Piyush Lakhawat

expert panel

The AI industry has embraced a simple idea about data centers: If AI needs more computing power, build bigger facilities and pack them with more chips. But as the infrastructure race accelerates, that assumption is becoming harder to defend. Power availability, grid capacity, cooling, water and the physical limits of getting new facilities online are emerging as constraints that raw compute cannot solve.The question matters because data centers are long-term investments being built around a technology that is changing at remarkable speed. The infrastructure designed for training enormous models may not be what businesses need as inference workloads grow, models become more efficient and AI moves closer to where data and users actually reside.There are also business questions hiding underneath the engineering one: How much compute does a company actually need? Where should it run? What happens when power costs change or a new generation of hardware makes today's architecture less attractive? And how should CEOs think about infrastructure that needs to remain useful even as the AI workloads it supports evolve?Members of the Senior Executive AI Think Tank, a curated group of experts specializing in machine learning, generative AI and enterprise AI applications, offer a range of perspectives on what should come next. In the discussion that follows, they examine whether bigger data centers are really the answer, where power and efficiency fit into the equation, why inference deserves a different infrastructure strategy and which overlooked factors—from memory and networking to reliability and data governance—could determine whether an AI investment delivers lasting business value.

expert panel

Anthropic’s decision to add invisible watermarks to Claude-generated text has brought a long-running AI debate into sharper focus: How should businesses establish the origin of AI-assisted content, and what should they do with that information once they have it?The question matters as generative AI becomes embedded in everyday knowledge work, from drafting and research to marketing, analysis and customer communications. The European Union’s AI Act is also pushing the industry toward machine-readable disclosure of AI-generated content, making provenance an increasingly important part of enterprise AI strategy.But provenance is not the same as authorship, quality or accountability. A watermark may establish that an AI system was involved without explaining how extensively it was used, what a human changed or who ultimately stands behind the work.Members of the Senior Executive AI Think Tank, a curated group of experts specializing in machine learning, generative AI and enterprise AI applications, offer a range of perspectives on what should come next. In the discussion that follows, they examine whether provenance should be standard or optional, where watermarking fits, how companies can protect privacy and human judgment, and what AI leaders should do to build greater trust and accountability around AI-generated content.