FlashFeed

Full text

When it comes to fantasy TV shows, no franchise operates at the same level as Game of Thrones , which has launched not one but two full shows just this year. The first Game of Thrones project to win the hearts of fantasy fans around the world was A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms , starring Peter Claffey as Ser Duncan the Tall and Dexter Sol Ansell as his young Targaryen squire, Egg. Following A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms Season 1 just a few weeks ago was the long-awaited third season of House of the Dragon , which has released two episodes in its eight-episode run . Fans and critics agree that House of the Dragon Season 3 is operating at an elite level through two episodes, successfully redeeming the polarizing Season 2 ending.

Full text

Two-thirds of enterprises have hedged their AI model strategy, and the past few weeks of controversy around Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5 model showed why that posture has gone mainstream.

On June 12, a U.S. export-control order pulled Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 — the most capable model on the market — offline for every customer, with no warning and no timeline. It returned this week wrapped in tighter safeguards , after China's Z.ai released its open-weights GLM-5.2 into the vacuum . New VentureBeat Pulse Research, which surveyed 145 enterprises across these last few weeks, shows that two-thirds had already hedged their model strategy before the order came down: 51% blend closed frontier models with open-weight models deployed on their own infrastructure, and another 16% are moving core workflows off closed APIs entirely. The remaining third was all-in on closed ecosystems when the lights went out.

The blackout put a spotlight on vendor dependency, by showing what happens when the model you rely on disappears. But vendor dependency is only the most visible piece of a deeper problem: Most enterprises lack the monitoring to know when an AI system they've put into production stops working correctly.

Just 1 in 10 enterprises has automated monitoring that would catch an AI model drifting, misbehaving, or failing in production. Roughly a quarter would learn of a production failure only when end users — internal or external — report it, or lack the visibility to detect it at all. And 79% of enterprise organizations have already taken a real financial or operational hit from autonomous agents — most often shadow AI, unauthorized agentic work run by enterprises' own employees on corporate credit cards, outside anyone's oversight.

We call this the “Control Gap,” or the distance between how aggressively enterprises are deploying AI and how little of it they can see, own, or govern. June’s blackout turned this into a live stress test.

About this data: VentureBeat Pulse Research surveyed 145 qualified respondents at organizations with 100 or more employees in June 2026, with fielding spanning the Fable 5 blackout that began June 12. The sample is self-selected and directional: 41% work in technology/software, 20% are consultants or advisors, and the respondent base skews senior and technical — CIO/CTO/CISOs (18%), directors of engineering/IT (14%), enterprise architects (12%). More than half of the respondents were from companies with 10,000 employees or more.

While our sample is not huge, what you can trust more than the exact percentages is the pattern: Every question in the survey, independently, points the same way, with deployment running ahead of governance, visibility, and cost control.

The full methodology is in the report .

How the Fable 5 export order rewrote enterprise AI risk

Fable 5 launched June 9 to immediate acclaim — and sticker shock, at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output. Three days later, the U.S. government issued an emergency export-control directive barring access by foreign nationals. Anthropic, with no way to verify nationality in real time, suspended the model for everyone.

Z.ai has continued to pick up momentum; on Wednesday it released an open agentic coding environment, called Zcode . OpenAI, meanwhile, previewed its cutting-edge GPT-5.6 line on June 26.

Enterprises had already spent the spring learning what AI dependence costs in dollars. Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI coding budget in four months after Claude Code adoption hit 84% of its roughly 5,000 engineers, Forbes reported. Microsoft canceled most internal Claude Code licenses in its Windows and Microsoft 365 division, steering engineers to its own tooling, according to The Verge.

June added the harder lesson: The model your workflows depend on can vanish overnight, by government order, through no decision of yours or your vendor's. And Chinese companies like DeepSeek were releasing hugely disruptive, powerful models , driving down costs to a fraction of Western ones.

Brian Craig, senior director of architecture at Liberty IT, the Ireland-based engineering arm of Liberty Mutual, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, saw both lessons collide in real time. Craig is Irish, which meant the export order hit him directly as a foreign-national user.

Onstage at VentureBeat's AI Impact event in New York on June 24, mid-blackout, I asked him about it. "Fable arrived, and immediately you saw the sticker price of using it, and you went, 'Ooh, goodness, it better be really good,'" Craig said. "But luckily enough, we didn’t get to use it enough to get to fall in love with it." Then it was gone.

The hedge was already built before the blackout hit

Craig's company was built to route around exactly this kind of disruption. Liberty IT runs what it calls an AI backbone — roughly 50 components spanning security, governance, observability, and orchestration, each independently replaceable.

"You can't lock in right now in one vendor and even one framework," Craig told the room. "You need to keep being able to have the flexibility with that backbone to be able to hook into different models, different vendors, depending not so much on who's the flavor of the day, but on what you can feel confident about for the next six months."

The survey shows Craig has plenty of company. A 51% majority of enterprises run a hybrid posture — closed frontier models for general reasoning, open-weight models deployed locally for specialized execution — and 16% are making a hard pivot, moving core workflows onto open weights running on their own hybrid or private cloud. The 32% holding a closed commitment are candid about why: The operational overhead of self-hosting still outweighs the savings for them. After June, that calculus has a new variable in it.

Defection is now the active posture, and the target may surprise you. Asked which primary AI vendor they are most likely to downsize or phase out over the next 12 months, respondents named Microsoft first at 30% — most citing cutbacks to Copilot and Azure AI frameworks in favor of direct model access — ahead of the 28% who plan to trim no vendor at all. OpenAI drew 21%, largely on pricing volatility, with Anthropic at 15% and Google at 6%. No vendor faces an exodus. But loyalty by inertia has ended: Among these enterprises, actively cutting at least one provider is now more common than expanding across all of them.

Just 1 in 10 enterprises would catch a failing production model automatically

How would an enterprise know if one of its production AI models was drifting, behaving unsafely, or failing to complete tasks? We asked directly. Forty percent say they are very confident they would detect it. The question also asked what that confidence rests on, and respondents split into two camps: 30% rely on humans reviewing critical AI outputs, and just 10% — 14 of the 145 organizations — have automated monitoring and alerting running against production systems. The remaining respondents hold weaker positions still: 32% expect to catch most issues "eventually," 19% say they would likely hear about a failure from end users first, and 8% report no systematic visibility into production AI behavior at all.

That distinction matters because the two approaches are very different. Human review may seem like the gold standard, but it only reaches the outputs someone designates as important for such a review — and it happens at the pace humans can move at, with the inconsistency any manual process carries. Automated monitoring watches everything the system produces, continuously, and flags anomalies as they happen — for the same reason enterprises stopped depending on manual checks for uptime and security a decade ago.

As agentic workloads multiply output volumes far beyond what any review team can read, the manual approach starts to fall behind. The leaders at our June 24 event in New York treat human review as a designed control with automation underneath it. "Nothing gets deployed into production unless it's a human actually reviewing it and signing off," Craig said of Liberty's agentic software factory, where planning, coding, testing, critic, and librarian agents ship features from epic to production.

"It always has to be risk-based. That's why we work for an insurance company." Todd Johnson, the Morgan Stanley managing director who runs agentic AI across the bank's end-of-day P&L controller process, described the same principle from finance: "One of our strong principles in our AI governance generally is that there always has to be human accountability, even if there's a degree of automation." VentureBeat covered Morgan Stanley's new results around its P&L resolution agent system separately .

Liberty Mutual and Morgan Stanley chose manual sign-off deliberately, layered on top of observability, identity, and governance infrastructure. Whether the human-review camp has similar infrastructure underneath is more than a single-select question can establish. The 16% who separately named missing observability tooling as their biggest governance barrier are the ones saying outright that it hasn't been built.

The top governance barrier is organizational: no single owner for AI across platforms

Why does the AI visibility tooling never get built? The respondents' answers suggest it is an organizational shortcoming. The single most-cited barrier to governing AI across platforms is the absence of a single owner or accountable team, at 32%. Vendor opacity follows at 25%, missing tooling at 16% — and a lack of talent lands dead last at 5%.

The skills exist, but the organizational mandate does not: Only 38% say a central team actually governs AI behavior across their platforms today, 21% say ownership is unclear or actively contested between teams, and 17% say no role holds formal accountability at all.

The AI surface being governed makes the vacuum worse. Fully 85% of enterprises run two or more platforms each claiming to be the "primary" AI layer — ERP, ITSM, productivity suite, data platform, each with its own AI, its own controls, and its own assumptions. 36% describe an open contest between four or more. Just 8% have consolidated to one. Asked in a free-text question what one thing they would fix, respondents converged from different directions on the same answer: a single accountable owner, and a control plane that abstracts cost, drift, and model choice away from the end user.

79% have already paid for an agent control failure — led by shadow AI

The cost of the vacuum is showing up on corporate cards.

Asked to name the most severe financial or operational control failure they have experienced from autonomous agents, 49% of enterprises cite shadow AI — departmental teams running unauthorized agentic pipelines on corporate credit cards, bypassing central financial oversight entirely. Another 25% have been hit by an infinite-loop bill, an uncaught recursive workflow racking up thousands in token costs in a single incident, and 6% by an agent that degraded production databases with unthrottled queries. Only 21% report guarded stability, with hard token throttling and budget caps at the infrastructure layer. Add it up: 79% of these enterprises have already paid for an agent control failure in real money or real downtime.

Finally, the economics of tokens suggest the pressure will keep rising. Per-token inference costs are falling 70 to 80% a year, and agentic workloads consume 100 to 500 times the tokens of the LLM tools they replaced.

Brian Gracely, senior director of portfolio strategy at Red Hat, told our New York audience the answer starts with right-sizing: "If I'm simply trying to resolve an insurance claim, I don't need to know about the history of Western civilization in my model. I don't need to know soccer scores."

Enterprises are pairing smaller, specialized models with semantic routing, he said, so the platform decides which requests genuinely need frontier-scale reasoning — and which are burning premium tokens on commodity work. (One adjacent data point from the survey underlines the appetite for pragmatism: 73% of enterprises report little or nothing to show for their custom fine-tuning investments of the past 18 months — a reckoning we'll examine in its own report.)

The bottom line: Replaceability is spreading faster than ownership

The survey describes enterprises moving fast on AI with weak controls underneath. 58% are adding more AI initiatives than they retire. 85% run multiple platforms that each claim to be the primary AI layer. Three times as many enterprises rely on human review to catch a failing production model as have automated monitoring in place. And 79% have already paid for an agent control failure — most often unauthorized agent spending on corporate cards, outside IT's oversight.

On one problem, enterprises have clearly adapted: model dependency. Two-thirds hedge their model strategy, either running open-weight models alongside closed ones (51%) or moving core workflows off closed APIs entirely (16%). The Fable 5 shutdown showed the value of that position — the hedged companies could route around a model that a government order made unavailable overnight.

The remaining problems are internal, and no purchase fixes them: 32% name the lack of a single accountable owner as their top governance barrier, and 17% say no role holds formal accountability for AI at all. Assigning an owner costs nothing and requires no vendor. It still hasn't happened at most of these companies.

Our coming Q3 wave of research will measure whether June changed this — whether enterprises assigned owners and installed automated monitoring, or just added a second model and moved on.

Get the full Control Gap report here .

The themes in this report — agent orchestration, governance, and cost control — are the agenda at VB Transform, VentureBeat's flagship event, July 14-15 at Hotel Nia in Menlo Park, with technical leaders from Visa, GM, Waymo, Intuit, Instacart, LangChain and others. Details and registration here.

Disclosure: VentureBeat's June 24 AI Impact event in New York was sponsored by Red Hat and Intel. Sponsors have no input into VentureBeat Pulse Research survey design, findings, or editorial coverage.

Full text

As with most things in life, it's hard to pin down an exact singular reason for the downfall of Destiny 2 , which had previously been one of the most enduring online first-person shooters in the genre, but Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has seemingly floated what he thinks was a major issue: Bungie and Sony not embracing generative AI enough.

For a player and journalist's perspective, I'll defer to GamesRadar+'s Austin Wood, who cites "unpopular systemic changes, wobbling epilogue narratives, and a severe content drought" as some of Destiny 2's biggest pain points in recent months, and of course Bungie seems to have put all of its eggs into one basket with Marathon, diverting resources that would've otherwise gone into making new Destiny 2 content. But behind closed doors there were other factors at play, according to an anonymous source familiar with the situation speaking to Forbes .

According to the insider, Destiny 2 failed simply because it was "only very rarely profitable during its entire lifespan" due to the "enormous scale of content that had to be produced nonstop, lest fans revolt against its scarcity," and because "when Destiny was profitable, those extra funds were often immediately misused by leadership at the time, funneled into way too many simultaneous incubation projects or ideas like spending tens of millions on a new, unneeded 208,000 square foot headquarters."

Reacting to this report, Sweeney seemingly suggests a solution postmortem to that first outlined problem. "If only some sort of newfangled technology could come along and make it possible to overcome bullet point #1 and enable games like Destiny to thrive!"

If only some sort of newfangled technology could come along and make it possible to overcome bullet point #1 and enable games like Destiny to thrive! pic.twitter.com/ct7cgj2P0q June 29, 2026

The famously outspoken Sweeney has long been, if not a full-blown proponent of AI in games, someone urging developers and publishers to embrace the tech as an inevitability "in nearly all future production." Sweeney has long criticized Valve's policy of displaying AI disclosures for games as "really irresponsible of Valve," arguing these disclosures make it "much, much, much harder for a game developer to have a chance of success."

With regards to Destiny 2, however, I don't want to infer too much from what is, after all, Just A Tweet, but Sweeney could be proposing generative AI as a means to accelerate game development, or, much more dubiously, as a tool to actually create content. That distinction is at the heart of the current debate around whether generative AI has any place in game development, and if so, what that role is.

As Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney blasts Valve over Steam AI disclosures, dev makes those disclosures even more noticeable and hides AI-aided games in search results

Full text

KYIV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s top general has publicly thanked the departing head of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, Gen. Christopher Donahue , for helping build and sustain Washington’s support pipeline to Kyiv as the officer relinquished his post on Thursday after an unexpectedly brief 18 months in command.

Word broke June 23 that the four-star general had submitted his retirement papers after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally requested that he resign, according to multiple reports. The Army has yet to provide a definitive reason for the change.

Donahue’s predecessor, Gen. Darryl Williams, held the post for nearly two and a half years. Maj. Gen. Christopher Norrie, Donahue’s deputy, took over in an acting capacity Thursday after a farewell ceremony at the Clay Kaserne headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany.

Within days of the news, Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, held a phone call with Donahue and published a farewell on his personal social media accounts, thanking the outgoing official for creating a partnership that he said delivered long-range systems, strengthened Ukraine’s air defenses and saved thousands of Ukrainian lives.

The two military leaders have worked together since the first days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, when Syrskyi, then chief of Ukraine’s Ground Forces, directed the defense of Kyiv and Donahue led the 82nd Airborne Division into southeastern Poland. Their partnership has only strengthened over the years, Syrskyi said.

“In the most challenging moments of our war for freedom and independence, Chris Donahue has proven himself not only as a military leader but also as a man of his word and honor,” Syrskyi wrote on Telegram .

“Ukrainian warriors will always hold General Donahue in the highest esteem.”

The farewell, meanwhile, lands at a fraught moment in U.S.-Ukraine relations. The Trump administration has questioned the value of Kyiv’s fight in the past, even as the U.S. military incorporates more Ukrainian battlefield know-how amid its war with Iran.

Now, the American general who built the Army’s support machinery for Ukraine is out, and Syrskyi’s public tribute shows Kyiv knows what it stands to lose.

According to two U.S. officials cited by CBS News , Donahue “had earned the ire” of Hegseth, and the two men met in person only once, in February 2025.

Asked about accusations that Hegseth forced the general out over a personal grudge, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell provided no explanation.

“General officers and flag officers serve at the pleasure of the president and the secretary of war,” Parnell told the Daily Beast on Sunday. “They always have and always will.”

The departure extends a shake-up that has removed or replaced at least a dozen senior military leaders since Hegseth took office, with many of the moves made without public explanation .

U.S. President Donald Trump praised Donahue in January, when Fox News host Brian Kilmeade visited the general’s Wiesbaden headquarters and put Donahue on the phone with the president as his soldiers gathered around, according to Stars and Stripes .

“You’re doing a fantastic job,” Trump said. “Your reputation is great.”

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine is among those seeking a presidential waiver so Donahue can retire at four stars, a rank he has held for fewer than the three years federal law requires to retire at that grade, two sources told CBS News.

The Wiesbaden headquarters itself is officially being downgraded to a three-star command, part of Hegseth’s push to cut the number of four-star billets, Stars and Stripes reported. U.S. Air Forces in Europe lost its fourth star in a similar move last year.

Donahue has said nothing publicly about the circumstances of his exit, and the subject went unmentioned at Thursday’s ceremony. He thanked his troops in his farewell remarks, instead.

“I love this team — it has been the honor of a lifetime to be a part of it. I’m proud of what we built and I have absolute confidence in what you will build next,” Donahue said, according to an Army release .

Donahue was promoted to four stars in December 2024, when he took over U.S. Army Europe and Africa and, with it, command of NATO’s Allied Land Command in Izmir, Turkey. The combined headquarters developed the Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative, a warfighting concept that integrates allied land forces, drones and data under NATO’s defense plans for its eastern flank, according to the Army.

Donahue “saw the need to change, developed a plan, inspired others and built the processes to ensure it endures well beyond his tenure — and allies have bought in,” Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s supreme allied commander Europe, said at the ceremony, according to the Army release.

Donahue was also the last American soldier to leave Afghanistan, photographed in night vision boarding the final C-17 out of Kabul in August 2021.

Brett McGurk, who served as special presidential envoy to the coalition against the Islamic State, told CBS News that Donahue is “among the most consequential commanders of his generation,” and retired Gen. Tony Thomas, a former head of U.S. Special Operations Command, called him a “generational leader.”

The ouster has drawn criticism from retired military leaders and lawmakers across the aisle.

The “decision to force [Donahue] out says far more about Hegseth than it does about General Donahue,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., wrote in a post on X last week, calling the move “yet another unforced error from a Secretary leading the Pentagon with bro-culture bravado rather than restraint, humility and careful stewardship of the finest fighting force in the world.”

Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army Europe, called Donahue the “best soldier in the Army today” in his own post . “Kremlin and terrorist organizations will be relieved to know that he will soon be gone.”

European officials fear the exit foreshadows a U.S. drawdown from the roughly 80,000 American troops on the continent, Newsweek reported.

The news came out just days after Hegseth criticized European allies over low defense spending and announced a six-month review of U.S. forces in Europe.

Retired Adm. William McRaven, who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, wrote in The Atlantic that the dismissals “raise a real risk that senior officers will be overly cautious about providing their best advice and, therefore, that the chance of military miscalculation will grow dramatically.”

Lt. Gen. Kevin Admiral, who leads the Army’s III Armored Corps, is the frontrunner to permanently replace Donahue in Wiesbaden, a U.S. military official told Newsweek, though no final decision has been made and the nomination would require Senate confirmation.

Donahue will formally hand the NATO post to its deputy, British Lt. Gen. Jez Bennett, at a July 9 ceremony in Izmir, Turkey. Bennett will serve as acting commander until another American officer is assigned, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe spokesman Col. Martin O’Donnell told CBS News .

Donahue closed his farewell remarks with a question.

“When people ask me, ‘Hey CD, what was it like to be a part of United States Army Europe and Africa?’ I only have to tell them how proud and unbelievably grateful I am to have been a part of the United States Army’s premier warfighting headquarters.”