New year, new pressure
As a PMM, I spend a lot of time at the intersection of technology and the way we communicate it. It is my job to understand what companies shaping the AI infrastructure space are bringing to market, and also to pay attention to the why and how behind the way they talk about it. Online, at conferences around the world, and in hallway conversations, I am watching not only what our industry is building but the framing that surrounds it. Across AI gatherings this year, both virtual and in person, a pattern has become impossible to miss: AI is being marketed through urgency and fear, not clarity.
Many companies are speaking to decision-makers with a tone that feels more like pressure than guidance. The message is consistent: you are behind, everyone else is moving faster, adopt now or lose your chance. Once that becomes the backdrop, even the most capable teams start to feel overwhelmed. The pace and volume of this kind of marketing can make people want to move quickly just to quiet the anxiety.
That pressure is not accidental. It is meant to make the moment feel like it is slipping away, even though the reality is that nobody, including the people doing the marketing, can predict exactly what comes next. AI often gets framed as something opaque or too complex to take on yourself, and that framing naturally pushes you toward relying on someone else’s version of it. The narrative becomes that you cannot replicate the work and that you do not need to understand how it functions, which makes the black box feel like the only safe option.
In the short term, this approach tends to work. The headlines change constantly, the stakes feel high, and the uncertainty nudges people toward what looks stable. There is a very human psychology behind this. Urgency makes us speed up. Scarcity makes us focus more on risk than on possibility. After a while, it feels easier to follow the momentum than to slow down and evaluate what you are actually adopting. It can feel safer to buckle up and hope you made the right decision than to pause and examine the technology on your own terms.
As one year closes and another opens, that pressure does not magically disappear. If anything, it intensifies. New budgets, new strategies, new expectations. January often becomes a checkpoint for acceleration rather than reflection, and this is exactly the moment when clarity matters most.
Clarity as the antidote
The solution to fear-based marketing is not more hype on top of it, it is transparency. When teams understand how AI systems work, what the trade-offs look like, and where the risks actually are, the pressure eases. The conversation shifts from reacting to building a real strategy with intention. That clarity matters, because many teams are already in the middle of modernization efforts and are now being asked to accelerate that work while layering AI into the mix. They are balancing legacy technology, planning for the future, and responding to AI expectations that seem to evolve every week. It becomes difficult to know where to look first.
Transparency also reveals a deeper truth about what AI adoption actually requires. The gap is rarely in imagination or ambition. It is in the practical, unglamorous foundation that AI needs in order to work. Most of the real effort lives in data governance, infrastructure readiness, storage decisions, networking constraints, and operational consistency. These parts of the work rarely show up in marketing materials, yet they determine whether an AI project succeeds or stalls.
IT infrastructure is often the first place reality intervenes. AI workloads add new variables like models, the systems that run them, and accelerator hardware that can behave differently than the applications most IT environments were originally designed to support. They create new compute demand, unpredictable network traffic, and sustained pressure on storage. These also depend on consistency across development, testing, and production environments, because even small differences can affect model outputs, latency, or cost. When these constraints surface late, after tools and models have already been selected, they land as unexpected blockers rather than predictable design considerations. AI does not fail gracefully on fragile infrastructure. It simply slows down, degrades, or stops delivering value.
Once the infrastructure picture is clear, data governance challenges tend to follow. Models learn from whatever they are given. If that data is fragmented, biased, outdated, or poorly understood, the output will mirror those flaws at scale. Even the most advanced models cannot compensate for inputs that were never designed to support trustworthy decision-making. Governance is not about control for its own sake. It is about knowing where data came from, how it can be used, and how model behavior can be explained and improved over time.
Finally, sustainable AI means thinking beyond the pilot. It means defining how models will be monitored, governed, retrained, and scaled long after the initial excitement fades. If those questions feel uncomfortable early on, they tend to become far more expensive later. Taken together, these steps do not slow progress. They prevent false starts.
None of this makes for a dramatic demo, but it is the work that determines whether AI becomes a dependable enterprise capability or a series of stalled experiments.
Sustainability as a competitive advantage
When the industry focuses on urgency instead of honesty, it creates a false sense of what the work actually looks like. Headlines give the impression that AI is a single decision or a quick upgrade. In reality, AI adoption is a series of small, careful steps that rely heavily on the systems a team already has in place. It depends on the quality of the data, the reliability of the infrastructure, and the ability to monitor and operate models over time. None of this is dramatic, but all of it matters.
Honesty creates room for realistic planning. Teams can acknowledge the constraints they are working within, the gaps that need to be addressed, and the architecture that will support AI sustainably instead of temporarily. This is the part of the conversation that gets overshadowed when vendors lean on urgency. The fear of falling behind can drown out the harder but necessary work of understanding how an AI system will behave, how it will be governed, and how it will scale inside an actual organization.
A new year always brings the urge to move faster. New goals. New roadmaps. New pressure to prove momentum early. The teams that will actually build durable AI capabilities this year will not be the ones that moved first. They will be the ones who moved deliberately.
The real competitive advantage is not speed; it is sustainability. It is not choosing the newest black box, but building a system you can understand, govern, and evolve. Transparency does not mean standing still. It means moving forward with intention. If you’re thinking about how to build AI that lasts, Red Hat works with enterprises every day on the infrastructure, platforms, and practices that make sustainable AI possible. In the year ahead, that clarity may matter more than anything else.
关于作者
