UWCISA's 5 Tech Takeaways: Who Pays the Real Cost of the AI Boom?

Prompt: "Make a Photorealistic landscape of industrial smokestacks in the far distance emitting white vapor, reflected perfectly in a calm river in the foreground, surrounding wetlands and reeds, early dawn pink and grey sky, environmental contrast between nature and industry, wide-angle composition, ultra-realistic detail"; Model: Gemini, Mode: Cinematic

Every story in this week's roundup shares a common tension: speed versus control. AI-generated code is flooding review queues faster than teams can check it. Startups are getting cheaper to build, but investors aren't sure where that leaves them. Legal professionals know AI works, but adoption still lags behind the hype. And data centers are going up faster than the grid can handle them cleanly. The pace of AI development keeps accelerating, and the systems meant to govern it are struggling to keep up.

Venture Capital’s Next Disruption May Be Itself

WIRED examines whether venture capitalists’ biggest bet—AI—could end up reshaping or even undermining venture capital itself. The piece centers on ADIN, an “Autonomous Deal Investing Network” that uses AI agents to evaluate startups, perform diligence, estimate markets, and recommend valuations in a fraction of the time human analysts need. While many investors argue that early-stage investing still depends on intuition, networks, and judgment that AI cannot fully replicate, others see AI as a “Moneyball” moment for venture capital, where data-driven systems outperform gut feel. The article also argues that the greater threat may not be AI replacing investors directly, but AI making startups cheaper to build, reducing founders’ need for large venture checks and potentially eroding the business model that modern VC firms depend on. (Source: WIRED)

• AI as investor: AI platforms like ADIN are already analyzing startup pitches, surfacing risks, and recommending investments faster than traditional VC workflows.
• Human edge under pressure: Many investors still believe founder judgment, trust, and taste remain difficult for AI to replicate in early-stage deals.
• The bigger disruption: AI may hurt venture capital most by making software startups far cheaper to build, shrinking demand for large VC funding rounds.

OpenAI’s Next Enterprise Bet: Safer Agents

OpenAI announced plans to acquire Promptfoo, a security platform focused on testing and evaluating AI systems, in order to strengthen OpenAI Frontier, its enterprise platform for building and operating AI coworkers. The deal reflects growing demand from enterprises for better tools to identify vulnerabilities, test agent behavior, enforce compliance, and maintain oversight as AI agents become embedded in business workflows. OpenAI says Promptfoo’s technology will help Frontier offer built-in red-teaming, security checks, governance, and reporting, while the open-source Promptfoo project will continue. The acquisition signals how quickly enterprise AI is shifting from experimentation toward operational requirements like trust, accountability, and risk management. (Source: OpenAI)

• Security becomes core infrastructure: OpenAI is treating evaluation, red-teaming, and compliance as foundational features for enterprise AI deployment.
• Enterprise pressure is rising: As AI coworkers move into real business processes, companies need stronger ways to test behavior and document risks.
• Open source plus platform integration: Promptfoo’s open-source tools will continue while its capabilities are folded into OpenAI Frontier.

Claude Code Adds a Second Pair of AI Eyes

TechCrunch reports that Anthropic has launched Code Review inside Claude Code, an AI-powered reviewer aimed at helping enterprises manage the surge of pull requests created by AI-assisted coding. The tool analyzes code submitted through GitHub, flags logic issues, explains its reasoning, suggests fixes, and prioritizes findings by severity. Anthropic is positioning the product as a response to a new bottleneck: while AI coding tools dramatically accelerate software creation, they also produce more bugs, risks, and poorly understood code that still must be reviewed before shipping. With pricing estimated at $15 to $25 per review, Anthropic is targeting large enterprise customers already seeing massive gains in code output—and mounting pressure to maintain quality. (Source: TechCrunch)

• AI creates a new bottleneck: Faster code generation is increasing the volume of pull requests and making review the next major constraint.
• Focus on useful feedback: Anthropic says the tool prioritizes logical errors and actionable fixes rather than nitpicky style comments.
• Enterprise-first strategy: Code Review is aimed at large organizations that need scalable oversight for growing amounts of AI-generated software.

Lawyers Are Asking Two Big Questions About AI

Business Insider’s dispatch from Legalweek 2026 shows an industry torn between AI hype and adoption anxiety. While legal-tech vendors aggressively pitched AI agents that can draft, review, and automate legal workflows, many lawyers remain hesitant to use the tools at all. Conference attendees repeatedly returned to two concerns: how to persuade lawyers to adopt AI, and whether failing to use effective AI tools could eventually look like malpractice. The article argues that skepticism is driven by fears over job loss, billing-model disruption, and inadequate training, even as clients increasingly demand faster and cheaper legal services. For legal tech startups and law firms alike, the stakes are high: billions are riding on whether lawyers move from curiosity to everyday use. (Source: Business Insider)

• Adoption remains uneven: Even with strong AI use cases like contract review, many lawyers still are not using automation tools regularly.
• Fear is slowing change: Concerns about job security, hourly billing, and lack of confidence with the tools are holding adoption back.
• Client expectations may force the issue: As corporate clients demand efficiency, firms may face pressure to treat AI use as part of competent representation.

The Hidden Cost of the AI Boom

Prompt: "Make a Photorealistic dramatic landscape of a massive thunderstorm rolling over a scorched golden grassland, dark storm clouds with visible lightning in the distance, dry cracked foreground, tension between destruction and renewal, wide-angle, natural lighting, ultra-high detail, National Geographic style"; Model: Gemini, Mode: Cinematic

In this sweeping Atlantic feature, Matteo Wong explores the physical and environmental costs of the AI boom through the lens of giant data centers, including xAI’s Colossus facility in Memphis and the planned restart of Three Mile Island’s Unit One reactor. The article argues that AI’s rapid growth is reshaping not just software and work, but also electricity grids, local air quality, water use, and climate strategy. Because AI data centers require enormous amounts of power and cooling, tech companies are increasingly turning to natural gas and other fossil-fuel sources even as they also invest in nuclear and renewable options. The result is a race between the speed of AI deployment and the slower timelines of clean-energy infrastructure, with frontline communities often bearing the immediate environmental burden. (Source: The Atlantic)

• AI’s footprint is physical: The AI boom is driving massive new demand for electricity, water, land, and industrial infrastructure.
• Fossil fuels are filling the gap: Because clean energy cannot be deployed fast enough, many new AI facilities are leaning on natural gas in the near term.
• Communities feel the cost first: Residents near large data centers may face worsening pollution and health concerns long before AI’s promised benefits arrive.

Author: Malik D. CPA, CA, CISA. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW,  or anyone else. This post was written with the assistance of an AI language model. 

Five Top Tech Takeaways: Apple's Carbon Neutrality Questioned, Fairphone 5 Launches, Binance US's CEO Leaves and a Privacy Nightmare on Wheels

E-Waste: A Smoldering Problem (Pic Link) (Article Link)

"Carbon Neutral" Apple Watch: What Does It Really Mean?

Apple's recent launch of its "carbon neutral" 9th-generation Apple Watch has stirred both interest and skepticism in the tech community. While Apple has certainly made strides in cleaning up its supply chain and investing in renewable energy, experts like climate scientist David Ho question whether any product can genuinely be carbon neutral. The phrase "carbon neutral" is seen by some as misleading when companies use carbon credits to offset their emissions, a practice that has drawn scrutiny from regulators. Apple's "carbon neutral" watch relies heavily on these credits, which are tied to nature-based offset projects that are themselves subject to criticism. As noted in the article:

"Part of the problem is the slipperiness of attempting to tie a carbon credit—an abstract financial instrument—to any particular product in Apple’s armada of product offerings or the wider global economy. The Watch doesn’t have any role in creating those credits. They’re only brought together by an accountant’s sleight of hand."

The company's ambitious goal to have its entire product lineup carbon neutral by 2030 might sound good on paper, but given the complexity of global supply chains and the limitations of current carbon offset systems, it raises the question: how 'neutral' can a consumer product really be? (Source: Wired)

iPhone 15 Launch: Analyzing Apple’s Eco-Friendly Claims Amid New Product Launches

In case you missed it, we examined Apple's annual iPhone launch last week. Amid the spectacle of technology and innovation, Apple's environmental initiatives were in the spotlight. The tech giant unveiled four new iPhone models and two Apple Watches, all with improved features and performance. At the same time, Apple made significant claims about their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) efforts, such as a 95% reduction in transportation emissions and a carbon-neutral Series 9 Apple Watch—a claim that has been questioned, as noted in a previous Wired article. Check out our post where we assess Apple's eco-claims in the context of their past green initiatives. (Source: UWCISA)

Fairphone 5: A More Sustainable and Repairable Smartphone?

The Fairphone 5, released by Dutch smartphone company Fairphone, aims to be a game-changer in the smartphone industry by offering up to 10 years of software support, a first in the industry. It also has built-in eco-sustainability, unlike the competition. The previous model, the Fairphone 4, got an industry-leading iFixit Score of 10 out 10 for its repairability. Designed with longevity, repairability, and eco-human-friendly-sourcing in mind, the phone retails at £619 (€699). It features a 6.46-inch QHD+ OLED screen, a Qualcomm QCM6490 processor, and an array of recycled and sustainable materials. While it may not lead in performance, it offers other unique benefits such as a removable battery, a five-year warranty, and modular spare parts for easy repairs. Fairphone is setting new standards for manufacturing and tech waste reduction, although compromises include a less impressive camera and mid-range performance. (Source: The Guardian, Fairphone)

Driving into the Privacy Abyss: The Dark Side of Modern Cars

Modern cars are becoming more like computers on wheels, boasting advanced tech features that unfortunately come with a price—your privacy. An exhaustive research study into 25 car brands revealed that every brand collects more personal data than necessary, and 84% admit to sharing or selling your data to third parties. Only two brands, available only in Europe, give drivers the right to have their personal data deleted. Surprisingly, car manufacturers perform worse in terms of security and privacy practices compared to other tech products like dating apps or mental health apps. The study also exposes how these companies manipulate "consent," forcing drivers and even passengers to give away their privacy. Given that every brand reviewed was flagged for privacy issues, the situation paints a grim picture for consumer choice and control over personal data. (Source: Mozilla)

Turmoil in Crypto Continues: Binance.US CEO's Departure and the SEC Crackdown

Brian Shroder, CEO of Binance's U.S. arm, has stepped down and will be temporarily succeeded by the firm's Chief Legal Officer, Norman Reed. Amid regulatory scrutiny, the company is also reducing its workforce by approximately one-third. This move follows allegations from the SEC that Binance.US has been operating an illegal trading platform. These organizational changes are part of a larger trend affecting the crypto industry, as U.S. regulatory bodies ramp up enforcement measures. (Source: WSJ)

Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist who is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else. This post was written with the assistance of an AI language model. The model provided suggestions and completions to help me write, but the final content and opinions are my own.

NYT vs Tesla: Sustainability, Electric Cars and Data Audits

On February 10th, the New York Times posted a negative review of the Tesla S Sports car. The article entitled, "Stalled Out on Tesla’s Electric Highway", painted a bleak picture of the ability of the Tesla to keep its charge and travel long distances. This is obviously a big concern for those that would purchase such a car.  The reporter who drove the car noted the following with respect to his experience during the test drive:

• Charge was dropping faster than anticipated.
• In order to extend the charge, the reporter reduced the temperature to the point where he was feeling uncomfortable.
• The reporter barely made it to the next charging station, even though he should have been able to make it (easily) based on the amount of charge indicated at the outset of his journey.
• Car did not retain its charge overnight after. When the reporter went to sleep it stated 79 miles was required, but in the morning it stated that 25 miles was remaining
• On another leg of the trip the reporter never made it to the next charge station, even though the driver drove the car at a modest 45 miles per hour. Instead, the car shut down on the road, requiring the reporter to wait 45 minutes for the car to be put on the flat bed truck.

Billionaire Elon Musk, the co-founder and CEO of Tesla and founder of PayPal, was not going to take this review lying down. As it turns out, the Tesla S sports car had data logs recording the drivers actions. So, Elon reviewed the logs and fired back with the following post, disputing the claims of the NY Times article. He noted the following:

• The temperature was not turned down, but instead turned up to 74 degrees.
• Insufficient time was spent charging the car (47 minutes instead of 59 minutes).
• On the last leg of the trip where the car died, the reporter actually missed the recharge station.
• He drove between 61 and 81 mph, well beyond the 45 mph claimed.

The blog post also points a link to the following article, highlighting that the report had previously noted that electric cars were "dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate", pointing to the writer's bias against electric cars. 

Of course, the report was also not going to take this rebuttal lying down either. And so he fired back with the following "rebuttal of the rebuttal". (I am not going to summarize what he said, but you can read it there).

The point is who is correct? 

Although Tesla is stating that the reporter has an axe to grind, the same argument can be made against Tesla. That is, they want electric cars to be viewed favourably so that their company succeeds. 

And that's where the importance of data audits and system controls come in.

How do we know the logs that Tesla are using are not tampered with? What are the system controls that are in place to ensure that there is data integrity? 

The importance of this topic goes beyond a tussle between a media outlet and company. What's really being discussed is here is environmental sustainability. The tussle illustrates the increasing importance of data for society to make critical judgments on how to think about sustainability. And this goes to my next question: are assurance practitioners ready to tackle these types of third party reporting challenges? 

As I've mentioned in previous posts, auditing information is skill that goes beyond the actual information being audited. In terms of the Tesla car, audit procedures could be performed to see whether there were controls over the data logs exist to ensure they were not tampered with,  the sensors that report the data generated could also be tested for completeness, accuracy and validity, etc. For example, Musk claims that the car never ran out of energy, where as the reporter (in his rebuttal) claims it did. So is it the reporter right and the sensors wrong? Or the sensors right and the reporter are wrong? You can only know if someone independent of the NYT and Tesla tested the controls. 

As we know from the increased interest in big data (e.g. it was a big part of the last US federal election), these types of disagreements are going to become more common place. It illustrates the financial auditors need to become more proficient in technology and be able to port over their skills from one arena of financial information to sustainability, etc.

However, the world waits for no one. 

Non-accountants have already started to dabble in the world of assurance. Although not an audit per se, CloudAudit  is an attempt by members of the Cloud Security Alliance to allow potential cloud customers to view "audit artifacts" (which I would translate to source documents or audit evidence) maintained by a cloud service provider and gain some comfort over the state system controls at the cloud customer. Consequently, if audit professionals choose to stay on the sidelines and stick to the traditional financial audit, some other tech savvy professional group will be needed to fill this gap.