Anyone else noticed how broken enterprise AI + PII handling actually is?
Summary
The author describes the common enterprise problem where PII redaction before sending data to LLMs breaks the output, and they are building a solution that rehydrates responses without exposing raw data.
Similar Articles
PII data to LLM
Discusses the risks and considerations of sending Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to large language models.
Our AI agent's chain broke in production. Here's what we built to fix it, and why the break was actually the point.
A blog post describing how the author's production AI agent (PiQ) experienced a broken hash-chain after a server restart, and how they built a workflow for detection, human-in-the-loop resolution, and persistent audit trails, turning the failure into a feature.
We give AI agents access to our databases, email systems, and payment APIs. And then we just... trust them.
This article highlights the critical lack of governance layers for AI agents that have access to databases, email systems, and payment APIs, arguing that current practices of trusting LLMs without oversight are dangerously inadequate.
Enterprise AI's next failure mode isn't prompting. It's ownership, tool access, and overtrusting agents.
The article argues that enterprise AI's next failure mode will stem from unclear ownership of agent workflows and overtrust, rather than model failures, citing examples of poisoned MCP tools and lack of monitoring.
Are Enterprises Using AI in the Wrong Places?
This analysis challenges the reflexive insertion of AI into all enterprise workflows, suggesting that deterministic systems often require traditional software rather than probabilistic models. It argues for a strategic approach to distinguish where AI creates leverage versus where established architectures remain superior.