Connect with us

Technology

AI agents are science fiction not yet ready for primetime

Published

on

AI agents are science fiction not yet ready for primetime

This is The Stepback, a weekly newsletter breaking down one essential story from the tech world. For more on all things AI, follow Hayden Field. The Stepback arrives in our subscribers’ inboxes at 8AM ET. Opt in for The Stepback here.

It all started with J.A.R.V.I.S. Yes, that J.A.R.V.I.S. The one from the Marvel movies.

Well, maybe it didn’t start with Iron Man’s AI assistant, but the fictional system definitely helped the concept of an AI agent along. Whenever I’ve interviewed AI industry folks about agentic AI, they often point to J.A.R.V.I.S. as an example of the ideal AI tool in many ways — one that knows what you need done before you even ask, can analyze and find insights in large swaths of data, and can offer strategic advice or run point on certain aspects of your business. People sometimes disagree on the exact definition of an AI agent, but at its core, it’s a step beyond chatbots in that it’s a system that can perform multistep, complex tasks on your behalf without constantly needing back-and-forth communication with you. It essentially makes its own to-do list of subtasks it needs to complete in order to get to your preferred end goal. That fantasy is closer to being a reality in many ways, but when it comes to actual usefulness for the everyday user, there are a lot of things that don’t work — and maybe will never work.

The term “AI agent” has been around for a long time, but it especially started trending in the tech industry in 2023. That was the year of the concept of AI agents; the term was on everyone’s lips as people tried to suss out the idea and how to make it a reality, but you didn’t see many successful use cases. The next year, 2024, was the year of deployment — people were really putting the code out into the field and seeing what it could do. (The answer, at the time, was… not much. And filled with a bunch of error messages.)

I can pinpoint the hype around AI agents becoming widespread to one specific announcement: In February 2024, Klarna, a fintech company, said that after one month, its AI assistant (powered by OpenAI’s tech) had successfully done the work of 700 full-time customer service agents and automated two-thirds of the company’s customer service chats. For months, those statistics came up in almost every AI industry conversation I had.

Advertisement

The hype never died down, and in the following months, every Big Tech CEO seemed to harp on the term in every earnings call. Executives at Amazon, Meta, Google, Microsoft, and a whole host of other companies began to talk about their commitment to building useful and successful AI agents — and tried to put their money where their mouths are to make it happen.

The vision was that one day, an AI agent could do everything from book your travel to generate visuals for your business presentations. The ideal tool could even, say, find a good time and place to hang out with a bunch of your friends that works with all of your calendars, food preferences, and dietary restrictions — and then book the dinner reservation and create a calendar event for everyone.

Now let’s talk about the “AI coding” of it all: For years, AI coding has been carrying the agentic AI industry. If you asked anyone about real-life, successful, not-annoying use cases for AI agents happening right now and not conceptually in a not-too-distant future, they’d point to AI coding — and that was pretty much the only concrete thing they could point to. Many engineers use AI agents for coding, and they’re seen as objectively pretty good. Good enough, in fact, that at Microsoft and Google, up to 30 percent of the code is now being written by AI agents. And for startups like OpenAI and Anthropic, which burn through cash at high rates, one of their biggest revenue generators is AI coding tools for enterprise clients.

So until recently, AI coding has been the main real-life use case of AI agents, but obviously, that’s not pandering to the everyday consumer. The vision, remember, was always a jack-of-all-trades sort of AI agent for the “everyman.” And we’re not quite there yet — but in 2025, we’ve gotten closer than we’ve ever been before.

Last October, Anthropic kicked things off by introducing “Computer Use,” a tool that allowed Claude to use a computer like a human might — browsing, searching, accessing different platforms, and completing complex tasks on a user’s behalf. The general consensus was that the tool was a step forward for technology, but reviews said that in practice, it left a lot to be desired. Fast-forward to January 2025, and OpenAI released Operator, its version of the same thing, and billed it as a tool for filling out forms, ordering groceries, booking travel, and creating memes. Once again, in practice, many users agreed that the tool was buggy, slow, and not always efficient. But again, it was a significant step. The next month, OpenAI released Deep Research, an agentic AI tool that could compile long research reports on any topic for a user, and that spun things forward, too. Some people said the research reports were more impressive in length than content, but others were seriously impressed. And then in July, OpenAI combined Deep Research and Operator into one AI agent product: ChatGPT Agent. Was it better than most consumer-facing agentic AI tools that came before? Absolutely. Was it still tough to make work successfully in practice? Absolutely.

Advertisement

So there’s a long way to go to reach that vision of an ideal AI agent, but at the same time, we’re technically closer than we’ve ever been before. That’s why tech companies are putting more and more money into agentic AI, by way of investing in additional compute, research and development, or talent. Google recently hired Windsurf’s CEO, cofounder, and some R&D team members, specifically to help Google push its AI agent projects forward. And companies like Anthropic and OpenAI are racing each other up the ladder, rung by rung, to introduce incremental features to put these agents in the hands of consumers. (Anthropic, for instance, just announced a Chrome extension for Claude that allows it to work in your browser.)

So really, what happens next is that we’ll see AI coding continue to improve (and, unfortunately, potentially replace the jobs of many entry-level software engineers). We’ll also see the consumer-facing agent products improve, likely slowly but surely. And we’ll see agents used increasingly for enterprise and government applications, especially since Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI have all debuted government-specific AI platforms in recent months.

Overall, expect to see more false starts, starts and stops, and mergers and acquisitions as the AI agent competition picks up (and the hype bubble continues to balloon). One question we’ll all have to ask ourselves as the months go on: What do we actually want a conceptual “AI agent” to be able to do for us? Do we want them to replace just the logistics or also the more personal, human aspects of life (i.e., helping write a wedding toast or a note for a flower delivery)? And how good are they at helping with the logistics vs. the personal stuff? (Answer for that last one: not very good at the moment.)

  • Besides the astronomical environmental cost of AI — especially for large models, which are the ones powering AI agent efforts — there’s an elephant in the room. And that’s the idea that “smarter AI that can do anything for you” isn’t always good, especially when people want to use it to do… bad things. Things like creating chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. Top AI companies say they’re increasingly worried about the risks of that. (Of course, they’re not worried enough to stop building.)
  • Let’s talk about the regulation of it all. A lot of people have fears about the implications of AI, but many aren’t fully aware of the potential dangers posed by uber-helpful, aiming-to-please AI agents in the hands of bad actors, both stateside and abroad (think: “vibe-hacking,” romance scams, and more). AI companies say they’re ahead of the risk with the voluntary safeguards they’ve implemented. But many others say this may be a case for an external gut-check.

0 Comments

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Technology

The future of local TV news has taken a Trumpian turn

Published

on

The future of local TV news has taken a Trumpian turn

This is The Stepback, a weekly newsletter breaking down one essential story from the tech world. For more stories on Big Tech versus politics in Washington, DC, follow Tina Nguyen and read Regulator. The Stepback arrives in our subscribers’ inboxes at 8AM ET. Opt in for The Stepback here.

A long time ago, in 2004, the Federal Communications Commission laid down a rule designed to prevent a monopoly: No one company could broadcast to more than 39 percent of all the TV households in the United States. But then Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2025. Brendan Carr became FCC chairman and immediately kicked off a deregulatory initiative called “Delete, Delete, Delete,” in which Carr vowed to get rid of “every rule, regulation, or guidance document” that placed “unnecessary regulatory burdens” on companies. And within months, Nexstar, which already owned over 200 stations nationwide and had hit its ownership cap, announced that it had entered an agreement to purchase its rival, Tegna, for an estimated $6.2 billion — something that could only happen, however, if Carr agreed to change the FCC’s rules.

If you ask Nexstar why it’s pursuing a merger that would give it control of over 80 percent of the market, it’d point to Big Tech as the culprit. As advertisers take their money to Netflix, YouTube, and other digital streamers, linear television — the local television news, the broadcast affiliates, the basic cable networks — has suffered, forcing them to consolidate and shut down newsrooms. In that sense, Nexstar argued, the merger would help it compete for ad revenue with the streaming services, thereby building more robust local journalism. However, the merger’s opponents believe that this is a basic violation of antitrust laws and principles — not to mention the danger of letting one company have editorial control over the vast majority of America’s local television newsrooms.

But the second Trump administration handles regulatory hurdles a little differently than others, and companies have found that it’s faster to get what they want if they bypass the agencies and talk (read: suck up) to Trump directly. And when Nexstar did so publicly, it confirmed its opponents’ fears about political influence. Last September, in the fraught weeks after the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, Nexstar announced it would no longer broadcast Jimmy Kimmel Live! — a response to Carr’s claim that the FCC could revoke the broadcast licenses of TV stations that aired the comedian’s comments related to Kirk. It briefly led to ABC suspending Kimmel’s show, though ABC and Nexstar soon reversed their decision after a massive nationwide backlash and an ABC boycott.

However, Nexstar’s loyalty to Trump himself was not enough to win over his most powerful MAGA supporters. Newsmax, a cable news network with a deeply pro-Trump bent, and its CEO, longtime Trump donor and outside adviser Chris Ruddy, filed a lawsuit objecting to the merger, claiming that Nexstar’s anticompetitive behavior would force channels like his off the air with steeper carriage fees. He specifically accused Nexstar of jacking up the fees for stations to carry Newsmax, while offering its similar network, NewsNation, for much cheaper.

Advertisement

The Nexstar-Tegna MAGA makeover then took a more subtle turn. NewsNation hired the pro-Trump Fox News commentator Katie Pavlich and gave her her own primetime show. (The network had already hired a slew of former Fox journalists as well.) Around this time, a political group called Keep News Local began airing ads in DC that seemed to directly address Trump, praising him for having “defeated the fake news monopolies before through independent voices and local news” and claiming that the Nexstar-Tegna merger was “crucial for MAGA to survive.” (A little self-contradictory and mildly illogical, but it’s the kind of stuff that Trump likes to hear.) When I last spoke to Ruddy in February, I asked if he’d worried that the dark money going into Keep News Local would sway Trump, and he chose his words carefully: “I think at the end of the day, Trump makes up his own mind. I’m not sure he’s going to be influenced by an ad campaign.”

For months, no one could accurately predict if Trump would override Carr’s wishes and bless the deal, as he’s often done for other companies facing regulatory scrutiny. Trump’s Truth Social posts about the merger have been a good indicator of how precarious the merger has been and who’s been able to influence him at any given moment: Last November, he blasted the deal as an “EXPANSION OF THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS,” but by February, he posted that the deal would “help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition.”

Several current and former NewsNation employees told Status at the time that they feared that the parent company was steering NewsNation away from the centrist, “unbiased” reputation they’d long cultivated. “A lot of people within the network believe that the network has gone hard right to appeal to Trump and Brendan Carr,” one former employee told Status. Coincidentally, days before the deal was finalized, NewsNation began ramping up its explicitly pro-Trump content, tweeting a clip of CNN’s Kaitlan Collins being berated by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, along with the comment “Just going to leave this here.”

When Trump greenlit the merger in mid-March, but before the FCC’s three commissioners could vote on whether to waive the ownership cap, Nexstar and Tegna immediately announced a new complication: Tegna and Nexstar had already started merging. Tegna was no more and CEO Mike Steib had already sold $22.6 million of his company stock.

In response, eight state attorneys general and satellite TV operator DirectTV, which had already been planning to file separate federal antitrust suits against the merger, asked US District Judge Troy Nunley in Sacramento for an emergency restraining order that would prevent Nexstar from taking over Tegna’s assets. The order was granted on March 27th and on April 17, Nunley issued a formal injunction, ruling that Tegna must be operated as an independent financial entity, and Nexstar must take steps to ensure it remains separate from Tegna before further legal proceedings.

Advertisement

For now, Nunley has allowed the states and DirecTV to combine their cases, in which both argue that the merger was a clear violation of antitrust laws and would crush news competition.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats in Congress are furious at Carr. On March 30th, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) sent the chairman a joint letter admonishing him for allowing his staff to waive the regulations to let the merger pass, instead of having the full commission of political appointees — one from the Biden administration — vote on it. “Under these circumstances,” they wrote, “any subsequent vote risks being largely procedural rather than a genuine exercise of commission responsibility.” They also pointed out that their hasty approval without the commission’s approval would now complicate the merger financially: “In a transaction of this scale, where integration proceeds quickly and unwinding becomes impractical, delay in judicial review can insulate the decision from meaningful challenge.” Notably, though they share similar ideological views on the media and deregulation, Cruz and Carr have frequently clashed over how to achieve their objectives. Cruz previously slammed Carr as a “mafioso,” for instance, for the way he’d used the FCC to silence Kimmel.

But even if it’s legally paused, the journalistic merger’s fallout has started to hit local news. NPR’s David Folkenfirk reported on Tuesday that Tegna journalists had already started receiving orders to stop broadcasting content from major broadcasters like ABC, CBS, and NBC — media outlets being targeted by Carr — and instead begin airing content from Nexstar’s NewsNation.

  • Brendan Carr’s views on using the FCC to punish major broadcasters was outlined pretty extensively in the chapter he authored in Project 2025, an initiative led by the conservative Heritage Foundation on how to reform the federal bureaucracy to be more favorable to the American right.
  • Exactly how much is local television losing to digital? According to industry publication NewscastStudio, in an investor call defending the purchase, Nexstar chairman Perry Sook cited a market research study from Borrell Associates, which found that “digital advertising in local markets exceeds $100 billion, compared to just $25 billion for local linear television advertising, with nearly two-thirds of digital ad dollars flowing to five major technology companies.”
  • If you want to see exactly how much Keep Local News was trying to suck up to Trump, the ads are archived here.
  • The Vergecast has a long-running segment called “Brendan Carr is a dummy.”
  • The LA Times reported on last week’s preliminary hearings in front of Nunley, and how lawyers for Nexstar, the states, and DirecTV plan to argue their case.
  • The Desk has insights from Kirk Varner, a former TV newsroom director, on how the case could go.
  • Andrew Liptak covered Nexstar’s previous acquisition sprees for The Verge in 2018.
  • Adi Robertson walks through exactly how the Kimmel suspension was an attack on free speech.
  • Brendan Carr keeps trying to convince people that he’s not threatening to suspend broadcast licenses for reporting on unfavorable things like the Iran war, reports Lauren Feiner.
  • The Vergecast has a long-running segment called “Brendan Carr is a dummy.”
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

Continue Reading

Technology

Chinese robot breaks human world record in Beijing half-marathon

Published

on

Chinese robot breaks human world record in Beijing half-marathon

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Chinese-built humanoid robot beat the human half-marathon world record in Beijing on Sunday, marking a breakthrough moment in a high-stakes global race for technological dominance.

A robot developed by Chinese smartphone maker Honor completed the 21-kilometer (13-mile) race in 50 minutes and 26 seconds, beating the human record of about 57 minutes set by Uganda’s Jacob Kiplimo last month.

The performance marked a dramatic improvement from last year’s inaugural event, when the top robot finished in more than 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Dozens of humanoid robots competed alongside about 12,000 human runners, navigating a parallel course to avoid collisions.

Advertisement

CHINA’S COMPACT HUMANOID ROBOT SHOWS OFF BALANCE AND FLIPS

A robot crosses the finish line in the Beijing E-Town Half Marathon and Humanoid Robot Half-Marathon held in the outskirts of Beijing on April 19, 2026. (Andy Wong/AP)

Nearly half of the robots ran using autonomous navigation, while others relied on remote control, organizers said.

Despite the breakthrough, the race still saw glitches, with some robots stumbling at the start or veering into barriers.

Engineers said the winning robot was designed to mimic elite athletes, featuring long legs of about 37 inches and advanced cooling systems to sustain performance.

Advertisement

US TARGETS CHINESE ROBOTS OVER SECURITY FEARS

“Looking ahead, some of these technologies might be transferred to other areas,” said Du Xiaodi, an engineer with the Honor team. “For example, structural reliability and liquid-cooling technology could be applied in future industrial scenarios.”

Team members celebrate next to the winning Honor Lightning humanoid robot during a medal ceremony after the second Beijing E-Town Half Marathon and Humanoid Robot Half Marathon in Beijing, China, on April 19, 2026. (Maxim Shemetov/Reuters)

Spectators reacted with a mix of amazement and unease at the machines’ rapid progress.

“It’s the first time robots have surpassed humans, and that’s something I never imagined,” Sun Zhigang, who attended the event with his son, told The Associated Press.

Advertisement

HUMANOID ROBOTS HIT MASS PRODUCTION IN CHINA

“The robots’ speed far exceeds that of humans,” spectator Wang Wen told the outlet. “This may signal the arrival of sort of a new era.”

A robot starts alongside human runners at the Beijing E-Town Half Marathon and Humanoid Half Marathon on the outskirts of Beijing on April 19, 2026. (Ng Han Guan/AP)

Experts say the race highlights China’s accelerating push to dominate robotics and artificial intelligence, even as widespread commercial use of humanoid robots remains limited, according to Reuters. The experts said Chinese robotics firms are still working to develop the AI software needed for humanoids to match the efficiency of human factory workers.

Runners take pictures of a humanoid robot during the second Beijing E-Town Half Marathon and Humanoid Robot Half Marathon in Beijing on April 19, 2026. (Haruna Furuhashi/Pool Photo via AP)

Advertisement

“The future will definitely be an AI era,” engineering student Chu Tianqi told Reuters. “If people don’t know how to use AI now … they will definitely become obsolete.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The competition underscores a broader technological race between China and the United States, as Beijing invests heavily in advanced robotics as part of its long-term economic strategy.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Technology

The RAM shortage could last years

Published

on

The RAM shortage could last years

According to Nikkei Asia, even as suppliers ramp up DRAM production, manufacturers are only expected to meet 60 percent of demand by the end of 2027. SK Group chairman has even said that shortages could last until 2030.

The world’s largest memory makers — Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron — are all working to add new fabrication capacity, but almost none of it will be online until at least 2027, if not 2028. SK opened a fab in Cheongju in February, but that is the only increase in production among the three for 2026.

Nikkei says that production would need to increase by 12 percent a year in 2026 and 2027 to meet demand. But according to Counterpoint Research, an increase of only 7.5 percent is planned.

The new facilities will primarily focus on producing high-bandwidth memory (HBM), which is used in AI data centers. With the companies already prioritizing HBM over general-purpose DRAM used in computers and phones, it’s not clear how much these new fabs will help alleviate the price crunch facing consumer electronics. Everything from phones and laptops, to VR headsets and gaming handhelds have seen price increases due to the RAM shortage.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending