• 69% of Brits don't think their bank could detect an AI deepfake impersonating them
• Four in five do at least expect ID verification to get slicker in the next five years
• Most want convenience and are only prepared to wait two extra minutes

More than two in three (69%) Brits worry their bank couldn't distinguish them from an attack designed to impersonate them, according to new Digidentity research.

With rising AI threats targeting businesses and consumers alike, four in five would now expect their bank to have AI deepfake detection tools in place when they're running selfie-based identity checks.

This comes as more and more citizens end up preferring increased security measures like vide-based identity checks – with half (53%) believing that one-time security codes sent by text are no longer sufficient.

Banks aren't fully trusted to spot a deepfake

The fallout from a successful attack can have far-reaching consequences, so it's no surprise UK citizens are scrutinizing their banks. Vicims could face months or years of disputing fraudulent debts or challenging mystery accounts opened in their names, for example.

The report comes after Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey called for social media companies to take greater responsibility for tackling scams.

But there is hope, and citizens feel fairly confident in banks' longer-term strategies. Four in five (79%) expect ID verification processes to become smoother over the next five years despite these systems ultimately having to do more heavy lifting, and with good reason. Three in five (62%) respondents said they'd only be willing to tolerate up to two additional minutes of checks.

However, there are challenges. Banks don't typically run their own verification systems, instead choosing to opt for a third party.

"Banks put their own reputation behind the identity provider they choose," Digidentity UK Country Manager Jonathan Evans wrote. "If that provider lets an imposter through, it is the bank’s relationship with its customer that suffers."

Looking ahead, banks are under the most pressure they ever have been to verify legitimate activity and block malicious attacks, but they're also under equal pressure to deliver experiences that are convenient and quick for the end user despite rising threats.

• The average tech worker earns £60,600, but half of them also have a side hustle
• 49% have a hybrid working routine, enabling flexibility for side hustles
• The workers who need the money the most generally have the least flexibility

IT workers might be among the best paid, with UK employees earning an average of £60,600 - but one in two actually take on extra work alongside their full-time roles, new research has claimed.

This compares with barely a third (30%) of all full-time workers, making IT workers among the most likely to have side hustles – 23% freelancing and 7% having a more traditional second job, according to a Careerminds study.

But the reasons aren't so clear, because three in five (58%) earn at least £50,000 annually and IT is the least likely sector to experience payday-to-payday financial pressure – so if it's not money struggles that's causing them to get side hustles, what is it?

Tech workers earn good salaries but are still more likely to have side hustles

The report implies workers may just want to increase their disposable income or save more, but tech workers are also in an unfairly unique position because virtually half (49%) of them follow hybrid working routines, compared with just 4% in hospitality. This extra flexibility could allow them to sell their sought-after skills on a freelance basis.

"Some jobs naturally lend themselves to freelance work," certified professional career coach Amanda Augustine wrote. "If you're a developer, for example, you might be able to take on a project in the evening or over the weekend."

But while IT workers typically earn healthy wages, nearly half (47%) of UK adults in full-time employment say they run out of money before payday, doing so on average 7.9 days early.

To that tune, one in five have cancelled subscriptions (21%), declined social plans (21%) or even skipped a meal (20%) just to help them keep that money for living expenses.

"The people who need additional income the most aren't necessarily the ones who have the flexibility, time or energy to take on more work," Augustine warned, noting that struggling workers from the least flexible sectors may be at an unfair disadvantage.

Careerminds implies we're at the beginning of a challenging period, where certain workers and individuals may not be in such a good position to earn an extra income.

• Half of workers use AI to appease their bosses even when it's not helping
• One in three say they've held back negative feedback about AI
• AI ROI figures are being skewed because of these false figures

Half (52%) of workers admit to having used AI despite believing they could complete the same task faster without it.

This comes as two in three (63%) workers say their employers now actively encourage or expect AI use for at least some tasks, with as many as 39% even highlighting their AI use to managers despite believing it didn't help their outcome.

The data from JobAssist ultimately points toward workers seeing AI use as a box-ticking exercise and something that's beneficial to their professional reputation and potentially career prospects – even though they don't see it as something that can always help.

Workers are boasting about their AI use to keep managers happy

Furthermore, nearly a third (31%) admitted to continuing using AI even after deciding it had not improved speed or quality, implying that workers might be worried that something could happen if they don't demonstrate a use of it.

A similar number (34%) also held their hands up to avoiding negative feedback around AI given that leadership encourages its adoption.

"If employees hesitate to report disappointing results, managers may receive an overly favorable account of how well their AI initiatives are working," the report summarizes, urging workers to be more open and honest about when they find AI to be most effective.

For businesses, false adoption figures could mean that AI ROI might be overstates. But with employers relying on these statistics to guide their AI strategies, it could mean that they end up wasting money investing in the wrong areas.

"Companies can measure whether employees are using AI, but those measurements cannot establish whether the technology is improving their work," JobAssist concludes.

• 96% of college students now use AI, but half of them would ban it tomorrow
• Heavy users are more likely to feel schoolwork would become harder without it
• They're worried about cognitive decline, but more so about AI's environmental damage

New research has likened the relationship between Gen Z and AI use to that of previous generations with smoking cigarettes, characterizing it as widespread adoption, awareness of the negative consequences and a reluctance to give it up.

The study from Fizz found nearly all (96%) college students now use AI, but more than half (56%) would permanently ban the technology.

But although one in two would support banning AI, Fizz shows just how reliant students have become on it, with the proportion of learners believing their work would become much harder rising significantly among frequent AI users.

Students have become reliant on AI despite its potential consequences

"The heaviest users are hooked," Fizz declared, noting that 68% of students who use AI multiple times a day believe schoolwork would become harder without AI. This proportion falls to 59% among daily users, 42% among weekly users, 22% among users who use AI just a few times a month, and 9% among those who use it less than once monthly.

Fizz also warns that the effects have having a much broader reach than just homework, with 43% of heavy users agreeing preparing for their career would also be harder without AI. Two in five even worry their daily lives would be more difficult.

This could be because students still recognize that traditional skills and qualities are still in big demand – 27% put communication and people skills as their priority, indirectly implying that their AI use could actually be harming those.

A staggering majority (86%) of daily AI users admit to having used it for something they would previously have discussed with another person, like career or life advice (51%), personal problems (48%) and even deciding how to reply to a message (45%).

The report claims that nearly half of the heaviest AI users feel under pressure to use the technology because they fear falling behind in the employment market, despite acknowledging that it could also be harming their ability to succeed in employment.

But it might not be entirely their fault, because nearly two-thirds (64%) of the surveyed students said they feel at least some pressure from teachers or educational institutions to adopt AI.

They may be addicted, but they want it gone

As many as one in two (56%) students said they would ban AI tomorrow if they could, hinting at a broad recognition that it's impacting much more than just their education.

But cognitive decline and dependence (28%) actually came in second place, behind worries of environmental damage (35%).

It could just be that many students' dependence has now made them unable to give up AI, even though they have worries about its negative impacts.

"They reach for it when they're anxious or alone... And almost nobody believes it's actually making them better," the paper concludes. "Silicon Valley believes it handed Gen Z a superpower. Gen Z would hand it back tomorrow, as long as everyone else did too."

• Deloitte finds 28% of businesses report current revenue growth, up from 20% earlier this year
• Productivity and improved decision-making are still performing better
• Sovereignty has become an integral part of AI strategies

New Deloitte data has claimed that when it comes to business AI, we're finally at the stage of ROI, with more organizations than before now reaping the rewards of their costly deployments.

As many as 28% now report current revenue growth as a result of their AI strategies, up from 20% compared with earlier in 2026, the firm's report found.

Realizing higher revenue is largely seen as one of the most important returns from AI – with companies spending so much on services and infrastructure, they need to make that money back.

AI adopters are finally seeing increased productivity translate into higher revenue

While other areas like efficiency and productivity (up 74%), decision-making and data insight (up 60%), cost reductions (up 45%) and better client relationships (up 44%) are all moving in the right direction, Deloitte says increasing revenue is still one of the slowest to deliver tangible results.

Deloitte's research also indirectly implies that businesses could be getting carried away with these early signs, because the majority (86%) of businesses surveyed plan to increase AI investments over the next financial year.

Additionally, while early ROI markers are now heading in the right direction, Deloitte worries that many businesses still don't have the right visibility into AI's financial impacts. While three in four (71%) are tracking total spend across token consumption, many can only see the total bill and not the breakdown of which activities lead to which spend.

Jobs are changing because of AI

It's becoming an increasingly familiar concept that employers need to redefine roles as AI becomes more engrained – developers are already seeing a shift from writing code to managing AI agents, for example.

Deloitte says there's a long way to go on this front, because while three in five companies have already redesigned jobs 'moderate[ly]', only 15% of them have done so 'extensive[ly]' and 1% 'completely.'

"Many are still just scratching the surface," the report claims.

The future of AI investments looks different

Looking ahead, Deloitte expects sovereign AI to become even more of an important consideration. Nearly half of Americas (46%) and EMEA (47%) businesses are building in-house to regain control over their workloads, with three in four (74%) global respondents reporting at least 'moderate' importance of sovereign AI.

But the paper does acknowledge the benefits of using centralized hyperscalers, noting that going sovereign or building in-house comes with certain trade-offs – usually "capability, speed or cost."

At the same time, we're hearing more and more about enterprises like Revolut picking up the infrastructure bills themselves, choosing to self-host open-weight models for greater cost predictability, usually at the expense of model performance in scenarios where they can achieve their desired outcomes without leading frontier models.

The report sets out six key considerations for the next stages of AI: adopters must respond by redesigning work as a whole, not just the workflow; costs need to be traceable to the token degree, not just the full bill; AI strategies must align with actions that produce revenue; governance needs to keep up as systems become more autonomous; early adopters are now starting to look at physical AI like robots, and so should you; and sovereignty should be seen as an ongoing effort consideration over a one-time fix.

• 100+ organizations are supporting European data center moratoriums
• The temporary ban would buy governments time to assess impacts
• UK set to add 6GW by 2030, but new Covenant sets out expectations

More than 100 organizations across 15 European countries have come together to campaign against ongoing AI data center developments, calling for an immediate moratorium on new large-scale campuses.

The Stop Dirty Data Centres campaign wants governments to take the time to consider environmental, economic and social consequences.

To get the message across, the group is reportedly planning protests across the UK, Ireland, Poland, Denmark, Finland, Spain, the Netherlands and France, with events set to take place on November 6 and 7 2026.

Europeans are standing up against data centers

Rather than calling for all new data center projects to be called off, the group just wants a temporary pause so that governments can establish stronger planning, regulatory and environmental frameworks.

It's not the first time we've seen such action – groups across the US have also been petitioning for similar moratoriums, and many states and regions have even been successful in imposing such moratoriums, including New York State.

Campaigners are also putting pressure on data center developers themselves, calling for greater transparency around projects' environmental footprints and operating requirements.

"The explosion of AI data centres across our towns and cities is taking a toll that we can no longer afford," the group wrote, citing impacts on local communities, jobs, energy bills, water shortages, mental health, surveillance and e-waste.

"Big tech companies lobby governments to fast-track construction and operate in secrecy, bypassing protections for our communities and ecosystems," the group added.

The campaign claims support from tens of organizations, including Greenpeace UK, multiple localised Friends of the Earth branches and Extinction Rebellion Bristol.

Meanwhile, the UK government anticipates needing an additional 6GW of AI data center capacity by the end of the decade.

The Data Center Covenant, set out by the UK government, insists that future plans pay for their own energy, invest in improving local communities, adhere to stringent environmental standards, support local jobs and help to enhance national security.

• Report finds 74% of firms prioritize recovery speed over quality
• Businesses are torn on whose responsibility a recovery is
• Defining a 'Minimum Viable Company' helps identify what needs fixing first

New Cohesity research has revealed UK businesses could be putting themselves at risk of cyberattacks because they're prioritizing recovery speed over quality.

This applies to three in four (74%) UK organizations, according to the report, with nearly as many (70%) failing to even check that attackers have been fully removed from breached systems after a cyberattack.

Expenses back this up too, because three-quarters (76%) of the businesses surveyed admitted that cyber resilience investments focus too heavily on prevention rather than response and recovery.

Cybersecurity isn't focusing enough on effective recovery

Crucially, Cohesity's data shows that business leaders are virtually clueless about the state of their IT teams' readiness, with half (52%) of UK CEOs expecting basic business operations to resume within just 24 hours. A false sense of security could partly be why budgets aren't being directed to the right causes.

It's also clear that the responsibility for deciding which systems get restored first is still pretty uncertain – 23% say it should be on the entire board, 21% pin it on the CTO, 20% on the CEO and 14% on a security advisory board.

The report urges all organizations to consider their Minimum Viable Company (MVC) – the minimum combination of systems, processes and services that are deemed necessary for a business to carry on essential operations after an attack.

With a clear MVC, teams will be better placed to know which systems to prioritize. But at present, two in five (41%) don't even have their own definition of an MVC – on the flip side, not even one in five (17%) have a documented and tested definition.

"If you restore a system before verifying attacker access has genuinely been removed, you risk reinfecting yourself," UK&I VP Fraser Hutchison summarized.

Looking ahead, the next stages are pretty clear. Businesses need to define which systems are most fundamental to their core operations and who holds the responsibility of post-attack restoration.

• Apple is reportedly cutting AI budgets per worker
• Developers will still likely have more than other workers
• Model choice and hosting provider could be enough to cut costs

Apple has reportedly started cutting the amount employees can spend on artificial intelligence, per Bloomberg reporting, making it one of the latest companies to be limiting AI tool expenditure as unpredictable costs skyrocket.

The Cupertino giant had already reportedly cut budgets from $300 per engineer per day to $200 in October 2026, but further reductions are said to be planned as this figure could be on track to drop to $100.

Non-engineers are likely to face even tougher restrictions, with the company considering a 75% cut from $100 to $25 per worker per day, the report claims.

Apple could be set to limit workers' AI budgets

Like other tech giants that have introduced similar cuts, budgets will likely be determined by team and project, and certain projects and individuals could be able to justify higher consumption if their work requires it. However Apple declined to comment on Bloomberg's story.

Workers could also be asked to reconsider the tools they use, with the company said to be permitting the use of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, rather than just one. Engineers may be asked to use lesser models, which are cheaper, or even transfer workloads to even cheaper models that run locally on the company's own hardware.

UK digital bank Revolut has already moved away from Claude in favor of open-weight models hosted on its own infrastructure.

While a budget cut from $300 to, possibly, $100 per day may sound like a 3x decrease, it might be more attainable for some workers than those figures suggest. Earlier AI efforts among tech giants saw developers so-called 'tokenmaxxing' – using AI more than they really needed to, just to appease company metrics. It's unclear whether this applies to Apple's developers.

Still, the company likely faces an expensive short-term future, with R&D expenditure up 32% in FY 2026 compared with FY 2025, and total operating expenses up 22%. Quarterly revenue rose just 12% year-over-year, in comparison.