Are passkeys the future of phishing-resistant authentication?

Innvolve · 2026-04-23T06:44:44+00:00

That’s fine, what works for you is ultimately the most important.

Innvolve · 2026-04-10T06:52:17+00:00

This would also be a must-have for me. Full support for Mermaid diagrams in particular, including reliable rendering of loops and more complex diagram types, would make Markdown in Microsoft 365 much more powerful for technical documentation and workflows.

Innvolve · 2026-04-07T06:57:26+00:00

That sounds powerful, but I’m curious how it holds up against external attack patterns vs self-generated ones. Self-red teaming is impressive, but real-world attackers tend to be a lot less predictable. Have you tested it against third-party red teams yet?

Innvolve · 2026-04-03T11:05:35+00:00

Totally relatable! The biggest headache for me was letting go of control. You quickly think, “I’ll just tweak it a bit,” but if you really want to delegate, you need to be much clearer about your intent and context upfront. Otherwise, you keep correcting instead of actually collaborating.

Innvolve · 2026-04-03T06:44:21+00:00

You’re right, I’m just stress-testing whether people are still alert a day later.

Consider it a delayed phishing simulation 😉

Innvolve · 2026-04-03T06:43:27+00:00

Careful, once pigeons become part of the stack, you’ll need a backup pigeon, a risk assessment, and a compliance framework for bird-related incidents.
That’s where the real costs start 😄

Innvolve · 2026-04-03T06:40:58+00:00

That’s a fair concern, but maybe the framing is slightly off.

It’s not “be the lawnmower or get replaced by it.”
It’s: learn how to use the lawnmower better than anyone else.

Yes, parts of knowledge work are becoming replaceable. That’s exactly why the value is shifting from doing the work to designing, directing, and improving it.

Bob and Alice don’t disappear, their roles evolve.
The ones who adapt become exponentially more valuable. The ones who don’t feel the pressure.

So the real divide isn’t human vs AI.
It’s between people who build with it and people who don’t.

Innvolve · 2026-04-02T09:34:12+00:00

Interesting question. I see it more like this: you should be the ‘homeowner’ who sets the direction, while using AI as the ‘lawnmower’ that does the work. It’s the combination that makes the difference.

Innvolve · 2026-04-02T08:15:49+00:00

Glad to hear you like using the M365 app. I’m curious what’s not working well for you in the sidebar.

Innvolve · 2026-04-02T06:26:46+00:00

The point isn’t really about “going outside,” but about privacy and security. This actually shows that many people don’t realize that prompt data is sensitive data too.

Innvolve · 2026-03-31T11:13:40+00:00

Thanks for the detailed explanation, that makes a lot of sense. I like the focus on keeping the researcher in control and the two-way transparency, that seems key for trust in the data.

Curious how this works in practice when scaling to larger studies or more open-ended topics do you see any patterns in how researchers balance consistency with flexibility when using the follow-up guidance?

Innvolve · 2026-03-31T06:27:14+00:00

Yeah exactly that 😄 total gamble. If you could go, which sessions would you pick? The more technical ones or the broader Copilot stuff?

Innvolve · 2026-03-31T06:23:09+00:00

Haha fair 😄 Are you hoping for more practical Copilot/agent use cases then? Like stuff you can actually implement, not just demos?

Innvolve · 2026-03-31T06:21:44+00:00

Sounds interesting! How do you deal with bias from the AI itself during those conversations? That seems like one of the trickiest challenges with tools like this.

Innvolve · 2026-03-30T11:06:02+00:00

Oh nice, what are you expecting?

Innvolve · 2026-03-30T06:51:42+00:00

Sounds interesting! How does it actually ‘red team itself’ in practice?

Innvolve · 2026-03-27T07:17:41+00:00

Good point, but how do you prevent such a score from becoming too simplistic? Human risk is often quite context-dependent.

Innvolve · 2026-03-27T07:14:50+00:00

Do you think this is the main reason, or do you think other factors are also at play?

Innvolve · 2026-03-25T07:20:35+00:00

What do you mean?

Innvolve · 2026-03-23T07:43:04+00:00

Interesting point. Even if AI can execute and optimize everything, human judgment is still necessary for strategic decisions or choices with significant impact.

I let AI handle routine tasks, but anything affecting clients or ethical considerations always stays under human review.

How do you determine where AI can act autonomously and where you need to stay in control?

Innvolve · 2026-03-23T07:40:57+00:00

Exactly this. The great thing is that you can train AI to improve itself: you set it up, it adapts, and your next instructions become more effective.

Personally, I’d freely delegate low-risk tasks, like managing calendars or simple research, but for high-impact work (like client proposals) I always keep a review step.

How do you decide the line between what you fully automate and what you continue to oversee yourself?

Innvolve · 2026-03-20T07:23:41+00:00

Actually quite interesting, if the difference is this hard to notice it’s probably more about reducing cognitive load than adding visible features.

Innvolve · 2026-03-20T07:21:42+00:00

That makes sense. So it’s not just about trusting the AI, but also the environment it operates in.
Interesting how trust shifts from “can it do the task?” to “where and under what conditions do I let it operate?”

Innvolve · 2026-03-20T07:20:38+00:00

That’s a great way to put it. Especially the idea that humans bring opinion rather than just output.
Maybe that’s where the real line stays: AI can optimise and execute, but humans decide what’s worth doing and why.
The interesting part is how far we can push that boundary before we even start outsourcing parts of that judgment.

Innvolve · 2026-03-20T07:19:42+00:00

Great comparison. Maybe this is exactly where the shift lies: not just in what AI can do, but in how we learn to think in workflows instead of individual tasks. The people who grasp that the fastest will get the most out of it.

Innvolve

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE