“Prompt injection, much like scams and social engineering on the web, is unlikely to ever be fully ‘solved,’” OpenAI wrote in a blog post Monday, adding that “agent mode” in ChatGPT Atlas “expands the security threat surface.”

OpenAI said that the aim was for users to “be able to trust a ChatGPT agent,” with Chief Information Security Officer Dane Stuckey adding that the way the company hopes to get there is by “investing heavily in automated red teaming, reinforcement learning, and rapid response loops to stay ahead of our adversaries.”

“We’re optimistic that a proactive, highly responsive rapid response loop can continue to materially reduce real-world risk over time,” the company said.

Fighting AI with AI

OpenAI’s approach to the problem is to use an AI-powered attacker of its own—essentially a bot trained through reinforcement learning to act like a hacker seeking ways to sneak malicious instructions to AI agents. The bot can test attacks in simulation, observe how the target AI would respond, then refine its approach and try again repeatedly.

“Our [reinforcement learning]-trained attacker can steer an agent into executing sophisticated, long-horizon harmful workflows that unfold over tens (or even hundreds) of steps,” OpenAI wrote. “We also observed novel attack strategies that did not appear in our human red teaming campaign or external reports.”

However, some cybersecurity experts are skeptical that OpenAI’s approach can address the fundamental problem. 

“What concerns me is that we’re trying to retrofit one of the most security-sensitive pieces of consumer software with a technology that’s still probabilistic, opaque, and easy to steer in subtle ways,” Charlie Eriksen, a security researcher at Aikido Security, told Fortune.

“Red-teaming and AI-based vulnerability hunting can catch obvious failures, but they don’t change the underlying dynamic. Until we have much clearer boundaries around what these systems are allowed to do and whose instructions they should listen to, it’s reasonable to be skeptical that the tradeoff makes sense for everyday users right now,” he said. “I think prompt injection will remain a long-term problem … You could even argue that this is a feature, not a bug.”

A cat-and-mouse game

Security researchers also previously told Fortune that while a lot of cybersecurity risks were essentially a continuous cat-and-mouse game, the deep access that AI agents need—such as users’ passwords and permission to take actions on a user’s behalf—posed such a vulnerable threat opportunity it was unclear if their advantages were worth the risk. 

George Chalhoub, assistant professor at UCL Interaction Centre, said that the risk is severe because prompt injection “collapses the boundary between the data and the instructions,” potentially turning an AI agent “from a helpful tool to a potential attack vector against the user” that could extract emails, steal personal data, or access passwords.

“That’s what makes AI browsers fundamentally risky,” Eriksen said. “We’re delegating authority to a system that wasn’t designed with strong isolation or a clear permission model. Traditional browsers treat the web as untrusted by default. Agentic browsers blur that line by allowing content to shape behavior, not just be displayed.”

OpenAI recommends users give agents specific instructions rather than providing broad access with vague directions like “take whatever action is needed.” The browser also has extra security features such as “logged out mode”— which allow a users to use it without sharing passwords— and “Watch mode”—which is a security feature that requires a user to explicitly confirm sensitive actions such as sending messages or making payments.  

“Wide latitude makes it easier for hidden or malicious content to influence the agent, even when safeguards are in place,” OpenAI said in the blogpost.

Many experts warn that acting too quickly—quitting a job, claiming the prize immediately, or committing to big purchases—is one of the most damaging errors. Articles in outlets including CNBC, NerdWallet, and USA Today emphasize slowing down, taking time to process the shock, and making no irreversible decisions until a plan is in place.​

A related misstep is choosing between the lump sum and annuity on instinct instead of analysis, even though that decision locks in tax timing, investment options, and how long the money is likely to last. Financial writers note that many winners default to the lump sum without modeling scenarios with professionals and understanding that, after taxes, the headline $1.7 billion quickly shrinks.​

Coverage in CNBC highlights that bragging about your win on social media or talking openly about it can invite lawsuits, scams, and constant money requests. Advisors repeatedly stress “keep it quiet” and, where allowed, explore ways to claim through a trust or remain anonymous to avoid becoming a target.​​

Experts also point out that winners often underestimate the emotional toll of overnight fame, which can strain marriages, friendships, and even personal safety if boundaries are not set early.​

A recurring theme across NerdWallet, Business Insider, and other outlets is that trying to DIY a nine‑ or 10‑figure fortune is a costly mistake. Financial planners urge winners to assemble a small, vetted team—typically an attorney, a tax professional, and a fiduciary advisor with experience in sudden wealth—before claiming the prize.​

Winners also get into trouble when they rely on friends or relatives who “know about money” instead of credentialed experts, a pattern cited in guidance from Northwestern Mutual and others on working with lottery clients.​

Business Insider’s reporting on advisors who work with lottery winners notes that many clients behave as if the balance can’t be depleted, only to burn through wealth with multiple mansions, jets, and speculative investments. Experts describe unchecked lifestyle inflation and “spend, spend, spend” behavior as one of the most common paths to regret, especially for lump‑sum recipients.​

Financial outlets also emphasize that winners often fail to set a sustainable withdrawal rate or diversify, ignoring the reality that the money is finite and that even ultra‑large fortunes can erode through taxes, market volatility, and ongoing costs like property taxes and maintenance.​

Advisors interviewed by Northwestern Mutual and others say another frequent mistake is giving without a plan: ad hoc loans, endless gifts, and open‑ended promises that create resentment when the answer finally becomes “no.” They suggest that winners instead define a clear gifting and philanthropy framework upfront—including who gets what and how much is reserved for charity—to avoid both over‑giving and relationship damage.​

Experts further warn that feeling obligated to become a one‑person safety net or charity can derail long‑term goals and quickly consume capital, especially when requests are amplified by public attention.​

Guides from major financial firms emphasize that many winners focus on immediate fantasies—houses, cars, travel—and neglect estate planning, debt strategy, and long‑term investing. Advisors recommend tackling basics like wills, trusts, and tax‑efficient structures early, so the windfall will benefit multiple generations, if desired.​

And it’s something young people in particular are eager to have: 74% of Gen Z rank work-life balance as a top consideration when choosing a job in 2025—the highest of any generation—according to Randstad. And in the more than 20 years of producing its Workmonitor report, it’s the first time work-life balance outranked pay as the top factor for all workers.

But as AI has reshaped corporate structures and enhanced productivity levels, many executive leaders are working harder than ever—and expecting everyone else to follow.

From pushing return to office mandates to praising around-the-clock availability, CEOs are modeling a culture where the lines between work and life blur. Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang, for example, said he worked seven days a week this year—including holidays. Zoom’s CEO Eric Yuan conceded simply: “work is life.” 

And looking toward 2026, it’s unclear whether dreams of work-life balance will come true.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang

As the leader of the world’s most valuable company, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has a lot on his mind. Relaxation, however, does not appear to be part of the plan.

His work schedule is nothing short of rigorous—beginginng from from the moment he wakes up until he’s back on the pillow—seven days a week, including holidays. It’s a grind fueled not only by the intensity of the AI race, but by a lingering fear of what happens if he ever lets up.

“You know the phrase ’30 days from going out of business,’ I’ve used for 33 years,” Huang said on an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience released in December. “But the feeling doesn’t change. The sense of vulnerability, the sense of uncertainty, the sense of insecurity—it doesn’t leave you.”

That mindset extends beyond Huang himself. His two children, who both work at Nvidia, follow in his footsteps and work every day for the semiconductor giant. For the Huang family, work isn’t just a job—it’s a way of life.

Zoom CEO Eric Yuan

Video communications giant Zoom has had one of the biggest indirect impacts on the work-life balance debate, thanks to making it possible for workers to log on from the comfort of a bed, beach, or anywhere in between. 

However, the journey to scaling the company to over $25 billion in market capital has revealed to Zoom CEO Eric Yuan that work-life balance is a farce.

“I tell our team, ‘Guys, you know, there’s no way to balance. Work is life, life is work,’” Yuan said in an interview with the Grit podcast over the summer.

Yuan even admitted that he doesn’t have hobbies, with everything he does dedicated to “family and Zoom.” However, when there’s a clash and he has to choose between the two, the 55-year-old gives life some slack: “Whenever there’s a conflict, guess what? Family first. That’s it.”

TIAA CEO Thasunda Brown Duckett

Thasunda Brown Duckett, the CEO of financial services company TIAA, has long not been a fan of the term “work-life balance”—often calling it an outright “lie”—and this year was no exception.

On a Mother’s Day social media post this past spring, Duckett doubled down on the assessment once more.

“Let’s drop the work-life balance charade,” she wrote. “The truth? Balance suggests perfect—and that’s a trap.”

“Instead, think of your life like a diversified portfolio. You only have 100% to give, and many places to allocate. So give with intention. If motherhood gives 30% today, make it a powerful, present 30%,” she added.

For Duckett, having a constant evaluation of how much time to dedicate to everything needing attention in her life is what true a healthy relationship between work and life looks like.

“Some days you won’t feel like the best mom, leader, partner, or friend. But over time, when you lead with purpose—you’re more than enough.”

Palantir CEO Alex Karp

This year has been a breakout year for Palantir, with its stock price up some 140%. 

For young people looking to get their careers off the ground, CEO Alex Karp sent a word of warning this year: skip out on some of life’s superfluous things if you want a shot at success.

“I’ve never met someone really successful who had a great social life at 20,” Karp said at the Economic Club of Chicago in May.

“If that’s what you want, that’s what you want, that’s great, but you’re not going to be successful and don’t blame anyone else.”

While Karp’s comments might sting for Gen Z—especially since they are the generation who place the most value on work-life balance, Karp believes that if you put in the time when you’re young, it’ll all be worth it when you’re older and have a more cushy job.

“Most people have something they’re talented at and enjoy. Focus on that. Organize your whole life around that,” Karp added. “Don’t worry so much about the money—that sounds like hypocrisy now, but I never really did—and stay off the meth and you’ll do very well.”

Former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos

Jeff Bezos may no longer run Amazon day to day, but he remains deeply involved as board chair—while also growing Blue Origin and backing new AI ventures.

Like several of his peers, Bezos has long taken issue with the idea of balance itself.

“I don’t love the word ‘balance’ because it implies a tradeoff,” Bezos said at Italian Tech Week in October. “I’ve often had people ask me, ‘How do you deal with work-life balance?’ And I’ll say ‘I like work-life harmony because if you’re happy at home, you’ll be better at work. If you’re better at work, you’ll be better at home.’ These things go together. It’s not a strict tradeoff.”

It’s not the first time Bezos has expressed his grievances with the concept of work-life balance. In 2018, Bezos called it a “debilitating phrase” because it implied that one has to give, in order for the other to thrive. Instead, he likes to use the word “harmony” and likened the concept to a “circle.”

Jamie Dimon has been one of Wall Street’s most outspoken champions of full-time, in-office work. Early this year, he called most of JPMorgan’s 300,000 employees back in-person and capped the push by opening the bank’s new $3 billion Manhattan headquarters.

Yet even as Dimon has taken a hard line on where work gets done, he has long argued that maintaining balance is ultimately an individual responsibility—not a corporate one.

“It is your job to take care of your mind, your body, your spirit, your soul, your friends, your family, your health. Your job, it’s not our job,” he said in a clip originally from 2024 that resurfaced this year.