Rolling out AI agents? 4 ways to move fast and furious – but with extreme caution


An abstract image featuring a burst of red and white light streaks, created using a zoom blur effect. The dynamic lines converge toward the center, evoking a sensation of speed, energy, and digital motion. This futuristic composition resembles a data stream or light tunnel.

Neon Colored Velocity (gettyimages-2211415896)

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.


ZDNET’s key takeaways

  • Fast and furious or cautious? AI requires both.
  • Leaders from PwC and NBCUniversal share their AI journeys.
  • Be ready with the right data before introducing AI.

Getting started and capturing the essence and value of AI can be exhausting. It also poses a vexing question: Is the way forward to move fast and furious, jumping on every model that comes online, or is it to proceed with a plan and extreme caution? Testimonials from two enterprise IT leaders suggest that a mix of both approaches is necessary.

Also: 5 ways to grow your business with AI – without leaving employees behind

Divergent experiences in launching and maintaining AI momentum were shared at a recent conference hosted by Section, a consultancy led by storied NYU professor Scott Galloway.

1. The human is the loop

For starters, don’t just hand over the keys to AI agents — any endeavor needs to remain human-instigated and human-led. “Stop being the human in the loop. The human is the loop,” said Scott Likens, global chief AI engineer at PwC.

Also: Building an agentic AI strategy that pays off – without risking business failure

Getting started means starting with the end user and working backward to determine the right tool for the job.

“Start with easily repeatable processes and data. Start with the pain point,” said Lasherelle Morgan, senior vice president of AI innovation and acceleration for NBCUniversal. “Don’t just bring in an AI tool. Ask, ‘what are you struggling with?’ ‘What are you spending five hours of your day on?'”

2. Experimentation is important

Be willing to experiment on a wide scale to determine where AI can deliver, Likens said.

PwC, for example, rolls out AI-driven experiments in one-day or five-day cycles. The challenge is to urge business leaders to think about the possibilities AI brings versus simply achieving 2% or 3% in cost savings. “All this talk of tokens just started a couple of months ago, and now all of a sudden there is a cost focus with AI,” Likens said.

“That’s the wrong way to look at it. Experimentation is really important and so easy nowadays, and you get feedback fast,” Likens said.

Also: How this travel company’s AI rollout drove a 73% satisfaction boost: A 5-step playbook for your business

This calls for a radical shift in thinking among many business leaders, especially at the midtier level, Likens said.

“Many are not used to one- or two-week cycles; it’s a different architectural mindset,” Likens said. “Top executives and board members may be on board, as are new employees that have already been there. It’s that frozen middle, those experts and managers who don’t want to change their ways. It’s a human challenge.”

3. Blow up a bad process

For those excited about AI, there’s a perception that the technology will quickly fix gummed-up processes and speed up business decisions. There’s an important caveat to such thinking, Morgan said.

“You have to have clean data, and a workflow that is clean from start to finish. You need to literally get a pen and paper and write out the process, and show me who is the owner of that process. One thing AI is really good at is blowing up a bad process,” said Morgan.

With that pen and paper, find out from users: “what do you have to do repeatedly that you hate doing?” Morgan said. “Then work from there. Meet people from where they are. Also, where there is a lot of data that is easily repeatable as well. Start with things easily fixable by AI and start there.”

Also: How to build better AI agents for your business – without creating trust issues

At PwC, the pace of AI innovation and development has been furious, but underneath it is a well-planned data foundation formulated before AI was a big part of the picture. The company addressed data issues in regulated pieces of the business, such as accounting and auditing, Likens said.

Likens said the challenge was providing context to the data, which “usually sits in peoples’ heads. How do you extract tacit knowledge?”

Likens said the goal of PwC’s AI efforts is “tacit knowledge collection, telemetry, what agents are doing which then feeds into tacit knowledge collection.” That calls for a “focus on the architecture first, so it can scale for our people, so when they use it, they know it’s safe, they know what they can use it for, they have access to the right data they are allowed to have access to.”

4. Governance and guardrails

At NBCUniversal, governance and guardrails are essential pieces of the process. Still, the amount of oversight depends on the amount of risk to the organization, which Morgan refers to as the potential “blast radius.”

“With a use case as simple as an agentic tool that presets my lunch on my calendar or something like that, that’s low risk, we don’t need a human in the loop. If we have something agentic that is automatically sending our messages to consumers, that is a bigger deal because it is a higher risk for the company,” said Morgan.

NBCUniversal’s governance process consists of intake forms. These help Morgan’s team track and measure the potential impact of AI and agents on the organization.

Also: 96% of IT pros use AI now: Their top 7 agentic applications and biggest implementation roadblocks

At PwC, AI responsibility is centralized around “one percent of the organization — those are the deep AI engineers,” Likens said. “These engineers set standards, create the chassis that is trusted and safe. and do the builds. Then we have 10% who are hands-on builders distributed across the business. building for clients, who directly understand an industry or function.”





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


The Argentine markets took a beating last week, but US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has rushed to the rescue with a remarkable promise: America will provide what amounts to unlimited support to prop up Argentina. His declaration that “all options for stabilization are on the table” – including swap lines, direct currency purchases, and buying Argentine government debt – represents an extraordinary blank check.

But here’s the real kicker: Bessent claims Argentina is “systemically important” to the United States. This is financial fiction at its finest.

The Systemic Importance Fairy Tale

Let’s be brutally honest: Argentina poses zero systemic risk to the US financial system. US banks have minimal exposure to Argentine debt. Trade between the two countries is negligible in the context of the US economy. If Argentina defaulted tomorrow, would Bank of America collapse? Would JPMorgan need a bailout? Of course not.

The “systemically important” label is being stretched beyond recognition. If Argentina qualifies, then virtually every country in Latin America – including those the Trump administration just hit with massive tariffs – should qualify too.

This isn’t about systemic risk; it’s about political preferences dressed up as financial necessity.

The Moral Hazard Machine

By offering essentially unlimited support to Argentina, the US is creating a massive moral hazard problem.

The message to Milei’s government is clear: Don’t worry about the hard work of building political coalitions or passing sustainable reforms through parliament. Uncle Sam will catch you if you fall.

This is precisely the wrong incentive structure. Argentina has defaulted on its sovereign debt nine times since independence. Nine times!

The country’s political economy is fundamentally broken, cycling through periods of populist spending followed by crisis and austerity. US financial support doesn’t fix this cycle – it enables it.

The Real Threat to US Financial Stability

Here’s the irony: While Argentina poses no systemic risk to the US, this bailout policy might. Not directly through financial contagion, but through the precedent it sets.

If the US Treasury is willing to provide unlimited support to a serial defaulter like Argentina simply because its president is friendly with Trump and speaks the MAGA language, what’s to stop other countries from playing the same game? Elect a Trump-friendly president, make the right noises about being an ally, and wait for the bailout when things go south.

This transforms the US Treasury into a global lender of last resort – not for genuine systemic crises, but for politically favored regimes. That’s a commitment the US cannot afford, especially when federal debt is already approaching dangerous levels.

The Buenos Aires Reality Check

The timing of Bessent’s announcement is telling. It comes right after Milei’s party got hammered in regional elections in Buenos Aires. The political message from Argentine voters was clear (rightly or wrongly): Milei’s policies aren’t working, and he lacks popular support for his reforms.

Rather than forcing Milei to build political consensus and pursue genuine institutional reforms, the US bailout allows him to double down on rule by decree. This is not sustainable governance. It’s political theater subsidized by American taxpayers.

Where’s the “America First”?

This is where the contradictions become absurd. The Trump administration came to power promising “America First” – putting American workers and taxpayers first, being tough on countries that don’t pay their fair share, and ending the era of the US playing global policeman.

Yet here we are, with a Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary promising unlimited support to a country that has stiffed international creditors nine times. How exactly does bailing out Argentine bondholders put American workers first? How does propping up a foreign government that can’t even win local elections serve US interests?

The Unlimited Commitment Problem

Perhaps most troubling is the open-ended nature of Bessent’s commitment. “All options are on the table” with no conditions, no limits, no requirements for structural reform. This isn’t a rescue package – it’s a blank check.

What happens when Argentina needs another injection in six months? Another one in a year? At what point does the US Treasury say “enough”? And when that moment comes as it inevitably will won’t the withdrawal of support trigger an even bigger crisis?

The Alternative Nobody Wants to Discuss

Here’s what should happen: Argentina should be allowed to face the consequences of its political and economic choices.

Yes, this means potential default. Yes, this means economic hardship. But it also means the country would finally be forced to confront its fundamental problems rather than papering them over with foreign money.

The IMF learned this lesson the hard way after multiple failed bailouts. Now the US seems determined to repeat the same mistakes, but with even less conditionality and oversight.

Conclusion

This isn’t about whether one likes or dislikes Milei. It’s about the dangerous precedent of the United States providing unlimited financial support to a country that poses no genuine systemic risk to the US financial system (or to the global financial system).

The moral hazard is obvious: Why should any country pursue painful but necessary reforms when they can simply wait for a bailout? Why should Argentina fix its institutional problems when the US Treasury stands ready to finance its dysfunction?

Ultimately, this policy doesn’t just threaten US financial stability through the direct cost of supporting Argentina.

It threatens the entire architecture of international financial responsibility. When “systemically important” becomes a political designation rather than an economic reality, and when bailouts come with no strings attached, we’re not promoting stability. The US taxpayers will be subsidizing instability.

The world is indeed upside down when an “America First” administration puts Argentine bondholders before American taxpayers.

PS Back in July I warned about Milei not being the miracle maker that some was making him up to be in my blog post Classical Liberals, Let’s Be Honest About Milei





Source link