Connect with us

Business

CAIOs are toiling to get AI agents implemented correctly

Published

on



Agentic AI has taken center stage in the worlds of AI, tech, and business, dominating the discourse and furthering the pressure for companies to swiftly integrate the tech or fall behind their competitors. More than anyone, it’s chief AI officers (CAIOs) who are charged with untangling the promises and realities of AI’s latest buzzword. 

As they oversee experimentation with and rollouts of AI agents and guide other leaders on the journey, CAIOs are also navigating through the hype, concerns around security and trust, and interconnectedness (or lack thereof) of these systems. Not to mention having to grapple with the question: What even is an AI agent?

Hype-chasing causes companies to lose focus

No one can seem to agree on what, exactly, the term “AI agent” really means, as Fortune and others have reported. Companies are defining the term differently and often using it to describe varied features and capabilities, including many that were previously described with other terms such as “AI assistants.” For Accenture chief AI officer Lan Guan, who led the build of an AI agent solution called Refinery AI for clients and also works directly with them on their own AI and AI agent deployments, this has caused her to devote a great deal of time to just helping clients sort through the contradictions.

“A year ago, everyone was saying, ‘I need to do gen AI.’ Now everyone is saying, ‘I need to do agentic AI or AI agents.’ And it’s like, at the end of the day, a lot of these things are still the same thing. They’re just getting called different things depending on who you’re talking to,” she said. “And so there’s a ton of confusion in the marketplace with our clients on, ‘What is an AI agent? What am I deploying?’ And so we spend a lot of time on education.”

A runaway effect of this has been companies quickly spinning up so-called AI agents “just for the press release,” says Michelle Bonat, chief AI officer of AI Squared, who also works with companies across regulated industries on their AI development. The pressure to have an answer for the agentic AI moment is causing some companies to rename features or chase AI agents to stay on trend, often merely creating thin layers of agents on top of foundation models.

“I’m totally seeing that. I’m seeing that every day,” Bonat says. “That’s why this space is full of noise.”

Security, errors, and trust dominate the risk analysis

Despite the hype and muddled terminology, the core idea of AI agents—systems designed to autonomously take action to carry out specific tasks—is still generating a lot of justifiable excitement. It’s also key to creating the types of systems technologists and science fiction lovers have always dreamed of, capable of executing sequences of complex tasks across multiple platforms on our behalf. But there are real roadblocks.

Uri Yerushalmi, cofounder and chief AI officer at Fetcherr, which uses AI for predictive pricing in the airline industry, believes the opportunities around AI agents are “enormous” but that unlocking that value depends on addressing real challenges around trust and integration and avoiding failure points. For example, agents must integrate with legacy systems and align with real-world constraints without disrupting existing workflows. And as we give agents more autonomy, we need to build guardrails, monitoring, override systems, and mechanisms for human alignment, he said. 

“Businesses need to trust the agent’s decisions,” he added. “That requires transparency, consistency, and demonstrable ROI.”

One of the most concerning failure points is compounding errors. Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis has compared this issue to compound interest in finances, explaining that even if an agentic model has only a 1% error, it would cause a chain reaction of errors that would, after a few thousand steps, ultimately make the likelihood of a correct result completely “random.” Bonat points to this problem of compounding errors as a severe challenge in terms of trusting AI agents, saying this potential to compound one misstep without humans even being aware of it could “create havoc.”

This is especially true for the sort of multi-agent systems many businesses are contemplating, which Guan said can cause blind spots and get you into trouble very quickly.

“It may not work for you, and may actually introduce a lot of risk,” she said. “Think about it—a lot of the business workflows and transactions or interactions are high stakes. You don’t want agents to just issue a refund for every customer, right?” she said, adding that while her clients have a strong appetite to see impact from AI agents, they’re also wary of surprise high cloud bills and security risks.

Security concerns are certainly top of mind in the AI agent landscape. By 2028, Gartner predicts, 25% of enterprise breaches will be traced back to AI agents, including abuse from both internal and external malicious actors. The dominating factor contributing to security risks is the combination of autonomy and intended interoperability of agent systems, which would have them connect to, exchange data with, and autonomously act across a wide swath of platforms and systems. Put differently, the exact nature of how these systems function and what they’re intended to do is what makes them so risky.

Interoperability dreams struggle to break free from walled gardens

Like all CAIOs, Ali Alkhafaji, chief AI and technology officer at Omnicom Precision Marketing Group, is concerned about data leakage and other security risks. He’s also concerned that many of the companies commercializing agent systems are using security as a convenient excuse to further lock their customers inside their ecosystems, going against the collaborative and decentralized vision many see as intrinsic to an agentic future: “Not because it can’t be solved, but because it’s not in the commercial interest of the vendor to solve it.”

“Every vendor is building their own ‘agent framework,’ but no one is solving for enterprise-level interoperability. Without open frameworks and semantic standards, we’re just building smarter silos,” he said, adding that agent collaboration protocols remain immature and that it’s frustrating to see major vendors and hyperscalers continue to reinforce walled gardens. 

Deloitte U.S. head of AI Jim Rowan is seeing this play out among his clients, noting that they’re mostly sticking with their current providers and using their agent capabilities as they’re released. It’s another iteration of the platform advantage that’s driving growth for providers like OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft as they onboard their current customers into their new AI pipelines and products. 

“There is a definite tension in the marketplace between who wants to own the agent system of record. Like, who’s gonna own the registry, who’s going to orchestrate all the orchestration that’s happening around agents,” said Rowan. “We see that with the hyperscalers and the SaaS providers and the third-party-tool startups that are in the space as well. I think the jury’s still out on who’s owning that.”

Correction, Sept. 3, 2025: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of Accenture’s AI agent solution.

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

What a Walmart CEO contender’s exit reveals about when to move on

Published

on



There’s no such thing as a silver medal in a CEO succession race.

In November, Walmart named U.S. chief John Furner as its next CEO, crowning him the sixth leader in the history of the world’s largest retailer. The decision also quietly closed the door on another highly regarded contender for the corner office: Kath McLay, Walmart International’s CEO and a decade-long veteran of the company. On Thursday, Walmart disclosed that McLay would depart, staying on briefly to ensure a smooth transition.

The sequence was swift, orderly, and entirely unsurprising to those who study corporate succession. Boards rarely say it out loud, but experienced executives understand intuitively that once a CEO is chosen, the long-term prospects for previously whispered-about internal candidates dim almost immediately as power consolidates around the new chief executive. 

That’s why many of the most ambitious leaders in American business don’t linger after a succession decision. They move deliberately, and often quickly, because the moment immediately after a board makes its choice is paradoxically when a near-CEO executive’s market value is at its peak. The executive has just been validated at the highest level—close enough to be seriously considered for the top job—without yet absorbing the reputational drag that can follow prolonged proximity to a decision that didn’t go their way.

In that narrow window, the story is still about capability. Search firms and directors see a leader who was trusted with scale, complexity, and board scrutiny, not someone who failed to clear the final hurdle. 

When Jeff Immelt was named CEO of General Electric in 2001, the decision concluded one of the most closely watched succession contests in modern corporate history. Among the executives developed as credible successors was Bob Nardelli, then president and CEO of GE Power Systems. Nardelli didn’t stay to see how it might play out. Within months, he left GE to become Home Depot’s CEO.

A decade later, a different scenario unfolded at Apple, but with a similar outcome. Retail chief Ron Johnson had transformed Apple’s stores into an industry-defining, highly profitable global business and was widely viewed internally as CEO-caliber. Apple’s board had long centered its succession plans on Tim Cook, and when Cook was formally named successor to Steve Jobs, it effectively closed the door on a CEO path for Johnson. He left soon after to take the top job at J.C. Penney.

The executives who leave quickly aren’t being disloyal; they’re being realistic. Remaining too long after a succession decision can quietly erode an executive’s standing, both internally and externally, as the narrative shifts from “next in line” to “still waiting.”

At Ford Motor Co., president Joe Hinrichs was widely viewed as a leading CEO contender. When the board selected Jim Hackett in 2017, Hinrichs left not long afterward. Five years later, he resurfaced as CEO of transportation company CSX. Similarly, several senior Disney executives left or were sidelined after Bob Chapek was chosen as CEO in 2020. Most notably, Kevin Mayer, Disney’s head of direct-to-consumer and international, and a widely assumed CEO contender, departed within months to briefly become CEO of TikTok.

There are exceptions. But they tend to follow a different arc.

Although longtime Nike insider Elliott Hill was not passed over in a formal succession contest, he was widely viewed as CEO-ready when the board opted for an external hire in 2020. Hill stayed on for several years and later retired. Only after performance pressures mounted and the company embarked on a strategic reset did Nike’s board reverse course, asking Hill to return as CEO in 2024. Even then, such boomerangs remain exceedingly rare.

McLay’s departure from Walmart fits the dominant pattern. By exiting promptly while remaining to support a defined transition, she preserves both her reputation and her leverage. She leaves as an executive who was close enough to be seriously considered—not one who stayed long enough to be diminished by the process.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Crypto market reels in face of tariff turmoil, Bitcoin falls below $90,000 as key legislation stalls

Published

on



If you don’t like the price of Bitcoin, wait five minutes, and it will change. The major cryptocurrency’s volatility has been on full display to start the year, this time dipping about 7% since last week to its current price of just under $90,000 as of mid-day Tuesday.

Other cryptocurrencies have also slid. Ethereum is down 11% in the last six days to its current price of about $3,000, and Solana is down about 14% during that time to its price of about $127. 

The dip comes as President Donald Trump threatened European nations with tariffs as they pushed back against his plans to take over Greenland, causing markets to scramble. Meanwhile, crypto markets faced an additional headwind as key legislation for the industry, known as the Clarity Act, became stalled after industry giant Coinbase unexpectedly withdrew its support late last week. 

“President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Europe has put Bitcoin under pressure,” said Russell Thompson, chief investment officer at Hilbert Group. “The postponement of the Clarity Act in the Senate committee mainly due to concerns from Coinbase eliminated a large amount of positive sentiment in the market.”

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong objected to the Clarity Act primarily on grounds that crypto owners would not be able to earn yield from stablecoins. The new uncertainty over the bill, which many assumed was on a smooth path towards a Presidential signature, has shaken the price not just of crypto assets but also the share price of companies exposed to digital assets. 

It’s uncertain whether the current headwinds will fade anytime soon. Trump has made his intentions of taking control of Greenland clear. When a group of European nations expressed solidarity with the Danish, he threatened those countries with tariffs, saying he would not back down until Greenland was purchased. Bitcoin and other risk assets subsequently fell, along with major stock indices, while the price of gold rose.

It’s not all gloom and doom for crypto, at least according to some analysts, who view Bitcoin’s correlation with macroeconomic forces as confirmation that digital assets have finally gone mainstream. 

“Bitcoin’s reactivity is another sign of its increasing integration with broader macroeconomic forces, signaling maturation rather than fragility, even as short-term volatility continues,” said Beto Aparicio, senior manager of strategic finance at Offchain Labs.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The 9 most disruptive deals of Trump’s first year back in the White House

Published

on


President Trump lives on deals: “That’s what I do—I do deals,” he once told Bob Woodward. On the one-year anniversary of his second presidency, he’s pushing hard to make his biggest, most disruptive deal ever, one that would bring Greenland under the control of the U.S.—and the global business community is still scrambling to adapt to his approach. Here are nine of Trump’s most unorthodox deals from the past year.

Nine deals that shook the business world

April 2, 2025: Reciprocal tariffs

Trump imposes “reciprocal tariffs” on 57 countries, with each tariff understood as an opening bid in a negotiation. Several countries have since made deals. The one-on-one negotiations, unlike the multilateral system of the past 80 years, can be chaotic for companies and economies

June 13: U.S. Steel “Golden Share”

In return for allowing Nippon Steel to buy U.S. Steel, Trump requires that the U.S. receive several powers over the company, including total power over all the board’s independent directors and vetoes over locations of offices and factories. 

July 10: MP Materials

The U.S. pays $400 million for a large equity share in MP and signs a contract to buy all of MP’s rare earth magnets for 10 years. The reason for the equity stake was not disclosed.

July 14: Nvidia, Part 1

JADE GAO—AFP/Getty Images

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling Nvidia H20 chips to China in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 15% of the revenue.

July 23: Columbia University

LYA CATTEL/Getty Images

The Trump administration restores $400 million of canceled federal research funding for the university under an unprecedented multipoint deal. For example, Columbia must supply data to the federal government for all applicants, broken down by race, “color,” GPA, and standardized test performance. A few other schools later make similar deals.

August 6: Apple

Bonnie Cash—UPI/Bloomberg/Getty Images

At a public appearance with Trump, CEO Tim Cook announces Apple will invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S. over four years; Trump announces Apple will be exempt from a planned tariff on imported chips that would have doubled the price of iPhones in the U.S.

August 22: Intel

Justin Sullivan—Getty Images

Intel trades the U.S. government a 9.9% equity stake in exchange for $8.9 billion that might already be owed to Intel under the CHIPS and Science Act. The deal is unusual because the company was not in immediate danger or significantly affecting the economy.

December 8: Nvidia, Part 2:

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling powerful Nvidia H200 chips in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 25% of the revenue. Both Nvidia deals are unusual because the payments to the U.S., based on exports, appear to be forbidden by the Constitution. 

December 19: Pharma

Alex Wong—Getty Images

Nine pharmaceutical companies make deals with Trump that are intended to lower drug prices. This is unusual because Trump negotiated separate deals with each company, and the terms have not been released.

All eyes this week will be watching President Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the president has hinted he’ll announce some high-stakes agreements. Expect the unexpected.

A version of this piece appears in the February/March 2026 issue of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.