Cisco’s AI Summit was a wake-up call most people ignored.
Jensen Huang said it plainest. You can’t control innovation, only steer it. Most companies aren’t steering. They’re copying whatever OpenAI did last month and calling it strategy. That’s not transformation. That’s drama.
Microsoft’s Kevin Scott admitted the quiet part. That AI makes you faster, not smarter. You’re just shipping the same problems at scale now.
Sam Altman’s pushing autonomous agents hard. Software that acts for you, makes decisions, moves money. Sounds great until it doesn’t. Then everyone suddenly asks: who’s responsible?
Intel brought reality back. Memory, power, and cost have limits. Physics doesn’t care about your roadmap.
Here’s what nobody wants to admit.
The industry wants AI systems with full authority but zero accountability. You want agents that can act autonomously, but when they screw up, suddenly it’s “the model made an error” or “the system behaved unexpectedly.”
Wrong. You deployed it. You gave it access. You approved production. Someone is responsible.
Take credit when it works. Deflect blame when it doesn’t. That’s the pattern. And it’s not acceptable in any other field, but somehow it flies in AI.
The industry is building powerful systems structured to diffuse responsibility when things go wrong.
So answer this. When your AI agent causes real damage, do you own it or hide behind the technology?
Because right now, it looks like you’re building liability shields, not innovation.
Prove otherwise. Comment below.
