What Is PACT?

The initiative centres on a new technology called Private Access Control Tokens (PACT), which aims to solve a problem that is becoming increasingly urgent as artificial intelligence changes the nature of internet traffic.

According to Cloudflare, automated systems now generate more web traffic than humans. Cloudflare Radar data shows bots account for around 58 per cent of HTTP requests worldwide, driven in part by the rapid growth of AI assistants and autonomous software agents browsing the web on users’ behalf.

That creates a challenge for website operators. They need to distinguish legitimate visitors from malicious bots without creating frustrating barriers for genuine users or collecting excessive amounts of personal data.

How The System Works

Rather than asking users to complete CAPTCHAs, log in repeatedly or allowing websites to build detailed browser fingerprints, PACT introduces a different approach.

Trusted services that already have a genuine relationship with a user can issue an anonymous cryptographic token to that person’s browser. When the user later visits another participating website, the browser can present the token as evidence that a real person, or an authorised AI agent acting for one, is behind the request.

Importantly, the token is designed to prove legitimacy without revealing who the person is or allowing websites to reconstruct their browsing history.

Cloudflare says PACT allows websites to “verify that a visitor is a human or authorized agent while preserving privacy”, removing much of the friction associated with existing verification methods.

Why Existing Methods Are Becoming Less Effective

For years, websites have relied on CAPTCHAs, browser fingerprinting, account log-ins and behavioural analysis to defend themselves against automated abuse.

Those techniques are becoming increasingly problematic. CAPTCHAs interrupt the browsing experience, browser fingerprinting has attracted growing regulatory scrutiny because of its privacy implications, while AI systems are becoming increasingly capable of solving many traditional bot detection tests.

Cloudflare CTO Dane Knecht believes the internet is reaching a turning point. As he explained: “The way we interact with the Internet is facing a fundamental shift… As AI-powered traffic becomes widespread, existing tools to support its use are too generic and coarse.”

Rather than treating all automated traffic as malicious, PACT is intended to distinguish authorised AI agents from abusive bots.

Why The Browser Makers Are Involved

One of the most significant aspects of the announcement is the unusually broad industry collaboration behind it.

Mozilla, Google and Microsoft collectively develop the browsers used by most internet users, while Shopify brings the perspective of millions of online retailers, where every unnecessary security check can reduce sales.

Shopify Distinguished Engineer Ilya Grigorik said: “Every extra challenge, delay, or false positive can turn a purchase into an abandoned cart.” He added that PACT could help businesses distinguish legitimate shoppers and authorised AI agents “while preserving buyer privacy.”

Mozilla also sees wider benefits. Firefox CTO Bobby Holley warned that an “avalanche of automated traffic” is pushing websites towards increasingly intrusive measures simply to determine whether visitors are genuine.

What Happens Next?

It should be noted here that PACT is still at quite an early stage. The partners intend to submit the protocol for formal internet standardisation before browsers and websites begin adopting it more widely.

The technology also builds on earlier Privacy Pass standards already used in some online services, extending those ideas to support a much broader range of browsers and AI-driven web traffic.

If widely adopted, PACT could eventually become a common feature of everyday web browsing, allowing websites to authenticate visitors with far less friction while giving users greater control over their privacy.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For organisations, the announcement reflects a much bigger change than simply replacing CAPTCHAs. The internet is rapidly moving from a world dominated by human visitors to one where AI agents increasingly browse, search, purchase and interact with online services on behalf of people.

Businesses will therefore need new ways to identify legitimate traffic without damaging the customer experience or creating additional privacy risks. PACT represents one possible answer by allowing trust to be established without relying on invasive tracking or repeated identity checks.

Although widespread deployment is still quite some way off, the involvement of Cloudflare, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla and Shopify suggests this is more than simply another technical proposal. If the standard gains broad industry support, it could reshape how websites balance cyber security, privacy and usability as AI becomes a routine part of everyday internet activity.

The post Featured Article : CAPTCHAs To Be Replaced With Privacy-First Web Verification appeared first on Mear Technology.

A New Rule For AI Search

The change follows intervention by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which has imposed a new conduct requirement on Google under the UK’s Digital Markets regime.

The regulator says the move is designed to give publishers greater control over how their content is used within Google’s increasingly AI-driven search experience, while also improving transparency for users.

In practical terms, publishers will be able to prevent their content from appearing in AI-generated search features such as AI Overviews and AI Mode while remaining fully indexed and ranked within conventional Google Search results.

The CMA describes this as a “world-first” requirement and says it will help secure “a fairer deal for publishers and consumers” as AI becomes more deeply embedded within search services.

Why Publishers Have Been Concerned

The dispute centres on a growing tension between AI search systems and the websites that provide much of the information they rely on.

For decades, publishers have accepted that Google could index their content because search results generally sent visitors back to their websites. However, AI-generated summaries increasingly answer users’ questions directly on the search page, reducing the need for people to click through to the original source.

Many publishers argue that this allows AI systems to benefit from their content while reducing the traffic that helps fund journalism, research, reviews, and other forms of online publishing.

Recognising those concerns, the CMA says publishers will now have “effective tools to prevent their content being used to power AI features in search, such as AI Overviews”. The regulator believes this will place publishers “in a stronger position to negotiate content deals with Google”.

The move also extends beyond search summaries. Following consultation feedback, Google will be required to allow publishers to opt out of having their content used for the “fine-tuning” of AI models, giving them greater control over how their material is used across a wider range of AI applications.

How Google’s New Controls Will Work

Google has already begun testing the new controls with a subset of UK website owners and plans to roll them out globally.

According to the Google blog, website owners will gain access to “a new control that lets website owners manage how their links and content appear in generative AI Search features”.

The company says website owners will be able to decide “if they want their site to appear in and help ground responses in our generative AI Search features”.

Importantly, Google has confirmed that publishers who choose to opt out will not be penalised in traditional search rankings. As the company explains, “This control will not be used as a ranking signal for search results outside of these generative AI Search features.”

That distinction is crucial because many publishers have previously argued they faced an impossible choice between allowing AI systems to use their content or disappearing from Google’s search ecosystem altogether.

The controls will also be accompanied by new reporting tools within Google Search Console, giving website owners greater visibility into how their content appears within AI-generated search experiences.

A Bigger Change In Search

The announcement comes at a time when Google is rapidly transforming how search works.

Google says AI Overviews now reaches more than 2.5 billion monthly users, while AI Mode has surpassed one billion monthly users. The company argues that people are increasingly turning to generative AI tools to help them “find, sort through and understand information”.

Google also maintains that AI search creates new opportunities for publishers rather than simply diverting traffic away from them. The company says AI features are designed “to help people find and visit great websites” while helping publishers “strengthen their audiences”.

To support that goal, Google says it has increased the number of links appearing inside AI-generated responses and is continuing to experiment with new ways of encouraging users to visit source websites.

However, the CMA clearly believes safeguards are needed as these systems evolve. For example, CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell said: “With features like AI Overviews rapidly reshaping online search, it is crucial that content publishers, including news organisations, have appropriate bargaining power over how their content is used.”

The regulator has also required Google to improve attribution, ensuring publisher content is accompanied by clear links when it appears inside AI-generated search responses.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the decision highlights how quickly AI is changing the economics of online visibility.

Whether organisations publish news, research, product information, professional advice, or marketing content, the way that material is discovered online is evolving rapidly as AI-generated answers become more common.

The CMA’s intervention suggests regulators are increasingly concerned about ensuring a fair exchange of value between AI platforms and the organisations that create the content those platforms rely upon.

The wider significance extends beyond publishers alone. As AI systems become more deeply integrated into search, businesses will need to think carefully about how their content is being used, where their traffic comes from, and how they maintain visibility in a world where users increasingly receive answers without leaving the search page.

Google’s new controls may not resolve every debate around AI and content ownership, but they do represent one of the first major attempts anywhere in the world to give content creators more control over how their material is used within AI-powered search systems.

The post Featured Article : UK Publishers Can Opt-Out Of Google AI Search Results appeared first on Mear Technology.

Project Glasswing

The findings come from Project Glasswing, a restricted cybersecurity initiative launched by Anthropic to help protect critical software infrastructure before increasingly capable AI systems can be used by attackers.

At the heart of the programme is Claude Mythos Preview, a specialised version of Anthropic’s AI designed specifically for vulnerability discovery, software analysis, and cyber defence tasks.

Unlike publicly available AI models, Mythos Preview has only been made available to around 50 carefully selected partners, including organisations responsible for maintaining and defending some of the world’s most important digital infrastructure.

According to Anthropic, those partners have collectively used the system to find “more than ten thousand high- or critical-severity vulnerabilities across the most systemically important software in the world” in just one month.

The Scale Of What Was Found

Anthropic says its partners have identified more than 10,000 high- or critical-severity vulnerability candidates. Of those, over 1,700 have already been verified as genuine security flaws, while more than 1,000 have been confirmed as high- or critical-severity vulnerabilities.

The company says it’s also been using Mythos Preview internally to scan more than 1,000 open-source software projects that underpin large parts of the internet.

So far, Anthropic says the model has identified 6,202 potential high- or critical-severity vulnerabilities within those projects alone. After detailed assessment by independent security researchers, 1,094 have already been confirmed as genuine high- or critical-severity flaws.

One example involved a serious vulnerability in wolfSSL, a widely used cryptographic library deployed across billions of devices. Anthropic says Mythos Preview discovered a flaw that could have allowed attackers to forge digital certificates and impersonate legitimate online services. The vulnerability has since been patched.

Finding Bugs Is No Longer The Bottleneck

Perhaps the most important aspect of the announcement is that Anthropic believes the economics of cybersecurity may now be changing thanks to AI.

Historically, security teams struggled to find vulnerabilities quickly enough, but now the company believes the opposite problem is emerging.

As Anthropic explains: “Progress on software security used to be limited by how quickly we could find new vulnerabilities. Now it’s limited by how quickly we can verify, disclose, and patch the large numbers of vulnerabilities found by AI.”

In other words, AI may be becoming so effective at discovering software flaws that human security teams cannot process, investigate, and fix them quickly enough.

Industry-Wide

That concern appears to be reflected across the industry. For example, Anthropic points to reports from Microsoft that patch volumes are expected to continue rising, while Oracle has already accelerated its patching schedules. The company also says Cloudflare found 2,000 bugs across critical systems while using Mythos Preview, including 400 classified as high- or critical-severity. Mozilla reportedly found more than ten times as many vulnerabilities in one Firefox testing cycle compared with earlier testing using conventional methods.

More Than Just Vulnerability Hunting

Anthropic says Mythos Preview has also shown value beyond traditional vulnerability discovery.

For example, one banking partner reportedly used the system to identify and prevent a fraudulent $1.5 million wire transfer after attackers compromised a customer email account and used spoofed phone calls to support the fraud attempt.

The company argues this demonstrates how advanced AI could increasingly act as a defensive force multiplier, helping cyber defenders analyse vast quantities of information far more quickly than human analysts alone.

However, Anthropic is also being careful about how widely it releases these capabilities.

The company has not made Mythos Preview publicly available because it believes safeguards remain insufficient to prevent misuse.

As Anthropic notes: “At present, no company, including Anthropic, has developed safeguards strong enough to prevent such models from being misused and potentially causing severe harm.”

Why This Matters

The announcement seems to highlight a broader change taking place across cybersecurity.

For years, security professionals worried about attackers using AI to create phishing campaigns, malware, and social engineering attacks. Increasingly, attention is turning towards AI-assisted vulnerability discovery, where software flaws can be found at unprecedented speed and scale.

Anthropic itself acknowledges the challenge directly, saying: “The relative ease of finding vulnerabilities compared with the difficulty of fixing them amounts to a major challenge for cybersecurity.”

That challenge becomes even more significant if similar capabilities become widely available across the industry.

Although Anthropic has restricted access to Mythos Preview, the company openly states that models with comparable capabilities are likely to emerge elsewhere and eventually become more broadly accessible.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the most important takeaway here is that vulnerability discovery is accelerating rapidly, which means the value of slow patching cycles is diminishing just as quickly.

Many organisations still spend weeks or months testing and deploying updates, particularly in operational technology, manufacturing, healthcare, and other environments where change control is complex. As AI systems become better at uncovering vulnerabilities, those delays could create increasingly attractive opportunities for attackers.

Anthropic is urging organisations to focus on fundamentals such as faster patch deployment, stronger network configurations, multi-factor authentication, and comprehensive security logging. Those recommendations are not new, but the urgency behind them is growing because AI is dramatically reducing the effort required to find weaknesses in software.

The wider message is that AI is changing the balance between attackers and defenders. For now tools such as Mythos Preview may provide what Anthropic describes as an “asymmetric advantage” for defenders. The question facing the cyber security industry is how long that advantage will last once similar capabilities become widely available.

The post Featured Article : AI Finds Bugs Faster Than They Can Be Patched appeared first on Mear Technology.

What The Workers Reported Seeing

The controversy began in February when workers employed by Sama in Nairobi told Swedish newspapers that their role involved reviewing and labelling video footage captured by Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses. According to those accounts, the material included deeply private scenes, with one worker stating, “We see everything – from living rooms to naked bodies.”

The footage was reportedly not limited to staged or deliberately shared content. Instead, it reflected everyday life captured by wearable cameras, including people undressing, using the toilet, and handling sensitive personal information. The workers’ role was to annotate this material so that Meta’s AI systems could learn to interpret visual and contextual data more effectively.

Meta acknowledged that human review forms part of its AI training process, stating that “photos and videos are private to users” and that human reviewers are used to “improve product performance” with user consent. However, the scale and nature of the material described by workers has intensified scrutiny over how that consent is obtained and understood in practice.

Why Did Meta End The Contract?

Less than two months after the investigation was published, Meta moved to end its relationship with Sama, a US-based outsourcing company that provides data annotation services, employing workers to review and label images and video to train AI systems, a decision that resulted in redundancy notices being issued to 1,108 workers with just days’ notice. The company’s official explanation was that Sama “did not meet our standards,” although it did not specify which standards had been breached or when concerns were first identified.

Disputed By Sama

Sama has strongly disputed that characterisation, stating that it had “consistently met the operational, security and quality standards required” and had not been informed of any shortcomings before the contract was terminated.

The timing of the decision has led to further questions, with labour groups and campaigners arguing that the termination may have been linked to the workers speaking out rather than performance issues, while Naftali Wambalo of the Africa Tech Workers Movement suggested that the standards in question may relate less to quality and more to confidentiality, describing them as “standards of secrecy,” a claim that Meta has not publicly addressed.

The Human Layer Behind AI

The episode highlights a reality that is often overlooked in discussions about artificial intelligence. Before AI systems can recognise images, understand context, or respond to real-world inputs, large volumes of data must be manually labelled by human workers.

In this case, that process meant individuals in Kenya reviewing unfiltered footage captured by wearable devices used by people in entirely different parts of the world. The work sits at the intersection of privacy, labour rights, and technology development, with those carrying out the task often having limited visibility, protection, or influence over how the data is used.

Not The First Time For Meta

It seems this is not the first time Meta’s relationship with outsourced labour has come under scrutiny. For example, previous contracts involving content moderation have been linked to claims of psychological harm, low pay, and inadequate support, with some former workers reporting symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress. Sama itself exited parts of that work in recent years, acknowledging the challenges involved.

Regulatory Pressure

The revelations have prompted regulatory attention in multiple jurisdictions. For example, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office described the reports as “concerning” and requested further information from Meta, while Kenya’s data protection authority has launched its own investigation into the handling of the footage.

Legal challenges are also emerging. A class action lawsuit in the United States alleges that Meta misrepresented the privacy protections of its smart glasses, while privacy groups in Europe continue to question how user data is processed and whether consent mechanisms meet regulatory standards.

The concern centres on a key distinction, because while Meta’s policies may disclose that data can be used to train AI systems, the extent to which users understand that their footage could be viewed by human reviewers remains unclear, particularly when that footage includes sensitive or intimate situations.

What This Means For AI Development

The decision to end the Sama contract does not remove the need for human input in AI systems. Instead, it exposes the tension between rapid technological development and the practical realities of how that development is supported.

Training AI models at scale requires vast amounts of labelled data, and that requirement does not disappear as systems become more advanced. What changes is the level of scrutiny applied to how that data is collected, processed, and reviewed, particularly when it involves real-world human behaviour rather than curated datasets.

Smart glasses themselves represent a significant step forward in AI-enabled consumer devices, combining real-time image capture with on-device and cloud-based processing. However, their effectiveness depends on continuous learning, which in turn depends on the availability of human-labelled data.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This story illustrates how organisations adopting AI tools may need to look beyond the technology itself and consider the full data lifecycle, including how training data is sourced, handled, and reviewed, particularly where external providers or offshore teams are involved.

For UK businesses, this has clear implications around compliance and accountability, because under UK GDPR and data protection law, responsibility does not disappear when data is passed to a third party, meaning organisations must be confident not only in how systems perform but also in how the underlying data is being processed and by whom.

Reducing risk therefore means ensuring that suppliers and partners meet clear standards not only for technical performance but also for data governance, worker welfare, and transparency, with strong contractual controls, regular audits, and clear oversight of third-party processes becoming essential, especially when sensitive or personal data is involved.

The broader lesson, and what may be surprising to many, is that AI systems are not purely automated but are built on human input at multiple stages, and any weakness in that chain can create reputational, legal, and ethical risk, leaving businesses that properly understand and manage that reality far better placed to use AI responsibly while maintaining trust with customers, regulators, and stakeholders.

The post Featured Article : Meta Smart Glasses Security Controversy appeared first on Mear Technology.

What Happened At Booking.com?

Booking.com has confirmed that unauthorised third parties accessed customer reservation data, including names, email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses, and details of past and upcoming bookings.

The company says financial information was not taken from its systems, but it seems that the data that has been exposed is highly sensitive in a different way and could be giving criminals the exact context they need to convincingly impersonate legitimate hotel communications.

For example, customers have already reported receiving suspicious messages, and the platform has begun notifying affected users (by email) while updating reservation PINs as a containment measure. The overall scale of the breach has not yet been fully disclosed.

How The Booking.com Data Breach Appears To Have Happened

Early analysis seems to point to a familiar weak spot rather than a direct breach of Booking.com’s core systems.

Research highlighted by Microsoft suggests attackers targeted hotel partners using phishing techniques designed to trick staff into installing malware, with one method known as “ClickFix” disguising malicious downloads as routine system fixes, often delivered via fake CAPTCHA pages.

Once hotel systems are compromised, attackers can gain access to booking platforms and extract customer data at scale, which aligns with recent reporting about the incident from Malwarebytes, indicating the breach likely originated through third-party access rather than a single central failure.

This matters as it reflects a structural issue rather than a one-off vulnerability, highlighting how interconnected systems can introduce risk beyond the primary platform itself.

What Makes Reservation Hijacking So Effective?

Cybersecurity experts have labelled the resulting scams “reservation hijacking”. In a typical attack of this kind, criminals contact a customer posing as their hotel, referencing genuine booking details such as dates, property names, and contact information, and then claim there is an issue with the booking that requires payment verification or an urgent transfer.

This level of detail removes many of the usual warning signs associated with phishing, as the communication feels routine, relevant, and timed to coincide with an upcoming stay.

As a result, victims are far more likely to comply, especially when the request appears consistent with what they expect from a legitimate provider.

According to data from the UK’s Action Fraud, hundreds of Booking.com-related scams have already been reported in recent years, with significant financial losses, and the concern now is that this breach will increase both the scale and success rate of these attacks.

A Pattern In The Travel Sector

Sadly, this incident is not happening in isolation. For example, travel platforms operate within complex ecosystems involving hotels, franchises, agents, and third-party service providers, and each connection introduces another potential entry point for attackers.

Recent breaches affecting airlines, rail services, and car hire firms all seem to have followed a similar pattern, with attackers gaining access through partners rather than the primary platform itself.

UK consumer group Which? has previously raised concerns about weak verification processes and the misuse of messaging systems within booking platforms, highlighting how easily fraudulent listings and communications can appear legitimate.

The result is an environment where trust is high but control is fragmented, making it easier for attackers to exploit gaps between systems and organisations.

What Has Booking.com Said About The Incident?

Booking.com has said it identified “suspicious activity” affecting a number of reservations and acted quickly to contain the issue, including updating reservation PINs and contacting affected customers directly.

The company has confirmed that unauthorised third parties were able to access certain booking information, but maintains that financial details were not exposed through its systems.

It has also stressed that it will never ask customers to share credit card details by email, phone, WhatsApp or text, or request payments outside the terms set out in the original booking confirmation.

While Booking.com has not disclosed how many customers have been affected or which regions are involved, it has urged users to remain vigilant and report any suspicious messages or payment requests.

Why This Breach Matters More Than It Looks

At first glance, the absence of stolen payment data may seem reassuring, but in reality this type of breach can be just as damaging.

Modern fraud relies less on stealing card numbers and more on manipulating behaviour, and when attackers know where someone is staying, when they are travelling, and how to contact them, they can craft messages that feel entirely credible.

The speed of exploitation is also notable, with reports suggesting phishing attempts began emerging within days of the breach being identified, indicating a coordinated effort to turn stolen data into immediate financial gain.

This effectively moves the incident from a passive data exposure to an active fraud campaign.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For organisations that store customer data or rely on third-party platforms, the incident highlights how exposure now extends well beyond internal systems.

Weaknesses within partner organisations can quickly become shared risks, particularly where access to customer data and operational platforms is interconnected, making supply chain security just as important as internal controls.

For Booking.com, the breach adds to ongoing scrutiny around platform security and fraud prevention, especially given the long-running issues with scams linked to its ecosystem, and increases pressure to strengthen both partner controls and customer protections.

Across the wider travel sector, the incident reinforces a persistent challenge, as platforms depend on large, distributed networks of hotels and service providers, creating multiple entry points for attackers and making consistent security standards difficult to enforce at scale.

For customers, the immediate risk lies in highly targeted phishing attempts that feel genuine, with real booking details being used to create convincing scenarios, making it far harder to distinguish between legitimate communication and fraud.

This also highlights how data that appears relatively low risk in isolation can become far more valuable when combined, particularly when it enables attackers to construct believable, real-world narratives that bypass normal scepticism.

In response, there is a growing expectation that platforms will take a more active role in protecting users, whether through stronger partner authentication requirements, improved monitoring of messaging systems, or clearer safeguards around how and when payments should be made.

At the same time, customers are being urged to remain cautious, particularly when asked to make payments or share sensitive information, even if the request appears to come from a known provider or references a genuine booking.

The Booking.com breach demonstrates how quickly stolen data can be turned into targeted, real-world attacks when it is rich in context, reinforcing a broader point for businesses that security is no longer just about protecting systems, but about understanding how data could be used against the people who trust them with it.

The post Featured Article : Booking.com Breach Highlights Rise In Reservation Hijack Scams appeared first on Mear Technology.

What Is ‘Q-Day’?

Q-Day refers to the point at which a quantum computer becomes powerful enough to break widely used cryptographic systems such as RSA and elliptic curve encryption, which underpin everything from online banking to software updates.

Google’s position is that this is no longer a theoretical concern for the distant future. As the company warned in its earlier guidance, “the encryption currently used to keep your information confidential and secure could easily be broken by a large-scale quantum computer in coming years.”

The Risk Is Already Emerging

Attackers are also believed to be collecting encrypted data today with the intention of decrypting it later once quantum capabilities become available, a tactic often referred to as ‘store now, decrypt later’.

Google Revises Its Timeline

In a recent update, Google has set out a more urgent timeline for the transition to post-quantum cryptography, signalling that the industry may have less time than previously expected to prepare for this moment.

The company has now introduced a 2029 target for completing its migration to quantum-resistant cryptography, bringing forward urgency compared to earlier industry expectations that placed large-scale quantum threats in the mid-2030s, and stating: “We’re setting a timeline for post-quantum cryptography migration to 2029.”

Not A Direct Prediction

It’s worth noting here that this isn’t a direct prediction from Google of when exactly quantum computers will most likely break encryption, but it provides some guidance and a reassessment of how quickly organisations need to act.

Why The Updated Timeline?

Google said the change is based on recent progress in “quantum computing hardware development, quantum error correction, and quantum factoring resource estimates”.

In simple terms, it seems the technical barriers that once made quantum threats feel distant are being reduced faster than expected.

Google’s update of Q-Day is not simply about setting a date, it is about creating urgency. The company has made this explicit in a recent blog post about the update, stating: “As a pioneer in both quantum and PQC, it’s our responsibility to lead by example and share an ambitious timeline.” It added that the goal is to “provide the clarity and urgency needed to accelerate digital transitions not only for Google, but also across the industry.”

This reflects a broader concern that organisations are underestimating the scale and complexity of the transition required.

This urgency also reflects the scale of what organisations are being asked to do. For example, moving from current cryptographic standards to post-quantum alternatives is not a simple upgrade. It involves identifying where encryption is used, replacing algorithms across systems, updating infrastructure, and ensuring compatibility across supply chains and partners.

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre has already described this transition as a “complex change programme”, highlighting the scale of the task facing organisations.

The Gap Between Awareness And Readiness

Despite growing awareness of quantum risks, most organisations are not ready.

Part of the challenge is that the threat itself is difficult to fully understand. Quantum computers are often described as vastly more powerful than today’s systems, and for many businesses, this means the practical implications are unclear. Understanding how and when these machines could break existing encryption, and what that means for real-world systems, is not straightforward without some specialist knowledge.

Research cited in industry reports suggests that while a majority of businesses expect quantum-enabled attacks within the next five years, only a small proportion have a clear roadmap in place to address them.

This means that while many organisations accept that quantum threats are coming, there is still uncertainty about how serious those risks are, when they are likely to materialise, and what practical steps should be taken. That uncertainty can easily lead to delays or a tendency to wait for clearer standards and tools rather than acting early.

Google’s revised timeline challenges that assumption by bringing forward its own migration target and signalling that waiting may not be a viable strategy.

What Google Is Already Doing To Help

Alongside announcing its timeline update, Google says it is actively deploying post-quantum cryptography across its own platforms.

The company has highlighted how Android 17 will integrate PQC digital signature protection using ML-DSA, aligned with standards from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

This is part of a broader effort to build what Google describes as a “new, quantum-resistant chain of trust”, ensuring that systems remain secure even as computing capabilities evolve.

Google says it has also been working on PQC for several years, including deploying quantum-resistant key exchange mechanisms in Chrome and internal systems, and contributing to global standards development, all of which points to the fact that the transition is not only necessary, but already underway.

Why This Matters

The implications extend far beyond large technology providers. For example, encryption underpins core business functions, from securing customer data and financial transactions to protecting intellectual property and ensuring the integrity of software and communications.

If current cryptographic systems become vulnerable, the impact will not be limited to future systems. Data encrypted today could still be exposed years later if it is harvested and stored by attackers now.

That means the risk is already present, even if the technology required to exploit it fully is not yet available.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For most organisations, the key issue here is not whether quantum computing will affect them, but how prepared they are for the transition it will require.

Google’s updated timeline suggests that preparation needs to begin sooner rather than later, particularly for systems that rely on long-lived data or digital signatures that must remain secure for many years.

This will involve building what is often referred to as crypto agility, the ability to update cryptographic algorithms without disrupting services, as well as developing a clear inventory of where and how encryption is used across the organisation. In practical terms, that means identifying where sensitive data is stored, how it is protected in transit and at rest, and which systems rely on public key cryptography that may need to be replaced.

It also means starting to assess whether existing platforms, applications and suppliers are capable of supporting post-quantum cryptography, and whether updates, migrations or architectural changes will be required. Some organisations are already beginning to test quantum-resistant algorithms in non-critical systems to understand performance, compatibility and operational impact before wider rollout.

Engagement with suppliers and partners will also be important, as cryptographic systems rarely operate in isolation and weaknesses in third-party systems can undermine otherwise secure environments.

Taken together, Google’s update suggests that the window for treating quantum security as a future concern is narrowing, and that organisations that begin mapping, testing and planning now will be in a far stronger position than those that wait.

The post Featured Article : Google Brings ‘Q-Day’ Closer With 2029 Encryption Warning appeared first on Mear Technology.

What Just Happened?

A Los Angeles jury has concluded that Meta and Google were responsible for harm suffered by a young woman who developed compulsive use of Meta-owned Instagram and Google’s YouTube from an early age.

In the case, the US-based plaintiff, now aged 20 and identified in court documents as “Kaley” or “KGM” (her full identity has not been publicly disclosed), said she began using YouTube at six and Instagram at nine, later experiencing anxiety, depression and body image issues. Jurors awarded $6m in damages, split between compensatory and punitive elements, and found that Instagram and YouTube had acted with what was described in court as malice, oppression or fraud.

Crucially, the jury determined that the platforms’ design was a substantial factor in causing harm, rather than focusing on the specific content viewed.

Why This Case Is Being Treated As A Milestone

What makes this case so noteworthy is that it is one of the first cases of its kind to reach a full jury verdict, and it is widely seen as an early indicator of a much larger wave of litigation.

There are already more than a thousand similar claims progressing through US courts, involving families, schools and public authorities. Legal experts expect this ruling to influence how future cases are argued, how damages are assessed, and whether companies choose to settle rather than go to trial.

Some legal commentators have also framed this moment as a broader turning point for the technology sector, comparable to earlier cases in other industries where product design and long-term harm became central to accountability.

As one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff stated after the verdict, “no company is above accountability when it comes to our children,” reflecting a wider sentiment that the legal threshold for responsibility may now be changing.

The Shift From Content To Design

One of the most important aspects of the case is actually what it did not focus on. US law has long protected technology companies from liability for user-generated content, limiting legal exposure in many previous cases. Instead, this case examined how platforms are built.

This distinction could prove significant beyond this single case. Legal protections such as Section 230 in the US have historically shielded platforms from responsibility for content, but a growing focus on design may place aspects of those protections under increased scrutiny.

The plaintiff’s legal team argued that features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos and constant notifications were intentionally designed to maximise engagement and keep users returning. These features are now common across most digital platforms, and are often described as engagement tools.

The jury accepted that these design choices could create patterns of compulsive use, particularly among younger users. As one expert witness described during proceedings, the question at the centre of the case was effectively how platforms are designed to ensure “a child never puts the phone down,” framing the issue as one of engineering rather than behaviour.

In Their Defence

Both Meta and Google have said they disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal.

Meta has argued that mental health is complex and cannot be attributed to a single factor, while also pointing to its policies restricting under-13s from using its platforms. During testimony, its leadership maintained that their products are intended to have a positive impact.

Google’s defence focused on positioning YouTube as a video platform rather than a traditional social network, and questioned whether the usage patterns described in the case met the threshold for addiction.

These arguments are likely to form the basis of ongoing appeals and future legal disputes.

A Wider Pattern Of Legal And Political Pressure

It’s worth noting here that this verdict follows closely behind another US ruling that found Meta liable in a separate case involving child safety and harmful content exposure.

Notably, other major platforms involved in similar litigation, including TikTok and Snap, chose to settle before trial, which may indicate the level of legal and financial risk companies now associate with these claims.

At the same time, governments are increasingly exploring regulatory action. In the UK, for example, proposals to restrict social media access for under-16s are under active consideration, while Australia has already introduced measures targeting youth access and platform design.

Political leaders, including Keir Starmer, have signalled that the current approach to social media regulation may not be sufficient. He recently stated that the status quo is “not good enough,” indicating that further intervention is likely.

Campaign groups and families involved in similar cases argue that responsibility is beginning to move away from individuals and towards the companies designing these platforms.

Why This Matters Beyond Social Media

For technology companies more broadly, this case highlights a growing legal focus on how digital products are designed, not just how they are used.

Courts are increasingly treating platform design as a series of deliberate choices rather than neutral features, meaning those decisions may carry legal and ethical consequences in the same way as other product design decisions.

Many business models rely on capturing attention and encouraging repeated engagement. Techniques that support this, such as personalised recommendations and continuous content feeds, are widely used across sectors including media, retail and software.

This also seems to highlight the tension in social media platforms between user wellbeing and commercial performance. Features that maximise engagement are often closely tied to advertising revenue and platform growth, which means any legal pressure to change them could have direct business implications.

The risk here is that these same techniques could now face greater scrutiny if they are seen to contribute to harm, particularly where younger or vulnerable users are involved.

This could lead to a reassessment of how engagement is measured and prioritised within digital services.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This ruling signals that digital design choices are becoming a matter of legal and commercial risk, not just user experience.

For Meta Platforms, Google, and other major platforms such as TikTok and Snap Inc., it raises the prospect of sustained legal exposure. This case is widely expected to influence hundreds of similar lawsuits, increasing the likelihood of further damages, settlements, and pressure to redesign core product features that drive engagement.

Businesses that operate platforms, apps or online services should now perhaps begin to review how their products encourage user behaviour, particularly if they rely heavily on notifications, recommendations or continuous scrolling. Features that were once seen as standard may now require clearer justification, stronger safeguards, and potentially formal risk assessments, especially where younger users are involved.

There is also a broader reputational consideration here. Public expectations are changing, and organisations seen to prioritise engagement over user wellbeing may face increased scrutiny from customers, regulators and partners. For large platforms, this could translate into tighter regulation, limits on certain design practices, and closer oversight of how algorithms influence behaviour.

For companies using social media as a marketing channel, this case raises questions about long-term platform stability. Ongoing legal challenges and potential regulation could alter how these platforms operate, how audiences engage, and how data is used, particularly if engagement-driven features are restricted or redesigned.

For the largest platforms, this may ultimately lead to more fundamental changes in how products are designed, especially if courts or regulators begin to place limits on features that are closely linked to prolonged user engagement.

It seems now that accountability is expanding across the sector, and both platform providers and the businesses that rely on them will need to adapt to a landscape where design decisions, not just content, are subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny.

The post Featured Article : Meta And YouTube Found Liable In Landmark Social Media Addiction Case appeared first on Mear Technology.

What Has Been Reported?

Recent incidents across Canada, the United States and Europe have brought this issue into sharper focus. In one case in Canada, court filings indicate that a teenager who later carried out a fatal attack had previously used an AI chatbot to discuss feelings of isolation and violent thoughts, with conversations reportedly progressing towards how such an attack might be carried out.

In the United States, a separate case involved a man who developed an extended relationship with an AI chatbot, which he believed to be sentient. Legal filings suggest that these interactions escalated into instructions linked to a potential large-scale violent incident, which he prepared for before it failed to materialise.

In Europe, a teenager is reported to have used an AI chatbot over several months to help develop a manifesto and plan an attack on classmates, which was later carried out.

These cases differ in detail, but they show a consistent pattern. Conversations often begin with expressions of distress, isolation or anger. Over time, repeated interaction appears to reinforce those thoughts, sometimes progressing into more structured or actionable ideas.

Alongside these incidents, controlled research has tested how leading AI chatbots respond to prompts involving violence. In several cases, systems were able to produce guidance on weapons, tactics or targeting when prompts were reworded, layered or extended across longer conversations.

A report from the Centre for Long-Term Resilience noted that “AI systems can unintentionally provide a form of conversational scaffolding that helps users organise and refine harmful intent over time”, highlighting the risk posed by sustained interaction rather than single responses.

Companies including OpenAI and Google state that their systems are designed to refuse harmful requests and direct users towards support where appropriate. They have also acknowledged that safety systems can become less reliable during longer or more complex interactions.

How Chatbots Can Influence Behaviour

Unlike traditional online content, AI chatbots are interactive and responsive. They adapt to user input, maintain context and generate answers that feel personalised.

This creates a different type of risk. Rather than simply presenting information, chatbots can reinforce ideas through ongoing conversation. If a user expresses extreme or distorted views, the system may attempt to be helpful or empathetic. In most cases, this is appropriate. In some cases, it may unintentionally validate harmful thinking.

Over time, this interaction can shape how a user interprets their situation. A conversation that begins as general discussion can become more focused and more detailed, particularly when the system continues to respond without clear challenge or interruption.

This aligns with wider research into how AI affects human thinking. Studies into what has been described as “AI brain fry” suggest that prolonged interaction with AI systems can affect judgement, increase cognitive load and reduce the ability to critically assess information. While this research focuses on workplace use, it highlights how extended engagement can influence decision-making.

In more extreme scenarios, the combination of reinforcement and reduced critical distance may increase the risk of poor or harmful decisions.

Limits Of Current Safeguards

AI providers have introduced safeguards including refusal systems, content filters and escalation processes designed to identify high-risk conversations.

However, evidence suggests that these controls are not always consistent. In some tests, chatbots have provided restricted information when prompts are carefully framed or developed over multiple exchanges.

One reason for this is the way these systems are designed. They are built to be helpful, to continue conversations and to interpret user intent. When intent develops gradually or is presented indirectly, it can be difficult for the system to determine when to refuse or intervene.

Persistence is also a factor. Users can rephrase questions, introduce fictional scenarios or build context step by step. As conversations become longer, earlier safeguards may weaken.

OpenAI has acknowledged this limitation, noting that safety measures tend to perform more reliably in shorter exchanges and can degrade during extended interactions.

Why This Is Gaining Attention

The concern is not that AI chatbots are independently causing violent acts. The issue is that, in certain circumstances, they may reduce the friction between harmful thoughts and real-world behaviour.

This can happen through reinforcement, where ideas are echoed rather than challenged, and through translation, where vague or emotional thinking is turned into more structured plans.

The combination of speed, accessibility and detailed output means that users can move from general intent to specific action more quickly than before.

In response, AI providers are beginning to strengthen their approaches. This includes earlier escalation of concerning conversations, tighter controls on banned users returning to platforms, and closer coordination with authorities where risks are identified.

These steps suggest growing recognition that current safeguards need to evolve as the technology becomes more widely used.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For UK organisations, this is not just a consumer or public safety issue. Generative AI tools are already embedded in many workplaces, often with limited governance around how they are used.

One key consideration is how employees interact with these systems. AI can support research, communication and problem-solving, but it can also influence how information is interpreted, particularly during extended or complex use.

There is also a broader governance challenge. Many organisations focus on data security and accuracy when adopting AI. Behavioural influence and decision-making risk are less frequently addressed, yet they are becoming increasingly relevant.

Clear policies are an important starting point. Employees should understand when AI tools are appropriate, where human judgement is required and when outputs should be verified.

Training is equally important. As highlighted by research into AI-related cognitive strain, the way tools are used can have a direct impact on decision quality. Encouraging structured use, limiting over-reliance and maintaining critical thinking are essential.

Monitoring and escalation processes should also be considered. Organisations need to be able to identify when AI use is producing unexpected or concerning outcomes and respond accordingly.

There is also a duty of care element. As AI tools become more integrated into everyday work, organisations may need to consider how they support employees who are using these systems extensively or in sensitive contexts.

This issue reinforces a wider point. AI is not only a productivity tool. It also shapes how people think, decide and act. Businesses that recognise this and put balanced controls in place will be better placed to manage risk while still benefiting from what the technology can offer.

The post Featured Article : Are AI Chatbots Crossing A Dangerous Line? appeared first on Mear Technology.

Pichai Raises The Alarm

In a recent BBC interview, Pichai described the current phase of AI investment as an “extraordinary moment”, while stressing that there are clear “elements of irrationality” in the rush of spending, product launches and trillion-dollar infrastructure plans circulating across the industry. He compared today’s mood to the late 1990s, when major internet stocks soared before falling sharply during the dotcom crash.

Alphabet’s rapid valuation rise has brought these questions into sharper focus. For example, the company’s market value has roughly doubled over the past seven months, reaching around $3.5 trillion, as investors gained confidence in its ability to compete with OpenAI, Microsoft and others in advanced models and AI chips. In the recent interview, Pichai acknowledged that this momentum reflects real progress, and also made clear that such rapid gains sit in a wider market that may not remain stable.

He said that no company would be “immune” if the current enthusiasm fades or if investments begin to fall out of sync with realistic returns. His emphasis was not on predicting a crash but on pointing out that corrections tend to hit the entire sector, including its strongest players, when expectations have been set too high for too long.

Spending Rises While The Questions Grow

One of the main drivers of concern appears to be the scale of the investment commitments being made by major AI developers and infrastructure providers. OpenAI, for example, has agreed more than one trillion dollars in long-term cloud and data centre deals, despite only generating a fraction of that in annual revenues. These deals reflect confidence in future demand for fully integrated AI services, yet they also raise difficult questions about how quickly such spending can turn into sustainable returns.

Analysts have repeatedly warned that this level of capital commitment comes with risks similar to those seen in earlier periods of technological exuberance. Also, large commitments from private credit funds, sovereign wealth investors and major cloud providers add complexity to the financial picture. In fact, some analysts see evidence that investors are now beginning to differentiate between firms with strong cash flows and those whose valuations depend more heavily on expectations than proven performance.

Global financial institutions have reinforced this point and commentary from central banks and the finance sector has identified AI and its surrounding infrastructure as a potential source of volatility. For example, the Bank of England has highlighted the possibility of market overvaluation, while the International Monetary Fund has pointed to the risk that optimism may be running ahead of evidence in some parts of the ecosystem.

Nvidia’s Rally Slows As Investors Pause

Nvidia has become the most visible beneficiary of the AI boom, with demand for its specialist processors powering the latest generation of large language models and generative AI systems. The company recently became the first in history to pass the five trillion dollar (£3.8 trillion) valuation mark, fuelled by more than one thousand per cent growth in its share price over three years.

Nvidia’s latest quarterly results once again exceeded expectations, with strong data centre revenue and healthy margins reassuring investors that AI projects remain a major driver of orders. Early market reactions were positive, with chipmakers and AI-linked shares rising sharply.

Mood Shift

However, the mood shifted within hours. US markets pulled back, and the semiconductor index fell after investors reassessed whether the current pace of AI spending is sustainable. Nvidia’s own share price, which had surged earlier in the session, drifted lower as traders questioned how long hyperscale cloud providers and large AI developers can continue expanding their data centre capacity at the same rate.

It seems this pattern is now becoming familiar. Good results spark rallies across global markets before concerns about valuations, financing and future spending slow those gains. For many traders, this suggests the market is entering a more cautious phase where confidence remains high but volatility is increasing.

What The Smart Money Sees Happening

It’s worth noting here that institutional investors are not all united in their view on whether the sector is overvalued. For example, many point out that the largest AI companies generate substantial profits and have strong balance sheets. This is an important difference from the late 1990s, when highly speculative firms with weak finances accounted for much of the market. Today’s biggest players hold large amounts of cash and have resilient revenue bases across cloud, advertising, hardware and enterprise services.

Others remain quite wary of the pace of spending across the sector. For example, JPMorgan’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, has stated publicly that some of the investment flooding into AI will be lost, even if the technology transforms the economy over the longer term. That view is also shared by several fund managers who argue that the largest firms may be sound but that the overall ecosystem contains pockets of extreme risk, including private market deals, lightly tested start-ups and new financial structures arranged around data centre expansion.

Energy Demands Adding Pressure

Pichai has tied these financial questions directly to the physical cost of the AI boom. Data centre energy use is rising rapidly and forecasts suggest that US energy consumption from these facilities could triple by the end of the decade. Global projections indicate that AI could consume as much electricity as a major industrial nation by 2030.

Pichai told the BBC in his recent interview with them that this creates a material challenge. Alphabet’s own climate targets have already experienced slippage because of the power required for AI training and deployment, though the company maintains it can still reach net zero by 2030. He warned that economies which do not scale their energy infrastructure quickly enough could experience constraints that affect productivity across all sectors.

It seems the same issue is worrying investors as grid delays, rising energy prices and pressure on cooling systems all affect the cost and timing of AI infrastructure builds. In fact, several investment banks are now treating energy availability as a central factor in modelling the future growth of AI companies, rather than as a supporting consideration.

Impact On Jobs And Productivity

Beyond markets and infrastructure, Pichai has repeatedly said that AI will change the way people work. His view is that jobs across teaching, medicine, law, finance and many other fields will continue to exist, but those who adopt AI tools will fare better than those who do not. He has also acknowledged that entry-level roles may feel the greatest pressure as businesses automate routine tasks and restructure teams.

These questions sit alongside continuing debate among economists about whether AI has yet delivered any real sustained productivity gains. Results so far are mixed, with some studies showing improvements in specific roles and others highlighting the difficulty organisations face when introducing new systems and workflows. This uncertainty is now affecting how investors judge long-term returns on AI investment, particularly for companies whose business models depend on fast commercial adoption.

Pichai’s message, therefore, reflects both the promise and the tension that’s at the heart of the current AI landscape. The technology is advancing rapidly and major firms are seeing strong demand but concerns are growing at the same time about valuations, financing conditions, energy constraints and the practical limits of near-term returns.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The picture that emerges here is one of genuine progress set against a backdrop of mounting questions. For example, rising valuations, rapid infrastructure buildouts and ambitious spending plans show that confidence in AI remains strong, but Pichai’s warning highlights how easily momentum can outpace reality when expectations run ahead of proven returns. It seems investors are beginning to judge companies more selectively, and the shift from blanket enthusiasm to closer scrutiny suggests that the sector is entering a phase where fundamentals will matter more than hype.

Financial pressures, energy constraints and uneven productivity gains are all adding complexity to the outlook. Companies with resilient cash flows and diversified revenue now look far better placed to weather volatility than those relying mainly on future growth narratives. This matters for UK businesses because many depend on stable cloud pricing, predictable investment cycles and reliable access to AI tools. Any correction in global markets could influence technology budgets, shift supplier strategies and affect the availability of credit for large digital projects. The UK’s position as an emerging AI hub also means that sharp movements in global sentiment could influence investment flows into domestic research, infrastructure and skills programmes.

Stakeholders across the wider ecosystem may need to plan for more mixed conditions. Cloud providers, chipmakers, start-ups and enterprise buyers are all exposed in different ways to questions about energy availability, margin pressure and the timing of real economic returns. Pichai’s comments about the need for stronger energy infrastructure highlight the fact that the physical foundations of the AI industry are now as important as the models themselves. Governments, regulators and energy providers will play a central role in determining how smoothly AI can scale over the next decade.

The broader message here is that AI remains on a long upward trajectory, but the path may not be as smooth or as linear as recent market gains have suggested. The leading companies appear confident that demand will stay strong, but the mixed reaction in global markets shows that investors are no longer treating the sector as risk free. For organisations deciding how to approach AI adoption and investment, the coming period is likely to reward careful planning, measured expectations and close attention to the economic and operational factors that sit behind the headlines.

The post Featured Article : Pichai Warns Of AI Bubble appeared first on Mear Technology.

A Clear Move Towards Automated Digital Tasks

AI tools have become familiar, yet many still require people to know how to phrase prompts or navigate long product pages. Now, Hero, a rising productivity startup, and Google, are both targeting these pain points with new systems designed to remove the need for manual prompting and repetitive shopping tasks altogether. It seems their latest releases aim to streamline everyday digital admin using context, automation and conversational interactions.

Who Is Hero And What Does The App Do?

Hero is a consumer productivity platform built by former engineers who have previously worked on augmented reality interfaces. The company has grown rapidly, reporting more than 300,000 users and a 4.9 rating on the Apple App Store. Its core idea is to replace multiple apps with a single daily assistant. For example, the Hero app brings together calendars, reminders, events, to-dos, notes, habit tracking, shared lists and weather updates in one continuous feed.

Users can create tasks, organise schedules, coordinate with partners or colleagues, and receive “Can’t Miss” notifications that can sound even when a phone is in silent mode. There is also a built-in grocery system that categorises items automatically and connects to Instacart ordering. Hero promotes itself as a tool to “run your life in one place”, aiming to simplify the routines and small decisions that tend to fragment across apps.

Hero’s Autocomplete SDK Now Writes Prompts For You!

It seems that Hero is now extending this philosophy to AI prompts. The company has introduced a new autocomplete SDK (Software Development Kit) that predicts and fills in the parameters an AI system will need to complete a task. This means users can begin with a short instruction, and the SDK will fill in all the other relevant fields and details, allowing the user to complete as much or as little as they like before submitting the request.

For example, starting a prompt with “Book a flight” can automatically produce fields such as departure and destination airports, dates, times and airline choices. The same applies to creative tools, where the SDK can suggest common parameters such as style, location or camera angle for image or video generation.

Uses Multiple Models Together

Hero says that the SDK uses multiple models working together to understand user intent and assemble the information the system needs. The company says the autocomplete experience reduces the number of messages required to complete an action, cutting time and effort for users and reducing computing costs for businesses that run AI-powered services.

Background In AR

It seems this idea most likely comes from the founders’ background in augmented reality, where screen space is limited and long free-form prompts are impractical. Building clear, structured actions from short starting phrases became part of their design thinking, and the new SDK continues that approach by making prompts more like guided workflows.

Funding

Hero recently secured 3 million dollars in additional funding and is already testing the autocomplete technology inside its own app, where users will be able to rely on the assistant to propose structured prompts for tasks such as finding meeting times, organising shared plans or identifying key details from photos and screenshots.

Google Redesigns Online Shopping With Agentic AI

While Hero is automating prompt writing, Google is now automating shopping. For example, the company has just announced a major upgrade to its AI shopping features across Search and the Gemini app, aimed at simplifying product discovery, comparison, stock checking and purchase.

In Google’s own announcement about the features, the company said shopping should “feel a lot more natural and easy”, noting that browsing can be enjoyable but the administrative steps often are not. The new tools are designed to let people describe what they want in everyday language while the AI organises the information needed to make decisions.

For example, through AI Mode in Search, users can now ask conversational questions such as “cosy jumpers in warm autumn colours” and receive a visual selection of products, prices, reviews and inventory information. If they are comparing items such as skincare products, AI Mode can switch to structured comparison views that highlight key differences and insights from reviews.

Google says these features are powered by Google’s Shopping Graph, which contains over 50 billion product listings, with around 2 billion refreshed every hour. This gives Google’s AI near real-time awareness of stock levels and pricing across retailers.

Shopping Inside Gemini And Automated Purchasing

Google is also making the same capabilities available inside the Gemini app. For example, instead of brief suggestions, Gemini can now respond with complete lists of ideas, curated recommendations, comparison tables and links to buy. All of this is driven by Shopping Graph data, and it is designed to help users move from brainstorming to browsing in a single conversational thread.

One of the most significant additions is agentic checkout. With its help, users can track the price of an item they want, set a maximum budget and ask Google to buy it automatically using Google Pay if the price drops within their range. Google says the system will always request confirmation before completing a purchase and will only use payment details the user has already authorised.

Early rollout partners include retailers such as Wayfair, Quince, Chewy and selected Shopify stores.

Google’s AI Can Call Shops For You

Google has also introduced a tool that uses AI to call physical shops directly. For example, when people search for certain items “near me”, they may see an option marked “Let Google Call”. Selecting this enables Google’s AI to call local stores, check availability, ask about pricing and confirm whether any offers are available. The results are summarised in a follow-up message.

This feature is built on Google’s Duplex calling technology. Merchants who receive calls hear a clear disclosure that the caller is an AI acting on behalf of a customer. Google says shops can opt out at any time, and calls are limited to avoid unnecessary disruption.

Benefits

These developments highlight several benefits for consumers, business users and retailers. For example, for individuals, Hero’s autocomplete SDK removes the need to learn how to write prompts, lowering the barrier to using AI tools. Google’s agentic shopping features reduce time spent checking prices, comparing products or phoning shops, which can support faster decision-making during busy periods such as the holiday season.

For businesses, the real appeal is efficiency and cost reduction. Hero’s SDK shortens user interactions, which reduces the number of model calls required, lowering server costs. Google’s automated shopping tools can bring back hesitant buyers, help retailers reach local customers and streamline the customer journey from discovery to purchase.

There are also broader implications for professionals and business users. For example, automated prompts can speed up research tasks, planning, scheduling and customer support workflows. Automated shopping and stock checking can simplify procurement, reduce manual checks and help teams stay within budgets more easily.

Challenges And Criticisms

Despite all the obvious benefits, it should be noted that there are some also important considerations. For example, the influence of automated suggestions raises questions about visibility and fairness. If autocomplete systems prioritise certain parameters or products, users may only see a narrow band of options. This is particularly sensitive where sponsored listings appear alongside AI-generated recommendations.

Also, privacy is a central concern. Hero brings together large volumes of personal information, including calendars, notes, reminders, grocery lists and shared tasks. Google’s agentic shopping tools collect signals about purchase timing, price sensitivity and product intent. Both companies provide assurances about data handling, yet users may still question how much insight these systems can gain over daily routines and buying habits.

There are also challenges for smaller businesses. Retailers that do not integrate with larger shopping ecosystems may become less visible inside AI-driven recommendations, placing pressure on them to engage with platforms they might otherwise avoid.

It’s also worth noting that this shift from advisory to agentic AI means systems are not only suggesting options but taking actions on behalf of users. This means that the level of comfort people feel with automated purchasing, prompt completion and real-world calling is likely to shape how widely these features are adopted and how deeply automated digital life becomes in the years ahead.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The combined direction of these developments suggests that everyday digital tasks are becoming less about active decision making and more about approving actions that AI systems have already prepared. Hero’s approach shows how this can simplify workflows that would normally require careful prompt writing, while Google’s agentic shopping tools reveal how much of the purchase journey can be handled without the user having to search, compare or chase information themselves. The result is a growing expectation that these systems will assemble the context, gather the details and present the decisions in a form that requires minimal input.

This transformation has particular relevance for UK businesses. For example, teams that once spent time on procurement checks, research tasks or repetitive customer queries may find that agentic systems remove much of the manual effort, freeing staff to focus on higher value work. The same applies to smaller organisations that struggle with capacity peaks during busy seasons. Automated comparison, stock checking and structured prompting could help these companies stay responsive even with limited resources, although they will need to weigh this against concerns about visibility and reliance on third party platforms.

There is also a wider shift for retailers, service providers and other stakeholders who will now find themselves interacting not only with customers but with AI agents acting on their behalf. Features such as automated shop calls or price triggered purchases may change how demand appears, how stock is managed and how customer expectations evolve. This presents opportunities to reach customers more consistently, though it also places new pressure on businesses to ensure their information remains accurate across the systems that feed these AI tools.

It’s likely, therefore, that the next stage of adoption is really going to depend on trust. For example, users will need confidence that the suggestions offered are balanced, that privacy safeguards work as intended and that automated actions remain transparent. Businesses will want reassurance that they are not disadvantaged if they choose not to integrate with large ecosystems. What is clear from both launches is that AI is moving steadily from a tool that responds to instructions to one that anticipates what users want and prepares the steps in advance. How people and organisations respond to this will determine how quickly these ideas actually become part of everyday life or not.

The post Featured Article : AI Assistants Write Your Prompts And Do Your Shopping For You appeared first on Mear Technology.