I spent two days at HumanX 2026 in San Francisco covering 27 sessions across AI infrastructure, enterprise adoption, agentic systems, security, creative, retail, and finance.

I heard about AI in marketing. AI in brand strategy. AI in customer service. AI in software development. AI in creative production. AI in financial infrastructure. AI in cybersecurity. AI in retail design. AI in financial crime. AI in compliance.

I did not hear a single session about the supply chain.

Not one.

For someone who came up through operations and supply chain, who has personally sat with demand forecasting spreadsheets that were wrong more often than right, navigated supplier disruptions without early warning, and made inventory decisions that were really just educated guesses dressed up in numbers. For an industry that sits at the core of the global economy, the silence was striking.

—

What we mean when we say “supply chain.”

To be precise, this is not about last-mile logistics or route optimization—the areas that do get occasional attention. The Supply Chain word gets used loosely, usually.

This is about upstream decision-making: demand forecasting, supplier risk management, inventory positioning, and procurement intelligence.

Demand forecasting: predicting what you’ll need to sell or produce before you’ve sold or produced it.

Supplier risk management: identifying which suppliers are fragile before they fail you.

Inventory positioning: deciding how much of what to hold where, across a network that doesn’t sit still.

Procurement intelligence: understanding pricing patterns, lead time trends, and supplier behaviour across hundreds of relationships simultaneously.

These are decisions that get made every week in every company that makes or moves physical goods. They are made by people working with incomplete information, under time pressure, using tools that were not designed for the complexity of the problem. And they are decisions where being systematically better — not perfect, just better — compounds into enormous financial advantage over time.

Yet at a conference dedicated to AI’s transformation of business, they were absent. AI should be solving the industry’s problem right now.

—

What I did hear

Here is what I did hear, to be fair.

P&G’s CIO Seth Cohen spent time on supply chain automation — specifically, unattended manufacturing scaled across nine locations, and molecular discovery work that cut development timelines from years to months. For a company like P&G’s scale, those results are genuinely significant. But they are the results of a decade-long data infrastructure investment that most companies, including most large companies, have not made.

Walmart’s Daniel Danker gave one supply chain example: a remote Canadian store used an internal tool called Code Puppy to combine weather data and ferry schedules for inventory planning. It’s a good story — a frontline associate solving a local operations problem with a tool headquarters gave them. But it’s a point solution, not a framework, and it was mentioned in passing in a session primarily about AI democratization.

That was essentially it. Two examples, mentioned briefly, in sessions about something else. For an industry representing somewhere between $15 and $20 trillion in global economic activity, that’s a remarkably thin presence.

—

Why the supply chain is the most AI-ready industry nobody is talking about

What makes this gap surprising is that the supply chain is, on paper, one of the most AI-ready industries in existence.

It runs on data. Sensor data, transaction data, demand signals, supplier data, logistics data, and financial data. The data infrastructure in large supply chains is often more mature than in the marketing and creative functions that dominated the HumanX agenda.

The problems are structured. Unlike brand strategy or creative judgment, supply chain decisions are historically modelled, mathematically defined, and directly measurable. A demand forecast is either accurate or it isn’t. A stockout either happened or it didn’t. An inventory position either matched demand, or it left cash sitting on a shelf or a gap in a customer’s order. The feedback loops are tight, and the outcomes are concrete.

The stakes are direct. Having spent time inside these decisions, I can tell you that even small improvements in forecast accuracy at a meaningful scale translate into real money — in working capital, in margin, in customer retention. A 2% improvement in forecast accuracy at a company running substantial inventory isn’t a rounding error. It’s a financial event.

So why wasn’t it on stage?

—

Three reasons for the gap

The first is audience composition. HumanX skews toward technology leaders, marketing executives, founders, and investors. Supply chain and operations leadership tends not to show up at general AI conferences. They attend industry-specific events — operational forums, ERP user conferences, sector trade shows. The gap in the room creates a gap in the agenda.

The second is vendor invisibility. The companies building AI for demand sensing, supplier risk, and logistics optimization are largely invisible outside their industry. They’re specialized, often enterprise-only, and they sell through procurement channels rather than developer communities. They don’t generate the kind of press coverage that gets sessions programmed at a conference like HumanX.

The third — and this is the one that matters most — is that the enterprise supply chain is genuinely hard to disrupt quickly. The data is siloed across ERP systems, warehouse management platforms, and procurement tools built over decades. Integration alone is a multi-year project. The risk tolerance for AI-driven decisions in the supply chain is low because the consequences of errors are operational and financial. You can course-correct a bad marketing campaign. You cannot easily recover from a production halt caused by a procurement decision that an AI made without the right context.

This is exactly why AI hasn’t disrupted the supply chain at the pace it’s disrupted other functions. And it’s exactly why, when it does, the value creation will be disproportionately large.

—

What the conference did tell me

The sessions I attended gave me frameworks that apply directly to this gap, even though none of them were about the supply chain.

Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi said something that stayed with me: current models are sufficiently capable, but they fail in enterprises because they lack context. The bottleneck isn’t the AI. It’s the organizational and data infrastructure around it. He expects enterprise AI adoption to take five to ten years.

That timeline maps almost exactly to where supply chain AI is in its adoption curve. The context problem is especially acute here. A demand forecasting model trained on historical sales data without context about upcoming promotions, competitor pricing moves, macroeconomic shifts, or supplier lead time changes will produce outputs that experienced planners will correctly distrust — because they know what the model doesn’t know. The data exists. The integration and context layer doesn’t.

The building of a trustworthy agentic AI session reinforced this from a different angle. Panellists from Dataiku made a distinction that matters enormously for supply chain: back-office decision agents — the ones affecting clinical outcomes, credit decisions, or supply choices — require far stronger testing and explainability than personal productivity tools. A demand forecasting agent that informs procurement isn’t a chatbot. It needs to be auditable, explainable, and designed to fail gracefully. Most current AI deployments are not built to that standard.

—

What finance figured out that supply chain hasn’t yet

What I found most instructive at HumanX wasn’t what was said about supply chain. It was watching what happened to industries that got forced into AI governance before they were ready — and what that forced them to build.

The finance sessions were the clearest example. Multiple panels addressed AI compliance frameworks in regulated financial services — what one session called the “compliance flywheel.” The argument was that embedding compliance, risk, and governance early in AI product development actually accelerates innovation rather than slowing it. Shared semantic definitions, data lineage, and auditability become infrastructure that compounds over time. Organizations that treat compliance as an early-stage design constraint end up with more durable systems than those that bolt it on later.

The financial crime session added a sharper edge to this. Jonathan Levin of Chainalysis described how generative AI has dramatically lowered the barrier to entry for financial fraud — enabling impersonation, automation, and scale that wasn’t previously possible for lower-skill actors. The response from defenders has been to build proactive threat-hunting systems, intelligence-sharing networks, and AI agents that can process evidence and flag suspicious patterns faster than any human analyst.

I kept thinking about procurement fraud while sitting in those sessions. Supplier impersonation. Fake invoices. Bid manipulation. Ghost vendors. These are supply chain problems that have existed for decades and are about to get significantly harder to detect as AI makes fraudulent activity more convincing and more automated. The financial services industry is building defensive infrastructure right now because regulation and litigation forced the conversation. Supply chain hasn’t been forced there yet. But the same pressures — fraud escalation, operational failure, regulatory scrutiny, and eventually litigation — are coming.

The compliance frameworks being built in regulated finance are the template for what supply chain AI governance will eventually need to look like. The difference is in the timeline. Finance is building it now under pressure. Supply chain will build it later, under more pressure, starting from further behind.

—

The investment angle

The publicly traded companies most exposed to the supply chain AI wave are not the model providers. They are the enterprise software platforms that own the data: the ERPs, the warehouse management systems, the supply chain visibility platforms, the procurement analytics tools. Every one of those companies is currently navigating the same question: do they build AI natively into their platforms, partner with AI providers, or get disrupted from below by AI-native startups that don’t carry decades of integration debt?

That question is not answered. The window where it remains unanswered is the window where the investment opportunity is most interesting — both in the incumbents navigating the transition and in the new entrants who might make the integration question irrelevant.

I track this closely because I sit at the intersection of it. I understand the operational problem from having lived inside it. I understand the AI capability layer from building tools on top of it. Those two lenses together are what make the gap visible.

—

I came back from HumanX with a lot of material about where AI is moving and what serious operators and investors think. Most of it confirmed what I already believed about infrastructure, reliability, and the gap between demo performance and production reality.

The most valuable thing I came back with was silence.

Nobody talked about the supply chain. Not because it isn’t ready. Not because the problem isn’t large enough. Because the people who understand the problem and the people building the tools are not yet in the same room.

Finance got there first because it was forced. Supply chain will get there when it is forced to.

The question worth asking now — before the forcing event — is which companies are building the governance, the data infrastructure, and the AI capability to be ready when that moment arrives. Because the ones who are will look obvious in hindsight. They always do.

————

Jinlu Wang has a background in supply chain, ERP implementation, and enterprise operations. She now builds automated trading systems and web applications and covers AI infrastructure, fintech, and enterprise technology for Trade with Harp, a paid investment research and trading community.

Share

The post I Attended the World’s Biggest AI Conference – Nobody Talked About Supply Chain appeared first on TV Punjab | English News Channel.

There’s a moment every builder knows. You’ve shipped the thing. It’s live. Real people are using it. And then it breaks in a way you never designed for, at the worst possible time, in front of everyone.

Mine was a duplicate alert loop during a live trading session. Forty minutes of my bot firing the same wrong signal while my members watched, and the market moved without us. I was in the logs, my phone was blowing up, and I had the specific sick feeling of someone whose confidence has just been stress-tested in public.

I fixed it. Rebuilt the deduplication logic, added safeguards I should have put in from the start. But those forty minutes are the reason I don’t trust any AI pitch that doesn’t account for failure.

I’ve spent the past year building automated trading systems and web applications -a dual-timeframe swing bot, a pivot-level tracker, an options flow monitor, and dashboards that pull live brokerage data and track dividend recovery across multiple accounts. None of it is academic. These systems run continuously on cloud infrastructure, and the members of my paid trading community use them to make real decisions in real markets. When something breaks, I hear about it immediately. That feedback loop has taught me more about AI in finance than anything else I’ve encountered.

I’m sharing this because I’m about to say some things about AI and investing that will sound skeptical, and I want to be clear: the skepticism comes from the inside, not the outside.

—

The fintech industry has a problem nobody wants to say plainly: most of what’s currently being sold as “AI-powered” is a model wrapper bolted onto a product that existed before, marketed to investors who are understandably eager to find the right horse in this race.

I understand why it happens. The pressure to speak the language of the moment is real, and the language of the moment is AI. But when you’ve spent months building systems that fail unpredictably, fixing them at 11 pm, and rebuilding them better, your tolerance for vague capability claims drops to zero.

The question I ask about any fintech company claiming an AI edge is no longer “what can your AI do?” It’s “what happens when it’s wrong?” Because it will be wrong. In my experience, how a company answers that second question tells you almost everything about whether you’re looking at a real business or an expensive experiment dressed up for a fundraiser.

Most can’t answer it cleanly. That gap is where a significant amount of the current mispricing lives.

—

The jump from a bot that alerts you to a system that reasons, plans, and acts is not a software upgrade. It’s a different problem entirely.

I’m currently building toward that -an agentic system designed to work across multiple data sources and execute without me in the loop. The process has been humbling. You’re asking the system to handle ambiguity at every step, to make judgment calls in sequences where one wrong assumption compounds through everything downstream, and to fail in ways that are recoverable rather than catastrophic. In a trading context, that last requirement is the whole game. Markets don’t pause because your agent made a wrong assumption at step two.

What I keep learning is that the companies that will actually win in agentic AI are solving a reliability problem, not a capability problem. Reliability doesn’t demo well. It doesn’t make headlines. But a system that behaves predictably under conditions nobody anticipated is worth more than one that performs brilliantly in controlled environments -and the gap between those two things is where most AI projects currently live.

This shapes how I evaluate companies in this space. An impressive demo is not the signal. The boring, unglamorous work of engineering for failure -that’s the signal. And it’s genuinely hard to see from the outside.

—

Here’s my investment view, stated plainly.

The application layer of AI is exciting and nearly impossible to underwrite with confidence at current valuations. The space moves too fast, competitive advantages compress too quickly, and the half-life of any specific product edge is short enough to make long-term positioning feel more like speculation than investing.

The infrastructure underneath is a different conversation.

I’ve been researching optical infrastructure extensively -the companies building transceivers and coherent technology that physically connect AI data centers at the speeds these workloads require. These aren’t household names. They don’t have consumer products. But hyperscalers cannot build without them, and this buildout cycle has years of runway remaining.

The same logic extends to energy. The data centers being planned and funded right now need reliable baseload power at a scale that has quietly made nuclear a serious investment conversation again -not for ideological reasons, but purely practical ones. I’ve tracked that theme developing for over a year. It isn’t a consensus yet. That’s the point.

The investors who find real returns in this cycle won’t be the ones who moved fastest on the most visible names. They’ll be the ones who asked what those names couldn’t exist without and positioned themselves there instead.

—

What am I expecting while covering at HumanX 2026 in San Francisco?

The most important conversations in AI don’t happen on stage; they happen between people who are actually building these systems, talking to each other without the performance layer that comes with a keynote slot. The reliability problem in agentic AI, the real economics of AI infrastructure, the tension between long-term inevitability and short-term valuation chaos, these are exactly the questions I’m working through in my own builds, and they’re the questions my audience is asking me.

There is no shortage of AI coverage, that describes what’s happening. There’s a real shortage of coverage written by someone who has also been in the logs at midnight fixing a broken system before markets open.

That’s the perspective I’d bring to this event. And it’s the perspective I think is missing from most of what gets published about AI and investing right now.

—

*Jinlu Wang is an AI Editorial Strategist with Ubiq Broadcasting Corp and builds automated trading systems and web applications for financial markets. She runs Harp’s Trading, a paid investment research and trading community, and publishes institutional-style research covering AI infrastructure, energy, and commodity-linked technology themes. *

Share

The post The Market Doesn’t Care How Smart Your AI Is | HumanX appeared first on TV Punjab | English News Channel.

San Francisco:

Artificial intelligence investment surged to a record $211 billion in 2025, nearly doubling the $114 billion deployed in 2024, according to a new report released by HumanX in partnership with Crunchbase. The figure now represents roughly half of all global venture capital, underscoring AI’s dominance in the technology investment landscape.

The AI Funding Report 2025 signals a structural shift in investor behaviour—from speculative experimentation to what analysts describe as a “disciplined march to value,” with capital increasingly directed toward infrastructure and enterprise-grade applications.

At the center of this transformation is the San Francisco Bay Area, which the report identifies as the world’s “global control center” for artificial intelligence. The region attracted approximately $126 billion—60% of total global AI funding—while an overwhelming 81% of all startup capital within the Bay Area flowed into AI ventures.

Megadeals and Market Maturity

Large-scale funding rounds dominated the market. Deals exceeding $100 million accounted for $163 billion, or 77% of total AI investment, reflecting a concentration of capital among fewer, high-confidence bets.

Meanwhile, companies developing foundation models—such as OpenAI and Anthropic—saw funding jump 180% to $87 billion, reinforcing their position at the core of the AI ecosystem.

However, investment is no longer limited to model development. Nearly 59% of total funding flowed into the broader AI stack, including infrastructure (19%), deep tech and robotics (11%), and sector-specific applications in healthcare and security (15%).

Diversity Gains Ground

The report also highlights growing momentum among female-founded companies. In North America and Europe, 47% of AI funding—equivalent to $84.7 billion—went to startups with at least one female founder, signalling incremental progress in a historically male-dominated sector.

IPO Wave on the Horizon

Using predictive analytics, Crunchbase forecasts a significant wave of exits in 2026. Of the 138 private companies scheduled to appear at this year’s HumanX summit, 27 are classified as “probable or very likely” IPO candidates, while another 30 are considered strong acquisition targets.

“Every AI cycle brings speculation about bubbles, but the data tells a more nuanced story,” said Stefan Weitz, co-founder and CEO of HumanX. “Capital is increasingly flowing toward companies solving complex, high-value problems with long-term durability.”

Jager McConnell, CEO of Crunchbase, added that the market is entering a more disciplined phase. “Investors are no longer funding anything labelled AI. But our data suggests many companies in this ecosystem are poised for significant growth rounds—and potentially public listings—as early as 2026.”

HumanX 2026: A Launchpad for AI Leaders

More than 130 companies are set to present at HumanX in San Francisco this year, collectively raising over $72 billion since 2018. Featured participants include industry heavyweights such as Databricks, Cerebras Systems, and CoreWeave, alongside innovators like Runway, Synthesia, Cohere, and Inflection AI.

Also taking the stage are high-profile technology firms, including Figma, Chime, and Replit, reflecting the growing convergence between AI and mainstream digital platforms.

A Market Still in Early Innings

Despite record-breaking investment levels, industry leaders caution that the AI boom is far from maturity.

“We’re only in the first inning of the AI game,” McConnell said, pointing to the accelerating pace of innovation and the increasing role of predictive intelligence in shaping investment decisions.

The full report is available via HumanX.

Share

The post AI Investment Soars to $211 Billion as San Francisco Tightens Grip as Global Control Center appeared first on TV Punjab | English News Channel.