Tech Talks Daily

Neil C. Hughes

If every company is now a tech company and digital transformation is a journey rather than a destination, how do you keep up with the relentless pace of technological change?

Every day, Tech Talks Daily brings you insights from the brightest minds in tech, business, and innovation, breaking down complex ideas into clear, actionable takeaways.

Hosted by Neil C. Hughes, Tech Talks Daily explores how emerging technologies such as AI, cybersecurity, cloud computing, fintech, quantum computing, Web3, and more are shaping industries and solving real-world challenges in modern businesses.

Through candid conversations with industry leaders, CEOs, Fortune 500 executives, startup founders, and even the occasional celebrity, Tech Talks Daily uncovers the trends driving digital transformation and the strategies behind successful tech adoption. But this isn't just about buzzwords.

We go beyond the hype to demystify the biggest tech trends and determine their real-world impact. From cybersecurity and blockchain to AI sovereignty, robotics, and post-quantum cryptography, we explore the measurable difference these innovations can make.

Whether improving security, enhancing customer experiences, or driving business growth, we also investigate the ROI of cutting-edge tech projects, asking the tough questions about what works, what doesn't, and how businesses can maximize their investments.

Whether you're a business leader, IT professional, or simply curious about technology's role in our lives, you'll find engaging discussions that challenge perspectives, share diverse viewpoints, and spark new ideas.

New episodes are released daily, 365 days a year, breaking down complex ideas into clear, actionable takeaways around technology and the future of business.

Play

Open in

30 episodes
daily
Avg 28 min
English

Episodes 30

Newest Oldest Longest

All20 Unplayed20 In progress0 Played0

Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.

#3682
Today · 26 min
Could Disease Chemistry Help Treat the Brain With Enabled Therapeutics
What if the chemistry created by neurological disease could help activate medicine precisely where it is needed? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Sara Isbell, neuroscientist and co-founder of Enabled Therapeutics, about a proposed approach to one of medicine's most stubborn problems: delivering effective drugs to diseased brain tissue without exposing healthy areas to the same activity. Sara explains how the blood-brain barrier prevents many promising compounds from reaching the brain. When drugs do enter, they may spread across healthy and diseased regions alike, creating a difficult balance between therapeutic benefit and unwanted effects. We hear how an unexpected laboratory result led Sara and her co-founder to investigate whether pathological oxidative stress could convert a precursor molecule into a biologically active compound near the affected tissue. Sara describes this as pathology-gated therapeutic activation, where disease-associated chemistry provides the trigger that turns the medicine on. This remains developing science. At the time of recording, Enabled Therapeutics was preparing its first peer-reviewed manuscript and seeking partners to support further studies. Sara explains why reproducible evidence, regulatory guidance, and careful laboratory validation must determine whether the hypothesis advances. We also discuss how AI helps small biotechnology teams review literature, organize regulatory materials, connect ideas across scientific disciplines, and identify possible hypotheses. However, Sara offers an important reminder: AI can propose possibilities, but nature and experimental evidence decide what is true. Could following one unexpected result eventually offer researchers another way to approach neurological disease? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.
#3681
Yesterday · 25 min
Preparing Unstructured Data for Enterprise AI With CTERA
Could the real reason enterprise AI projects remain stuck in pilot mode be hidden inside the company's unstructured data? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I welcome back Oded Nagel, CEO of CTERA. We discuss why enterprise AI success depends on the condition, location, permissions, and business value of the data sitting underneath models and agents. Oded defines AI-ready data as information that is searchable, classified, and permission-aware. Many enterprises have petabytes of files distributed across offices, edge locations, legacy network-attached storage, and cloud platforms. Before introducing AI, leaders need to know what information they possess, where it resides, who can access it, and whether it remains valuable. The cost implications are significant. Copying every available file into an AI ecosystem can create expensive ingestion and storage bills. It may also reduce answer quality when stale, duplicated, irrelevant, or personal files enter the model's source material. Oded describes a customer classification project where approximately 80% of the data examined was stale or archival. The company also discovered personal content, including MP3 files, stored alongside enterprise information. Feeding such material into an AI system would consume resources without improving business results. We discuss Oded's recommendation to bring AI to governed data rather than moving data outside existing controls. Keeping intelligence close to the file system can preserve access permissions, audit logs, snapshots, and recovery mechanisms. Those protections become increasingly important when autonomous agents can read, move, modify, or delete files. Oded argues that every agent should be identifiable and its activity monitored. Businesses need to know which agent accessed which information, what action it performed, and whether the result can be reversed. Without those controls, a misunderstood instruction or malicious input could cause serious damage. The conversation also covers CTERA InsightAI, an agentic intelligence layer built into the company's data platform. Oded says it analyzes security activity and file-system metadata, allowing users to ask questions about stale data, file types, access patterns, deleted files, and ransomware impact using natural language. Rather than working through traditional dashboards and filters, users can question the data and request conclusions or recommended actions. Oded says some customers are piloting InsightAI while others already use it in production. For leaders measuring enterprise AI ROI, Oded recommends concentrating on storage costs, time savings, and speed to production. AI tools should make complex information easier to understand and reduce the time required to act. A ten-page report generated instantly provides limited value if nobody knows what decision to make from it. Does your company have enough visibility and control over its unstructured data to support production AI, or would classification uncover years of stale information and unnecessary expense? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.
#3680
Wednesday · 34 min
Quillbot on How Is AI Changing the Way People Think at Work
What happens to the value of human judgment when AI makes execution faster, cheaper, and available to almost everyone? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Eric Wang, Vice President of Product and AI at QuillBot. Eric has worked in artificial intelligence since 2006, with previous leadership roles at Turnitin and Chegg. He now works on AI products used by millions of people to develop ideas, improve their writing, conduct research, and create new forms of content. Eric argues that AI's workplace impact extends far beyond automation. These tools are changing how people develop an argument, consider alternatives, cross traditional job boundaries, and turn an idea into something other people can understand. As technical execution becomes cheaper, Eric believes judgment, taste, and problem understanding become increasingly valuable. Someone with strong knowledge of a customer problem may be able to prototype software, produce marketing material, or develop a business proposal without depending on several specialist teams. That creates opportunities, although it also brings risks. AI can influence the direction of an argument, encourage misplaced confidence, and produce large volumes of content that sounds polished while saying very little. Eric shares an intriguing observation from QuillBot's user research: people increasingly refer to AI systems as "he" or "she." That small change in language may indicate that users are beginning to trust machines in ways they do not fully recognize. We also discuss how orchestrated workflows can give AI agents defined routes and boundaries, why Eric sees judgment and taste as durable business advantages, and what manual transmission cars can teach us about creativity in an automated world. Where should your organization draw the line between AI assistance and human judgment? I would love to hear where you stand, so will you share your thoughts with me?
#3678
Wednesday · 22 min
Industrializing AI: How Enterprises Turn AI Into Measurable Business Value
Has enterprise AI finally reached the point where impressive demonstrations are no longer enough? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Bruce McMahon, Chief Product Officer at CallMiner, about what he describes as the industrialization of AI: the move from experimentation and excitement toward repeatable processes, measurable ROI, better customer experiences, and technology that can operate reliably at enterprise scale. Bruce explains why business leaders are increasingly asking a much simpler question about AI: how is this going to create value? Drawing on CallMiner's experience analyzing hundreds of thousands of hours of customer interactions every day, Bruce discusses how AI can surface operational inefficiencies and customer insights that were previously difficult to identify. The opportunity is not simply generating more data. Organizations need processes that get the right insight to the right person so something actually changes as a result. We also discuss how AI is changing workforce expectations. Bruce sees curiosity and adaptability becoming increasingly valuable, particularly among technical teams. As AI takes on more routine work, employees who question outputs, experiment with new approaches, and apply human judgment can become more valuable than those who rely solely on established technical knowledge. The economics of enterprise AI present another challenge. Foundation models, capabilities, and pricing continue to change rapidly, creating questions around vendor dependency and long-term costs. Bruce explains why companies may increasingly use a mixture of commercial, open-source, fine-tuned, self-hosted, and proprietary models rather than relying on one provider for everything. Governance becomes even more important as AI agents begin interacting directly with customers. We discuss red teaming, bias testing, compliance, data protection, monitoring, and why organizations need to decide which actions can be fully automated and which decisions must remain accountable to a human. Bruce also examines how AI is changing customer experience and the BPO industry. Rather than choosing between humans and AI agents, he sees value in designing systems where both can work together, with people handling interactions requiring judgment while AI manages high-volume and repetitive work. For CIOs, CTOs, COOs, customer experience leaders, and anyone responsible for enterprise AI strategy, this conversation provides a practical look at moving beyond AI pilots and turning the technology into a dependable part of business operations.
#3678
Tuesday · 24 min
AI Agent Security: Why Identity and Access Control Matter More Than Guardrails
What happens when an AI agent is compromised, manipulated, or simply does something nobody expected, but already has permission to access your most sensitive systems? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Geoffrey Mattson, CEO of SecureAuth, about why securing enterprise AI requires businesses to think beyond protecting models and start paying much closer attention to identity, authorization, access control, and what AI agents are actually allowed to do. Geoffrey argues that AI agents present a different security challenge from traditional software. Conventional applications can be tested against relatively predictable behavior. AI models are far less deterministic, particularly when prompt injection, excessive permissions, unexpected behavior, and autonomous actions enter the equation. His advice is to assume an agent could behave unpredictably and control what happens when it attempts to access a database, execute a financial transaction, call an API, or interact with another business system. We discuss what this means as companies race to introduce agentic AI. Geoffrey shares examples of employees granting AI tools permissions without fully understanding what they have approved, along with agents gathering information that creates unexpected privacy and compliance problems. This creates a difficult challenge for CIOs and CISOs. Boards want AI adoption because of its potential competitive value, while employees increasingly depend on AI tools to do their jobs. Simply blocking agents is unlikely to work. Security teams instead need mechanisms that allow innovation while controlling what those agents can access. Geoffrey explains why Zero Trust becomes particularly relevant here. Rather than authenticating a user or agent once and assuming it remains trustworthy, enterprises need to continually evaluate whether an action should be permitted at that specific moment. This leads to the concept of continuous authorization. Geoffrey explains how identity security is moving from asking "Who are you?" toward understanding intent, behavior, context, and authority for individual actions. This becomes increasingly important when one AI agent can create sub-agents, which can then create additional agents and pass permissions down the chain. We also discuss why agentic AI is exposing years of accumulated security debt. Many of the underlying problems are familiar: excessive privileges, inconsistent access controls, incomplete Zero Trust implementations, and systems that trust identities for too long. AI agents amplify those weaknesses because they can operate at machine speed. Geoffrey describes this as combining the unpredictability of humans with the power of machines. For CIOs, CISOs, security architects, identity teams, and business leaders deploying agentic AI, this conversation offers practical questions to ask before connecting agents to enterprise resources. What can the agent access? What authority does it have? Can that authority be reduced as tasks are delegated? Is every important action evaluated independently? And can access be revoked immediately when behavior changes? The goal is not to prevent organizations from using AI agents. It is to create a security layer that gives developers and employees room to experiment while ensuring agents only have the authority they need at the moment they need it. As autonomous AI becomes part of the enterprise workforce, identity alone may no longer be enough. Businesses increasingly need to understand intent, control authority, and continuously decide whether the next action should be allowed.
#3677
Monday · 22 min
Is Your Network Holding Back Your AI? Kentik CEO Avi Freedman on AI Infrastructure
Companies are spending billions on GPUs, data centers, foundation models, and AI infrastructure. But what happens when the network connecting all of it cannot keep up? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I welcome back Avi Freedman, co-founder and CEO of Kentik, five years after our previous conversation. Avi has been operating large-scale networks since the 1990s, including more than a decade at Akamai, and brings a rare combination of founder experience and hands-on knowledge of how the internet actually works. We discuss why network performance is becoming an important factor in determining the return companies receive from their AI investments. If organizations cannot move data efficiently to models or deliver inference reliably to users and applications, expensive compute infrastructure can sit waiting while performance suffers and costs increase. Avi explains what technology leaders should measure to determine whether their network is helping or hindering AI workloads. This includes establishing performance baselines, synthetic testing across cloud and AI providers, understanding dependencies across the digital supply chain, and using observability to identify what changed when performance deteriorates. The conversation also examines network intelligence and why collecting telemetry alone is not enough. Organizations need to connect network data with the applications and users affected, understand historical behavior, determine which problems matter, and give network teams enough context to act quickly. Agentic AI introduces another opportunity. Avi explains how AI agents can increasingly perform the work of experienced network engineers by monitoring baselines, investigating alerts, troubleshooting problems, and recommending actions. But fully autonomous networks remain some distance away. Most enterprises currently want humans deciding whether significant production changes should be made. That leads us into governance. As businesses give AI systems access to increasingly important infrastructure, credentials, permissions, guardrails, and oversight become major considerations. Avi warns about ungoverned AI systems gaining proxy access to corporate infrastructure and explains why companies need clear boundaries around what agents can see and do. We also revisit a lesson from decades of internet infrastructure: individual components will fail. Rather than attempting to create networks that never fail, businesses should design for resilience through redundancy, over-provisioning, monitoring, and architectures capable of continuing when something inevitably breaks. For founders, CIOs, CTOs, network engineers, and infrastructure leaders building around AI, Avi offers practical advice on observability, network resilience, autonomous operations, AI infrastructure, and knowing when networking expertise should be developed internally or brought in from elsewhere. And we finish somewhere unexpected: how CEOs can use AI to make better decisions by explicitly asking it to disagree with them. Avi explains why turning AI from a sycophantic assistant into an argumentative colleague can expose weaknesses in an idea, improve communication, and help leaders test their thinking. AI may be transforming software, compute, and business operations, but none of it works without connectivity. As AI becomes part of the operational backbone of the enterprise, understanding the network underneath it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.
#3676
Sunday · 33 min
What Clarecast Data Reveals About AI and Quiet Restructuring
Is AI really causing widespread job losses, or are a small number of announcements creating a much larger narrative? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Marvin Pohl, chief data scientist and cofounder of Clarecast, about AI layoffs, quiet restructuring, predictive workforce intelligence, and the responsibility that comes with forecasting company growth. Marvin's career began in physics and physical chemistry. After completing his PhD in Germany, he worked at Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley before moving into data science at BASF. He describes how his role changed as generative AI entered the workplace. Initially, he encouraged skeptical colleagues to understand what language models could do. Today, he often finds himself warning people against accepting confident AI answers without checking the evidence. Clarecast was founded by Marvin, Jonathan, and CEO Bradley Taylor. The company combines employment profiles, job postings, technology adoption, stock information, industry data, and other signals to forecast how businesses may develop. Marvin says Clarecast covers over four million US companies and produces company-level forecasts extending 18 months. We discuss Clarecast's report on "quiet restructuring." The report considers whether AI-related workforce contraction may appear through slower hiring, unfilled positions, internal reorganization, automation, and the creation of new AI-related roles rather than widespread mass layoffs. Marvin says fewer than 100 companies in Clarecast's database had publicly attributed layoff announcements to AI. He describes this as a small proportion of the companies being analyzed and says projected US workforce growth appeared broadly flat rather than approaching a sudden collapse. However, Marvin is careful about what those findings can prove. The report presents a hypothesis, its model outputs are estimates, and correlation does not establish causation. Companies can change their hiring for many reasons, while employment data often takes time to reflect what has happened. Many of the AI-related announcements included in Clarecast's early analysis were also less than six months old. Marvin says a reliable assessment of whether companies followed through will require additional time because job postings, employment profiles, and reported headcount do not update immediately. We also discuss how Clarecast plans to apply its company intelligence to sales prospecting. Marvin argues that poorly personalized AI outreach is reducing response rates. Clarecast wants to help businesses identify a smaller number of companies that are showing signals of genuine need, allowing sales teams to spend additional time on relevant and personalized communication. How should business leaders use predictive intelligence without turning a probability into a predetermined outcome? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.
#3674
Saturday · 27 min
Creating a Coordination Layer for AI Agents With Blue Language Labs
What happens when an AI agent is authorized to make a payment, but nobody can verify the wider agreement behind it? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Zor Gorelov of Blue Language Labs about the infrastructure businesses may need as AI agents move from answering questions to negotiating, approving, purchasing, coordinating, and settling commercial activity. Many current business processes depend on human coordination. People reconcile spreadsheets, chase signatures, confirm deliveries, review exceptions, and resolve disagreements between systems. This work often remains invisible because employees absorb the ambiguity through emails, calls, and follow-up. Agent driven business changes the speed and volume of those interactions. One agent making an isolated payment can be handled as a software transaction. Several agents coordinating dependent actions across companies, banks, suppliers, platforms, and customers creates a much larger infrastructure problem. Zor argues that authorization answers only part of the question. An agent may have permission to pay, but every participant also needs to understand what the payment covers, which conditions apply, who can approve changes, what evidence confirms delivery, and when funds should be captured, refunded, or settled. Blue Language Labs is developing an open source protocol designed to structure those commitments. Blue Documents represent machine executable agreements containing participants, permissions, obligations, conditions, and the current state of a business process. Blue Mandates provide agents with revocable authority. A business can define spending limits, permitted actions, and thresholds requiring human approval. The meeting notes include the example of a restaurant operator allowing an agent to accept smaller bookings automatically while requiring approval for catering orders involving over 20 people. Blue Timelines provide an append only, hash linked record of actions, approvals, and changes. The aim is to give participants an independent history they can use when resolving disputes, instead of relying on conflicting emails or records controlled by one company. Zor brings the concept to life through a travel package assembled by an AI agent. The agent identifies a boutique hotel with spare inventory, a restaurant with available tables, and a local guide with unused capacity. Each business defines its terms, the agent assembles the offer, and the participants approve their roles. The customer purchases one package. Payment can be authorized at the beginning and captured according to agreed conditions as the hotel, restaurant, and guide confirm fulfillment. If one participant declines or fails to deliver, predefined rules determine whether the agent finds a replacement, changes the package, or triggers a cancellation. We also consider how Blue differs from traditional workflow systems, agent orchestration tools, and blockchain smart contracts. Blue is designed for coordination across separate businesses without requiring every participant to join one company platform or use global blockchain consensus. The opportunity could be especially valuable for smaller companies. Agents may allow several independent businesses to combine inventory, services, and expertise into offers they could not create individually. Adoption will depend on whether businesses, banks, and customers trust the protocol, accept shared definitions, and retain meaningful control. What would need to be written into a machine executable agreement before your organization could rely on another company's AI agent? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.
#3673
August 7 · 24 min
Scaling Embedded Finance Around Customer Value With Zip Co
What separates an embedded finance partnership that changes customer behavior from an integration nobody would miss? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Rory Herriman, Chief Technology Officer and Chief Operations Officer for Zip's US business. Rory works across product, technology, operations, and business strategy, giving him a broad view of what happens after the API connection is complete and real customers begin using the service. Rory challenges a common understanding of embedded finance as placing one financial product inside another company's experience. Customers rarely wake up wanting embedded finance. They want to complete a purchase, manage their money, or solve a practical problem without an unnecessary interruption. The real test is whether the two businesses create something together that neither could provide independently. Rory calls this derived product market fit. Both products may succeed separately, but the combined experience must generate additional value for the customer if the partnership is going to last. Technology integration is only one part of the work. As businesses add customers and partners, they create new customer journeys, compliance obligations, servicing models, governance requirements, and operational processes. Rory argues that this complexity grows exponentially rather than linearly. This changes how technology teams should approach architecture. Instead of creating another custom integration for every opportunity, each partnership should contribute reusable capabilities to a wider platform. APIs, shared services, configuration tools, support processes, and governance models can then serve the growing ecosystem. We also discuss what partnership conversations reveal. Rory sees customer journey discussions during the first meeting as a positive sign. A conversation dominated by revenue division or integration mechanics may indicate that the participants have not established why the customer needs the combined service. His internal test is refreshingly simple. If the company launched the capability and removed it several months later, would the customer notice? If the answer is no, the partnership may have created technical activity without meaningful customer value. AI also enters the discussion. Rory believes AI can move financial services toward adaptive experiences where the product responds to the customer's circumstances. This offers opportunities for personalization and automated servicing, but it also increases the importance of responsible design, governance, customer consent, and clear accountability. For leaders building one-to-many embedded finance models, Rory's advice is to begin with the customer journey, establish alignment on values and service expectations, and build platforms that become stronger with each partnership. Would your customers miss the financial services you are embedding, or are they simply another feature occupying space in the journey? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.
#3673
August 6 · 26 min
Building Creator Trust Through Better Payments With Tipalti
What happens to creator loyalty when somebody delivers the work, attracts an audience, and then waits weeks to be paid? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Rob Israch, President at Tipalti, about the payment infrastructure supporting the creator economy. Platforms may be able to add thousands of creators quickly, but the systems behind onboarding, tax collection, approvals, global payouts, communication, and reconciliation often struggle to keep pace. Rob cites research suggesting 87 percent of creators have experienced late payments. For a creator, payment is a direct test of whether a platform values their contribution. Delays, incorrect amounts, limited payment methods, or receiving funds in the wrong currency can damage trust and encourage successful creators to take their audiences elsewhere. This makes the payout experience part of creator retention. A platform may offer excellent creative tools and attractive commercial opportunities, but those benefits are easily undermined when creators have to chase payment updates or submit the same information repeatedly. Global growth adds another layer of difficulty. Rob explains that payment teams may need to account for approximately 26,000 rules, varying tax identification requirements, local payment methods, currency preferences, fraud checks, and screening against over five sanctions databases. If the correct information is not collected during onboarding, payment errors can increase by two or three times. The resulting problem concerns the complete workflow. Creator information must be collected securely, tax details validated, payment recipients screened, approvals completed, funds delivered through the preferred method, and every transaction reconciled with accounting systems. Creators also need timely communication when a payment is attempted, completed, delayed, or rejected. We discuss how automation can connect those stages and reduce the manual work that causes errors. Rob also describes practical roles for AI, including more responsive onboarding, automated fraud detection, tax validation, and immediate answers to payment-status questions. These capabilities can reduce support requests while giving finance teams more time to examine performance, risk, and growth. They also provide creators with something remarkably valuable: confidence that they will be paid accurately and kept informed when a problem occurs. Should creator payments remain a finance process, or should platforms treat them as part of the creator experience and retention strategy? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.
#3672
August 5 · 33 min
Building Reliable AI Agents With Knowledge Gardens and MongoDB
What happens when an enterprise AI agent can retrieve thousands of data points but cannot understand the customer, decision, or business moment in front of it? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I welcome back Boris Bialek, Vice President of Industries and Global Field CTO at MongoDB. We examine why the enterprise AI conversation has become more professional as organizations move beyond demonstrations and begin putting agentic systems into production. Boris argues that many companies do not have a shortage of data. Their problem is turning scattered data into information and then into usable knowledge. A bank balance is data. A complete view of a customer's relationship with the bank is information. Recognizing that the customer is currently researching a mortgage and may need assistance within the next 20 seconds is knowledge. This distinction leads to Boris's concept of a knowledge garden. Structured records, unstructured content, live signals, conversations, and business context are organized around a customer or outcome. Different departments can access the parts relevant to their work while AI agents receive the context needed to respond quickly. We also discuss integration debt. Boris recalls one system that required 18 seconds to assemble a customer view and says many enterprises are working with approximately 40 primary data sources. An agent can spend so much time coordinating access across APIs, caches, and applications that the business problem becomes secondary. Trust becomes equally important once an AI agent can act. Boris introduces two measures: the agent confidence score and the business risk score. The first evaluates whether an agent's output appears reliable based on its data, behavior, and context. The second considers the consequences of allowing that decision to proceed automatically. Together, these scores can help organizations decide which actions should pass automatically, which need further machine validation, and which should reach a human reviewer. Boris also explains why data lineage and complete audit trails must be designed into production systems from the beginning. For teams beginning this work, his advice is practical. Choose one business outcome, connect two or three relevant data sources, create a working prototype, and involve business and technical leaders in the same conversation. The goal is to demonstrate how data, context, confidence, risk, and human review work together before expanding the system. Does your organization have an AI data problem, or does it have a knowledge and context problem? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.
#3671
August 4 · 28 min
Turning Warehouse Blind Spots Into Real Time Intelligence With Dexory
What happens when a warehouse management system believes stock is present, but nobody can find it on the warehouse floor? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Oana Jinga, co-founder of Dexory, who oversees the company's commercial strategy and product roadmap. Dexory has developed autonomous mobile robots capable of scanning inventory at heights of up to 18 meters while creating a continuously updated digital view of warehouse operations. The company says its robots have scanned one billion locations across 12 countries. Its customers include Maersk, DHL, Samsung, GE Appliances, Stellantis, GXO Logistics, and C.H. Robinson. However, the real story goes beyond the size of the robot or the number of locations scanned. It concerns what businesses can do once they have accurate information about their physical operations. Oana explains why warehouses often become data blind spots. Businesses usually know what entered the facility and what eventually left, but stock movements, damaged items, misplaced pallets, and inefficient use of space can remain difficult to track between those events. Dexory's robots scan approximately 10,000 to 12,000 pallet locations per hour. Oana recalls one customer discovering around £1.5 million in stock it had considered lost or written off. Other scans have revealed repeated pallet movements and potential opportunities to recover around 10% of warehouse capacity through better organization. We also discuss why visibility alone does not create business value. Dexory initially gave users large volumes of information, only to discover that extensive lists of problems could overwhelm warehouse teams. Its platform now prioritizes the actions requiring attention, helping users concentrate on a manageable number of issues each day. Oana explains why physical AI faces different challenges from software operating entirely within digital systems. Warehouses change constantly as people, vehicles, stock, temporary obstacles, damaged areas, and local working practices alter the environment. Robots and AI systems therefore require current physical data rather than relying on an old floor plan or assumptions recorded in another system. For companies considering warehouse robotics, Oana recommends starting with the operational problem. Leaders should observe how work happens, speak with employees about bottlenecks, define the result they want, and appoint an internal owner responsible for adoption. A robot sent to collect stock from an empty or incorrect location cannot complete its task, regardless of how capable its software may be. We also consider the future of warehouse work. Oana argues that robots can remove repetitive inventory walks and manual counting, allowing employees to interpret data, investigate problems, and improve operations. She also shares her experience as one of the few women in robotics a decade ago and explains why visible female role models can make the sector feel accessible to a wider group of people. Could physical AI help your warehouse teams make better decisions, or would inaccurate data and unclear ownership prevent the technology from delivering value? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.
#3670
August 3 · 26 min
How Infobip Uses AI Companions to Keep Sports Fans Coming Back
What can Formula One and football teach businesses about building customer relationships that continue long after a single event? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Ben Lewis, Vice President of Marketing at Infobip, about the company's work with AI-powered sports companions and what those experiences can teach customer experience leaders in every industry. Ben explains how Infobip worked with TGR Haas F1 Team to create RaceMate, an AI companion available through WhatsApp and Apple Messages for Business. Fans can access team information, driver histories, race schedules, trivia, personalized content and interactive experiences without downloading another application. We also discuss PitchMate, Infobip's conversational companion for global football fans. It remembers a fan's preferred team, can deliver personalized schedules and match information, and supports quizzes and other interactive features across an extended tournament. For me, one of the most useful lessons is the decision to meet fans inside messaging channels they already use. We have all downloaded an application for a conference, flight or one-off event, used it for several days and then forgotten it exists. RaceMate and PitchMate allow the conversation to remain available in the same place someone would message a friend. Ben also explains why Infobip measures success through returning users, conversation duration and the number of interactions rather than relying solely on clicks. TGR Haas F1 Team is currently using RaceMate to grow its fan community and provide useful content rather than constantly pushing merchandise. The same thinking can apply far beyond sports. We discuss travel companies contacting customers during unresolved claims, healthcare providers sending poorly timed automated messages and brands promoting products without recognizing that a customer is already involved in a dispute. Connected data can help prevent these disjointed experiences. Our conversation closes with practical advice for businesses adopting agentic AI. Ben recommends connecting customer data with campaigns, testing carefully, establishing guardrails and defining when an AI agent should transfer a conversation to a person. Are businesses investing too much in new customer applications when the better experience could already live inside WhatsApp, RCS or Apple Messages for Business? Please share your thoughts with me.
#3369
August 2 · 22 min
How Technology Can End the Late Payment Crisis Costing UK Businesses £11 Billion
Late payments have become so common that many businesses simply accept them as part of commercial life. But should they? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Pat Bermingham, founder and CEO of Adflex, about why late payments continue to cost the UK economy an estimated £11 billion every year, why thousands of businesses fail because of cash flow pressures, and how technology could help change payment behavior rather than simply respond to it. Pat argues that late payments are rarely an administrative accident. In many industries they have become an informal financing mechanism, allowing larger organizations to protect their own cash flow while placing increasing financial pressure on smaller suppliers. Construction is one example, but the challenge extends across many sectors where long supply chains and uneven bargaining power make delayed payments the norm rather than the exception. We discuss why new government proposals to strengthen payment regulations represent progress, while also examining why legislation alone cannot solve a structural problem that has developed over decades. Instead, Pat believes technology can play a much bigger role. He explains how virtual commercial cards and Straight Through Processing (STP) allow buyers to access extended finance while suppliers receive payment far more quickly, without introducing additional friction into the payment process. Rather than forcing suppliers to accept card payments directly, the technology automates the process behind the scenes while improving reconciliation, increasing visibility and supporting healthier cash flow across the supply chain. The conversation also explores why many organizations still rely on fragmented payment systems created through years of acquisitions and disconnected technologies. Modernizing payment infrastructure can reduce delays, improve operational efficiency and help businesses build stronger supplier relationships rather than treating late payment as a normal business practice. Pat also shares how an earlier career as a music producer shaped his thinking about technology. Watching digital innovation transform music production helped him recognize how technology can simplify complex processes while also creating new business models that challenge established industries. For finance leaders, procurement teams, CIOs and business owners, this episode provides practical insights into improving cash flow, strengthening supplier relationships, modernizing payment processes and preparing for a future where prompt payment becomes both a commercial advantage and an increasing regulatory expectation. Changing payment legislation is important. Changing payment behavior is what will ultimately strengthen businesses, protect suppliers and create more resilient supply chains.
#3668
August 2 · 28 min
AI, Value Creation and the Future of Business: Why Automation Is Only the Beginning
Most AI conversations begin with productivity. Joanna Pachnik thinks that's the wrong place to start. In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Joanna Pachnik, founder of Blueclip, about why AI is changing far more than the speed of work. It's changing how businesses create value, what customers are willing to pay for, and what competitive advantage will look like over the next decade. Drawing on her experience leading global supply chain transformation projects at Ernst & Young and Mars before founding Blueclip, Joanna argues that knowledge is becoming increasingly accessible through AI. Research, analysis and reports that once took weeks and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars can now be produced in hours. That doesn't eliminate the need for expertise. It changes what expertise is worth. Rather than paying for information alone, organizations increasingly want implementation, measurable outcomes and practical experience that AI cannot easily replicate. Joanna explains why unique industry knowledge, benchmarking, practical experience and genuine human relationships may become more valuable as AI becomes more capable. We also discuss why so many enterprise AI initiatives struggle to deliver meaningful results. Joanna believes the technology is rarely the biggest obstacle. The real problem is poor data, undocumented processes and organizations trying to automate before building the foundations AI depends upon. Her advice is simple: prepare your data, document your processes, create a company knowledge layer, then introduce AI one use case at a time. The conversation also explores why AI should be viewed as a business transformation initiative rather than an automation project. Instead of accelerating existing processes, companies should ask whether those processes should exist at all. AI creates an opportunity to redesign how organizations operate, continuously improve decision-making and move people toward higher-value work. We also examine the importance of human oversight. Joanna believes AI should begin with people reviewing and guiding its outputs before gradually taking on more responsibility in carefully selected scenarios. Human accountability remains essential, particularly when AI supports material business decisions. For business leaders navigating AI strategy, digital transformation and enterprise innovation, this conversation offers practical advice on creating long-term value instead of chasing short-term AI hype. It explains why the companies that succeed will not necessarily be those using the most AI, but those prepared to rethink how they create value, organize knowledge and redesign their businesses around new possibilities. The future belongs to organizations that see AI as more than another productivity tool. It belongs to those willing to transform how they work, how they serve customers and how they create lasting business value.
#3667
August 1 · 32 min
Preparing 911 for AI Satellite Calls and Cloud Infrastructure With Intrado
What happens behind the scenes when you dial 911, and is the infrastructure ready for AI, satellite messaging, video, and precise location data? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I'm joined by John Snapp, VP of Technology at Intrado. John has spent around 23 years working with cellular, location, and 911 technologies. He explains how a mobile emergency call is located, routed through a dedicated network, and directed to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point. We discuss where AI can provide practical support inside emergency communications. Translation can help telecommunicators understand callers without waiting for an interpreter. Real-time transcription can capture details and suggest established procedures. AI voice agents can also handle suitable nonemergency inquiries, giving trained staff additional time for calls where lives may be at risk. John is clear that emotional emergency calls still demand human understanding and authority. AI can supply information, identify possible synthetic voices, and reduce administrative work, but trained telecommunicators remain responsible for interpreting the situation and directing the response. Our conversation also examines the infrastructure beneath these capabilities. Legacy 911 networks were designed largely for voice and limited amounts of data. Next Generation 911 introduces IP connectivity capable of carrying text, images, video, and richer location information. John explains how this foundation has made satellite texting possible and why similar capabilities were far slower to introduce using older networks. Moving to NG911 creates its own problems. Different vendors can comply with the same technical standard while implementing it differently. Calls may also need to move between modern and legacy call centers, making interoperability testing between jurisdictions a major part of deployment. We also consider cloud resilience, local survivability, connectivity diversity, telephony denial of service attacks, AI generated swatting calls, and the danger of adopting automation before establishing governance. John recommends starting with lower-risk areas such as quality assurance and nonemergency calls, communicating openly about AI use, and expanding only after teams understand the operational impact. As emergency communications become richer and increasingly connected, how should public safety agencies balance faster innovation with the reliability and human judgment every caller depends on? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.
#3666
August 1 · 32 min
AI-Powered Cyberattacks Are Coming for Your Printers. Is Your Business Ready?
When organizations review their cybersecurity posture, printers are rarely the first systems that come to mind. Yet they often account for around 20% of network endpoints while receiving, storing, processing, and transmitting sensitive business information every day. In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I welcome back Jim LaRoe, CEO of Symphion, to discuss why printers and other connected IoT devices have become one of the most overlooked areas of enterprise cybersecurity and why AI-powered attacks are raising the stakes for organizations that continue to ignore them. Jim explains how many businesses continue to treat printers as simple office equipment rather than Linux-based network devices with privileged access to email systems, file servers, identity services, and critical business workflows. Because responsibility for these devices often sits between procurement, managed print providers, IT operations, and security teams, they can easily fall outside normal cybersecurity processes. We discuss how the threat landscape has changed over the past year as AI enables attackers to automate reconnaissance, credential theft, lateral movement, and ransomware deployment. Jim explains why organizations adopting Zero Trust principles also need to rethink how they secure and manage connected endpoints that have traditionally been overlooked. The conversation also explores certificate lifecycle management, cyber hygiene, firmware management, endpoint visibility, and why unsupported devices can introduce unnecessary risk into modern enterprise environments. For organizations managing hundreds or even thousands of printers across multiple locations, Jim explains why protecting these endpoints does not need to create additional operational burden. Instead, security should become an ongoing operational program that continuously monitors devices, detects configuration drift, applies security controls, and helps organizations maintain compliance without disrupting critical business workflows. We also discuss the governance challenge many organizations face. Before companies can reduce risk, someone needs to own it. That means establishing accountability, assigning budget, understanding which devices exist across the business, and recognizing that printers and IoT devices deserve the same attention as servers, laptops, and other managed endpoints. If you're responsible for cybersecurity, IT infrastructure, risk management, or digital transformation, this episode offers practical advice on protecting forgotten endpoints, strengthening Zero Trust strategies, improving endpoint visibility, and reducing the hidden risks that AI-powered attackers are increasingly looking to exploit. Sometimes the biggest cybersecurity vulnerability isn't the system you forgot to patch. It's the one you forgot was connected in the first place.
#3664
July 31 · 37 min
How BOLTS Technologies Brings Crypto Agility to Blockchain Security
What happens to digital asset ownership when the cryptography proving that ownership can no longer be trusted? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Yoon Auh, cofounder of BOLTS Technologies, about quantum computing, blockchain security, and the need for crypto agility. Yoon brings an unusual perspective to the subject. Before moving into applied cryptography, he spent years building and operating high performance trading systems at firms including Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Geode Capital, and Magnetar Capital. Yoon explains that blockchain ownership ultimately depends on digital signatures and public keys. Most major blockchain systems use variants of elliptic curve cryptography because it has historically offered speed, compact signatures, and dependable protection. However, sufficiently powerful quantum computers could eventually challenge the mathematics supporting that protection. The risk does not begin when such a quantum computer arrives. Yoon describes how attackers can collect encrypted traffic today, store it, and attempt to decrypt it later. This creates an immediate concern for governments, financial institutions, and businesses holding information that must remain private for many years. We also discuss QFlex, the post quantum ready API developed by BOLTS Technologies. The company describes its approach as cryptographic logistics, allowing different cryptographic methods to be selected at the transaction level. Yoon argues that a small payment and a multimillion dollar asset transfer should not automatically receive identical protection, particularly when stronger cryptography may require additional processing, storage, and cost. Another concern is uncertainty around the available post quantum algorithms. Yoon explains that cryptographic methods can survive years of examination before a weakness is discovered. His argument is that organizations need the ability to change algorithms quickly if one becomes vulnerable, rather than making a permanent choice and hoping it survives every new attack. The conversation also examines digital asset sovereignty. Who decides how a transaction is protected: the platform, the protocol, or the asset holder? BOLTS Technologies believes that choice should return to the holder, while QFlex aims to provide that control without hard forks, network downtime, or protocol changes. The interview also covers the company's research background and its pilot work with the Canton Foundation. Yoon closes with a lesson from his trading career. Backup and failover exercises often failed because they were treated as occasional events. His advice is to make exceptional processes routine, ensuring that the organization has already practiced changing systems before the moment arrives when it has no other option. Should digital asset holders control the cryptography protecting every transaction, or should platforms continue making that decision for them? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.
#3663
July 30 · 25 min
Moving From AI Pilots to Production With Boomi
What prevents a successful AI experiment from becoming a dependable production system that delivers measurable business value? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Ed Macosky, Chief Product and Technology Officer at Boomi, about AI pilot purgatory, integration, governance, model selection, token costs, and the technical skills businesses may need as adoption grows. Ed leads Boomi's product and engineering teams while also using AI tools inside his own organization. That gives him a view from both sides: creating technology for enterprise customers and applying it within active product development workflows. He believes many AI pilots begin with the wrong question. Teams become interested in the latest model or feature before defining the business problem they want to solve. The experiment may work during a demonstration, then fail when it encounters real data, access controls, security policies, and production systems. Placing company information inside a data lake and adding a language model does not automatically create a business application. The system must access current data reliably, respect employee permissions, connect with existing applications, and operate within governance rules that security teams can approve. Ed recommends beginning with a defined business opportunity and establishing the access required to support it. Existing APIs can already provide authentication, permissions, and governance. MCP can offer another route into enterprise systems, but those connections still require security, monitoring, and management. Team alignment also matters. An AI center may be racing to test models while an integration center concentrates on a different set of priorities. When those groups fail to coordinate, the pilot lacks the connectivity and automation required to become part of a production workflow. The discussion then turns toward fragmentation. Every technology wave produces new vendors, frameworks, and specialist tools. Early experimentation benefits from variety, but mature companies can eventually find themselves maintaining a complicated collection of products held together with custom code and, occasionally, the digital equivalent of duct tape. Ed does not recommend placing every function with one provider. He does argue for enough consolidation and abstraction to prevent experimentation from creating years of technology debt. Governance and observability should also work horizontally across different environments, including platforms such as SAP, Salesforce, and several AI model providers. That becomes increasingly important as businesses introduce autonomous agents. Leaders need to know which agents exist, what systems they can access, what actions they can take, and how each decision is recorded. AI gateways and agent control towers can provide a wider view across otherwise separate technology environments. Ed also introduces the idea of the frontier engineer. A prompt engineer concentrates on communicating effectively with a model. A frontier engineer understands how the model works, including its logic, mathematics, algorithms, and suitability for different workloads. He does not believe every company needs a large team of these specialists. However, he argues that enterprises need at least one person capable of assessing vendor claims and deciding whether a frontier model, specialist model, or open weight model fits a particular workload. Cost creates another reason to examine model selection. Sending every employee request or agent task to the most capable frontier model can become expensive. Some repeatable workloads may run on open weight models inside the company's cloud or hardware environment, giving finance teams greater cost certainty. Boomi is developing Boomi Prompt to route requests according to their complexity and requirements. A simple factual request might go directly to an API. A forecasting task may use a smaller model. A difficult analytical request could be sent to a frontier model. Ed uses the weather as a helpful example. Retrieving next Tuesday's forecast does not require a language model when a public weather API can return the answer directly. Asking a model to perform every form of automation wastes tokens, computing power, energy, and money. The episode closes with practical advice for CIOs. Avoid starting with a broad objective such as agentifying the entire business. Choose a department, identify a small number of tasks, define the expected return, and work backward. Once the team proves value and understands the operating requirements, it can repeat the process elsewhere. Could intelligent routing, stronger integration, and clearer business outcomes finally move enterprise AI beyond pilot purgatory? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.
#3662
July 30 · 28 min
Moving From AI Experiments to Autonomous Operations With Dynatrace
What must happen before a business can trust AI agents to detect and resolve operational problems without waiting for human intervention? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with Josh Clay, Regional Vice President of Solution Engineering for Dynatrace in the UK, about autonomous operations, AI observability, fragmented telemetry, business outcomes, and the growing pressure to control token and data costs. Josh has spent much of his 11 years at Dynatrace discussing the road toward autonomous operations. The earliest version involved reducing the time organizations spent inside IT war rooms. He remembers calls with 30 or 40 people attempting to establish which team was responsible for an incident. He jokingly calls this the "mean time to innocence." Modern observability reduced many of those investigations from several hours to between 30 and 60 minutes. Agentic AI creates the possibility of going further by identifying a problem, understanding its cause, and resolving it before the customer experience is affected. That ambition also introduces risk. Josh cites Dynatrace research showing that 52% of respondents view security, privacy, and compliance concerns as barriers to AI adoption. He believes many organizations still lack full observability across their existing technology environments, making autonomous agents harder to supervise. Josh shares a warning from Alex Hibbert of Storia Group: AI can amplify existing technology problems. If telemetry is fragmented, data quality is poor, or teams cannot see how services depend on one another, adding autonomous agents may increase the speed and scale of the resulting failure. Trust therefore depends on visibility. Josh describes observability as a control plane for agentic AI because it can show what an agent is doing, why it made a decision, and what happened afterward. Defined guardrails and real time information can give leaders confidence without asking them to surrender control blindly. The adoption figures show how early this work remains. Josh says 50% of businesses have AI operating in limited production use cases, often performing one isolated task. Only 23% describe their deployments as connected across the wider organization. We discuss how observability has progressed beyond technical monitoring. An airport can measure whether technology changes improve e-gate availability and passenger processing times. A bank can examine whether application performance affects mortgage completion rates. These connections allow leaders to measure AI through business results rather than relying entirely on response times and infrastructure metrics. Reliable agents also need suitable data. Dynatrace says AI agents operating with deterministic data can work 12 times more accurately and three times faster while using two and a half times fewer tokens. These remain company findings, but they demonstrate why context and causality can affect cost as well as reliability. Fragmented telemetry creates another barrier. Logs may sit in one platform, front end monitoring in another, and metrics or traces somewhere else. Attempting to reconstruct every relationship for an AI agent can become expensive and difficult. Josh recommends bringing observability data into a connected environment where relationships between services, cloud resources, traces, metrics, and logs are already understood. He also warns against collecting information simply because it exists. Data hoarding increases ingestion costs and can introduce personal information into systems without a clear business need. The conversation then moves toward AI FinOps. Leaders want to know what agents cost, how many tokens they consume, and whether those costs produce a measurable return. Josh describes a Dynatrace proof of concept that identified potential annual savings just below £250,000 within one small environment. That example reinforces a recurring concern. Organizations are racing to place AI into production, then moving to the next project without reviewing whether the previous environment is appropriately sized or financially efficient. Josh hopes companies will develop a more pragmatic view of AI as another enterprise tool. That means establishing agreed methods for deployment, monitoring, cost management, incident response, and measuring business results. Could observability provide the confidence businesses need to move from isolated AI experiments toward autonomous operations? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.

Showing 1–20 of 30 episodes