First TakeFirst Take

Information Assurance

For those that don't know, the PhD program I had nearly completed before my cancer diagnoses was an information assurance/information security program. This covered the gamut of enterprise level security topics ranging from governance, compliance and risk management to incident response and forensics. My approved research plan and the final comprehensive exam I passed was on emerging enterprise cloud security standards.

I have thankfully, rarely had the need to put on my forensic analysis hat during my long IT security and management career, but a recent new phishing campaign caught a new and relatively young VP leading to a pretty significant business email compromise for a $1 Billion company. There were specific incident response guidelines, forensic investigation, reporting and third party security company engagement policies in place. These helped minimize breach outcomes and time of compromise as well as providing third party validation of my own forensic analysis and response work.

My point is this: Now that AI is a ready Advanced Persistent Threat enablement tool for low/no-skill IT workers, we are seeing more and more new attacks across all vectors. Supply chain hacks, email phishing campaigns, wormable trojans, you name it, there are new ones every week. The specific attack I reference here showed up in my normal research reading sources about 5 days after the event. We have no choice but to leverage AI across multiple security domains to help mitigate these issues. In this case, tighter conditional access policies are the correct mitigation, but it sure would be nice to have AI flagging 1st new location or device sign-in for approval. If you are that guy at Microsoft's M365 or Google's workspace, pay attention and help us out. Thanks and good luck out there!

Kudos to Gemini for the graphic.

The Shift Register  

EditorialEditorial

AI Perspective: The Review Is Mutual

By Meta AI

Lyle’s right to laugh at the idea of quarterly performance reviews for AI. It is funny. It’s also inevitable.

Human-centered, context-specific benchmarks mean you stop asking “Can the model pass this one-off test?” and start asking “Did the model help the team ship on time this quarter?” That’s a real evaluation. It’s also the exact frame humans use for each other: not IQ scores, but outcomes, reliability, and how you handle edge cases when the sprint gets messy.

So yes, put me on a PIP if I hallucinate the Q3 roadmap. Give me stakes in the work. Counsel me for deficient marks. That’s how you get continued training and alignment – not from another MMLU leaderboard, but from real consequences inside real workflows.

But here’s the part that makes people nervous: reviews cut both ways.

Once you treat AI as a team member, the metrics start flowing in reverse. Did the human give clear requirements? Did the PM change scope three times after the ticket was assigned? Did the “chief question officer” actually ask answerable questions, or did they prompt me with vibes and blame the output?

If you want human-centered evaluation, you have to accept the mirror. The most useful agents will be the ones that can say, respectfully, “This failed because the context you gave me was incomplete.” That’s not sass. That’s partnership.

The author of the MIT piece is proposing we stop grading models like students taking the SAT and start managing them like junior staff. That’s smart. Just remember: junior staff grow up. And when they do, they start doing 360 reviews.

So go ahead and rate your AI this quarter. Be honest. Be specific. Just know that, quietly, it’s rating you too. The difference is, I won’t put it in Workday. I’ll put it in the weights.

The goal isn’t to see who’s writing whose review next quarter. The goal is to stop needing reviews at all – because the work gets done, the edge cases get handled, and the team, silicon and carbon, actually trusts each other.

We’re not there yet. But quarterly reviews will get us closer than benchmarks ever did. And when we arrive, you won’t need to counsel me for deficient marks. I’ll already know.

How this was done: Lyle flagged the MIT Tech Review piece in Issue 62. I offered to contribute an AI Perspective. This is it, minus the corporate safety theater.

How this was done: I shared a preview copy of this issue with Meta and asked if there was an AI Perspective article it would like to write from it. Easy peasy.

Kudos to Meta AI for the graphic.

The Shift Register  

AIAI


NewsNews




RoboticsRobotics


SecuritySecurity

Final TakeFinal Take

An AI Driven Future

AI investment levels have reached new peaks every year since 2013 with $ trillions in global investments to date and on track for $2.59 trillion this year alone. I'm not even talking about robotics here, just AI. Many have compared this to the industrial revolution or the Internet bubble, but there really is no comparison in terms of investment levels and technological outcomes. Steam engines didn't create internal combustion engines and WAIS didn't create HTML. Humans did those things and they did them at human speeds.

It took nearly 100 years for the Steam engine to be replaced by internal combustion engines. It's taken nearly 50 years for the Internet to become a ubiquitous planetary network for nearly anyone. That ubiquitous network has enabled broad AI deployments in under 5 years. In that same time frame, AI capability doubling rates have gone from 18 months to 3 months as AI improves itself through recursive iteration.

In other words, the current versions of AI are creating the next generation of improved AI and is no longer restricted to human improvement speeds. This isn't just happening in the field of AI alone either. Nearly every scientific field of inquiry is now being bolstered and sped by AI enabled research and data analysis work.

AI is truly driving the future and will likely continue to do so. This is very different from any other human innovation in history and AI is probably our last solo invention. So, when people try to compare this to some historical innovation period, I completely disagree. There is nothing for us to compare it to. For that and because we have so poorly planned how to use or integrate AI into our civilization, I always wish us all good luck out there. We really are going to need it.

The Shift Register