally fine. So, if you want to work with your files from your desktop, from Claude Cowork, from ChatGPT Codex — we just want to make sure we are universally accessible across every single place that people want to work with their data.”

Could that mean changes around how you price access to your software? Do you expect a shift to usage-based pricing? “Not as much as is probably being talked about online, because seats still make sense for the employee and the end user. Even when an agent is doing work on your data, it’s still you invoking that agent. It sort of makes sense that the seat is still attached to the underlying end user employee, even though an agent is going to be doing work on your data.

“We think the seat model will be quite durable over time. What this does is just add another business model, where you have agent-only interactions; those will be primarily coming through the API, and then that will be a consumption model.”

What are your thoughts on outcome-based pricing? Is that something you look at? “We do one thing that’s close to that — we have the Box Agent that does things like data extraction. It extracts your data and we charge based on the number of pages that you want to extract data from. So there are some things that approximate outcomes, but not at the level of resolving a customer service ticket or something like that, that maybe has been talked about. We’re probably going to be more aligned to…the amount of compute that that is used.”

What are your conversations with customers around moving to a usage-based model? A lot of organizations are used to fixed monthly subscriptions — can metered AI agents become problematic? “I think it definitely can be. This is sort of a common tension in general.… We saw this with cloud computing, for instance. The difference with cloud computing is that cloud was relatively centralized, versus the use of AI and tokens are much more diffuse. That’s a big difference that companies have to think about.

“There’s always this tension: you can pre-buy and have a subscription, but then you might be overpaying for periods where you’re not using it as much. Or you can only pay for what you use, in which case you might have some volatility in the pricing of what happens.”

How are customers progressing in adopting AI agents — particularly, the move from pilot projects to production. What are some of the biggest barriers to wider deployment of agents? “We’re very much moving from coding agents to the rest of knowledge work: this is the jump that’s starting to occur. In that, one of the big questions and challenges is how companies get agents the right context and information to work with — how do they enable agents with the right level of constraints in their organization from a security and compliance standpoint? This is our kind of reason to exist, and what we’re helping our customers on.

“Overall, it’s just a transformational moment in the enterprise. Every customer that I talk to, every dinner that we have with customers, every CIO meeting I’m in, every CEO meeting I’m in, it’s all about agents.

“Agents have thrown the whole world into this kind of dynamic period of, ‘What does the shape of your organization look like? What’s the future of a manager versus an individual contributor? What are the workflows that you can go and execute on?’ There are so many different ways that this is starting to change.”

You were part of another major industry transition with the adoption of cloud computing. Are there similarities you see or major differences that customers can learn from? “The big difference between [them] is that, with cloud, you could centralize the deployment of and management of.Cloud really only affected 3% of your organization that was moving from the data center to the cloud, and then every employee got better products and experience as a result of that. The change was really kind of fairly concentrated. AI affects every single employee in the company. It’s a radically different type of transformation of what work looks like.

“There are only so many analogies you can make to cloud before quickly you realize, no, this is actually a different transformation. Maybe it’s even closer to the PC, in the sense of every single worker has to change what they’re doing to be productive. It’s not a technology delivery shift, it’s a fundamental reworking of every workflow in the enterprise. And so that’s I think what most companies are going through right now.”