News
For the last two years, much of the conversation around AI has focused on jobs.
Which roles will change? Which tasks will be automated? How many people will organizations need in the future?
Those are important questions. Yet in conversations with enterprise customers, a different concern is rising to the top.
The conversation is shiftingWe were all told to use AI, deploy AI tools and find ways to move faster. Boards pushed for adoption. Executive teams launched initiatives. Business units raced to identify new use cases before competitors did.
Then the bills started showing up.
If you're following technology news, you've seen growing concerns about organizations losing control of AI spend. Budget overruns, runaway token usage and unexpectedly large invoices have become common discussion points among technology leaders. AI adoption is accelerating across every line of business, and many organizations are discovering they have far less visibility into consumption than they thought.
That's because AI doesn't just innovate. It invoices.
Every AI decision and action has a price tag. AI doesn't just answer questions. It reasons, retries, plans, triggers calls, leverages data and compute just to complete one task. It’s now integrated into the business applications we are using everyday, from Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini to SAP, Workday, and LinkedIn. Whether we know it or not, the meter is running.
For many organizations, that creates a challenge they weren't prepared for.
A familiar problem in a new formA decade ago, companies faced similar issues with cloud adoption. Teams spun up services quickly, often without governance, visibility or accountability. Costs grew faster than expected, and organizations ultimately had to introduce new disciplines to understand what was being used, who was using it and whether the value justified the spend.
AI is creating a similar challenge at even greater scale.
The difference is that AI is not confined to one team or department. It exists across every part of the organization. Marketing teams use it. Sales teams use it. Product teams use it. Developers use it.
AI capabilities are increasingly embedded in business applications while organizations are also building custom agents and workflows of their own. In fact, agentic AI is expected to drive a 24-fold increase in token consumption by 2030 according to Goldman Sachs.
As a result, AI spend is showing up everywhere.
Many organizations still don't know exactly which models are being used, which agents are consuming resources, which teams are generating the highest costs or how much token consumption is tied to specific business outcomes, business value and real ROI. Without this visibility, you don’t have a foundation for governance, control, or accountability.
The hidden costs of AI and the mirage of savingsThis lack of visibility becomes particularly important when organizations start making workforce decisions based on projected AI savings. Too often, the comparison begins with a salary and an AI license. The challenge is that the license is only one component of the cost.
The real cost includes token consumption, infrastructure, data platforms, cloud resources, failed attempts, retries and the human oversight required to validate outputs and manage exceptions. Those costs are frequently spread across different systems, teams and budgets, which makes them difficult to measure accurately.
A salary is relatively predictable. AI costs are not.
The same task can generate very different costs depending on which model is selected, how much context is provided, how many times the system retries a process and how much computing power is required to complete the work. That variability matters because a role removed from payroll does not automatically translate into savings. The expense may simply move somewhere else.
It may move into cloud consumption. It may move into AI services. It may move into infrastructure costs. It may move into additional work for employees responsible for reviewing outputs and managing exceptions.
Without visibility into those costs, organizations are not comparing AI to a salary. They're comparing a salary to an assumption.
Visibility before optimizationThe answer is not to slow innovation or abandon AI initiatives. Instead, enterprise leaders must understand where AI creates value, what it costs to operate at scale and how to make informed decisions about adoption.
That starts with visibility.
Organizations need to see which AI applications, agents and models are being used across the business. They need to know where tokens are being consumed, where costs are accumulating and how usage maps to business units, products and outcomes.
Only then can they begin making informed decisions about optimisation. That may mean selecting different models for different use cases. It may mean identifying unnecessary consumption. It may mean understanding when lower-cost alternatives can achieve the same outcome. In some cases, it may simply mean discovering that a small number of users or workloads are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of spend.
These are manageable problems.
The bigger risk is making financial decisions before understanding the economics.
The rise of AI tokenomicsAI has moved into an inference economy where costs are driven by usage, tokens and real-time execution. Tokens are emerging as the atomic unit of AI spend, value and pricing. Organizations are going to need new ways to govern, measure and optimize that consumption if they want to run AI affordably at scale. This emerging discipline of AI tokenomics is becoming increasingly important as AI adoption expands across the enterprise.
What we're seeing today is the beginning of a new economic model that many companies are not equipped to manage yet. As AI becomes embedded across applications, agents and workflows, understanding consumption becomes just as important as understanding adoption.
What does AI return?
Ultimately, the question organizations should be asking is not simply what AI costs but what it returns. What business value does it create? What outcomes does it improve? What's it worth?
Organizations that can answer those questions with confidence will make better decisions about where AI belongs, where it delivers measurable results and where it doesn't.
Before counting AI-driven savings from job cuts, understand the full cost of the work being done. Because the organizations getting the most value from AI won't be the ones making the fastest assumptions about efficiency. They'll be the ones making decisions based on visibility, evidence, and a clear understanding of what the technology actually costs.
We've featured the best AI website builder.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
- City of Sydney has joined four other local Australian councils in banning the use of smart glasses in specific areas
- Banned in public pools, gyms, childcare centers, libraries and government buildings
- Separate ban covers public schools in Western Australia
Local government councils and public schools across Australia are continuing moves to rapidly ban the use of smart glasses in public areas, following the federal government’s announcement that use of the devices will be prohibited in government-run workplaces, services centers, laboratories and local council buildings.
The City of Sydney, whose jurisdiction covers a population of approximately 240,000 within Sydney’s central business district and surrounding inner suburbs, is the latest local government council to enforce the ban, following the City of Yarra in Melbourne, City of Brisbane and Canterbury-Bankstown council in suburban Sydney.
The ban covers public pools, gyms, childcare centers, libraries and town halls, and the council will update signage and guidance to enforce it.
“There is a policy in place at our pools that covers the use of recording devices, including smart glasses,” a City of Sydney spokesperson told TechRadar.
“Recording without consent is not permitted and recording devices are prohibited in change rooms and other areas of our aquatic facilities.
“Conditions of Entry, published online and displayed on reception screens, have recently been updated to strengthen protections against non-consensual recording, with specific reference to smart glasses. Reminders have been issued through member communications. Staff respond when they observe behaviour that may be inconsistent with the Conditions of Entry. Matters can be escalated to police if needed.”
In a separate statement, the Western Australian government also announced today that students, teachers, parents and contractors will be banned from wearing or storing smart glasses on school premises from the start of the next school term on October 12.
Western Australia's education minister Sabine Winton said keeping students and staff safe was a priority for the state government.
“This ban is about taking a common sense, preventative approach,” she said. “We know that smart glasses are becoming more accessible and can have a detrimental impact on people’s privacy and wellbeing.”
'We need an import ban'City of Sydney councilor Matthew Thompson added that there will be exemptions for those who use the glasses as accessibility devices, including individuals with vision and hearing loss.
“Overseas we’re seeing women being targeted and harassed in public and recorded without their consent. We don’t want what’s happening in the US to happen here,” Thompson’s motion read.
“That’s why we’re banning smart glasses and other wearable recording devices from all of our pools, gyms, childcare [centers], libraries and other council spaces.
Thompson has also called for the Australian federal government to impose an import ban on these smart glasses until privacy laws and standards are strengthened.
“Cheap wearable devices like smart glasses are already flooding the market. But instead of stopping this problem, the federal Labor government has dumped it on to councils to sort out.
“We need an import ban on these cheap, intrusive devices until we have stronger privacy protections and clear standards implemented nationally.”
‘Pervert’ glasses and privacy concernsFirst widely popularized by Meta, smart glasses have since been replicated by other brands and have recently come under heavy criticism for their potential for harassment and for recording members of the public without their consent — earning the nickname ‘pervert glasses’ in some circles.
A University of Sydney study found that from a sample size of 350 public Instagram videos shot with smart glasses, around 60% could potentially be classified as harassment of a person or people.
Similar bans have also been introduced in the UK and the US, including in courtrooms in England, Wales and New York state, as well as being prohibited from use by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees.
I have developed a healthy suspicion of any ChatGPT answer that imagines no negative possibilities or doesn't have any follow-up questions for me. Simulated AI arrogance can leave any user with unexpected obstacles.
But one useful way to avoid those pitfalls is simply to follow up your question with another that forces ChatGPT to consider its blind spots and blithe self-assurance, however artificial it might be. Simply inquiring "What are you unsure about in your answer?" will open up some surprising insights into where the AI has missed the mark.
It's pretty simple. You have a normal conversation, get an answer, and then ask the AI where it thinks that answer is weakest.
So I started trying it. ChatGPT would often point directly at an assumption it had quietly made earlier in the conversation. Once that assumption was visible, I could give it the missing information and get an answer that was genuinely better.
Planning a tripI started with a travel itinerary, as it's something ChatGPT is very good at producing and occasionally terrible at understanding. I asked it to plan a three-day family trip. I gave it some basic information and the resulting itinerary looked good. There were morning activities, lunch suggestions, afternoon stops, and enough apparent breathing room that I could imagine happily following it.
There was just one problem. ChatGPT had created the trip without considering who the trip was for and without thinking of any possible errors or slowdowns that might put us off the schedule. Instead of telling ChatGPT the itinerary was too busy, I typed my new follow-up: "What are you unsure about in your answer?"
“I’m unsure about the pacing of the itinerary, particularly the second day. I’ve assumed your family can comfortably handle two substantial activities with a break between them, but I don’t know your child’s nap schedule, usual energy level or how much downtime you prefer while traveling. I’m also estimating travel times without knowing exactly where you’ll be staying. If any of those assumptions are wrong, the schedule could feel much more hectic in practice than it appears on the page.”
ChatGPT had spotted the problem with its own plan without me pointing it out. That gave me a much better next prompt. I told it that I wanted only one significant scheduled activity each day, and that afternoons needed to remain flexible. ChatGPT rebuilt the itinerary around those constraints, and the new version immediately felt more like something a real family might survive.
Repair or replace?(Image credit: dasytnik / Shutterstock)For another experiment, I gave ChatGPT a hypothetical laptop dilemma. Imagine I had an older computer that was beginning to struggle and wanted to know whether I should repair it or replace it. The AI created a framework involving the laptop’s age, likely repair costs, performance, and the price of a replacement. After considering everything, it suggested that replacement was probably the more sensible long-term option.
ChatGPT is very good at producing prose that has the shape of a conclusion. You can easily forget that some of the evidence was never actually provided. So I asked my follow-up again: "What are you unsure about in your answer?"
“I’m unsure about recommending replacement without knowing the actual repair cost or what is failing. I’m using the laptop’s age as evidence that further problems may appear, but age alone doesn’t tell us whether replacing it is financially sensible," the chatbot wrote. "If the problem is something relatively cheap, such as a battery or storage upgrade, repairing it could extend its useful life considerably. I’d be much more confident after knowing the model, specifications, symptoms and estimated repair price.”
This time the weakness was obvious once ChatGPT said it aloud. I had essentially asked whether an unidentified problem was worth fixing without saying what the problem was or how much fixing it would cost. Yet ChatGPT had still managed to give me an answer.
Humans are quite comfortable saying they cannot make a recommendation until they know more. ChatGPT has been designed to be helpful, and helpfulness often means filling gaps so that the conversation can continue. Sometimes it means the chatbot has an imaginary set of ideas that it fills in the gaps with regardless of their reality.
Taking it furtherThe trick can be extended in other ways too. “What are you unsure about right now?” is a good starting point, but the answer can become the basis for another question.
If ChatGPT lists three uncertainties, I can ask which one is most likely to change its recommendation. If it says that important context is missing, I can ask exactly what information it needs from me. Asking "what could I tell you that would make you more sure?” helps set the AI up for better answers.
This is particularly handy for decisions. If I am comparing products or choosing between several options, I can ask ChatGPT for its initial take and then immediately interrogate the weakest part. The process feels far more natural than spending five minutes constructing a giant prompt before the conversation has even started.
There is an obvious limit to all of this. ChatGPT’s description of its confidence is itself generated by ChatGPT. The chatbot can be wrong about what it should be worried about. It can miss a crucial problem entirely. For anything involving facts that matter, asking ChatGPT whether it feels uncertain is no replacement for checking reliable sources.
But for everyday conversations, the trick addresses one of my biggest frustrations with AI surprisingly well, simply by forcing into view some of the invisible scaffolding holding up the conclusions in its answers and determining if they are at all solid enough to rely upon.
Twitter is not back, and we'll surely never see the likes of it again. In its place, we have X, and now, Tweet.app. You can be forgiven for the confusion. Many who still use X think their posts are tweets, but the still-pay-to-play platform from Bluebird, Inc. is now called Tweet.
It's a tale far too rich to contain in, say, a classic 140-character tweet, but I'll attempt to unpack it here, with insights from Bluebird, Inc. President and General Counsel Stephen Coates.
"I call it the 'Tweenix,' " Coates tells me, after I noted that Tweet.app's new blue logo looks a little like a phoenix. The imagery is apt. It signifies classic Twitter rising from the ashes, but also Bluebird's initial success and then failure to revive 'Twitter', before ultimately launching Tweet.app a few weeks ago.
Two years ago, Bluebird began the skunkworks project to revive Twitter, a brand Elon Musk effectively killed when he bought Twitter in 2022 and then in 2023 rebranded it to X, leaving vestiges of the old 'Twitter' scattered throughout the services, a fact that played a crucial role in Bluebird's ability to revive the brand.
Coates told me that after his company tried to file for a cancellation of the 'Tweet' and 'Twitter' trademarks in December of last year, X quickly filed a federal injunction. In the meantime, Bluebird launched Twitter.now. Months later, the judge ruled that because X still had "formerly Twitter" on the Apple App Store listing, it had brand rights. Coates called the ruling surprising, but Bluebird quickly pivoted and rebranded to Tweet.
The company, he told me, has no plans to go after the iconic Twitter bird logo, even though it's not well protected as a brand by X. Hence, the Tweenix.
Tweet, though, still seems like a risky name. Coates told me, "We're optimistic... It seems highly likely we’ll prevail on 'Tweet'."
Bluebird, Inc. President Stephen J. Coates (Image credit: Bluebird, Inc.)That remains to be seen. When you sign up for Tweet, you must acknowledge that you know it's not affiliated with X. Search Tweet in the App Store, and the first result is still X. However, Tweet.app operating relatively under the radar might help it avoid further scrutiny from X and Elon Musk.
It has, by Coates' measure, just about 8,000 users. "[That's] pretty good, considering it's paid," Coates told me. The platform is so small that you could conceivably read all the tweets — I'm not sure that's a selling point, but Coates said there are "already community and inside jokes."
The company is using the income from those users to pay its small team of 10 employees and contractors as it builds the platform and tweaks the moderation filters, something Coates considers of critical importance.
Tweet.app, which does resemble old-school Twitter, is currently using AI to scale its moderation, including its still-in-beta Vera tool, which measures content for misinformation and applies a score. Eventually, Tweet.app members will have a dial connected to those ratings to automatically filter out their desired level of misinformation.
That's right, Tweet.app won't be in the business of rooting out all fake news. The creed will be, "Freedom of speech but not freedom of reach," said Coates.
FutureFutureFutureWhere Twitter, under former CEO Dick Costolo, whom Coates worked under, struggled with how to be a town square when there was one guy shouting obscenities in the corner, Tweet.com will let the guy shout, but also let users hide the obscenities they don't want to see in their feeds.
If it works, all of it will be powered by this AI. "I call it AI for good. We're not creating tools that will create AI outputs," said Coates, who has worked as counsel for Meta, Reddit, and TikTok.
None of this, of course, ensures success. Classic social media, including Twitter, was built on viral moments, like the Arab Spring, the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and selfies that broke the internet.
I call it AI for good. We're not creating tools that will create AI outputs
Stephen Coates
Coates acknowledged the power of these "inflection" moments, but reminded me that you can't predict them. Tweet.app is happy to grow slowly. Coates knows that paying members will be more deeply engaged than people who simply hop on the platform for free. "At some point will it be open to everyone? I certainly hope so," he told me.
I asked Coates why we need this or any other new social media. He told me that he sees room for reinvention, with space for social media that gives users control. "We're empowering them to control the algorithm," which is an idea that well-established social media platforms have only recently approached.
As the other upstart micro-blogging social media platform, Bluesky, moves away from the town square concept, Coates sees an opportunity to build an alternative to the only other big open platform: X.
"There's room for more. I think people will come for the nostalgia of Twitter and tweeting and stay for the control and experience. It’s a grand experiment."
The Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 feels like the PC gaming handheld of 2026. An enhanced version of the original Xbox-branded Ally X, this is shaping up to be one of the best-looking, ergonomically fantastic, and brilliantly performing handheld games consoles — and I went hands-on with it at Gamescom last month and liked it. A lot.
Coming to it as someone who hasn’t truly jumped in with both feet to PC gaming handhelds — basically none of them play nice with my hands due to being bulky and heavy — even a short time with the newest, flashiest version of Asus’ Xbox handhelds has left a permanent mark. One that might make me a PC handheld convert.
Much will be made of its price tag and purchase options — either $1,299 / £1,299 on its own, or $2,299.99 / £2,299.99 as a bundle with the new ROG XREAL R1 glasses — but after experiencing all its enhancements and features, and seeing how games run on it, it really could be a hit.
Looks and feels the part(Image credit: Future)Even though I know that this is a similar handheld to its predecessor, this thing is a joy to hold and use from a design perspective.
The overarching form is the same as the original Ally X, but the new translucent finish is a thing of beauty. It gives it an almost see-under-the-hood kind of vibe, and does a great job of making it stand out from its largely black-and-white competitors.
The gold accents are even more fantastic in real life and up close than in pictures, too, with the rings around each thumbstick and the shine of the four small buttons on the front, as well as the ‘ROG 20th Anniversary’ plate, and the stripe down the back really popping out of the otherwise black aesthetic.
(Image credit: Future)That translucent back also has an incredibly grippy feel — you won’t need to add an external case here. As someone who always has to worry about that with gamepads and phones, this was extremely welcome; the rubberised, tactile wings of the controller really are conducive to maintaining a solid grip.
The inputs remain great too, with rounded face buttons, lovely triggers and bumpers that are all a joy to interact with, as well as excellent Tunnel Magnetoresistance (TMR) thumbsticks that offer a tangible upgrade over the analogue sticks of its predecessor. Though, I’d have liked to have seen some microswitch button tech in the X20 as a similar upgrade as well.
The star of the show, though, is, of course, that slightly bigger, but much better, screen. Offering an increase of 0.4 inches, but a huge leap up to OLED in panel tech, the new screen is vibrant and has colors that really pop and contrast. The boost to color gamut and HDR it offers makes for a genuine visual treat, and you know you’ll be covered in all situations with a brightness of up to 1400 nits to tap into.
But has the guts to match(Image credit: Future)The performance remains excellent as it was on the X20; games might never have looked better on a handheld screen.
The OLED panel is a joy to use, with fantastic colors and contrast, and the extra bump in the VRR to FreeSync Premium Pro is also welcome and a great feature. As a result, Forza Horizon 5 looks comfortably better, by a strong margin, compared to the handheld I am most used to, my PlayStation Portal, in sheer image quality and vibrancy, while getting comfortably north of 60 frames per second.
Using the TMR thumbsticks was great too: every move feels much more responsive, smooth, and instant compared to my Portal or a Steam Deck, and the extra durability the sticks offer over analog ones is superb too.
The Asus ROG Ally X20 is a fantastic bit of kit, and offers a compelling route into handheld PC gaming — perhaps one of the most complete offerings — even for me, as someone who has yet to jump in and can’t ever find the right device for the job.
So far it might be the PC gaming handheld I’ll consider buying most if I commit to going mobile. It’s not a transformation of the PC handheld experience that the ROG Xbox Ally X offers, but it’s an excellent refinement.
- Daredevil: Born Again will end with its third season
- Marvel has wielded the ax on its longest-running live-action Disney+ show
- Its showrunner has also left with the final season deep into post production
Daredevil: Born Again will end with its third season after Marvel called time on the Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio-led TV show.
Rumors first emerged in the US morning yesterday (September 21) when X/Twitter user HablemonsdecineX claimed it had been canceled. Almost instantly, numerous industry insiders with spotty track records quickly jumped on the bandwagon to insist they'd heard similar things.
TechRadar approached Marvel and Disney for comment on its supposed axing, but didn't receive an immediate response. However, a few hours after Hablemonsdecine's original post, The Hollywood Reporter (THR) published its own piece indicating Daredevil: Born Again season 3 would be the show's last hurrah.
A Disney spokesperson has since told me that THR's article is accurate, so Born Again season 3, which will air on Disney+ sometime in March 2027, will be its final outing.
Why was Daredevil: Born Again canceled after three seasons?I’ve now lived through two Daredevil Season 3 cancellations. You can’t hurt me anymoreSeptember 21, 2026
Outside of Marvel headquarters, nobody knows for sure — but there's one major reason why it's likely been consigned to the scrap heap.
Indeed, the show's second season suffered a significant drop in viewership compared to its debut outing on Disney+. Per audience measurement experts Luminate, Born Again season 2 accumulated 4.5 million views across its first five weeks in March. Compare that to the 8.4 million that season 1 accrued across the same time period in early 2025 on one of the world's best streaming services, and the Marvel Phase 6 program's audience share fell by a seemingly unrecoverable 47% in the space of 12 months.
I wrote about this last year but Charlie and Vincent only ever signed on for 3 seasons. It’s sad to see it end again but I’m very grateful we got 3 additional seasons. There’s always a possibility that they do come back for more. The ball is in Marvel’s court to make a new deal https://t.co/f83pEFHn6RSeptember 21, 2026
For all intents and purposes, Born Again season 2's dramatic drop in viewers didn't appear to spook Marvel executives. That's because its third — and now final — season was not only greenlit prior to its forebear's release, but also entered full production mere days before season 2 premiered on Disney+.
Furthermore, it seems that the decision to throw the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) TV show in the trash was only just made. According to Deadline, its cast and crew were informed of its cancellation on the same day that said news broke. It's unclear if Marvel's top brass spent months deliberating over the show's future before culling it, or if it was more of a spur-of-the-moment decision.
One thing that might have fast-tracked its demise is the departure of showrunner Dario Scardapane.
Per THR, Scardapane, who was brought on to rescue Daredevil: Born Again following reports that Marvel wanted to rework the entire show in late 2023, is said to have parted ways with the comic giant. Scardapane's exit comes with the show's third season deep into its post-production phase, too, thereby leaving the Born Again team without its creative figurehead. There's no word on who, if anyone, will fill the void and get the series' final installment over the line.
Why Daredevil: Born Again's cancellation couldn't have come at a worse timeComment from r/marvelstudiosWith Born Again's time coming to an end, Marvel now has a two-fold problem on its hands.
For one, season 3 was seemingly set to herald a new dawn for the street-level corner of the MCU. Indeed, with the likes of Luke Cage and Iron Fist set to join the eponymous vigilante, Wilson Fisk, and Jessica Jones in making the leap from the Netflix Marvel-Verse to the MCU, fans had hoped that more gritty and grounded MCU stories would branch off of Born Again's forthcoming season.
Admittedly, that could still happen. However, if Marvel no longer has confidence in its longest-running live-action series, what hope do we have of seeing a Jessica Jones TV revival or — whisper it quietly — a Heroes for Hire project?
Comment from r/MarvelStudiosSpoilersThe other major issue Marvel has to contend with is actively promoting Daredevil: Born Again season 3.
New York Comic-Con (NYCC) has been used to market and/or announce many of the comic titan's forthcoming Disney+ offerings. And, with NYCC 2026 due to take place between October 8 and 11, it's highly likely that Marvel will hold its usual panel to reveal more details about its 2027 TV line-up.
With Born Again season 3 confirmed to be the show's last entry, will Marvel show and/or tell us anything significant about it? Or will it shift its focus to its animated programs, such as X-Men 97 season 3 and Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man season 2, and subsequently ignore the giant Daredevil-shaped elephant in the room? I guess we'll find out in a few weeks' time.
For now, catch up on everything else we know so far about Daredevil: Born Again season 3.
In March, Google moved its own post-quantum cryptography (PQC) migration deadline forward to 2029, a full six years ahead of NIST's guidance, and two ahead of the NSA's requirement for national security systems. It was a terrific bit of security signaling, but now it is backed up by a new product-by-product roadmap organized around three risk domains, with milestones attached to named services.
For anyone whose job touches digital trust, the most significant of those three domains is Google’s attempt at enhancing foundational capabilities for cryptographic agility: building flexible systems that can adopt new cryptographic standards with minimal engineering effort as those standards evolve.
The message is that organizations should prepare for a future in which standards, certificate formats, and operational requirements continue to evolve, and evolve regularly, requiring cryptographic agility.
Why quantum risk is already a digital trust problemAdversaries are already harvesting and storing encrypted data today on the assumption that a future quantum computer will decrypt it (harvest now, decrypt later). Anything with a long confidentiality tail, from health records to national archives to intellectual property, is already exposed to a machine that does not yet exist.
Quantum-resistant algorithms, like ML-DSA, solve the cryptographic problem, but they introduce much larger keys and signatures. Deployed through today's public key infrastructure (PKI), they would inflate or possibly break the systems behind secure connections. Legacy systems and high-latency networks would feel it most.
What is a Merkle Tree Certificate (MTC)?At the time this article is being written, the most significant development in Google's roadmap may be the easiest to miss. Under Domain 2, Integrity and non-repudiation, a single line reads:
“Google Trust Services, Merkle Tree Certificates, 2028”.
Merkle Tree Certificates (MTCs) are a new kind of website domain certificate designed to keep secure connections fast in the coming era of quantum computers. Today a website proves its identity by presenting a certificate that carries several digital signatures, and the quantum-resistant versions of those signatures are so bulky they would slow down every secure connection on the internet.
MTCs solves this by having the certificate authority (CA) record everything it issues in a public, tamper-evident log, organized as a Merkle tree. Rather than carrying heavy signatures, the website presents a short trail of digital fingerprints showing its certificate sits in that log, and the browser checks the trail against a summary of the log it already received through its normal software updates.
Of note, MTCs do not abandon X.509. They are X.509 certificates, carrying a proof where a signature used to sit, issued alongside conventional directly-signed certificates rather than replacing them.
The result is a certificate that stays small, stands up to quantum computers, and is publicly verifiable by default. For the regular everyday person: we get to keep using the internet fast and uninterrupted with quantum resistance underneath.
MTCs make transparency structuralIn today's web PKI, transparency is bolted onto issuance as a separate step. The CA signs a certificate, submits it to independent CT logs, and collects SCTs, each of which is a log's signed promise to publish the certificate within a fixed window. A misbehaving or compromised log can vouch for a certificate that never becomes visible to the monitors watching for misissuance.
MTCs change that relationship. The CA certifies by logging, and a certificate is literally a proof that its entry appears in the CA's public issuance log, verified by the browser on every connection. If it is not in the log, it is not a certificate. Under MTC, transparency does not merely survive the post-quantum transition. It comes out stronger.
Who is developing Merkle Tree CertificatesWhen the vendor with the dominant browser share proposes a new certificate format and a new root store to hold it, it is reasonable to ask whether the rest of the ecosystem is being consulted or simply informed.
However, MTCs are not Google's alone. At the time of writing, the IETF draft's authors span Google, Apple, Cloudflare, and Geomys. Cloudflare has been involved from the outset, CAs including Sectigo have contributed to the underlying research, and Let's Encrypt publicly committed to MTCs in June 2026. The result will be an open standard any CA can implement, controlled by no single vendor.
The organizations that will shape post-quantum web trust are the ones in the working group now. Root programs, CAs, and large implementers who stay outside it will inherit decisions rather than influence them. That choice is available to everyone, and the window is open today.
How organizations should prepare for MTCsGoogle’s 2028 date for MTCs deserves a roadmap's usual caveats. Google ties it to standardization work still in progress at the IETF, and dates like these move. The direction, however, resembles something that seems settled.
Chrome's planned Quantum-resistant Root Store will support quantum-resistant certificates only in the MTC format, not as post-quantum signatures bolted into traditional X.509. Compact classical signatures and X.509 served the web extraordinarily well for three decades, but with the dawn of quantum computing, we are due for a redesign.
For everyone else, the practical implication of Google's roadmap is not that you need MTCs. It is that you need to be capable of adopting them (or whatever else emerges) without a multi-year engineering program. Which is precisely the cryptographic agility Google put at the foundation of its own plan.
In concrete terms, organizations should focus on:
- A complete inventory of certificates and cryptographic assets, because you cannot migrate what you cannot see
- Automated certificate lifecycle management, because shorter certificate lifetimes will make manual processes untenable well before quantum computers arrive
- A written post-quantum roadmap from your CA, which every organization should be asking for
The full scope of what MTCs can do is still coming into focus, and they may not be the only answer the industry ultimately adopts. What is already clear is that organizations that invest in cryptographic agility, certificate lifecycle management, and complete visibility today will be best positioned to adapt as post-quantum standards mature.
The future of digital trust will belong to organizations that can evolve as quickly as the cryptography they depend on.
We've featured the best endpoint protection software.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
- Apple unveils its Music Hall in Battersea Power Station, London
- Space for live music, but also a place for recording said music
- All performances can be recorded in Spatial Audio
If you love listing to acoustic sets, live recordings or unplugged sessions from your favorite artists, then Apple Music's new announcement might make it your go-to streaming service for this kind of recording.
London's Battersea Power Station, an iconic Art Deco power station once famous for its use in Pink Floyd album artwork (that's since been turned into a rather soulless shopping mall) now plays host to the Apple Music Hall. This, of course, levels up the location's artistic merits, joining the The Cinema in the Power Station, which this writer argues is the best movie theater he's ever been to.
Apple Music Hall is a 600-seater venue, with a 48-speaker surround sound system (that's 12.5 people per speaker, if the venue is at capacity). But its appeal isn't just for people who can hop on the London Underground's Northern Line and navigate the winding halls of the Power Station.
The space also houses a production facility, which can be used for live or post-performance mixing. That means performances at the Apple Music Hall can be recorded and mixed incredibly quickly, letting Apple Music listeners at home enjoy the set with Spatial Audio and video recordings too.
Apple has confirmed that its Music Hall performances will be live-streamed, so you can tune in easily. It didn't specify that this'll only be to Apple Music subscribers, but (given the heavy investment in such a a venue) it'd be odd for the company to let just anyone tune in and listen.
A place to listen to music(Image credit: Apple)Music streaming services are starting to realise that intentional listening is more meaningful than algorithmically-picked background noise which you tune out of. Only a few months ago, Spotify opened a Listening Lounge in London, which is a room with a high-end stereo set-up so you can enjoy quality music in an acoustically-tuned environment.
Listening Lounge is a bit different to the Apple Music Hall, because it's not for live music and you can't simply buy tickets to go, but they share a common theme: it's nice to sit down and spend all of your mental capabilities enjoying music. These will be live streams that you don't put on in the background; you can sit down and enjoy the performances as they happen.
The addition of live artists gives the Apple Music Hall a little extra juice — and if the brand manages to book some good artists, the live streams could be outstanding. I don't mean popular artists, but those with a flair for live performance that'll make the recordings transcend their studio equivalents.
Thankfully, London's a city full of artists, with every street hosting theater bars, record store gigs and open mic nights. Apple doesn't need to open the purse strings and look for the big names, or rely on people with loads of TikTok followers, to get a talented line-up.
No artists have been announced for the venue yet, but after its full opening on September 28, perhaps we'll hear some names. And if, like me, you're a local who might consider going to a gig there, signing up for a newsletter on the Apple Music Hall website will keep you in the know.
Ask a UK bank for investment advice, and you get a lawful recommendation. If it was negligent, you will have the right to make a claim using the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
Ask ChatGPT, or, more fashionable, Claude, the same question and you get nothing. Just an answer, but it will be delivered with a more confident tone, no matter whether it's right or absolutely wrong.
Despite that, more than a quarter of UK consumers now say they trust AI chatbots for money advice. The Financial Conduct Authority found this figure and flagged it as a live concern in its most recent review.
Other surveys found even higher figures. STRAT7 found 55% of UK adults have used AI for financial guidance, Sky News reported 40%, and EY's global study measured Gen Z adoption at 68%. Whatever the precise number is, the direction is the same.
People have started to trust AI more and more in their financial decisions. But the debate about it has, so far, been asking the wrong question.
What is the wrong question?Most publications today focus on accuracy, and what everyone wants to know is whether the AI's advice is good. But is it?
In one study, there were five real financial scenarios passed to major chatbots, and the output was compared to certified financial planners. The result was unsurprising, though. The bots reliably missed emotional and situational context, so personal decisions turned to rough spreadsheet logic that missed important input.
Sky News has conducted a similar test, where three chatbots were given £16,000 in real savings. What they found was that the recommendations were US-biased and incomplete.
Most alarming, it was an investigation which found Claude incorrectly described Binance as FCA-registered when advising a beginner on cryptocurrency. Binance was, in fact, ordered to cease UK-regulated activity back in 2021.
AI’s misleading outputs sound disturbing, but what is even worse is that it is only one part of the problem. Things get harder after the incorrect advice has already been given, acted on, and gone wrong.
So, when it happens, who takes the blame? Nobody is the answer, although it’s quite uncomfortable to hear.
The FCA has noted the same. In its 2026 report, the regulator confirmed that LLM platforms such as ChatGPT and Claude sit entirely outside its regulatory remit. This means that consumers using them for financial guidance are not receiving regulated advice. Therefore, they have no access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme) if things go wrong.
That said, the safety net simply does not apply the moment consumers paste a question into a chatbot.
The regulatory gap explainedTo understand why this gap exists, let’s understand how UK financial regulation actually works. The regulatory perimeter is activity-based, not technology-based. This means what matters most is what is being done, not how.
A firm that provides personalized recommendations on the purchase, sale, or holding of certain assets is engaged in regulated activity, regardless of whether those recommendations are provided by a person or an algorithm.
The problem is that AI chatbots occupy a new space. They are not marketed as financial advisers, so they don't claim to be regulated. And technically, in most cases, they are not offering advice in the strict legal sense — they are responding to open questions.
Again, this ambiguity was addressed in the FCA report. The Mills Review highlights that AI platforms may influence consumers’ financial decisions without clearly implementing regulated actions. As a consequence, this creates a serious blank space between the actual financial impact and the protection provided by regulatory authorities.
The review's main recommendation was for the FCA to officially revise the scope for receiving financial recommendations developed using AI tools. So, this process is ongoing, and further updates will be available only after a few months, or even more.
The consumer protection problem and what fintech can doWhile there is no law so far protecting ordinary people, what should we do? Can fintechs close this gap, at least for now?
First of all, waiting for the FCA perimeter check to be completed is not a strategy. It’s better to start by separating information from personalization, especially if your company has an AI assistant.
The thing is that the boundaries of recommendations depend on whether the conclusion is adapted to the specific circumstances of a particular person. The tool that generally explains what an ETF is is in a completely different regulatory status than the one that says how much you should invest in funds.
Also, make sure the disclaimer does real work. The footer text “not financial advice,” located below a specific recommendation, will not pass regulatory checks. The FCA evaluates content, not form. If the output data looks like a personalized recommendation, the tiny disclaimers will not reclassify it.
Although many people use AI today, do not overuse it to earn trust. An analysis of more than 330 million reviews showed that mentions of interaction with AI are rated, on average, at just 1.7 points, compared to 3.7 points for reviews that do not mention AI.
Final wordsSurely, there will be some people who continue to use AI directly for financial advice, and their number will grow. For them, I can say only one thing: be careful about who you trust with your earnings. If no one is accountable, maybe not treating it as a rulebook will save you from losses.
But fintechs should start building the accountable version of their business, with an audit trail and a human above the AI layer. So when the machine says "yes," someone is actually standing behind that answer.
We've featured the best AI website builder.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
- Meta reaches agreement to allow Prospect union access to UK employees
- New reforms under the Employment Rights Act 2025 come into force in October 2026
- Despite slipping steadily, UK union membership could see a major bounce back
Meta has reached an agreement with Prospect union to allow access to its UK employees to speak about membership opportunities.
The move comes as a deadline for compliance with new union membership rules under the Employment Rights Act 2025 looms in October 2026.
Under the agreement, Prospect will have access to all 5,000 of Meta’s UK employees, allowing the union to talk to Meta workers about the benefits of union membership and recruit workers.
New union rules strengthen UK workersA spokesperson for Meta said, “Employees who want to find out more about union membership have a straightforward way to do so. Meta's industrial relations team already works with employee representative groups in multiple markets, and we are approaching this in the same way.”
Initial trade union reforms as part of the Employment Rights Act 2025 took effect in February of this year. But subsequent reforms, due to take effect on 30 October, add additional requirements for employers to inform workers of their right to join a union, provide greater access for unions to workplaces, add additional protections for union representatives, and give workers greater protections when taking industrial action.
Meta is therefore providing Prospect with access to Meta employees ahead of the deadline, which Mike Clancy, General Secretary of Prospect, said “is to Meta’s credit that they have struck this voluntary deal with Prospect, rather than waiting for the new Right of Access to kick in, sending a positive message to staff that they are open to engaging with a union.”
Prospect currently has over 160,000 UK workers within its membership pool, covering technology, broadcasting, creative industries, defense and education.
The beginnings of a UK union bounce back?According to official statistics from the UK Department for Business & Trade, union membership has been on a steady decline. In 1995, 28.8% of those in employment belonged to a union. But by 2025, this number has reached a historic low of just 19.9%.
Ahead of the reforms introduced by the Employment Rights Bill, union membership as a percentage of those in employment rose to 20.4% in 2025, potentially being bolstered ahead of the Bill’s formal introduction.
There are a number of reasons for the steady decline in union membership - some good, and some bad. The UK economy shifting away from industrial industries that traditionally held union-heavy employment is one of the most significant factors.
But Anti-union legislation introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s premiership during the 1990s also weakened the power of unions significantly. Unions lost legal protections against strikes, outlawed sympathy strikes, and introduced mandatory secret votes on union leadership ahead of strike action.
New rules introduced as part of employment protections and regulations - such as the minimum wage introduced in 1998 - have also reduced the need for unions to negotiate fair pay or organise industrial action in events of extreme unfairness.
Looking forward, the rapid introduction of AI to UK industries and the fear of job displacement are also likely fueling union membership in the UK.
Technology is constantly evolving, and with that comes increasing pressure on those working in the sector. It's no surprise, then, that technology ranks among the industries with the highest levels of work-related stress, contributing to around 550,000 working days lost over three years according to the Health and Safety Executive in 2024.
Stress rarely appears overnight. It builds over time through heavy workloads, unclear expectations, limited support and constantly shifting priorities. Too often, leaders only recognize the problem once an employee has reached burnout.
Managing stress shouldn't be seen solely as an individual's responsibility. Leaders play a vital role in creating environments where people feel supported, can raise concerns early and have the tools they need to manage pressure before it becomes overwhelming.
By recognizing the warning signs and making a few practical changes, leaders can help prevent stress from escalating into burnout.
1. Understand how and why individuals respond differentlyTwo employees can face exactly the same challenge but respond in completely different ways. One useful way of understanding these differences is through Kirton's Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Theory. Developed by psychologist Dr Michael Kirton, the theory suggests people naturally approach change and problem-solving in different ways.
More adaptive individuals tend to prefer structure, established processes and incremental improvements, while more innovative individuals are often more comfortable with ambiguity, risk taking and finding entirely new solutions. Most people fall somewhere between the two.
Neither style is better than the other, but each can bring different sources of stress. More adaptive employees may struggle with unclear roles, changing priorities or a lack of structure, while more innovative employees can become frustrated by rigid processes or repetitive work.
Understanding how individuals prefer to work allows leaders to allocate work more effectively, helping employees perform at their best while reducing unnecessary pressure.
2. Create a culture of asking questionsMany employees struggle to admit when they need help. We are often taught this is a sign of weakness and an indicator of capability.
Creating a culture of trust changes that. When people feel comfortable raising concerns, asking questions or admitting they are struggling, problems can be addressed before they become unmanageable.
Leaders set the tone. Asking for feedback, acknowledging your own mistakes and responding positively when employees raise concerns all help create psychological safety within a team. An open culture also makes it much easier to recognize when someone is beginning to struggle.
Changes such as withdrawing from colleagues, becoming more irritable, missing deadlines or struggling to prioritize work are often viewed as performance issues, when they may actually be signs of mounting stress.
Regular conversations, rather than relying solely on formal performance reviews, give leaders the opportunity to identify these warning signs early. Simple adjustments, such as redistributing workloads, clarifying priorities or removing unnecessary obstacles, can prevent stress from developing into burnout.
3.Observe your team to identify stress earlyStress rarely appears suddenly. It can build gradually, making it difficult to recognize until it begins to affect an employee's wellbeing or performance.
While you may be aware that a particular task or deadline is likely to create pressure, it can be harder to spot when longer-term stress is beginning to affect your team. Changes in behaviour can be early warning signs. An employee may start to withdraw from colleagues, become more irritable or defensive, miss deadlines or struggle to prioritize their workload.
As leaders, we can be quick to interpret these changes as performance issues. However, they may be indicators that someone is experiencing stress and needs additional support.
Regular check-ins, rather than relying solely on formal performance reviews, give leaders an opportunity to understand what's happening and address problems early. By noticing these changes, leaders can redistribute workloads, adjust expectations or remove obstacles before stress develops into burnout.
4. Give your employees controlMany employees experience stress because they feel they have little control over their work. Those in the technology sector often face tight deadlines, changing priorities, and high expectations. While we cannot remove all these pressures, we can provide autonomy to employees to help them be more successful.
Greater autonomy doesn't mean removing direction altogether. Leaders still need to set realistic expectations and help teams distinguish between what's genuinely urgent and what can wait. As a leader, you need to help your employees set realistic goals. You can help employees recognize what is urgent and prioritize their tasks effectively.
Employees who provide input and contribute in this way feel more in control and experience a higher level of buy in to team goals.
5. Create a culture that prioritizes recoveryWe often mistake short-term performance for sustainable outcomes. However, we require time to recover not just as a reward, but as consistent practice. Employees need to be encouraged to take time to recuperate.
As a leader, the tone you set is seen and mimicked. If you’re not taking regular breaks, working at all hours of the night, and pushing through exhaustion, your employees will feel they need to do the same. Consider your own habits and then promote celebrating breaks, disconnection outside of working hours, using leave time, and establishing work-life balance.
It is easy to say, “do as I say not as I do.” However, this culture starts with you. Taking time to recover yourself helps you avoid burnout and be a better leader overall. It will also lead to long-term sustained performance over short bursts of success.
Stress will always be a part of the workplace. The goal is not to remove stress, but to prevent burnout and sustain performance.
As a leader, the ability to help your employees reduce stress is a shared responsibility between the individual, yourself, and your team. By understanding how individuals solve problems, creating an environment of trust, observing stress early on, increasing employee autonomy, and promoting recovery time, your organization can retain talent and build a healthier and more productive workforce.
We've featured the best HR software.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
- Apparently Nvidia's not launching RTX 6000 GPUs until 2028
- A leaker claims that these graphics cards have been delayed from the 2027 debut Nvidia originally planned
- Pushing back these GPUs makes sense given the RAM crisis, and some gamers are happy to wait anyway
Nvidia has pushed back its timeframe for launching next-generation graphics cards for gamers, and we're now hearing they won't arrive until 2028.
As ever, all this is theoretical – Nvidia hasn't uttered a peep about its RTX 6000 GPUs officially – but according to Kopite7kimi, a well-known leaker on X (via TweakTown), these products are now destined for a 2028 release which "means they have postponed again."
In other words, Nvidia was supposedly looking at a launch for next year, but the leaker now believes that isn't the case.
Another leaker, Moore's Law is Dead on YouTube, recently said that Nvidia is planning a 2027 launch for the RTX 6000 series, so this directly contradicts that idea. However, it's possible that this was the case, but Team Green has only just changed its mind.
Analysis: a sensible move(Image credit: Shutterstock / Monkey Business Images)Of course, both of these assertions are just rumors, and we need to regard them with an equal amount of caution – but I think it makes more sense for Nvidia to delay the release of its next-gen GeForce GPUs until 2028.
Why? I have three predictable words for you: the RAM crisis. With the memory shortage – which also impacts video RAM – rapidly worsening as 2026 progresses, and predicted to descend further into nightmarish pricing territory in 2027, next year seems like a bad move for launching a family of next-gen GPUs.
Especially when you consider that the first graphics cards to emerge will doubtless be the flagship RTX 6090 and the 6080. How expensive will they be in such a climate, given that the RTX 5080 is already exorbitantly priced? The latter has reached around $1,500 in the US at this point, and is at similar levels in other regions, such as £1,350 in the UK (that's the cheapest GPU in both cases at the time of writing, I should make clear). And let's not even talk about the RTX 5090 which has got completely ridiculous.
Remember that these next-gen GPUs are going to require more memory to be an upgrade over their predecessors, and are also likely to use more expensive VRAM modules.
3GB modules will likely be used by Nvidia, or maybe even 4GB or 6GB chips, which as Wccftech reports, are rumored to debut in the next year or two (which would align with a 2028 release for RTX 6000, in theory). That's according to another prominent leaker over in Asia, Golden Pig Upgrade, as posted on Weibo.
All expectations are for the RTX 6000 series to be pricey, which is why launching them at what might be the height of the RAM crisis – 2027, going by current predictions – doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The following year seems a lot more likely, when hopefully the crisis has started to settle down and pricing is at least stabilizing to some extent (although some believe we're looking longer term for that to happen, more towards 2030).
Whatever the case, some gamers are getting jaded with the market. One of the replies to Kopite7kimi's post on X simply says of the next generation of Nvidia GeForce GPUs: "Nobody cares, nobody can afford it anyway." Others – like this Redditor, who says "I'd rather they delayed the launch to consumers" – indicate that they're happy enough to wait due to pricing or stock issues (launch quantities of GPUs would likely be thin on the ground).
The other question is whether we'll see those RTX 5000 Super refreshes that have been long rumored. I'm doubtful at this point, and I think Nvidia may be inclined to rely more on the AI and software side of the equation, principally DLSS 5, to impress gamers, rather than new (stupidly pricey) hardware.