AI's High Cost Pushes Smaller Cybersecurity Companies to Sell
The emergence of AI in recent years as a critical offering for vendors, regardless of the sector in which they operate, is putting pressure on smaller businesses to consider how they will compete with larger companies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amazon shuts down Shanghai AI research lab, FT says
(Reuters) -Amazon is shutting down its Shanghai artificial intelligence lab, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday. Reuters could not immediately confirm the report. Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours. Amazon's decision to shut the lab comes amidst rising tensions between Washington and Beijing, with the U.S. increasing its scrutiny of American companies operating in China. Wang Minjie, a scientist in the Shanghai lab, said his team was "being dissolved due to strategic adjustments amid US-China tensions," the newspaper said, citing a post on WeChat. Amazon Web Services (AWS) set up its Shanghai Lab in 2018. While the headcount at the AWS Shanghai research lab is unclear, the FT report said, AWS at its peak had more than 1,000 staff in China. The report comes as the tech giant slashes jobs globally, joining a growing list of firms, including Microsoft and Meta, who have announced layoffs this year as they increase their reliance on artificial intelligence. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
27 minutes ago
- Fast Company
I'm an HP exec: I believe employees should have the right to work multiple jobs
The controversy surrounding Soham Parekh, the software engineer accused of secretly holding multiple jobs, has sparked a predictable backlash against 'overemployment.' Parekh's methods—he reportedly misled multiple employers—were clearly unethical, but this shouldn't obscure a broader question: Is it time to rethink our antipathy toward employees holding multiple jobs? A double standard? Parekh's case notwithstanding, there's a deeper structural issue at play. Why should it be acceptable for some CEOs to hold leadership roles at multiple companies yet unacceptable for a talented marketer or software engineer to have multiple jobs? The world of work has fundamentally changed, and limiting people to one job is an outdated idea that doesn't benefit anyone. Startups have embraced fractional executives; CFOs, CMOs, and other senior positions going part time is now standard practice. However, large corporations continue to address similar needs exclusively through consulting arrangements. This highlights a significant gap in how organizations approach talent acquisition and utilization. This disparity provides valuable context for understanding why employees may resort to undisclosed secondary employment. By establishing clear policies and frameworks for multiple job arrangements, organizations could provide more transparent alternatives to the current trend of covert moonlighting. The gap between evolving work patterns and traditional corporate structures points to an opportunity for more adaptive talent management strategies. The inevitable shift Workers don't have it easy today. Fresh graduates worry about their job prospects as entry-level roles shift to AI. Warehouse workers face replacement by robots. Large corporations continue to outsource jobs to cheaper sources of labor. We need to tilt the scales back in favor of workers and create an environment where talented and productive people can make a better living. By removing the taboo of overemployment, we would create an environment where honesty is rewarded over secrecy. AI is only going to make performing multiple jobs (a lot) easier. We should get ahead of this trend and bring it out into the open instead of pretending it won't happen. How many other Soham Parekhs are out there today, perhaps working at your own company? We really have no idea, but there are likely to be more of them moving forward. Toward mutual benefit This isn't just about employee flexibility; it could be a win for employers who are struggling to retain talent amid strict return-to-office mandates (another antiquated idea). It would allow enterprises to become more agile, tapping into top-tier talent only when needed. Furthermore, this shift would encourage a focus on outcomes and productivity rather than just managing hours in the office. The root cause of overemployment isn't that it's unethical, it's that we're forcing it underground. The real scandal isn't workers maximizing their earning potential; it's employers clinging to the primitive concepts that they own their employees' entire productive capacity. Transparent overemployment could actually strengthen the job market. Imagine if companies had to compete not just on salary, but on being the kind of workplace that actually cares about the employee experience. While we can all acknowledge the shift in traditional corporate jobs isn't going to be easy or happen overnight, we must also accept that the current system punishes honesty and rewards deception. We've turned competent professionals into corporate double agents. This isn't sustainable, and it's certainly not efficient. The question isn't whether overemployment will continue, it's whether we'll legitimize it before the whole charade collapses under its own absurdity. The industrial age is dead, but we're still using its rule book. While AI copilots and agentic workflows obliterate the tedious grunt work that once consumed entire careers, we're clinging to antiquated notions of what constitutes a 'full-time' commitment. The math is brutal: If machines can handle the repetitive tasks that fill 40-hour weeks, why are we pretending humans still need to be chained to single desks?
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Microsoft Says Chinese State-Backed Hackers Exploiting Flaws in Attacks
Microsoft said that Chinese state-sponsored actors were exploiting vulnerabilities in one of its popular collaboration software products, SharePoint, which is used by U.S. government agencies and many companies worldwide. Microsoft said in a notice on its security blog on Tuesday that it had identified at least two China-based groups linked to the Chinese government that it said had been taking advantage of security flaws in its SharePoint software. Such attacks aim to sneak into the computer systems of users. Those groups, called Linen Typhoon and Violet Typhoon, were ones that Microsoft said it had been tracking for years, and which it said had been targeting organizations and personnel related to government, defense, human rights, higher education, media, and financial and health services in the United States, Europe and East Asia. Microsoft said another actor, which it called Storm-2603, was also involved in the hacking campaign. It said it had 'medium confidence' that Storm-2603 was a 'China-based threat actor.' The U.S. government's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a notice that said it was aware of the hacking attack on SharePoint. It added that it had notified 'critical infrastructure organizations' that were affected. 'While the scope and impact continue to be assessed,' the agency said, the vulnerabilities would enable 'malicious actors to fully access SharePoint content, including file systems and internal configurations and execute code over the network.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
