Axios AI+ NY Summit: AI's rapid rise outpaces guardrails
NEW YORK – AI and the internet are outpacing oversight — threatening kids, creatives, national security and even basic innovation, leaders across tech, politics and entertainment said at the Axios' AI+ Summit.
Why it matters: AI is transforming industries and society faster than it can be regulated, creating sweeping, serious security risks, according to several speakers.
The June 4 summit hosted multiple conversations and was sponsored by BCG, Booking Holdings, Snyk, Varonis, and Workato.
Here are some key takeawayes:
WndrCo founding partner Jeffrey Katzenberg said kids' unsupervised use of the internet is "destroying a generation."
Lumen Technologies president and CEO Kate Johnson said telcos aren't innovative enough and have ceded too much ground to Big Tech.
The Weather Company CEO Rohit Agarwal said AI could help forecasters be as specific as giving guidance on what time of day to walk your dog.
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) made a dig at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) for saying she didn't know the GOP's "big, beautiful" tax bill included a provision that would ban states and municipalities from regulating the tech for 10 years.
Lux Capital co-founder Josh Wolfe said the best way to beat China in the AI race is to "make sure every single young" person is super well-versed in AI.
Actor and entrepreneur Joseph Gordon-Levitt said there needs to be an incentive to keep creatives paid and employed as AI disrupts the entertainment business.
Content from the sponsored View from the Top conversations:
Vlad Lukić, BCG managing director and senior partner, and global leader for its tech & digital advantage practice discussed the disconnect between corporate AI investment and tangible outcomes.
According to a recent study of 1,000 companies, "Over 75% of them are with budgets in this year deploying AI at scale, but only 25% of them have a line of sight to value creation from those activities," he added.
Danny Allan, chief technology officer at Snyk, said visibility, false expectations, and proper policies are lacking behind the pace of AI-powered software development.
"The speed and velocity that software is coming through the pipelines is like nothing I have ever seen in my career right now. It's so, so fast. And the trouble that CISOs have is they don't have the trust that what is coming through that pipeline is actually secure."
Bhaskar Roy, Workato chief of AI products and solutions, said businesses will experience real transformation when AI agents tackle the "messy middle."
"There are a few companies that are targeting the core and looking at how they can transform the core with … agentic AI and that's what excites us."
Rob Sobers, chief marketing officer at Varonis, warned that security risks, like "AI model poisoning" where attackers inject malicious data into AI models, could impact people's lives.
While working with an organization researching Alzheimer's, they noticed a hacker feeding the organization's custom AI model new data out of nowhere, Sobers said. And, "that could change subtly the dosage of a medication that you're giving somebody. … It's super important to get the trust and security layer right."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
an hour ago
- WIRED
Apple Is Pushing AI Into More of Its Products—but Still Lacks a State-of-the-Art Model
Jun 9, 2025 8:22 PM Apple took a measured approach to AI at WWDC. A new research paper suggests the company is skeptical about some recent AI advances, too. At WWDC25, Apple showed it was taking a more incremental approach to AI development. Courtesy of Apple Apple continued its slow-and-steady approach to integrating artificial intelligence into devices like the iPhone, Mac, and Apple Watch on Monday, announcing a raft of new features and upgrades at WWDC. The company also premiered the Foundation Models framework, a way for developers to write code that taps into Apple's AI models. Among the buzzier AI announcements at the event was Live Translation, a feature that translates phone and FaceTime calls from one language to another in real time. Apple also showed off Workout Buddy, an AI-powered voice helper designed to provide words of encouragement and useful updates during exercise. 'This is your second run this week,' Workout Buddy told a jogging woman in a demo video. 'You're crushing it.' Apple also announced an upgrade to Visual Intelligence, a tool that uses AI to interpret the world through a device's camera. The new version can also look at screenshots to do things like identify a product or summarize a webpage. Apple showcased upgrades to Genmoji and Image Playground, two tools that generate stylized images with AI. And it showed off ways of using AI to automate tasks, generate text, summarize emails, edit photos, and find video clips. The incremental announcements did little to dispel the notion that Apple is playing catch up on AI. The company does not yet have a model capable of competing with the best offerings of OpenAI, Meta, or Google, and still hands some challenging queries off to ChatGPT. Some analysts suggest that Apple's more incremental approach to AI development is warranted. 'The jury is still out on whether users are gravitating towards a particular phone for AI driven features,' says Paolo Pescatore, an analyst at PP Foresight. 'Apple needs to strike the fine balance of bringing something fresh and not frustrating its loyal core base of users,' Pescatore adds. 'It comes down to the bottom line, and whether AI is driving any revenue uplift.' Francisco Jeronimo, an analyst at IDC, says Apple making its AI models accessible to developers is important because of the company's vast reach with coders. '[It] brings Apple closer to the kind of AI tools that competitors such as OpenAI, Google and Meta have been offering for some time,' Jeronimo said in a statement. Apple's AI models, while not the most capable, run on a personal device, meaning they work without a network connection and don't incur the fees that come with accessing models from OpenAI and others. The company also touts a way for developers to use cloud models that keeps private data secure through what it calls Private Cloud Compute. But Apple may need to take bigger leaps with its use of AI in the future, given that its competitors are exploring how the technology might reinvent personal computing. Both Google and OpenAI have shown off futuristic AI helpers that can talk in real time and see the world through a device's camera. Last month OpenAI announced it would acquire a company started by the legendary Apple designer, Jony Ive, in order to develop new kinds of AI-infused hardware. Even if Apple still lags behind in terms of building advanced AI, the company is publishing AI research at a steady clip. A paper posted a few days before WWDC points to significant shortcomings with today's most advanced AI models—a convenient finding, perhaps, if you are still getting up to speed. The paper finds that the latest models from OpenAI and others, which use a simulated form of reasoning to solve difficult problems, tend to fail when problems reach a certain level of complexity. The Apple researchers asked various models to solve increasingly complex versions of a mathematical puzzle known as the Tower of Hanoi, and found that they succeeded up until a point, then failed dramatically. Subbarao Kambhampati, a professor at Arizona State University who previously published similar work on the limits of reasoning models, says Apple's research reinforces the idea that simulated reasoning approaches may need to be improved in order to tackle a wider range of problems. Reasoning models 'are very useful, but there are definitely important limits,' Kambhampati says. But even if the work suggests that a more cautious approach to AI is warranted, Kambhampati does not believe Apple is being complacent. 'If you know what's going on inside Apple, they're still pretty gung-ho about LLMs,' he says.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
What business leaders should think about now
What does the future hold for business leaders and entrepreneurs? With a rapidly changing world, how does one navigate a path to success? To get a better sense of where we are heading, I caught up with Futurist Joana Lenkova of Futures Forward, who shares insight on how leaders should be thinking about the future of their business. Q: Tell me a little bit about yourself and what a futurist does? Joana Lenkova: I have a background in brand, strategy, innovation, and foresight within large corporations like The Walt Disney Company and now the LEGO Group. In 2019, I founded Futures Forward, my own consultancy, which allows me to work not only with corporations but also with nongovernmental organizations, start-ups, and governmental institutions to imagine better futures for them. Q: How should business leaders and entrepreneurs be thinking about AI and the tools available to them now? Lenkova: For me the more interesting question isn't which tools we are using, it's what these tools are enabling us to do. We live in an age of radical accessibility. Entrepreneurs and professionals today have easy access to low or no-code platforms, AI assistants, a global freelance talent pool, and direct-to-consumer distribution platforms. I think the real shift is in speed, access, autonomy—and with AI it's agency. What used to require full teams and big capital can now be prototyped by one person over a weekend. Q: What about people who are about to start a company now? What advice would you give them as they consider using all this new technology? Lenkova: I have been thinking a lot about that because we tend to get enamored by technology. But what is the one thing that is as important today as it was in the past? Even though these tools have evolved, what really matters hasn't changed. It's still about having a clear vision, the ability to adapt, and to solve something meaningful. So, somebody launching a business now, you should really ask yourself, what is the real human need that I'm going to be serving? A lot of times businesses start from a technology, you know, let's develop this and let's experiment and prototype and see where it takes us. But in the end, it will be successful if it can be a solution for a meaningful future need. Q: How should business leaders and startup founders be thinking about building teams as many roles are now aided or replaced by AI? Lenkova: I think starting with the problem and not with the technology you use. Perhaps choose to hire versatile hybrid thinkers instead of deep specialists, especially when you need innovative solutions and quick adaptability as a business. Of course, the context is important. But that's exactly how futurists think—we look for cognitive diversity. There is interesting work from Scott Page, whose research shows that diverse groups of people can outperform homogenous groups of experts. Leaders sometimes tend to hire people who confirm their own biases unconsciously, but that's not healthy. You need people who can shine a light on your blind spots, not those who agree with you. Q: Do you think we are living in a time where we will witness the first solopreneur who utilizes technology and AI to become a billionaire? Lenkova: I wonder if we already have. With creators like MrBeast, for example, who are building these personal media brands in such a different way, creating new IPs, licensing, content, and product lines. Solopreneurs are super enabled today to reach vast global audiences and it can happen overnight using the available tools smartly. But the more interesting thing to me is that there is a shift in values. I really wonder if the next generation of founders are going to aspire to be billionaires in terms of dollars—or maybe this is just a hopeful scenario that I'm living in, that they would want to measure their success by impact or by freedom. So maybe the first 'billionaire' solopreneur will choose not to be one in the traditional sense. Q: Do you think we are heading in a direction where everyone will eventually need to become an entrepreneur or self-employed? Lenkova: Not necessarily, but we are in a world where entrepreneurial thinking is essential—even inside large companies. I think there definitely will be more experiments in new forms of governance. On one hand the change will manifest in a stronger connection to purpose, keeping the commercial organization structure but looking to generate value across people and planet in addition to profit. I see this in the future as a hygiene factor. Think regenerative systems. On the other hand, we're also seeing more importance placed on community-led brands, experiments with decentralized forms of governance, etc. But to allow for these changes, you have to remember that the legacy systems and ways of incentivizing governance boards and employees will have to change as well. Q: Anything you'd like to share with people launching a business right now? Lenkova: Yes—don't just build a product, build a worldview, have a purpose. It isn't enough to sell products, you really have to make positive change to humans, to the planet, to the community. Think about regenerative practices and look at multiple future scenarios. Think about what the world may look like, what you'd like the world to look like, and make it happen. Think about the future needs of your stakeholders and build solutions for those. What do you believe about the future that others don't yet see? Let that be your compass.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Looks like it's up to Hochul to kill the monstrous ‘assisted suicide' bill
New York is on track to become the 12th state to legalize 'assisted suicide' — and with the most radical law yet. The state Senate was rushing to vote late Monday on Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal's Medical Aid in Dying Act, with insiders certain the wheels were fully greased for passage. So it'll be up to Gov. Kathy Hochul to wield her veto and prevent a disgraceful mistake. Again, the New York bill breaks new ground — or sinks to a newer low. All 11 other states (Delaware became No. 11 last month) require a waiting period before you get your suicide-meds prescription filled; it's 15 days in Oregon but could be less than 24 hours in New York. The Empire State bill also has no real mechanism for tracking how many deaths it brings: Some commissioner is supposed to review a 'sample' of patient medical records and produce a yearly report to the Legislature on how it's going; that's it. Beyond the details, this is fundamentally about a reinvention of the medical profession: Out goes 'do no harm,' in comes a 'calculation' as to whether a given life is still worth living. With the state, and insurance companies, having a clear financial interest in ending 'marginal' lives and those whose care costs 'too much.' Anyone who wants to die can, in fact, find a way: This is purely about giving 'assisted suicide' the moral force of law, a big first step on the way to euthanasia for those with chronic conditions — even Alzheimer's. Canada is about to expand its law to allow 'doctor-assisted' killing in some cases where the underlying condition is mental disease, such as depression or anxiety. Advocates claim New York's bill covers only people with terminal diagnoses and six months or less to live — but 'terminal' isn't as exact a term as it sounds, and any diagnosis is simply a doctor's best guess. It's entirely appropriate that the chief Democratic resistance to this bill has been among lawmakers of color: Philosophically as well as historically, euthanasia is intimately connected with eugenics. That is: The same geniuses who imagine that humanity can be 'scientifically' improved by eliminating 'inferior characteristics' from the breeding pool also tend to think 'experts' can calculate which lives have values less than zero. Embrace that pseudo-mathematics, and soon enough the smart set will be busy 'helping' the disabled and those suffering chronic illnesses to 'realize' they're better off ending their lives. We have no idea what back-room deals suddenly made this bill a priority at the very end of the legislative session; it certainly wasn't any shift in public opinion. Hochul should do the right thing and kill the bill: At the very least, that'll force its supporters to explain why New York must have fewer safeguards than any state against abuse of a law that turns doctors into executioners.
