Over the past week, attention was focused primarily on the design of the Ferrari Luce — the company’s first fully electric vehicle, developed with the involvement of former Apple Chief Design Officer Jony Ive. The presentation triggered intense media debate, sparked a wave of memes and divided the Ferrari fan base into two camps. In the end, Ferrari’s share price lost more than 8% following the presentation.
While the market was debating the vehicle’s appearance, another piece of news — potentially far more significant for the future of companies — went largely unnoticed.
OpenAI has completed its joint project with Jony Ive, an initiative with an estimated value of around USD 10 billion. If Ferrari is a story about vehicle design, then the OpenAI–Jony Ive project is an attempt to redesign the way people interact with technology. Fundamentally.
In our view, the market is currently asking the wrong question. The key question is not what new device OpenAI will develop. The real question is what happens when AI is no longer an application, but becomes a permanent intermediary between people, data, business processes and decisions. What happens when no business process is possible without AI, and humans have passed the point of no return in their dependence on it?
We are currently witnessing the beginning of a race for the next layer of digital infrastructure. Not a race for better models, and not even for more computing power, but for control over the interface of decision-making.
Over the past three decades, the corporate world has been shaped by ERP systems, CRM platforms, email and web browsers. The next cycle may be defined by an AI layer that determines which information employees receive, which actions are recommended, which processes are initiated and how decisions are made in day-to-day business.
This is no longer about a market for tools.
It is about a fundamentally new architecture of corporate control.
This raises entirely new questions: Who controls AI’s access to corporate data? How is responsibility distributed between humans and AI agents? How can dependencies on individual AI providers be avoided? And above all, who is responsible for business-critical processes and decisions: the human being or the technology?
It is noteworthy that SAP has, almost simultaneously, begun restricting access by unauthorized AI agents to enterprise systems. This is no coincidence. The major providers of enterprise software are already preparing for a world in which AI becomes an integral part of companies’ operational infrastructure.
That is why the most important question for companies today is no longer which model they should use. The decisive question is:
Who controls the new infrastructure of decision-making within the organization?
This is where we at Sanegor Treuhand AG define what we call “AI exposure”: the cumulative risk faced by a company when its dependence on AI systems begins to outpace its internal control mechanisms.
This is no longer merely a technology story. It is a fundamental discussion about governance, operational control and the future architecture of companies. Modern AI risk management must not prevent the use of AI. It must make AI auditable and controllable. Only companies that retain control over their governance architecture will safeguard their long-term ability to act and preserve enterprise value.
