Connect with us

Published

on

Big technology companies are betting that a new wave of smaller, more precise AI models will be more effective when it comes to the needs of businesses in sectors like law, finance, and health care.

Jaap Arriens | NurPhoto via Getty Images

LONDON — Increasingly many financial services firms are touting the benefits of artificial intelligence when it comes to boosting productivity and overall operational efficiency.

Despite bold statements, a lot of companies are failing to produce tangible results, according to Edward J Achtner, the head of generative AI for U.K. banking giant HSBC.

“Candidly, there’s a lot of success theater out there,” Achtner said on a panel at the CogX Global Leadership Summit alongside Ranil Boteju — a fellow AI leader at rival British bank Lloyds Banking Group — and Nathalie Oestmann, head of NV Ltd, an advisory firm for venture capital funds.

“We have to be very clinical in terms of what we choose to do, and where we choose to do it,” Achtner told attendees of the event, held at the Royal Albert Hall in London earlier this week.

Achtner outlined how the 150-year-old lending institution has embraced artificial intelligence since ChatGPT — the popular AI chatbot from Microsoft-backed startup OpenAI — burst onto the scene in November 2022.

The HSBC AI leader said that the bank has more than 550 use cases across its business lines and functions linked to AI — ranging from fighting money laundering and fraud using machine learning tools to supporting knowledge workers with newer generative AI systems.

One example he gave was a partnership that HSBC has in place with internet search titan Google on the use of AI technology anti-money laundering and fraud mitigation. That tie-up has been in place for several years, he said. The bank has also dipped its toes deeper into genAI tech much more recently.

Klarna to halve workforce with AI

“When it comes to generative artificial intelligence, we do need to clearly separate that” from other types of AI, Achtner said. “We do approach the underlying risk with respect to generative very differently because, while it represents incredible potential opportunity and productivity gains, it also represents a different type of risk.”

Achtner’s comments come as other figures in the financial services sector — particularly leaders at startup firms — have made bold statements about the level of overall efficiency gains and cost reductions they are seeing as a result of investments in AI.

Buy now, pay later firm Klarna says it has been taking advantage of AI to make up for loss of productivity resulting from declines in its workforce as employees move on from the company.

It is implementing a company-wide hiring freeze and has slashed overall employee headcount down to 3,800 from 5,000 — a roughly 24% workforce reduction — with the help of AI, CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski said in August. He is looking to further reduce Klarna’s headcount to 2,000 staff members — without specifying a time for this target.

Klarna’s boss said the firm was lowering its overall headcount against the backdrop of AI’s potential to have “a dramatic impact” on jobs and society.

“I think politicians already today should consider whether there are other alternatives of how they could support people that may be effective,” he said at the time in an interview with the BBC. Siemiatkowski said it was “too simplistic” to say AI’s disruptive effects would be offset by the creation of new jobs thanks to AI.

Oestmann of NV Ltd, a London-based firm that offers advisory services for the C-suite of venture capital and private equity firms, directly touched on Klarna’s actions, saying headlines around such AI-driven workforce reductions are “not helpful.”

Klarna, she suggested, likely saw that AI “makes them a more valuable company” and was consequently incorporating the technology as part of plans to reduce its workforce anyway.

The result Klarna is seeing from AI “are very real,” a Klarna spokesperson told CNBC. “We publicize these results because we want to be honest and transparent about the impact genAI is having in the real world in companies today,” the spokesperson added.

“At the end of the day,” Oestmann added, as long as people are “trained appropriately” and banks and other financial services firm can “reinvent” themselves in the new AI era, “it will just help us to evolve.” She advised financial firms to pursue “continuous learning in everything that you do.”

“Make sure you are trying these tools out, make sure you are making this part of your everyday, make sure you are curious,” she added.

Boteju, chief data and analytics officer at Lloyds, pointed to three main use cases that the lender sees with respect to AI: automating back office functions like coding and engineering documentation, “human-in-the loop” uses like prompts for sales staff, and AI-generated responses to client queries.

Boteju stressed that Lloyds is “proceeding with caution” when it comes to exposing the bank’s customers to generative AI tools. “We want to get our guardrails in place before we actually start to scale those,” he added.

“Banks in particular have been using AI and machine learning for probably about 15 or 20 years,” Boteju said, signaling that machine learning, intelligent automation and chatbots are things traditional lenders have been “doing for a while.”

Generative AI, on the other hand, is a more nascent technology, according to the Lloyds exec. The bank is increasingly thinking about how to scale that technology — but by “using the current frameworks and infrastructure we’ve got,” rather than by moving the needle significantly.

The banking sector 'is very conservative' around competition, says Bunq CEO

Boteju and Achtner’s comments tally with what other AI leaders of financial services have said previously. Speaking with CNBC last week, Bahadir Yilmaz, chief analytics officer of ING, said that AI is unlikely to be as disruptive as firms like Klarna are suggesting with their public messaging.

“We see the same potential that they’re seeing,” Yilmaz said in an interview in London. “It’s just the tone of communication is a bit different.” He added that ING is primarily using AI in its global contact centers and internally for software engineering.

“We don’t need to be seen as an AI-driven bank,” Yilmaz said, adding that, with many processes lenders won’t even need AI to solve certain problems. “It’s a really powerful tool. It’s very disruptive. But we don’t necessarily have to say we are putting it as a sauce on all the food.”

Johan Tjarnberg, CEO of Swedish online payments firm Trustly, told CNBC earlier this week that AI “will actually be one of the biggest technology levers in payments.” But even so, he noted that the firm is focusing more of the “basics of AI” than on transformative changes like AI-led customer service.

One area where Trustly is looking to improve customer experience with AI is subscriptions. The startup is working on an “intelligent charging mechanism” that would aim to figure out the best time for a bank to take payment from a subscription platform user, based on their historical financial activity.

Tjarnberg added that Trustly is seeing closer to 5-10% improved efficiency as a result of implementing AI within its organization.

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending