Connect with us

Artificial Intelligence

Enterprise AI Has a Trust Problem, Not a Retrieval Problem — And the Fix Is Still Under Construction

Published

on

AI context gap

The Numbers Behind the AI Hallucination That Isn’t

A new VentureBeat Pulse Research survey of 101 enterprises with more than 100 employees delivers a sobering finding: 57% of organizations have already watched an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer — and traced the error back to missing or inconsistent business context. More than half of those saw it more than once.

This isn’t the classic hallucination problem, where a model makes up facts out of thin air. It’s worse. The agent sounds authoritative. It cites documents, metrics, or definitions that are real — but stale, incomplete, or contradictory. The AI context gap is the distance between how confidently an agent answers and how reliable the foundation beneath it actually is.

And right now, that foundation is being built faster than it can be trusted.

RAG Is the Default — and the Main Failure Surface

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has quietly become the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way AI agents understand the business. That’s nearly double the share of the next most common approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%).

The concentration matters. Because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. Thin retrieval isn’t an edge case — it’s the main failure surface. When 57% of enterprises have already seen agents go confidently wrong, and most of those have seen it more than once, the retrieval pipeline is the obvious culprit.

Notably, fine-tuning — once the darling of enterprise AI customization — has all but vanished from the conversation. In a separate VentureBeat survey wave (April–May, n=136), fine-tuning ranked dead last among six factors in model selection at 5%. Context injection at run time is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable. The question is whether that context can be trusted.

Provider-Native Retrieval Has Quietly Won — For Now

One of the survey’s most surprising findings: the dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG universe. OpenAI‘s file search (40%) and Google‘s Vertex AI Search (38%) already lead every purpose-built vector database in production usage.

Among the specialists, Elasticsearch/OpenSearch (20%) and pgvector (12%) — tools enterprises already run for other reasons — beat the pure-play vector databases like Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, and Milvus, each sitting in single digits or low double digits. The category that coined the term “vector database” is being absorbed by the platforms enterprises already buy from.

Yet here’s the tension: a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack. Only 21% plan to fully consolidate. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category. They’re adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while insisting they want independence.

Hybrid Retrieval Is the Consensus — But Uncertainty Runs Deep

Vector-only retrieval is already viewed as insufficient. A third of enterprises (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026. That’s three times the share who expect pure vector search to prevail.

The second-largest answer? Uncertainty. 17% simply don’t know, and 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus isn’t a single tool — it’s a layered pipeline, and that pipeline isn’t fully formed yet. The access controls that hybrid retrieval promises are the very controls whose absence produces the confident-but-wrong failures.

For more on how to improve the quality of your AI outputs, see our guide on improving RAG accuracy with better data preparation.

The Governed Semantic Layer: Under Construction, Not Yet in Production

The industry’s answer to the AI context gap is a governed semantic layer — a shared, consistent definition layer that gives agents and business intelligence tools a common understanding of metrics, terms, and data sources. Think of it as a single source of truth for agent context.

Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%). Another 17% are actively evaluating. That means three-quarters of enterprises are engaged with the idea in some form.

But here’s the catch: more are building than have shipped. For most organizations, the governed layer that would prevent inconsistent context is still a work in progress. The survey catches this wave mid-construction — ambition well ahead of production reality. The fix is being built, but agents are already running on the old, unreliable foundation.

How Enterprises Buy and Monitor Retrieval Systems

Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability, not accuracy. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures.

Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust. The most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%). Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted.

Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive — averaging 4.0 on a five-point scale — but not enthusiastic. Ease of implementation and value for money both hover around 3.9. The message: current tools are workable, but nobody is thrilled.

A Provider Shuffle Is Coming

The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% of enterprises have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months. A quarter plan to move within the next quarter.

The consideration set reveals an interesting dynamic. Provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint. Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest.

Read alongside the best-of-breed preference, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle.

The Bottom Line: More Retrieval Alone Won’t Close the Gap

The AI context gap is not a volume problem. Throwing more documents or bigger indexes at it won’t solve it. The problem is governed, consistent, access-aware context — and that requires a semantic layer, hybrid retrieval with reranking and access controls, and a shift from buying for operability to buying for trust.

Right now, agents are running ahead of the infrastructure that feeds them. The context layer is the next contested tier of the AI stack. The open question for later survey waves is whether enterprises finish building that layer before the confident-but-wrong failures move from the lab into decisions that matter.

For a deeper look at how to build trust in AI systems, read our analysis on enterprise AI governance best practices.

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

XDOF, three months out of stealth, is already closing in on a $1.2B Series B

Published

on

XDOF Series B

From stealth to unicorn talk in record time

Three months. That’s how long XDOF has been out in the open. And already, the robotics data startup is in late-stage conversations to raise a Series B at a valuation hovering around $1.2 billion, according to multiple sources familiar with the negotiations. The round would be led by 8VC.

Not bad for a company that didn’t even exist publicly until June.

XDOF was co-founded in 2024 by UC Berkeley researchers Philipp Wu (CEO) and Fred Shentu (CTO). Their origin story traces back to a research project called GELLO — a low-cost teleoperation system that lets a human operator control a robotic arm from a distance. The goal? Generate training data for robots. That work produced an influential paper in robotics and, eventually, a company.

The startup’s Series A, a $70 million round announced in June, drew participation from Thrive Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, Lux, and Spark Capital. At the time, XDOF wasn’t planning to raise again so soon. But the market had other ideas.

Why investors are knocking on XDOF’s door

The reason for the sudden interest? Growth. Real, measurable growth.

XDOF’s annualized revenue is approaching $50 million, sources say. That kind of traction, so soon after a Series A, tends to make venture capitalists sit up and take notice. It also tends to make them pick up the phone.

“They weren’t out raising,” one person familiar with the situation told TechCrunch. “The VCs came to them.”

Terms aren’t final, and the total capital being raised remains unclear. TechCrunch couldn’t confirm whether the $1.2 billion valuation includes the new funding or sits on top of it. Both XDOF and 8VC declined to comment.

The Scale AI for physical robots

XDOF’s pitch is straightforward: it builds the data pipelines, collection tools, and annotation systems that frontier AI labs and robotics companies would rather not build themselves. Think of it as an outsourced data-supply chain for the robotics industry.

Investors describe XDOF as the Scale AI or Mercor of physical robotics — a nod to the data-labeling giants that powered the AI boom. The comparison makes sense. Large language models trained on the entire internet. Physical robots? They don’t have that luxury. There’s no massive, ready-made dataset of real-world robot interactions sitting online. That scarcity makes data collection the critical bottleneck on the road to general-purpose machines.

Wu felt that bottleneck firsthand as a PhD student. His research on how robots learn from large datasets kept hitting the same wall: “large-scale data to work with” simply didn’t exist, he told TechCrunch in June.

Building the ABC dataset

XDOF is tackling that problem head-on. The startup is partnering with UC Berkeley’s AI Research lab to release what it believes is the largest collection of high-quality robot training data ever assembled. The dataset is called ABC.

Collecting that data requires a hybrid approach. XDOF combines remote robot teleoperation with human collectors who wear sensors to record everyday tasks. Think folding clothes. Flattening boxes. The mundane, physical chores that robots still struggle to master.

The company plans to hire and train teams of data collectors around the world. Two main roles are emerging:

  • Teleoperators who steer robots remotely to demonstrate tasks
  • Egocentric operators who wear body sensors to capture natural movement data

Early traction and the competitive landscape

XDOF has already signed up 20 customers, including several frontier AI labs, according to previous statements to TechCrunch. That customer base, combined with the revenue trajectory, helps explain the valuation chatter.

But XDOF isn’t alone in this niche. Other startups chasing real-world data for robot training include Mecka AI. And the human-data platforms that started with LLMs — like Scale AI and Micro1 — are expanding beyond text and images into physical domains.

The race to build the data infrastructure for physical AI is heating up. Whoever wins it will effectively control the fuel supply for the next generation of robots. That’s a position worth paying up for.

Whether the $1.2 billion valuation holds remains to be seen. Deals at this stage can shift. But the fact that XDOF is even in this conversation — three months after emerging from stealth — says something about the demand for what it’s building.

For more on how data is shaping the future of AI, check out AI data labeling trends and robotics funding rounds in 2024.

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

New York City Pulls AI From Younger Classrooms—Here’s Why It Matters

Published

on

NYC AI ban

New York City Just Hit Pause on AI in Classrooms

New York City Public Schools is drawing a hard line: no generative AI for students from 2-K through eighth grade during the 2026-2027 school year. That’s over half a million kids walking into classrooms next week without access to AI-powered tools.

The district says it will remove software with student-facing AI features and block AI companion chatbots. High schoolers? They’re exempt. This isn’t a blanket ban—it’s a targeted move to decide when kids should actually start using the technology.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani put it bluntly: “The tech industry wants us to believe that AI-powered early education is not only inevitable, but necessary. We do not see it that way.”

Why NYC Is Worried About AI for Younger Students

The fear isn’t just that a kid will ask ChatGPT to write an essay. City officials want younger students to build core skills—critical thinking, creativity, communication—without leaning on AI as a crutch. They’re also pushing for stronger human connections in classrooms, not another screen.

Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels said the city refuses to assume that innovation automatically equals more technology in front of students. It’s a deliberate slowdown, and it follows last year’s bell-to-bell cellphone ban that already limits device use during school hours.

What Happens When Kids Reach High School?

AI doesn’t vanish once students hit ninth grade. Instead, the district plans to roll out AI literacy classes twice a year. The goal? Teach teenagers how to think critically about the technology before they become dependent on it.

That’s a different approach from just saying no. It’s about timing—letting younger minds develop without AI, then giving older students the tools to question it.

The National Battle Over AI in Education

NYC’s decision sits at the center of a much bigger fight. The White House has pushed educators to embrace AI responsibly. Some teachers already use it to craft lesson plans, give feedback, or break down tough subjects. But not everyone’s on board.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently gathered childhood experts to talk about excessive screen time. Officials have also called for tougher safeguards around social media and AI. The message? Kids are spending too much time in front of screens, and AI might make it worse.

A Bold Experiment With Zero AI

Here’s what makes NYC’s move so interesting: instead of asking how much AI younger students should use, the largest school district in the country is starting with none. For one academic year, they’re testing whether classrooms are better off with AI kept outside the door.

That’s a radical stance, and it’s not without critics. Some educators argue AI can personalize learning or help struggling students catch up. But NYC is betting that a year without AI will reveal what kids actually need—not what tech companies think they need.

What This Means for Parents and Teachers

If you’re a parent in NYC, expect changes. AI-based apps may disappear from your child’s school day. Teachers will need to plan lessons without generative AI tools. And students in grades 2-K through 8 will rely more on traditional methods—paper, pencils, and human interaction.

For teachers elsewhere, this could be a signal. NYC is the biggest district to take this stance, and its findings could shape policies nationwide. The next year will be watched closely by educators, policymakers, and tech giants alike.

What Happens Next?

The district will spend the year studying how generative AI affects students before deciding what comes next. That research could lead to a permanent ban, a partial rollout, or something entirely different.

For now, NYC is making a statement: childhood shouldn’t be an AI beta test. Whether that’s the right call or a step backward, we’ll know more in 2027. Until then, the debate over AI in schools just got a lot more interesting.

If you’re curious about how AI is shaping other areas, check out our take on AI in education trends or classroom technology policies.

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

Meta’s Muse Spark 1.3 takes on GPT-5.6 and Claude — but can it really win?

Published

on

Muse Spark 1.3

Meta just fired a serious shot in the AI arms race

The company quietly unleashed Muse Spark 1.3, its most advanced AI model to date, and it’s aiming straight at the top dogs. Developers can already access and pay for the update, which Meta says represents a massive leap forward in performance.

It won’t stay confined to the developer sandbox for long. Over the coming weeks, the model will roll out across Instagram, Facebook, and the Meta AI assistant — putting it in front of billions of everyday users.

What makes Muse Spark 1.3 actually different?

Meta’s Chief AI Officer, Alexandr Wang, didn’t mince words. He called this “the biggest jump so far on model performance,” pointing to serious gains in two areas: coding and agentic tasks — the kind where the AI acts on your behalf rather than just answering questions.

But here’s the catch. Wang told Bloomberg that Muse Spark 1.3 is competitive with Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5.1 and even beats OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Sol at coding. That’s a bold claim, especially with OpenAI’s upcoming Astra model lurking in the wings.

Take those comparisons with a grain of salt, though. Benchmarks can be gamed, and a model that crushes one test might stumble on a totally different task. Real-world performance is what actually matters.

Efficiency gains under the hood

Wang broke down a few upgrades that set Muse Spark 1.3 apart:

  • 25% fewer tokens needed to complete the same job — meaning lower costs and faster responses
  • Multi-workflow handling — it can juggle several tasks at once instead of forcing separate sessions
  • Better context retention across long, complicated instructions
  • Self-awareness of limits — the model now pauses to ask for clarification before taking any irreversible action

That last point is quietly important. AI that knows when it doesn’t know is a big step toward trustworthiness, especially for agentic use cases.

Pricing stays flat, adoption explodes

Here’s something developers will appreciate: Meta isn’t raising prices. Muse Spark 1.3 costs the same as its predecessor, Muse Spark 1.2. That’s a smart move when rivals are hiking rates.

Wang told Bloomberg that adoption on Meta’s developer platform has been strong — some users are burning through trillions of tokens every week. Those numbers suggest real usage, not just hype.

What about open-source fans? Meta hasn’t decided whether it will release the model’s weights — the blueprint that lets outside developers build on top of it. The older Muse Spark 1.2 weights are still headed for release, but the new model’s future remains unclear.

The bigger picture: Meta’s spending spree continues

Meta is still pouring billions into AI infrastructure, and Muse Spark 1.3 is the clearest signal yet that the company believes it’s closing the gap with OpenAI and Anthropic. Whether that’s true or just corporate bravado will play out in the benchmarks and real-world deployments over the coming months.

For now, the model is available to developers, and the app rollout is imminent. If you’re building on Meta AI tools, this update is worth a serious look. And if you’re just a curious user, you’ll likely meet Muse Spark 1.3 in your Instagram feed sooner than you think.

One thing’s certain: the AI race just got a lot more interesting.

Continue Reading

Trending