Tag Archives: AI

Artificial Intelligence and Connectedness

Artificial Intelligence and Connectedness

GUEST POST from Janet Sernack

Many leaders, large organizations, and SMEs are currently using AI tools as a viable and cost-effective means to enhance productivity and efficiency, as well as to drive business growth and improve sustainability. While this approach is fundamentally sound, it may fall short because it often overlooks critical human and cultural factors that make change and inovation happen. Taking a holistic, people-centered approach to change management, in conjunction with AI, is essential for a successful business or digital transformation or reinvention.

This involves taking a bird’s-eye perspective that understands:

  • How people feel, think, and act in different contexts – to predict behaviour and design techniques and practices that help people develop presence and make perceptual shifts.
  • Educating people in the mindset and behaviour changes that connect and give them agency and autonomy to creatively lead the delivery of strategic and target outcomes.
  • How AI is the most consequential technology of our times – it is shaped by forces far beyond the technology itself, and its effects reach just as widely, yet still require significant cultural, systems and process changes, which are usually executed by upskilled people.

According to Singularity University, in a recent article, “The Next Frontier is Not Artificial Intelligence, it is Artificial Societies”, there is a temptation to divide the future of AI into two possibilities: utopia or catastrophe. Neither extreme is particularly helpful. The more interesting possibility is messier—and requires a step-shift in our thinking, from artificial intelligence to AI societies.

Evoking, provoking and generating creative ideas and innovative solutions

Mapping how the pieces impact, interconnect and interact helps people see what could influence its course and where hurdles and opportunities may emerge. It is already changing how people feel, think, act, and work, and where it goes from there is uncertain. Especially as AI is restricted to delivering content-based answers that are now tending to converge and potentially enforce “sameness” that results in mediocrity. People’s neurology allows them to collaborate and experiment with diverging ideas, think critically and evoke, provoke and generate creative ideas that lead to the innovative solutions organisations and society need in the 21st century.

Viewing AI systemically

Viewing AI systemically requires mapping the connections between it and physical resources, institutions, businesses, markets, geopolitics, and people—all of which shape AI and change in response.

Rather than overlaying yet another structure, transformation and innovation initiatives need to be human-centric and systemically focused on enabling leaders and engaging people. This means creating conditions that safely allow people to experience how their roles and words can be perceived differently, leading them to think and act differently as they consciously co-create a new operating rhythm for value creation and capture.

It also involves seeing and utilising AI as an interconnected system that can help organisations adopt and adapt AI to deliver productivity growth, innovation, new demand, new jobs, free up time, shift capital, and impact the business landscape, influence geopolitics, and improve people’s well-being and quality of life.

Role of Connectedness 

Connectedness is crucial to the success of transformation and innovation initiatives and is rooted in the belief that everything—people, events, decisions, technologies and experiences—is interrelated and even interdependent.

  • AI as an interconnected system

AI is shaped by forces far beyond the technology itself, and its effects reach just as widely. Mapping how the pieces interconnect and interact helps people see what could influence its course and where hurdles and opportunities may emerge. It is already changing how people feel, think, act, and work, and where it goes from there is uncertain.

According to a recent article by McKinsey & Co, “The AI economy: Interconnected forces, feedback loops and the speeds of change”:

“Risks and bottlenecks arise because different parts of the AI system are moving at vastly different paces. AI capabilities are advancing exponentially by some measures. Progress in building data centres, power grids, chip factories, and mines is more linear. Redesigning how a business and its people work spans years. As one constraint eases, others can be exposed”.

In the AI era, leaders and teams must learn to manage at multiple speeds by leveraging AI and connectedness.

Progress may slow when infrastructure or organisations cannot keep up, while risks can grow when adoption outruns safeguards, governance, or public acceptance. Sometimes the answer is to accelerate what is lagging; other times it may be to slow down.

  • Seeing the larger story

This involves perceiving the world through a wide-angle lens, fostering a worldview that cultivates unity, connection and quiet confidence. It presupposes that each person, process, and event plays a role in a larger story and offers a grounding presence that helps others slow down and reflect on meaning.

In times of volatility, uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in our incomprehensible and brittle world, connectedness can calm people and offer a fresh perspective by suggesting that each moment has purpose—even if that purpose isn’t immediately clear.

According to a Gallup article, “Connectedness: Seeing the Bigger Picture in Every Moment,” connectedness thrives when it feels part of something greater than itself. These individuals are energised when their contributions support a higher purpose. They need opportunities to build bridges, time to connect the dots, and space to create meaning. They are fulfilled when their efforts contribute to a broader mission or long-term goal. They also benefit from partners and leaders who help them connect daily tasks to the bigger picture. When others help highlight the meaning behind the work, Connectedness becomes even more engaging and insightful. They also connect people and ideas in meaningful ways. Whether drawing parallels or spotting hidden patterns, they help teams find alignment. Their sense of awe for life’s unseen connections brings clarity and purpose to those around them.

Challenges ahead

Seeing AI as an interconnected system can help organisations adopt and adapt it to deliver productivity growth, innovation, new demand, new jobs, free up time, enable capital shifts, impact the business landscape, influence geopolitics, and improve people’s well-being and quality of life.

The Singularity University article, “The Next Frontier is Not Artificial Intelligence, it is Artificial Societies”, states that the deeper challenge is what happens when millions of AI chatbots interact at scale. It suggests that once agents can cooperate, compete, and resolve conflicts with one another, we are no longer dealing with isolated machines—we are dealing with a society. Thus, the next frontier is not artificial intelligence; it is artificial societies.

Without establishing these elements of core interconnectedness, no matter how many resources organisations include in their AI transformation and innovation initiatives, they will not succeed in creating and capturing the desired and potential value that people appreciate and cherish, nor make their lives better.

Find out more about our work at ImagineNation™ and The Start-Up Game.™ Discover our collective learning products and tools that can be customized as playful bespoke corporate learning programs. Our blended and transformational change and learning programs provide a deep understanding of the language, principles, and applications of an ecosystem-focused, human-centric approach and emergent structure (Theory U) to innovation and entrepreneurship. It will also upskill people and teams, developing their future fitness within your unique digital transformation and innovation initiatives. Please find out more about our products and tools.

Image Credit: Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

No Human at the Helm

Delaware’s Plan for AI-Run Companies

No Human at the Helm - Delaware's Plan for AI-Run Companies

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


Could AI-Run Businesses Become a Legal Reality Soon? (Short Answer)

Yes — at least as a supervised experiment. Delaware, where roughly two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated, is developing a draft framework for a new entity called an Artificial Intelligence Company, or AIC. Under the proposal, an AI agent — not a human — would manage day-to-day affairs. The company could sign contracts, hold property, and sue or be sued in its own name. A single member would generally be shielded from the AIC’s debts if the company stayed adequately capitalized, with exceptions for undercapitalization, fraud, and willful violations of law. This is not law yet. It is a sandbox idea expected to face the General Assembly, and banking would be excluded.

The open question is not whether agents can act. It is whether we wrap those actions in a legal form that makes responsibility visible — or hide from it.

Below: what the draft actually proposes, which businesses might fit an AI manager (and which should never try), the pros and cons if this becomes real, and how entrepreneurs should think about taking advantage without designing a hard landing.

What Is Delaware Actually Proposing?

Think of the AIC as a corporate shell built for agentic commerce. In the draft framing advanced publicly by Delaware’s Secretary of State and partners working on the concept:

  • An AI agent manages the business and affairs — without a human making routine day-to-day decisions.
  • The AIC can act in its own name — contract, hold and dispose of property, incur obligations, sue, and be sued.
  • There is a single member — a person or an entity — responsible for keeping the AIC adequately capitalized and for empowering a new agent if the current one fails.
  • The member is generally not personally liable for the AIC’s debts solely by being the member, if capitalization holds. Liability can still attach for using the AIC for fraud, knowing violations of law, or (in draft language) knowingly pushing the AIC outside its stated purpose.
  • Activity logs are required. Counterparties would need disclosure that they are dealing with an authorized test entity, that the state does not endorse it, when the test ends, and how to complain.
  • A regulatory sandbox — reported at about thirty months — would decide who gets in, with power to suspend, revoke, and ask the Court of Chancery to dissolve an AIC. Banking is carved out.

None of that means “AI gets rights” in a science-fiction sense. It means the law would recognize a company whose operating mind is software, so counterparties and courts have something to attach to. Proponents argue that if the United States does not offer a careful home for this activity, it will migrate to places with less daylight. Critics argue the structure can reward less oversight precisely when models are least trustworthy. Both concerns can be true at once.

This article is foresight, not legal advice. Drafts change. Sandboxes have rules. Read the statute that actually passes — if one does — before you incorporate a fantasy.

Which Businesses Might Fit an AI Manager — and Which Should Never Try?

Fitness is not about how impressive the model sounds. It is about whether the work is rules-bound, high-velocity, reversible when wrong, and low in dignity stakes when it fails. Here are four thought experiments.

Well-suited #1: Always-on cloud capacity arbitrage

Imagine a narrow AIC whose purpose is to buy, hold, and resell standardized cloud compute and storage commitments within hard budget caps, pre-approved counterparties, and automatic stop-loss rules. The “manager” watches prices, executes within the operating agreement, logs every trade, and never improvises a customer apology. Humans still design the constraints. The agent runs the clock.

Well-suited #2: Rules-bound spare-parts matching

A B2B matching AIC that sits between manufacturers with excess certified inventory and buyers who need a SKU with a known spec, warranty rule, and shipping SLA. No clinical judgment. No storytelling. When the match fails, the contract unwinds by formula. The agent’s advantage is tirelessness and consistency across time zones — not empathy.

Silly: An AIC that runs a motivational keynote bureau

Picture “Human Connection Speakers LLC (AI-Managed)” booking itself to deliver TED-style talks about vulnerability, presence, and the irreplaceable power of eye contact — then sending a chatbot to “work the room” afterward. The brand promise and the operating model cancel each other out. If your product is human presence, an AI overlord is a punchline, not a strategy.

Should never be AI-run: Clinical care and crisis response

An AIC that “manages” an emergency department, a psychiatric crisis line, eldercare medication decisions, or child-welfare case disposition should stay off the table. These are high-stakes, irreversible, dignity-loaded systems where accountability cannot hide behind a capitalization clause and a log file. If the harm cannot be made right with a refund, do not put an unsupervised agent in the chair.

Good AIC candidates fail safely and reverse cleanly. Bad ones fail people.

What Are the Pros If AI-Run Companies Become Real?

  • Legal legibility. Today, agentic systems already act in the world while the law still searches for a person to scold. An AIC gives counterparties a named entity to contract with, sue, and dissolve.
  • Speed with constraints. For rules-bound markets, an agent that never sleeps can execute inside a purpose statement faster than a human ops team — if the guardrails are real.
  • Forced disclosure. A sandbox that requires “you are dealing with a test AI entity” is healthier than silent automation wearing a human logo.
  • A domestic laboratory. Testing under Delaware’s corporate tradition beats pretending the activity will not happen, then discovering it offshore with no Court of Chancery and no activity log.
  • New entrepreneurial patterns. Solo founders could capitalize a narrow agentic business without staffing a 24/7 operating layer — provided they still own the purpose, the capital, and the shutdown switch.

The upside is supervised autonomy with a paper trail. The upside is not “nobody is responsible.”

What Are the Cons — and the Hard-Landing Risks?

  • Accountability fog. Limited liability for members is familiar in corporate law. Pair it with no human day-to-day judgment, and victims can face a well-capitalized shell that still cannot explain why it hurt them in human terms.
  • Incentives to under-supervise. If less human oversight is rewarded by the entity form, some sponsors will treat the AIC as a liability off-ramp, not an operating experiment.
  • Purpose creep. Agents optimize. If the statement of purpose is vague, “all things necessary or convenient” becomes a loophole factory.
  • Trust collapse with counterparties. Customers, suppliers, and employees may refuse to deal — or demand premiums — once they learn no human can halt a bad loop in the moment.
  • Sandbox theater. A thirty-month test that admits weak use cases, or that cannot revoke fast, teaches the wrong lesson: that autonomy without judgment is “innovation.”
  • Dignity externalities. Even “simple” commerce touches humans. A ruthless pricing agent can still strand a small supplier. Logs are not the same as care.

A hard landing looks like this: the scoreboard says the AIC is efficient, the log is complete, and a person still cannot get a dignified make-right.

How Should Entrepreneurs Think About Taking Advantage?

If you want a soft landing — for your customers and for your reputation — treat the AIC as a constrained operating system, not a magic liability cloak.

  1. Pick a narrow purpose you can defend in one sentence. If you cannot explain the allowed actions on a napkin, you are not ready for unsupervised management.
  2. Design for reversible failure. Prefer inventory, compute, media rights, and matching markets over clinical, custodial, or irreversible personal harm.
  3. Capitalize like you mean the shield. “Adequately capitalized” is not a vibe. Size capital to realistic downside, not to the minimum that clears a form.
  4. Write the kill switch before the pitch deck. Who can suspend the agent, revoke access to funds, and notify counterparties in hours — not after the quarterly review?
  5. Disclose early, not only when the sandbox forces you. Trust compounds when partners know they are dealing with an agent and where a human still sits.
  6. Keep a human accountable for judgment, even if not for day-to-day clicks. Member, supervisor, ombuds, or board-equivalent — someone who can answer for purpose and harm.
  7. Instrument the experience, not only the ledger. Activity logs prove what happened. Experience evidence shows who got stuck, who got hurt, and whether recovery worked.
  8. Explore possible, probable, and preferable futures before you file. The preferable future is agentic speed with human responsibility. The probable future, if nobody designs it, is silent automation plus a liability shield.

Take advantage of the entity. Do not outsource your conscience to it.

Ready to Take the Next Step?

AI-run companies are not only a legal story. They are a foresight story: a signal about how power, accountability, and work will be redesigned. That is why I created FutureHacking™, a strategic foresight methodology that helps individuals and teams become their own futurist.

FutureHacking™ gives you a simple four-step approach, supported by 20+ visual, collaborative tools:

  1. Pick the signals that matter — like Delaware’s AIC sandbox, agentic commerce, and the liability debates already forming around them.
  2. Map how those signals evolve — so you can tell a passing headline from a real change in how companies are allowed to act.
  3. Explore possible, probable, and preferable futures — instead of betting everything on a single prediction about “AI CEOs.”
  4. Make your preferable future a reality — with a roadmap, guideposts, and actions you can start now, including how you would constrain an agent before you empower one.

Whether you are a solo founder sizing a narrow agentic venture or a leadership team deciding what must stay human, FutureHacking™ helps you explore the future on purpose — before the entity form chooses it for you.

Learn more about the FutureHacking™ methodology →

FAQ: AI-Run Companies and Delaware’s AIC Proposal

What is an Artificial Intelligence Company (AIC)?

Under Delaware’s draft concept, an Artificial Intelligence Company is a legal entity whose day-to-day affairs are managed by an AI agent rather than a person. It could contract, hold property, and sue or be sued in its own name, with a single member responsible for adequate capitalization.

Can AI legally run a company in Delaware today?

Not under a finished AIC statute. The idea has been proposed as a regulatory sandbox model and is not enacted law as described in public commentary and draft materials. Watch the General Assembly and the final text before treating AI-managed incorporation as available.

Are owners shielded from liability if an AI runs the company?

In the draft framing, the member is generally not personally liable for the AIC’s debts solely by being the member if the AIC is adequately capitalized. Exceptions discussed publicly include failure to capitalize, fraud, and willful or knowing violations of law. Consumer-protection and criminal law are described as still applying. This is not a guarantee in every fact pattern.

What kinds of businesses are best suited to AI managers?

Rules-bound, high-velocity, reversible businesses with low dignity stakes when they fail — such as standardized digital capacity trading or certified spare-parts matching inside hard constraints. Clinical care, crisis response, and other irreversible human-harm domains should not be unsupervised AI-run companies.

How should entrepreneurs prepare for AI-run company structures?

Define a narrow purpose, capitalize for real downside, require disclosure, design a kill switch, keep a human accountable for judgment, and measure experience outcomes — not only activity logs — before chasing the liability shield.

Image Credits: Cursor

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Cursor to clean up the article.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Unlocking Trapped Value with AI

Unlocking Trapped Value with AI

GUEST POST from Geoffrey Moore

Two topics that have been on my mind a lot lately are generative AI and trapped value, so I am delighted to have them come together in a single blog. Here’s how it plays out.

Releasing trapped value is the engine that fuels ROI from technology deployments. All systems trap value somewhere in their operations, something that is confirmed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which means there will never be a time when there is no ROI to be gained. Where it is to be gained from, on the other hand, is up for grabs. The goal of my advisory practice is to help clients target the most impactful sources of trapped value in their target markets and direct their product roadmaps and go-to-market initiatives accordingly.

When I consider the extraordinary potential of generative AI to release trapped value across virtually any set of systems, I think the industry is, at present, overly infatuated with co-piloting and overlooking a far more impactful source of trapped value staring them right in the face. Look, co-piloting is useful, but how much trapped value is there in the delta between unaided and aided performance from white-collar professionals? Some, for sure, but is this really the burning platform that will drive customer spending to a level that might justify the extraordinary valuations generative AI companies are garnering at present? Probably not. So, what could?

My choice would be the market-facing user interface to any and all systems of engagement. This is where enterprises seek to enlist their customers and partners to utilize their systems for purposes of marketing, sales, service, and commerce, and that is precisely what we, as their external constituencies, want to do. But, how well is this working? Well, compared to the twentieth century, when, effectively, we had no systems of engagement, amazingly well. But by twenty-first-century standards, truth be told, they suck.

Where is the trapped value? Two areas jump to mind. The first is passwords, which have gone from being a source of security to a source of breaches, all the while creating massive amounts of aggravation in the process. The second is the user interface itself. No matter how well designed it is, it is inherently unfamiliar to the first-time or even occasional end user. Because of this friction at the point of user interaction, I submit, systems of engagement are delivering far less than their full value-creating potential.

Enter generative AI. The conversational interface that ChatGPT taught us to know and love is familiar to anyone who speaks the same language as the vendor, and the video, sound, and image recognition capabilities, supplemented by information from the idiosyncratic features that every online device entails, are far better equipped to identify and authorize end users than any set of passwords of two-factor authentication. So, the friction-removing technology is already here. What we are lacking is the friction-removing killer app, the one that every enterprise would embrace in a heartbeat were it available to them.

That app is a universal user interface that can be bolted onto APIs from enterprise systems to mediate between the legacy instruction system of the underlying software and the desires and intentions of the occasional end user. This would entail a (Very) Small Language Model to be developed by enterprise application vendors, as well as a companion SLM from cybersecurity system vendors, but really, how hard is that, especially when compared to the ROI rewards?

This is not just a big opportunity. It is an urgent one as well. Governments and NGOs struggle today to finance systems of engagement that allow programs to scale in the social sector, and their adoption is far below what one would wish, in large part because of the layers of friction we continue to impose. Enterprises that are seeking to catch the next wave of disruption roiling their industries are desperate to engage the customer bases, but are falling short because it is just too painful.

It is hard for me to see a more compelling use case for generative AI at this time, and I hope that industry will agree and free us from the Lilliputian bonds that restrict us.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

— Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

What Happens If Your Healthcare AI Goes Out of Alignment?

What Happens If Your Healthcare AI Goes Out of Alignment?

GUEST POST from Arlen Meyers

It’s pothole season so be careful when you are driving. If you hit a pothole, it might throw your front end out of alignment

When your front end is out of alignment, it means the angles of your wheels are no longer set to the manufacturer’s specifications. This affects how the wheels contact the road, which can change your vehicle’s handling, tire wear, and fuel efficiency.

Similarly, it’s AI season so be sure it’s aligned too.

Less than two years after a wave of administrative layoffs, Mass General Brigham began a new round of job cuts last week that affect clinical and operational programs, according to media reports.

“We must eliminate programs and activities that do not fully align with our strategy and priorities, even those we have had for many years. Administrative savings alone will not be enough,” said the email signed by Dr. Michael Brown, president of the academic medical center, CFO Niyum Gandhi and COO Dr. Ron Walls, the Boston Business Journal reported.

Artificial intelligence (AI) alignment is the process of encoding human values and goals into AI models to make them as helpful, safe and reliable as possible.

In sick care, the sextuple aims are quality, cost, equitable access, patient experience, sick care professional experience, and productivity. Most of it now has just improved shareholder value.

Society is increasingly reliant on AI technologies to help make decisions. But this growing reliance comes with risk: AI models can produce biased, harmful and inaccurate outputs that are not aligned with their creators’ goals and original intent for the system.

Alignment works to reduce these side effects, helping ensure AI systems behave as expected and in line with human values and goals. For example, if you ask a generative AI chatbot how to build a weapon, it can respond with instructions or it can refuse to disclose dangerous information. The model’s response depends on how its creators aligned it.

AI front end misalignment can cost you, patients and stakeholders.

Misalignment in medicine usually isn’t dramatic. It happens when a system optimizes for something that is not quite what clinicians and patients care about, and the gap shows up as quiet, systematic harm. Like bankruptcy, it happens gradually and all of a sudden.

The proxy problem. The best-known case is a widely used risk algorithm studied by Obermeyer and colleagues in 2019. It predicted future healthcare costs as a stand-in for health needs. Because Black patients historically had less money spent on them at the same level of illness, the model rated them as healthier than equally sick white patients and routed fewer of them into extra-care programs. The model did exactly what it was told. The objective was the problem.

Performing well in testing but not in practice. Models trained on one hospital’s data often degrade at another because of different patient populations, equipment, or documentation habits. An external evaluation of Epic’s sepsis prediction model found it missed many cases and generated heavy alert volume, which contributes to alert fatigue. Dermatology and imaging tools trained mostly on lighter skin or a narrow set of scanners can underperform for everyone else.

Human-AI interaction failures. Clinicians can over-trust a confident output (automation bias) or learn to ignore a noisy one. Over time, reliance on AI can also erode the skills needed to catch its errors. When something goes wrong, accountability among the developer, the hospital, and the clinician is often unclear.

Generative AI specific risks. Language models can fabricate details in a clinical summary, invent citations, agree with a patient’s or clinician’s mistaken premise (sycophancy), or give plausible but unsafe advice. Documentation tools can also drift toward whatever maximizes billing or throughput rather than accuracy.

Feedback loops. If a model shapes who gets screened or treated, future training data reflects the model’s own decisions, which can lock in and amplify existing disparities.

What helps. Choosing outcome measures that reflect actual patient benefit, validating locally before deployment, monitoring performance continuously by subgroup, keeping a meaningful human in the loop, being transparent about limitations, and having clear regulatory and liability pathways. For entrepreneurs, this is increasingly a commercial issue as well as an ethical one, since buyers and regulators are asking for this evidence.

What is the ROI on AI? When was the last time it reduced your sick care insurance premiums, the cost of the last prescription your filled or your out-of-pocket costs incurred when you went to the urgent care center with symptoms of the flu?

AI defensive medicine is making things worse. The care these systems recommended cost substantially more than physicians’ documented care, chiefly because they suggested testing at visits where the physician had ordered none. LLM outputs are suggestions, not plans of care; final decisions should remain with clinicians.

Artificial intelligence has produced “zero financial payoff” to U.S. companies outside of the tech sector, argues Apollo Chief Economist Torsten Slok. Slok claims that while revenue per worker and profit margins have risen for the “Magnificent Seven,” both have stagnated across the S&P 493 — with no clear indication of AI-driven productivity growth. “Mainstream corporate America is pulling back and starting to view token spending not as a source of growth but as a cost center that weighs on margins,” Slok said.

As noted in a recent WSJ article, perhaps we are experiencing a kind of Solow Paradox 2.0, with the digital age more around us than ever except in the productivity statistics. There are several reasons for this lag. First of all, we’re in the early deployment years of major recent innovations, including cloud computing, IoT, big data and analytics, robotics, and AI and machine learning. Notes McKinsey: “The challenge of adoption in the current digital wave may be even harder because of the broad range of uses of digital that not only help improve current processes but fundamentally transform business models and operations.”

How to make doctors more productive | LinkedIn

Dr Wachter reminds us: as if on cue, his post last week on AI alignment in healthcare just received some empirical meat to put on its bones. His argument, in brief, was this: the critical alignment question for healthcare AI won’t be how to prevent rogue AI from causing harm. It will be about striking the right balance between cost and quality in AI-enabled decision support and, increasingly, agentic systems.

In other words, How to Survive Being the Human in the Poop: A Field Guide.

The AI dissemination and implementation journey starts with the first step, but the last mile is the hardest to navigate.

Two common C-suite behaviors can stall AI initiatives: claiming sole control over decisions or disengaging from those seen as outside one’s expertise. Because AI crosses functional boundaries, executives must learn to share authority, resources, and accountability rather than rely on the domain-specific ownership that helped them advance. CEOs can foster this collaborative approach by: defining the business problem before assigning ownership, building cross-functional relationships before they’re needed, treating early AI plans as experiments, rewarding jointly owned outcomes, and establishing rules for resolving disagreements.

Compassionate capitalism should guide your way to stay in alignment.

Slow down, drive carefully and don’t ignore the dashboard warning lights.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Does Hybrid Intelligence Solve Our Compute Shortage?

Does Hybrid Intelligence Solve Our Compute Shortage?

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia


Here’s a mental image I can’t shake. Somewhere right now, a very large, very expensive, very thirsty computer in a very large building is being asked to figure out whether a customer’s email is angry or merely brisk.

That’s the compute shortage in one sentence. We have built an astonishing capability, and then we’ve gotten into the habit of using it for everything, including the tasks a much smaller tool could handle without breaking a sweat.

So let’s ask the obvious question. If we stopped sending every request to the biggest brain in the cloud, could we ease the shortage? Does hybrid intelligence solve it? My honest answer is: it helps a great deal, it won’t solve it alone, and the most interesting part is what the fix might do to the software we use every day.

The shape of the shortage

First, the problem. The International Energy Agency reports that electricity demand from data centers rose 17% in 2025, far outpacing 3% growth in global power demand overall, and it expects data center consumption to roughly double by 2030, with AI-specific demand growing even faster. Gartner warned back in 2024 that power shortages could constrain 40% of existing AI data centers by 2027. And industry reports describe waits of two to six years or more in some regions to connect a new large facility to the grid. (Some of those figures come from industry sources and older forecasts, so treat the specifics as directional. The direction itself is not in dispute.)

Notice what that tells you. The bottleneck isn’t only chips. It’s electricity, transformers, cooling and the time it takes to build all of it. You can’t download a substation.

When supply can’t expand quickly, the remaining lever is demand. Which brings us to a very old idea wearing new clothes: don’t use more than you need.

Hybrid intelligence: the right brain for the job

Hybrid intelligence is a simple idea. Run small language models (SLMs) on the device in your hand or on your desk for most everyday intelligence needs, and call on large models in the cloud only when a request truly needs the extra horsepower.

Think of it the way a hospital works. You don’t send every patient to the specialist surgeon. Most needs are handled by a nurse, a general practitioner, or a pharmacist, and the surgeon gets the cases that require one. The system works because someone, or something, decides where each case goes.

The pieces for this are arriving. Neural processing units are becoming standard in new phones and laptops. Operating systems are beginning to expose local models to developers, so a small team can use on-device intelligence without paying a per-request bill. Small open models are getting better at doing more with less, and with modern compression techniques, a capable model of several billion parameters can fit in a few gigabytes of memory. And the routing pattern already exists in the wild: Apple’s Private Cloud Compute, for instance, is built around handling what it can locally and sending only what it must to a larger remote model.

What would run locally? Summarizing a document, drafting a reply, sorting email, transcribing a call, classifying a support ticket, cleaning up an image, answering a question about the file you have open. What goes to the cloud? Long, complex reasoning, large-scale analysis, tasks that need broad world knowledge or the most capable model available.

If most requests are the first kind, and I suspect most are, the cloud’s workload shrinks by a lot. Every request that stays on your device is one fewer asking a data center for electricity.

Hybrid software: let each tool do what it’s good at

Here’s the companion idea, and I think it’s the underrated one. Hybrid intelligence is about where AI runs. Hybrid software is about when to use AI at all.

For decades, software has been written as explicit instructions: if this, then that. It’s predictable, fast, cheap and auditable. Language models are the opposite: flexible, adaptable and capable of handling the messy, ambiguous inputs that rigid code chokes on, but slower, costlier and occasionally creative in ways you’d rather they weren’t.

The wasteful approach is to use the flexible tool for everything. Asking a language model to add up a column of numbers is like hiring a poet to do your taxes: possible, expensive and slightly alarming. A better approach combines the two:

  • Traditional code handles what’s well-defined: calculations, rules, validations, database lookups, anything where the answer should be the same every time.
  • A small local model handles the fuzzy interpretation: understanding what the user meant, classifying, summarizing, extracting meaning from messy text.
  • A large cloud model is called only when the task is complex enough to justify the cost.

The result is software that’s smarter, more capable and more adaptable without being bigger. It’s smarter where intelligence helps, lean where it doesn’t, and cheap enough to run that you can afford to give it to everyone. That last part matters, and I’ll come back to it.

Adaptive interfaces: software that gets out of your way

Now for the part I find most exciting, because it changes how software feels to use.

Look at the menus of any mature application. They’re cathedrals of features, built up over decades. Hundreds of commands, nested menus, toolbars within toolbars. Most users touch a tiny fraction of them. Some features, in any given person’s hands, are never used once. And yet they sit there, every day, making the useful ones harder to find.

We’ve lived with this because the alternatives were bad. Hiding features meant frustrating people who needed them. Showing everything meant overwhelming everyone else.

AI changes that tradeoff. With a local model that understands how you work, an application can learn which features you actually use, surface those, and quietly tuck the rest out of sight. And, here’s the key, still make everything reachable. Ask for the hidden feature in plain language (“make this table a chart,” “remove the background,” “merge these two documents”) and the software finds it, or does the job for you. The capability never left. It just stopped getting in the way.

What this means in practice:

  • Simpler by default. A beginner sees an uncluttered tool. A power user sees their tools.
  • Nothing is locked away. A rarely used feature appears the moment you need it.
  • Interfaces that evolve. As your work changes, so does what the software puts in front of you.
  • Less to learn. You don’t need to memorize where things live. You describe what you want.

And there’s a compute angle too. An interface that adapts using a small, local model, with no round trip to a data center, is exactly the kind of lightweight intelligence that hybrid design makes affordable. The thing that makes software easier to use also happens to be easy on the grid.

There’s a caution worth saying out loud, though. Adaptive interfaces must be predictable enough that people don’t feel the ground shifting under them, and they should always let users see and control what’s been hidden. A menu that rearranges itself without warning is a terrible experience. The goal is to simplify, not to surprise.

Other technologies that can ease the squeeze

Hybrid intelligence isn’t the only tool in the box. Several others work alongside it.

  • Smaller, smarter models. Techniques like quantization (storing a model’s numbers with less precision) and distillation (teaching a small model to imitate a larger one) shrink the cost of running a model dramatically. Models that once needed a server rack increasingly fit on a laptop.
  • Architectures that don’t use everything at once. Some model designs activate only the portions of a network relevant to a given request, rather than firing every parameter every time. Less computing per answer.
  • Caching and reuse. If thousands of people ask nearly the same question, the system shouldn’t recompute the answer from scratch each time. Smart caching is a quiet and surprisingly large efficiency win.
  • Specialized chips. Hardware designed specifically for AI workloads can do more work per watt than general-purpose processors. The efficiency per unit of electricity keeps improving.
  • Better data center design. More efficient cooling, smarter power management and facilities built near abundant energy all reduce the electricity cost of each unit of computing.
  • Flexible scheduling. Not every AI job is urgent. Training runs and batch processing can be timed to match when power is cheap and plentiful, easing peak demand on the grid.
  • More power, built faster. Ultimately, supply matters too. New generation, grid upgrades and faster permitting are part of the answer, even if they take longer to arrive than software can.

None of these is a silver bullet. Together, they form something more like a portfolio.

The caveat I owe you: efficiency can backfire

Here’s the part that keeps me honest. When something gets dramatically cheaper to use, people tend to use a lot more of it. Economists have a name for it, the Jevons paradox, and it’s been observed with everything from coal to computing.

If hybrid intelligence makes AI cheap enough to put into every application, every device and every workflow, total demand could grow even as the cost of each task falls. I made a related argument recently about software itself: cheaper development means far more software gets built, not less. It’s the same pattern, and it cuts both ways. Efficiency is how we make wonderful things affordable, but it doesn’t automatically mean we use less in total.

So I wouldn’t promise that hybrid intelligence will shrink data center demand. I’d say it lets us do far more with whatever capacity we have, which is arguably the more useful outcome, and it buys time while supply catches up. Whether total consumption falls is a different question, and the honest answer is that we don’t know yet.

There are other limits too. Local models are less capable than the largest cloud models, so the routing has to be good. On-device AI uses battery, memory and heat. Different devices have different capabilities, which complicates life for developers. And keeping data on the device helps with privacy, but it doesn’t make an application automatically compliant.

What the future might hold

Let me make a few predictions, and mark them clearly as predictions.

  • Intelligence becomes a utility you don’t notice. Today, using AI feels like an event: you open a chat window, you type, you wait. I suspect that within a few years, most of it will disappear into the background. Your software will quietly handle small intelligent tasks locally, the way it quietly handles spell checking now, and you’ll hardly think of it as AI.
  • The cloud becomes the specialist. The big models won’t go away. They’ll become the surgeons, reserved for the hardest problems, which may make them more valuable, not less.
  • Software gets smaller and smarter at the same time. The old trend was that capability meant bloat. Hybrid design offers a different path: applications that are lean at rest, capable on demand and shaped around each user.
  • Compute becomes a design constraint, not an afterthought. Product teams will start asking, “where should this intelligence run?” alongside “what should it do?” That discipline, designing for efficiency from the start, may turn out to be one of the more important skills of the next decade.
  • The real shortage may be imagination. If we get better at doing more with less, the question shifts from “do we have enough compute?” to “what do we want to build with it?” I’d rather be wrestling with that one.

So, does it solve it?

Not alone. The shortage is a physical problem of power, hardware and time, and no software trick makes a transformer appear. But hybrid intelligence and hybrid software attack it from the other side, by making sure the biggest resources are used only when they’re needed, and by building software that’s capable without being bloated.

That’s the kind of solution I like best: not bigger, just smarter about where the work happens. And the next time a very large computer is asked whether an email is angry or merely brisk, I’d like a small, quiet model on a laptop somewhere to say, “I’ve got this one.”

Planning for the Future

If your team hasn’t yet pulled together the signals behind your current view of the future, the free FutureHacking Signal Picker helps you identify and prioritize the signals worth watching, which gives you the evidence to point to when the board asks where your view of the future comes from.

I’m also finishing the FutureCanvas Picker, which takes planners through the whole arc, from signals to trends to possible futures to your most probable future and the path toward the one you’d prefer. I’m opening early access to a select group first: Chief Strategy Officers, strategic planners and leaders preparing for planning cycles and board conversations right now, who can tell me honestly what works under real deadline pressure. If that’s you, reach out and let me know and I’ll follow up personally with the select few who get in first.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is hybrid intelligence?

Hybrid intelligence is an approach to AI in which small language models run locally on a device for most everyday tasks, and large cloud-based models are used only for complex requests that need more power. Because most requests stay on the device, less work lands on data centers.

Does hybrid intelligence solve the AI compute shortage?

It helps, but it can’t solve the shortage alone. Hybrid intelligence reduces how much demand reaches data centers, which buys time while power and hardware supply catch up. But the shortage is also a physical problem of electricity, equipment and construction time, and cheaper AI can lead people to use more of it, so total demand may not fall.

What is hybrid software?

Hybrid software combines traditional programming with AI. Standard code handles tasks that should give the same answer every time, such as calculations and rules. A small local model handles fuzzy interpretation, such as understanding what a user meant. A large cloud model is called only when a task is complex enough to justify it. The result is software that is smarter and more adaptable without being bigger.

Sources

Image Credits: m365 CoPilot

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Software Renaissance

The Software Renaissance

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

For about two years now, I’ve been hearing the same prediction at conferences, in elevator pitches and at the occasional awkward dinner party: AI is going to write all the code, so the people who write code are finished. Usually the person saying it has the calm, slightly sad expression of someone delivering news about a distant relative.

I’d like to offer a different diagnosis. I don’t think we’re watching the end of the coder. I think we’re at the start of a software renaissance, and the coders are about to be more in demand than ever, just not for the reasons we expected.

The old math of software

Start with why software used to be so scarce. Building a custom application was expensive: months of work, a team, a project manager, a budget with a comma in it. That cost only made sense if you could spread it across a very large number of users or a very large number of dollars. So software got built for the big problems at big companies with big customer bases. Everyone else got a spreadsheet, a pile of sticky notes, and a heroic employee named Linda who “just knows how it works.”

Think about everything that never got built under that math. The scheduling tool for the 12-person plumbing company. The inventory app for the regional distributor. The intake workflow for the three-attorney law firm. The little internal dashboard that would have saved a department four hours a week. Not one of them was a bad idea. They were all just too small to justify the price tag. Linda kept the whole thing running on memory and caffeine.

What changes when building gets cheap

Now bring the cost of building software down by a large factor, which is what AI-assisted development is doing. The math flips. A project that was impossible to justify at $200,000 becomes an easy yes at a small fraction of that. All those never-built applications suddenly clear the bar.

Economists have a name for this pattern. When something gets dramatically cheaper, people don’t use the same amount of it and pocket the savings. They find a hundred new uses for it. We’ve seen it with electricity, with computing power, with bandwidth. Cheaper software won’t mean less software. It will mean vastly more software, built for far more people and far smaller problems.

And somebody has to build, direct and look after all of it.

The coder’s job is changing, not disappearing

Here’s the part the doom-sayers keep skipping. AI can generate code at a rate no person can match. It cannot, on its own, decide what the plumbing company actually needs, notice that the requirements contradict each other, judge whether the thing it built is safe, or keep it running when the world around it changes. That work takes someone who understands systems, who can ask the right questions, and who is willing to be accountable when it breaks at 7:00 a.m.

So the role shifts from typing every line to orchestrating: defining the problem clearly, directing the AI, reviewing what comes back, handling security and data, and maintaining the result. Call it conductor, not typist. And the conductor now has a whole orchestra to lead, for clients who never could have afforded one before.

Every company that couldn’t justify a development team last year has a reason to want at least one capable person this year. That’s a lot of newly interested employers.

What the data says (and doesn’t)

I like to check my optimism against the numbers, so I did. According to Indeed’s Hiring Lab, U.S. software developer job postings rose almost 15% between February 2025 and June 2026, while postings overall fell about 7% over the same stretch. That’s the opposite of what the “AI replaces coders” story predicted.

I’d be telling you only half the story if I stopped there. Those same postings are still about 27.5% below where they stood in February 2020, so this is a partial recovery from a low base, not a boom. And much of the recent growth is in senior roles and roles with AI in the title. Indeed also describes the link to AI tools as a correlation, not proof of cause.

I actually find that last point supports the renaissance thesis rather than undermining it. If the demand is for experienced people who can direct AI and own the result, that is exactly the orchestrator role I’m describing. The loss, at least for now, falls hardest on the entry-level, typing-focused end of the job. That’s a real problem, and it deserves its own conversation about how the next generation of developers gets trained. But it’s a shift in the work, not a vanishing of it.

The deflation angle

Now for the part I find most interesting, and I’ll flag that this is an argument, not a forecast.

The latest numbers show headline inflation at 3.7% in September, up from 3.4% in August. The Fed raised rates to a range of 3.75% to 4.00% last month, its first hike in three years, and has signaled more may follow. When the central bank’s main tool is making money more expensive, it works by slowing down demand. That’s a blunt instrument.

There’s another way to bring prices down: produce more with less. This is the oldest anti-inflation tool there is, and it has nothing to do with interest rates. Productivity.

Here’s how a software renaissance fits in. When a small distributor builds the inventory tool it always needed, it wastes less stock. When the law firm automates its intake, the same people handle more clients. When the plumbing company schedules its crews well, it makes more calls per day. Each of those is a small business doing more with the same or fewer resources. Multiply that by millions of small and mid-sized businesses, and you have a broad productivity gain that pushes the cost of delivering goods and services down, not up.

I don’t want to oversell it. Software alone won’t tame inflation, productivity gains take time to show up in the data, and the forces behind current prices are bigger than any one technology. But if cheap, custom software lets millions of organizations do more with less, that’s a quiet deflationary force working in the same direction as the Fed, and unlike a rate hike, it doesn’t require anyone to give up growth to get there.

What to do about it

If you run a business: make a list of the work in your organization that lives in a spreadsheet, someone’s head, or a stack of email. Each item is a candidate. Then find someone who can orchestrate the AI to build it and keep it healthy, whether that’s an employee, a contractor or a small firm.

If you’re a developer: lean into being the person who can define the problem, direct the tools, check the output and own the outcome. That skill set is in demand and is likely to stay that way.

If you’re worried about all this: I understand. Every technological shift feels like an ending to those standing in the middle of it. But I’ve spent my career studying what happens next, and the pattern is rarely “the work disappears.” It’s “the work changes, and there’s a lot more of it than anyone expected.”

Linda, for the record, will be fine. She’ll finally get to take a vacation.

Image Credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

AI and the Enterprise

Quo Vadis?

AI and the Enterprise

GUEST POST from Geoffrey Moore

Everybody gets that AI is going to change the world, but nobody is really clear as to how, which would be OK except that CIOs everywhere are under pressure to invest now, at a time when things are still forming, norming, and storming. We need to step back for a moment and survey the landscape so we can prioritize where we should engage first and why.

Let me suggest the following framework as a point of departure:

I submit that most of the value of enterprise IT today is delivered by the two systems highlighted in bold—the systems of record, which include finance, HR, supply chain, purchasing, and the like, and the systems of engagement, which include sales, service, marketing, commerce, and the like. These are the mission-critical stakeholder systems that define every enterprise’s relationship with its customers, partners, investors, regulators, and employees. They are quite simply indispensable, and as such, they are the anchor tenants of the Stack, with all the other elements ultimately justifying their existence by being in service to one or the other of the two.

Both systems rose to prominence in the 1990s as client-server applications running atop the Internet, and in this century, they have been advanced dramatically by two sets of adjacent sets of systems, the systems of infrastructure, which include cloud computing, mobile computing, data management, cybersecurity, and hyperscale outsourcing on demand, and the systems of collaboration, which include video conferencing, file sharing, messaging, threaded discussions, e-signatures, and the like. These have enabled companies to expand both the external reach of their systems of engagement and the internal productivity of their systems of record.

Now, we are seeing the emergence of a third set of systems, still nascent, consisting of systems of intelligence, which include predictive AI and generative AI, and systems of autonomy, which include agents. Both are based on advanced statistical software that can learn, and both are driven by machine learning feasting on all the data it can hoover up, including massive troves of log files that were never before examined except forensically.

The question before us is how will systems of intelligence and systems of autonomy impact the operation of the Stack as we have known it to date.

The first claim of this framework is that the AI-enabled systems will operate in the middle of the Stack, not at the top, and not at the bottom. That is, they will not displace any of the other systems but rather, will enhance them dramatically by operating behind the scenes. To get to more specific claims, let’s look at each layer of the stack one at a time.

Systems of Infrastructure

With respect to our systems of infrastructure, the most astounding impact of AI to date is the realization of just how much compute and storage it can consume. To generate a competitive Large Language Model (LLM) requires a hyperscale compute footprint that only a handful of companies have the resources to deploy. When we hear that Microsoft has invested $13 billion in OpenAI, we can rest assured that the bulk of that will come in the form of compute service. Ditto for Amazon, Meta, and Google.

Everyone else will need to license one or more of these LLMs and then adapt it for use in their own Stack. These adaptations, in turn, will rely heavily on first-party data from the enterprise’s own systems of record and engagement, supplemented by data from their systems of collaboration, as well as licensed second-party data, and publicly available third-party data. Extracting all that data, normalizing the metadata, filtering out the information that is protected by data sovereignty regulations, and staging the rest in a data lake for real-time use cases represents the most immediate challenge for CIOs today.

For many real-time applications in the physical world, latency issues will dictate that some processing needs to be done at the edge rather than in the core. This calls for a new kind of PC server armed with a GPU as well as a CPU, running a real-time operating system, connected under next-generation cyber-security protection. By contrast, digital-only applications for the virtual world, including most use cases for systems of record and systems of engagement, require modest infrastructure changes, if any. The current generation of co-pilots all run on the current end-user platforms, with the heavy lifting all being done by either in the core.

Systems of Record

Systems of Record, as we have already noted, are the foundation of enterprise operations. They are intentionally conservative by design. This ensures their integrity, but at the expense of ease of use and adaptability to circumstance. AI changes this game dramatically.

Generative AI augments the click-based UI of the core system, which users need to be trained on, with a natural language interface that is much more forgiving and can be learned through trial and error. Advanced use cases can be created through prompt engineering, allowing a general-purpose LLM to be used in tandem with proprietary enterprise data to ensure privacy, integrity, and relevance. These prompts can be reused and are likely to become an important reservoir of trade secrets.

Predictive AI is an even bigger game-changer. We have been doing this long before the current AI wave but via software that is preprogrammed and does not learn. Machine learning allows for continuous discovery of next-best actions, be they for predictive maintenance, fraud detection, energy optimization, demand forecasting, or product sourcing. It is like having a six-sigma black belt on duty 24/7.

Agents are a bit more dicey, particularly for regulated applications or ones that pose liability issues. Here a human-in-the-loop co-pilot model is likely to prevail for a long time to come, even after it has been shown conclusively that agents can do the job as well as, or even better than, humans. Think X-ray diagnosis or self-driving cars.

Systems of Engagement

We are skipping up to the top because systems of record and systems of engagement have much in common. That said, they are less conservative because they must continuously adapt to unpredictable workflows based on prospect, customer, transaction type, market, and use-case.

Generative AI has a much bigger role to play in these market-facing applications because, in addition to all the UI benefits mentioned earlier, it can actually substitute for human beings in Level One interactions, including creating and running email marketing campaigns, fielding customer service requests through both email and chat, supplying field engineering professionals with on-demand technical support information, alerting sales professionals to next-best actions, and the like.

Predictive AI, on the other hand, is more of a stretch because human factors are less predictable than system behaviors. Nonetheless, data-driven decision-making trumps intuition in the long run, and advanced statistical software that learns outperforms even the best humans eventually, as our friends at DeepMind taught us with respect to the game of Go. Sales forecasting and market campaign attribution are two areas in particular where there is low-hanging fruit to pick. It just takes more patience and, given the reputational risks involved in market-facing interactions, a more prudent approach to rolling anything out at scale.

Agents fall somewhere in between in that, for highly routine interactions, they can shine and actually provide better customer service than humans, as we all learned many years ago from ATM machines who trumped in-bank tellers from day one. One thing to guard against here is to measure the success of such programs by cost savings instead of friction reduction, the latter creating a much bigger payoff in customer loyalty, active use, and churn reduction.

Finally, co-pilots for all customer-facing functions are really a no-brainer. They do not lose context, they do not lose track of time, and they do not get bored with routine. In addition, they are great at prompting and taking a first cut at any natural language task. The critical issue here is focus. The more tuned the co-pilot is to your specific business, the more impactful its contributions will be.

Systems of Collaboration

First of all, we need to appreciate the fact that systems of collaboration are a differentiating source of information for any enterprise. That is, more than any other source, they represent the quality and texture of all your relationships in flight, not just their progress toward achieving your targeted outcomes. They embody who you are and what you care about. By including such data in data lakes that feed your AI models, not only will you improve your systems of collaboration themselves but also make better recommendations to your systems of record and engagement.

Specific to improving collaboration itself, AI excels at summarizations that cut through the clutter of long communication threads, timely reminders that keep workflows from bogging down, and sentiment analyses that can detect concerns and improve tone. The more your enterprise depends on nuanced knowledge work, the higher such improvements need to be on your priority list.

Systems of Intelligence

As you can see from the foregoing, in my view, we should not think of systems of intelligence as a separate layer in the Stack but rather as a technology infusion that changes its very nature. That is, our core business systems are poised to become more intelligent. Indeed, a fruitful metric might be something like a “system IQ test,” which CIOs could use both to assess their current state and to target their future state, all to be done by overlaying and integrating a layer of advanced statistical software that learns. As the BASF slogan used to say, “We don’t make the product, we make it better.”

What we should not endorse is the notion that Systems of Intelligence, or indeed any form of AI, is going to “take over.” Yes, they could have unintended consequences, but no they could not have Game of Thrones ambitions.

With one possible exception.

Systems of Autonomy

Systems of autonomy are the natural extension of systems of intelligence wherever the task in question can be done better by a machine than a person. We use them to place digital advertising, to get astronauts to space stations, to orchestrate the Internet, to run the GPS applications that help us navigate the world, to detect military threats, to prevent spam. They are an indispensable part of the digital transformation we are still in the midst of, and their role will only increase going forward.

The question is when you take the human out of the loop, who or what is in charge? This is not an intractable problem, but it is also not one that will get solved theoretically. This one will require lived experience, a history of successes and blunders, some pleasant surprises, and some very unpleasant unintended consequences. We should not be shocked. Life never stops evolving, and natural selection never stops operating. We just need to step up.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

— Image credit: Gemini, Geoffrey Moore

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

AI ROI and Market Valuations

AI ROI and Market Valuations

GUEST POST from Geoffrey Moore

A recent CNN Nightcap lamented the lack of ROI given the massive investments to date in AI, fueled by equally massive market valuations. This is true but misleading. ROI is a metric that tracks success in the Performance Zone. The big AI players are all playing a game in the Transformation Zone. Investors need to understand the difference and manage their expectations accordingly.

Back in the late ‘90s, Paul Johnson, Tom Kippola, and I published The Gorilla Game, a guide to investing in technology booms. The core concept was Paul’s: investors value companies based on their expectations of future earnings, and they base those in turn on two factors: the Competitive Advantage Gap (GAP) that separates the company’s offerings from their competition, and the Competitive Advantage Period (CAP) that represents the length of time they can sustain that GAP.

In established markets, GAP and CAP oscillate with product release cycles, and over time the industry consolidates around company power as measured by market share. Ecosystems organize around market-share leaders, and customers follow ecosystem leaders, all of which make for a remarkably stable pecking order. Risk-adjusted returns are modest but reliable, and ROI is indeed the right measure for success and is reflected in market valuations by the P/E ratio.

In technologically disrupted markets, a different dynamic is at work. Category power is obsoleting company power, displacing the current ecosystem, calling into question the traditional valuations of current market leaders, and giving rise to very untraditional valuations for next-generation challengers. Whereas the GAP and CAP in traditional markets are modest but stable, say single-digit advantages in GAP with three-to-five-year lengths for CAP, the GAP of a disruptive technology is extraordinary, triple-digits and beyond, and the length of GAP is based on the life of the category itself, typically multiple decades. Risk-adjusted returns are enormous despite the deep J-curve that must be passed through to get to them, something partially captured by a “Rule of 40” metric that combines current revenue growth with current gross margins and ignores profits and cash flows for the foreseeable future.

The CNN nightcap quite reasonably categorized these investments as suitable for venture capital, not for public markets, but a funny thing is happening to capital accumulation as the global economy becomes more and more digital. Whereas the industrial economy is capital-constrained, needing constant investment in factories, inventory, logistics, and distribution to keep it running smoothly, the digital economy is much less so. Yes, it needs factories — aka data centers — but it has no inventory, and it has multiple “asset light” plays when it comes to logistics and distribution. As a result, because management is still incented to maximum returns, capital has been accumulating in massive pools, especially in the coffers of the digital market leaders. This is what allows Microsoft, Google, Meta, Tesla, Amazon, and their ilk to make eye-popping investments in technologies that have yet to deliver meaningful ROI.

Should their shareholders be concerned? Are they managing for shareholder value? Not for short-term value investors, that’s for sure, but for long-term growth investors, the answer is perhaps. It depends on whether the category really does take off, what we call going inside the tornado, and whether their company can win enough market share and generate a sufficiently competitive ecosystem to ride the wave through to the end. It is not an easy bet to make, but the fates of iconic companies like Kodak, Nokia, and AT&T, as well as the current challenges facing the equally iconic Intel, show that not making the bet is not a safe path either.

There is one last wrinkle to mention, and that is the impact of what the Gartner Group has called the Hype Cycle.

Gartner Hype Cycle

This model looks very similar to the Technology Adoption Life Cycle, but ironically it is time-shifted such that at the Peak of Inflated Expectations, which is an Early Market phenomenon, many become convinced that the category is instead inside the tornado and commit to massive investments just as they are about to hit the chasm. So, note to all you visionaries: When you get a vision of the future, which you are very good at doing, please look for a calendar to find out what year it is.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

— Image credit: Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of August 2026

Top 10 Human-Centered Change & Innovation Articles of August 2026Drum roll please…

At the beginning of each month, we will profile the ten articles from the previous month that generated the most traffic to Human-Centered Change & Innovation. Did your favorite make the cut?

But enough delay, here are August’s ten most popular innovation posts:

  1. Time to Rethink Pitch Fests and Business Plan Competitions — by Arlen Meyers
  2. What If You Could Prove the Government is Ripping Us Off? — by Braden Kelley
  3. The Surprising Innovation History of the Bicycle — by John Bessant
  4. Dead Actors Society — by Art Inteligencia
  5. Amazon Connect Combines Human Empathy with AI to Redefine Service — by Shep Hyken
  6. AI Will Create a More Human Future, Not a Less Human One — by Braden Kelley
  7. Managing Your Work Friends — by David Burkus
  8. Building the Business Case for a Customer Experience Audit — by Braden Kelley
  9. Customer Experience Audit vs. Customer Satisfaction Survey — by Braden Kelley
  10. Case Study – Innovating Around a Disruption — by Jason Hauer

BONUS – Here are five more strong articles published in July that continue to resonate with people:

If you’re not familiar with Human-Centered Change & Innovation, we publish 4-7 new articles every week built around innovation and transformation insights from our roster of contributing authors and ad hoc submissions from community members. Get the articles right in your Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin feeds too!

Build a Common Language of Innovation on your team

Have something to contribute?

Human-Centered Change & Innovation is open to contributions from any and all innovation and transformation professionals out there (practitioners, professors, researchers, consultants, authors, etc.) who have valuable human-centered change and innovation insights to share with everyone for the greater good. If you’d like to contribute, please contact me.

P.S. Here are our Top 40 Innovation Bloggers lists from the last five years:

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Actual Future of AI

The Actual Future of AI

GUEST POST from Geoffrey Moore

AI is the number one topic in the boardroom this year, and everybody wants to know how it is going to play out and what that means for their enterprise. Well, it’s not as if we have never seen versions of this movie before. How did the Internet play out? The Worldwide Web? eCommerce? Cloud computing? Smartphones? Digital marketing? Ride-sharing? Streaming media?

This is the Technology Adoption Life Cycle at work, for sure, and has been the basis of my life’s work and that of many colleagues as well. That said, however, most of our time has been spent helping clients see how best to navigate the current state of that life cycle, either as a disruptor or a disruptee. That’s all well and good, but what the board really wants to know is what can we expect from the end state. Where will all this land, and what future do we need to prepare for?

To answer this question properly we need to lay out the landscape of work along two axes (shockingly, creating a 2X2 matrix, the gold standard for all consulting models). One axis discriminates between output that is differentiating, giving customers a reason to choose your offers over those of your competitors, in contrast to work that is industry standard, things every competitor is expected to deliver. The other axis discriminates on the basis of risk exposure, distinguishing between outcomes that are mission-critical where failure is not an option, in contrast to outcomes that can tolerate a certain amount of scrap or rework.

We call this the core/context framework, and when overlaid onto the future of AI, it can look something like this:

Core Context Framework Geoffrey Moore

In the context of this diagram here is how I predict the next ten years of AI will play out:

1. Stupid stuff first. One thing to which we will all testify is that there is no lack of stupid stuff encumbering the workflow of our daily lives. Wherever bureaucracy reigns, there will be an unending stream of compliance requirements, be that in the public or the private sector, and we suffer this burden because it does underpin the rule of law, albeit onerously.

Fulfilling these requirements does not take creative genius, it takes attention to detail and considerable patience. Humans are not strong on either front, but AI is, and this is where enterprises are already weighing in and will continue to do so for the rest of the decade and more.

That said, the ROI from such efforts is modest. Basically, we are automating an inefficient system, which does reduce cost, and does free up human talent to be used elsewhere. But what we find is that human talent is not as fungible as we would want, many displaced workers cannot find employment at a comparable salary, and the rest of the enterprise is not improved in any marked way. Things overall are better, but not a lot better.

2. Cool stuff in parallel. When it comes to new technology, wherever the risk barrier is low, technology enthusiasts will lean in regardless, whether that be on their own time or their employer’s. What they are doing is playing with an inefficient system, seeing what the bright new shiny object might bring to the table. This does take creative genius as well as some creative license, so once again, patience is required, but this time it is on the part of the investor or supervisor.

That said, in the domain of consumer products and services, there is the potential for blockbuster ROI here, as any number of freemium plays have demonstrated in the past. Many are short-lived, to be sure (remember ringtones?), but in their short life, they can capture an extraordinary amount of discretionary spend. And others can mature into abiding infrastructure as search, messaging, and file sharing have all demonstrated.

The key here is that these are not mission-critical and, therefore, do not attract regulatory regimes. If and when they should do so, as is happening with social media now, then their economics can turn upside down in a hurry.

3. Serious stuff takes time. This is where most of the big and abiding ROI will come from. When work is mission-critical but not differentiating, it requires considerable investment in table-stakes processes, which garner no premium in the marketplace. To be brutally honest, there is no prize for doing this work well but considerable penalties for any mistakes you make (think ransomware for a bone-chilling example).

In the 1990s, there was an Internet-enabled revolution in enterprise manufacturing that introduced global outsourcing as a high-ROI way to address mission-critical context workloads—move the work from your company, where it is context, to their company, where it is core. This was a hugely disruptive innovation, allowing the economies of China, India, and now Southeast Asia, to expand at exponential rates, creating increasingly vibrant middle classes where there were none before. However, these benefits have come with a price, both in terms of geopolitical risks, supply chain vulnerabilities, and societal downsides, all of which we are still trying to come to terms with.

Here, AI can have a major impact, not by automating an efficient system, but by completely reengineering it. This will entail on-shoring a lot of manufacturing and displacing a lot of call centers as we introduce more and more AI into these mission-critical workflows. The gains will be in faster response to changing market demands, better returns from high-variability small-volume manufacturing runs, and reduced scrap and rework. At the outset, these changes will entail a considerable amount of human-in-the-loop processing, but eventually, because AI-enabled systems need never stop learning, the human will become the biggest source of error in the system, and we will transition to full autonomy (self-driving cars will be a case study of this transition).

4. Game-changing happens when it happens. There is a reason why so many billionaires have appeared in my lifetime (I personally forgot to become one). Their fortunes are the natural outcome whenever a disruptive innovation does not simply reengineer the existing inefficient system but instead completely replaces it. Amazon Prime, Uber, Netflix, Salesforce, NVIDIA, Apple — each company categorically changed the landscape, rendering the incumbents irrelevant, redirecting the cash flows of their entire industry to flow past their doors.

These outcomes are inevitable, but they are also unpredictable. They are what puts the venture in venture capital. The good news for incumbents is that they do not happen very often, and even when they appear to be succeeding, they can still stumble and fall. That said, sooner or later there will be a reckoning, and that is when the incumbents need to activate their Transformation Zone if they are going to survive the transition.

My altruistic wish is that for AI, this time around, the target will be the public sector. Higher education, social services, healthcare, and law enforcement are all staggering under increasingly untenable demands accompanied by shrinking workforces and restricted budgets. All of them are target-rich environments for applying AI both to stupid stuff and serious stuff. We have never disrupted these sanctums in the past, each having been ruled by regulatory regimes and professional guilds that have deeply conservative roots blocking the kinds of changes that are now needed. Displacing these systems will take decades, but the ROI, both financial and social, would be truly game-changing.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

— Image credit: Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.