The real story is not block versus allow. Most banks still lack a governed way to let agents act within clear guardrails. It's that gap, not the policy debate, that the next year will actually be about.
JPMorgan Chase has confirmed it is blocking external AI agents from accessing retail customer accounts — and it appears to be the only major US bank that has publicly done so.
Jamie Dimon disclosed the policy on JPMorgan's Q3 2026 earnings call, citing "rogue agent" risk. Across 76 sources gathered on this topic, no equivalent named policy from Citigroup or any other major US bank has been documented.
That matters, because the narrative forming in some coverage treats this as a wave of bank restrictions already underway. The evidence doesn't support that framing — at least not yet.
The broader industry picture is one of caution without blanket action. Gartner projects 40% of financial services firms will use AI agents by end of 2026. Regulators in the US, UK, and Australia are escalating scrutiny, but none has issued binding rules. A May 2026 amendment to SR 11-7 explicitly removed generative and agentic AI from existing model-risk guidance without replacing it — widening the gap between documented risk and enforceable requirement. Binding rules remain likely at least 12 months away across all three jurisdictions.
One underappreciated dynamic: JPMorgan's restriction may be as much competitive defense as cybersecurity. Apollo Chief Economist Torsten Slok and former Rep. John Delaney have both flagged deposit migration — AI agents autonomously redirecting funds to higher-yield accounts — as a distinct business-model threat, separate from fraud risk.
On the fraud side, Thomson Reuters subject-matter experts assessed in September 2026 that AI-driven scams could become "virtually undetectable using current approaches" within 12 months. The OCC has told Congress that AI has already increased the speed, scale, and sophistication of cyberattacks targeting financial institutions — the first such acknowledgment at the Congressional level from a banking prudential regulator.
The infrastructure risk is real. The policy response, outside of JPMorgan, remains unconfirmed.
I am done with this shit. It is over. The state of engineering right now is horrible. It has been half a month since I started a new role at a big company. Nobody knows anything here. The specs, code, tests, PRDs, tickets, resolution of those tickets, reports, etc., everything is made by Claude Code. Nobody on my team likes this. They are being forced to ship as much as they can. I have heard multiple times from higher management that pushing code is not a bottleneck, so why are we slow? People are working 12 to 13 hours a day just to press enter. Nobody is reading anything. Humans in corporate are doing nothing on their own. Everyone, literally everyone, from an L1 to an L7 engineer here is doing the same thing. Talk to Claude. There is no sense of victory. Nobody is resolving bugs. In reality, nobody is thinking anymore. Everything is done by LLMs. It is so soul-sucking. I would not mind it, to be honest, if we were at least given the time to check out the code and see what is going where. But no, the goal is to just ship. No matter what happens.
I cannot believe this is real footage and not a parody. This is incredible.
I mean straight of out Silicon Valley. I can just see the camera panning back to Richard and Jared or someone on the other side of the booth, stealing a glance at one another in quiet shock as they listen to this.
Zuck is right, this is the biggest fallacy of people confusing individual AI for institutional AI. "Right now I think most of the industry is thinking about agents as like a single player game, right? It's like you have your agent and you use it. [...] And there are going to be all these interesting things that basically you can do by having the agents interact with each other."
Mark Zuckerberg: the whole industry treats AI agents as a single-player game but the real unlock is agents interacting with each other, which Meta has been running internally
"Right now I think most of the industry is thinking about agents as like a single player game, right? It's like you have your agent and you use it."
"And there are going to be all these interesting things that basically you can do by having the agents interact with each other."
"And we already have all these interesting examples internally where people have their agents interacting with each other."
"This isn't, like, for the most part rolling out in this release, but it's going to be like an important part of how I think this works over time. As more of the people who you know start using Muse, it just gets better."
“Slop cannons” 🤣 I’m seeing this every day. It’s a full-blown DDOS on thinking and management.
Some people use AI as a force multiplier for their thinking. Others replaced thinking with AI - and that is a dramatic downspiral.
Hearing this from senior execs. Slop cannons have turned meetings into some bizarre mindspace that cannot be navigated anymore. No one knows what’s in their decks or how it got there.
Enterprises are drowning.
In general it’s a bad idea to give everyone AI. Very bad idea.
I think we’re going to see a stratification in this. Analysts get no AI. Associates some. The powerful models only for those have proven cognitive ability of their own.
@FlowX_ai came out of stealth at the beginning of the year after two years of building technology, and is delivering what everyone else is failing to: mission-critical AI agents at scale on complex workflows in regulated industries, governmental, and defense.
Now, Google has selected @FlowX_ai for the first wave of specialized industry agents reaching enterprises through @googlecloud #GeminiEnterprise.
@elonmusk@elonmusk you spent about 3 seconds on this. Not sure it's worth a full minute, but you'd figure out he's just a rambling shill piecing together incoherently whatever recycled ideas someone picked off the interwebs for him.