The In-Between Tech and Trust Podcast

Eva Simone Lihotzky

The podcast explores how we build, break, and rebuild trust in a world shaped by accelerating technology and artificial intelligence. Hosted by Eva Simone Lihotzky, AI adoption and ethics expert with 12+ years of experience in tech, the podcast creates in-depth conversations at the intersection of AI, business, ethics, and human connection. Through various lenses - across business, politics, neuroscience, tech and systems thinking in organizations - it hosts expert conversations for you to deep dives into one of the complex topics we need to solve as a society and beyond.

  1. vor 3 Tagen

    Leading When AI Outruns Expertise - Wolf Ingomar Faecks (EP 35)

    🎙️ with Wolf Ingomar Faecks, Entrepreneur, Investor, Advisory Board Member Wolf Ingomar Faecks spent 30 years leading digital transformation. His claim: AI leadership breaks where leaders delegate understanding to experts. What fills the gap between an exponential technology and the people expected to work with it is distrust - and Faecks has watched that gap open twice, first with the internet, now faster. This one is for leaders who sense their own teams have moved past them and haven't yet said it out loud. 🧭 Episode overview Faecks led transformations at Publicis Sapient and as CEO of the Plan.Net Group before leaving the corporate path in early 2025. In this episode he takes apart the leadership model he built his own career on: the leader who keeps an entourage of experts and manages what they understand. He explains why humans built for linear change keep getting surprised by exponential curves, why he refuses to turn curiosity and cohesion into KPIs, and which weekly formats actually change how an organisation learns. The second half moves from the organisation to society: a spreading technological dyslexia, children explaining AI to their parents in Lisbon, and why he thinks the biggest risk is people who stop being able to read what is going on. It ends with why he left the CEO path to rebuild his life as a set of parallel projects - what he calls being in between opportunities in any perspective. 🔍 Key themes If humans think in straight lines, who in the organisation is responsible for seeing the curve?Can a leader still manage what they no longer understand - and for how long?Why measuring curiosity might be the fastest way to kill itDistrust as the default state of technology adoption, not the exceptionWhat happens to a society where a growing group loses command of the language technology speaks 👤 About the guest Wolf Ingomar Faecks was CEO of the Plan.Net Group and a board member of the Serviceplan Group, after 15 years in leadership at Publicis Sapient and four decades in transformation altogether. Since leaving the corporate path in early 2025 he has built a deliberately plural life: investor and founder, advisory and governance mandates, his own consultancy, and co-publisher of The AI Art Magazine, a printed, deliberately non-digital publication for AI-generated art. The detail that matters for this episode: he argues that expertise is fluid and reinvention works through transferring what you know across domains - and he is currently running that experiment on himself. ⏱ Chapters [01:01] A tool for a few, a riddle for many - why distrust is the starting condition[06:53] The end of the expert entourage - bridges some leaders won't cross[14:47] The KPI refusal - why culture is modelled, not measured[23:30] Technological dyslexia - the illiteracy that splits societies[28:23] Staying real - leave, love or change 🔗 Links Wolf Ingomar Faecks on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/wolf-ingomar-faecks/The AI Art Magazine - https://www.art-magazine.aiEva Simone Lihotzky on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/evalihotzky/NFC Summit Lisbon - https://www.art-magazine.ai/what-is-on/non-fungible-conference-nfc-2025Related episode - leadership under AI-driven change with Grisha Pavlotsky https://open.spotify.com/episode/7whSlaCh2lQtafQ37LQktQ

    Leading When AI Outruns Expertise - Wolf Ingomar Faecks (EP 35)

  2. 31. Juli

    Co-Opting Agentic Matter and Transcending Exotic Computing: Where Frontier Technologies Evolve - Dr. Zina Jarrahi Cinker (EP 34)

    🎙️ with Dr. Zina Jarrahi Cinker, Director General MATTER Group Where does AI trust get built between people whose fields are drifting apart? Physicist Dr. Zina Jarrahi Cinker spends millions engineering the rooms where that happens, and she counts what comes out of them. This episode is for anyone who has sat through a briefing on a technology that will reshape their sector, understood roughly none of it, and said nothing. 🧬 In this episode Dr. Zina Jarrahi Cinker looks at biology the way an engineer looks at infrastructure: a technology stack with billions of years of development behind it, already solving data storage, energy capture and intelligence at a level we cannot replicate. Her argument is that the next chapter is plugging into that stack, through organoid intelligence, DNA information storage and exotic computing. The obstacle she describes is not scientific. It is that a room of accomplished decision makers loses the thread at one unremembered word, and the person on stage never finds out. Her answer costs money: an eight-minute limit on every talk, five people assigned to each speaker, environments built to produce the feeling of a science museum. She also holds a position that has cost her invitations, which is that the future is going to be fine. 🧭 Key themes Whether biology is better understood as finished engineering than as nature, and what co-opting it would actually involveWhy explaining frontier science more clearly does not fix comprehension across fields, and what doesWhether optimism about technology is a discipline or a blind spot, and who benefits from the alternativeWhat a leader does when the honest answer about the next five years is that there isn't oneWho gets access to the rooms where trust between fields is built, and what follows from that 🔬 About the guest Dr. Zina Jarrahi Cinker is a condensed matter physicist who spent a decade on graphene, including a stretch running the US National Graphene Association in her early thirties, before moving to the problem of getting frontier science across the gaps between fields. She is Director General of MATTER, a community of around 20,000 scientists, engineers, policymakers and business leaders spanning 30 country chapters, and Chief Creator of PUZZLE X in Barcelona and XPANSE in Abu Dhabi. She grew up in a family half artist and half scientist, kept the art half quiet for years while working in materials, and now runs ART Proxima, which pairs new media artists with scientists. That detail matters for this conversation more than any of the titles, because the rooms she builds are the correction to a room she once had to be careful in. ⏱ Chapters [00:48] A physicist stops being excited about physics[08:20] What breaks when experts talk to experts[14:41] Optimism as the unpopular position[27:22] Why having no plan is something she had to build for[33:26] The room as infrastructure 🔗 Links Zina Jarrahi Cinker on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/zinacinker/ Eva Simone Lihotzky on LinkedIn - add URL]MATTER - amptnetwork.comPUZZLE X, Barcelona -http://www.puzzlex.ioXPANSE, Abu Dhabi - www.xpanse.world ART Proxima - https://www.xpanse.world/art-proximaSolimán López, artist and ART Proxima co-curator - https://solimanlopez.com Related episode - Beyond the black box: Building trust with AI systems: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6yKMLQNnDoa6NqqClJrryN

    Co-Opting Agentic Matter and Transcending Exotic Computing: Where Frontier Technologies Evolve - Dr. Zina Jarrahi Cinker (EP 34)

  3. 24. Juli

    AI Governance Structures To Ensure Trust - Solo Episode (EP 33)

    🎙️ with podcast host Eva Simone Lihotzky Responsible AI stops being a compliance exercise the moment an agent acts without you. Only 21% of organisations deploying AI agents have a mature governance model for them, and 35% concede they could not shut one down if it went wrong. This episode is for leaders running agentic pilots who could not, if pressed, name the person who answers when one of them fails. 🧭 Episode overview Eva Simone Lihotzky takes the Harvard Business Review's claim that trust is becoming a competitive advantage and tests it against what she sees inside client organisations. The episode traces the move from generative to agentic to physical AI and argues that each transfer of autonomy changes what trust has to cover: you check an output before it leaves your hands, you check an action once it is already out and handed on, and with physical systems you are trusting a consequence that has already happened. From there it turns to governance, a word she concedes lands badly in most rooms, and to why she thinks the structures behind the technology are the part that compounds. Underneath runs a question she leaves open: technology needs defined inputs, guardrails and outcomes, creative work needs close to the opposite, and she does not claim to know where the line between them sits. It closes on five questions leaders can run against their own systems, and on why a narrative built around efficiency makes resistance the rational response. 🪜 Key themes Why each step up the autonomy ladder is also a step up the trust ladder, and why the moment you could still check arrives later at every rungWhat survives when the models get replaced, and why accountability lines outlast vendor and architecture decisionsWhether governance slows an organisation down, or is the reason it can move at allWhere technical specification and creative freedom have to be negotiated, and why that negotiation never settlesWhat an unowned decision costs, and the five questions that expose one🤝 About the host [PLACEHOLDER - see flag below. Structure to fill: Eva as founder of raidiant, the client work that produces the governance argument, and her governance and assurance background, which is the specific detail that matters for this episode because it is why she can concede how badly the word lands and argue for it anyway. Co-author of '10 Moral Questions: How to Design Tech & AI Responsibly', referenced in the episode as prior art for building governance into the design stage.] ⏱️ Chapter markers [03:27] Where the human stops being the operator[08:12] Trusting the output, then the action, then the consequence[12:16] Outstructuring the competition while the models keep changing[16:53] What technology needs defined, and what creative work needs left open[22:14] Five questions, and the decision with no name attached 🔗 Links Eva Simone Lihotzky on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/evalihotzky/raidiant - https://www.raidiant.euHarvard Business Review, "Responsible AI is Becoming a Growth Strategy" - https://hbr.org/2026/07/responsible-ai-is-becoming-a-growth-strategyStanford AI Index 2026 - https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2026-ai-index-reportMcKinsey research on agentic AI risk and security concerns: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/tech-and-ai/our-insights/tech-forward/state-of-ai-trust-in-2026-shifting-to-the-agentic-eraInformatica CDO Insights 2026: https://www.informatica.com/about-us/news/news-releases/2026/01/20260127-new-global-cdo-report-reveals-data-governance-and-ai-literacy-as-key-accelerators-in-ai-adoption.htmlWriter research on AI strategy and rogue agents: https://writer.com/blog/enterprise-ai-adoption-2026/IBM research on agent decision-making visibility: https://community.ibm.com/community/user/blogs/sarah-bowden/2025/11/18/agentic-ai-is-here-5-key-learnings-from-ibms-lates10 Moral Questions: How to Design Tech & AI Responsibly: https://www.10moralquestions.com/the-book

    AI Governance Structures To Ensure Trust - Solo Episode (EP 33)

  4. 9. Juli

    The Tech Naivety Undermining Democracy - Erdem Ovacik (EP 32)

    🎙️ with Erdem Ovacik AI trust in our institutions is falling, and Erdem Ovacik argues it will keep falling. The technology is not what fails him here. The governance underneath it was never built to earn that trust, and pouring more AI into unfit democratic institutions is like adding fuel to a fire no one has learned to contain. This is for anyone watching their organisation or their government absorb technology faster than it can govern it. 🎧 Episode overview Ovacik has spent his career at the point where technology meets public life, and he starts from an uncomfortable claim: we are becoming more capable of trusting our institutions, and we won't. He walks through why representative democracy - one national representative for every fifty thousand people - concentrates power in a way that markets and modern tech companies solved for long ago, and asks what democracy would look like if it learned from them. Eva presses him on where technology solves the problem and where it amplifies it, on what he means by "tech naivety," and on the danger of handing decisions to an AI that becomes its own black box. The conversation sits with Europe's harder bind: build real technological competence, or live inside infrastructure and decisions shaped by those who did. It closes on what daily life might feel like if the next democracy actually arrived. 🔑 Key themes Why adding more technology to a broken institution accelerates the loss of trust rather than repairing itWhether a system built for fifty thousand people per representative can be governed at all in an age of AIThe line between AI as a consulted voice and AI as a new black box that decides for usEurope's choice between building its own AI competence and depending on decisions made elsewhereWhat it means to keep human agency when the machine could, in theory, write better policy than we can 👤 About the guest Erdem Ovacik is a social innovator, entrepreneur, and author of The Next Democracy. He built Donkey Republic, one of the first app-based bike-share systems, which is the detail that matters most here: he argues from inside the technology industry, not against it. His warning that technology "almost necessarily" harms society because addiction is good business carries weight precisely because he has spent years building the kind of product he now scrutinises. 🕒 Chapter markers [01:22] Why we could trust our institutions more, and won't[02:52] Fifty thousand to one: the power concentration inside representative democracy[06:39] Tech naivety, and the fire you keep adding fuel to[11:42] The handlebar problem: who sets the priorities, and where AI belongs[13:35] Europe's bind, and what happens when the black box is built elsewhere[17:48] What the next democracy would feel like to live in 🔗 Links Erdem Ovacik on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/erdemovacik/Eva Simone Lihotzky on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/evalihotzky/The Next Democracy book - https://nextdemocracy.comRelated episode - Tech & Democracy and how both can be connected to create trust with Nexus Politics - https://open.spotify.com/episode/3WVnBsaz3LfFPwn6xsX1N6

    The Tech Naivety Undermining Democracy - Erdem Ovacik (EP 32)

  5. 2. Juli

    Two Fears Behind Every AI Transformation - Dr. Charlotte Blum (EP 31)

    🎙️ Dr. Charlotte Blum - Director Change & Organisational Design, edding Group Two fears run underneath every AI rollout, and most companies manage neither. Dr. Charlotte Blum works the human emotions of AI transformation - the fear, identity, and trust that decide whether adoption sticks - from a board-level role most organisations don't have. This is a conversation about why people resist AI, and why the technology itself may be the hardest thing in the room to trust. 📌 The episode Charlotte Blum was hired after an agility transformation failed, into a staff function reporting to the board, to do the thing change management usually skips: work with what people feel. In this conversation she separates two fears companies tend to blur - fear of the technology and fear of change itself - and argues that AI destabilises people at the level of identity, not workflow. She makes a case that AI is structurally untrustworthy for an unexpected reason: it has no self-interest. A system built only to please will give you the answer it thinks you want, not the true one. Asked whether she has seen an organisation genuinely succeed at AI transformation, her answer is short, and it isn't yes. For any leader who suspects the resistance in their team is emotional rather than logistical, this is a conversation about what the roadmap leaves out. 🧠 What you'll sit with Why the fear of AI arrives before the technology does, and why it's measurableWhy an organisation that can't move someone's desk won't move them to AIWhat happens to a person when their role, and their sense of self-worth, is suddenly in questionWhy a tool built to please can't be relied on to tell you the truthWhy the thing to optimise for is trust, not results, not time👤 About the guest Dr. Charlotte Blum is Director Change & Organisational Design at the edding Group, where she leads AI and organisational transformation from a rare board-facing position that treats the emotional side of change as core work rather than an afterthought. Her method is to enable leaders for the conversations no job description trained them for, and she has the internal data suggesting it moves the numbers. ⏱️ Chapters  [00:00] Trust too much, or not at all - the problem with both[02:16] Why AI is a human shift, not a technology one[07:12] The skill capitalism doesn't want you to build[13:48] Why leaders are handed a job they were never trained for[30:22] The trust equation, and where AI breaks it[38:11] Three things an organisation must get right 🔗 Links Dr. Charlotte Blum on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-charlotte-blum/ edding Group - https://www.edding.comThe trust equation (credibility + reliability + intimacy / self-orientation) - https://people-shift.com/articles/the-trust-equation/AllBright Academy - https://www.allbright-stiftung.de/academyRelated episode - Why Empathy Can't be Automated with Gifty Enright - https://open.spotify.com/episode/5NYYRgwROaiZLHur5gbksw

    Two Fears Behind Every AI Transformation - Dr. Charlotte Blum (EP 31)

  6. 25. Juni

    Tech and Trust at the Bundeswehr Cyber Innovation Hub: Innovating for and with the Troops with Sarah Marie Sandmann (EP 30)

    🎙️ Sarah Marie Sandmann, Innovation & Intrapreneurship, Bundeswehr Cyber Innovation Hub AI trust in defence starts where slides end: with a soldier under pressure who needs to understand, rely on, and account for the technology in their hands. Sarah Marie Sandmann works at the Bundeswehr Cyber Innovation Hub in Innovation and Intrapreneurship, the official innovation unit of the German armed forces. Sandmann treats trust in defence technology as a capability criterion, something tested under pressure, not asserted in policy, and the organisations getting this right are rebuilding how innovation works within the institution itself. 📖 Episode overview The Bundeswehr is one of Europe's most structurally complex organisations, built for stability, accountability, and risk minimisation, not speed. Sandmann and her colleagues run innovation projects at 12-month cycles that would take years through standard procurement. This episode explores what that tension looks like in practice: how AI is deployed strictly as decision support rather than decision replacement, how soldiers co-develop the technologies they will eventually trust with their lives, and why a trustworthy defence innovation ecosystem would be measured by capabilities delivered rather than the quality of its presentations. Sandmann also reflects on the post-Ukraine shift she has observed from inside the institution — more civilians wanting to contribute, more startups engaging with defence, and what that change means for civil-military trust. 🔍 Key themes Whether a soldier can understand, rely on, and explain an AI system, and why all three must be true before deploymentThe structural case for why large institutions are slow to innovate, and why the people inside them usually aren't the problemWhat "decision support, not decision replacement" means as a live design constraint for AI in high-stakes environmentsHow trust between military institutions and the startup ecosystem is actually built, and what breaks itWhat a trustworthy defence innovation ecosystem would need to look like in two to three years👤 About the guest Sarah Marie Sandmann works at the Bundeswehr Cyber Innovation Hub in Innovation and Intrapreneurship, the official innovation unit of the German armed forces. She works at the intersection of military capability development, startup collaboration, and responsible technology adoption, collaborating on projects that bring AI, autonomous systems, and emerging technologies into operational use through direct co-development with soldiers. She has been inside the institution through the post-Ukraine shift in civil-military engagement and speaks from that experience with unusual clarity. ⏱ Chapter markers [00:00] What the Cyber Innovation Hub actually does — and why cockroaches are involved[03:18] Trust as an operational requirement in defence technology[08:00] Why innovation resistance is structural, not cultural[13:09] AI as decision support — the bright line and how it holds[21:22] The post-Ukraine shift and what a trustworthy ecosystem would look like🔗 Links Sarah Marie Sandmann on LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-sandmann/Eva Simone Lihotzky on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/evalihotzky/Bundeswehr Cyber Innovation Hub — https://www.cyberinnovationhub.de/en/SwarmBioTactics and Autobugs project — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4vu5AKTkJkKomand.AI and Smart Lead project — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r45um6txpQSonic AI - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9i98jrielwRelated Episode: Why Security Intelligence Fails Before the Attack with Assaf Kipnies - https://open.spotify.com/episode/2D4ODAxGULFbqmXCmgwsfA

    Tech and Trust at the Bundeswehr Cyber Innovation Hub: Innovating for and with the Troops with Sarah Marie Sandmann (EP 30)

  7. 19. Juni

    Anthropic's Model Suspension, Europe 2031, and G7 World Leaders Lunching with Frontier AI Lab & Tech CEOs: The Week in Tech & Trust with Yours Truly (EP 29)

    🎙️ solo episode with host Eva Simone Lihotzky Anthropic's frontier AI model was pulled offline for every non-American in three days, and suddenly Europe's AI access looked less like something it owns and more like a permission. This is a week where digital trust stopped being abstract: one US export directive, one warning about Europe's compute future, and one lunch table where the people who build AI sat with the people who govern it. For any leader applying AI inside an organisation, it is a week worth understanding in practice, not as headlines. 🧭 In this episode In a single week of June 2026, three events landed that most coverage treated as separate. Eva reads them as one thread. The US Commerce Department forced Anthropic's Fable and Mythos models offline for any foreign national. The Europe 2031 agenda argued that Europe's window to matter in AI is closing faster than its own authors had predicted. And for the first time, Frontier AI lab CEOs sat at the G7 heads-of-state table. The question underneath all three: when access to the most strategic technology of the moment sits on someone else's permission, what does a European organisation actually own? Eva works through what this means for vendor dependency, infrastructure design, and the difference between treating AI sovereignty as a compute problem and treating it as a trust problem. 🔍 Key themes Why "access" to a frontier AI model may be a permission that someone else can withdraw — and what that does to a strategy built on itThe gap between Europe's AI story as a capital problem and the trust assumption sitting underneath itWhat changes for a leader when vendor lock-in stops being a risk slide and becomes a live eventWhether building infrastructure and orchestration across many models is now resilience rather than over-engineeringWhen the builders of AI also shape the rules that govern it, who represents the people using it🎙️ About the host Eva Simone Lihotzky, AI adoption and ethics advisor, formerly MD in one of the largest independent agency groups in Europe and co-author of 10 Moral Questions: How to Design Tech & AI Responsibly. She has spent more than a decade leading AI implementation inside organisations, which is why this episode resists the easy reads — it stays with the gray zone between hypocrisy and conviction, between capital and trust, rather than resolving it. This is a solo reflection: Eva connecting three news events into one question she openly admits is hard to narrow down. ⏱️ Chapters [00:00] Three news items, one thread[02:22] A frontier model offline in three days[08:00] Europe 2031: the window that closed early[11:30] Mistral, and the scale of the gap[18:45] The G7 table: builders meet the people who govern them[25:10] Who represents the ones using the technology🔗 Links Eva Simone Lihotzky on LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/evalihotzky/Europe 2031 agenda — https://europe2031.ai10 Moral Questions: How to Design Tech & AI Responsibly — https://www.10moralquestions.com/the-bookEva's World Economic Forum reflection, January 2026 — The politics of tech on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1RKtxdJWXcQH8vnpnDtgEP?si=wrln7peeSkKb-gotGHYMRgEva's World Economic Forum reflection, January 2026 — The politics of tech on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/the-in-between-tech-and-trust-podcast/id1828521905?l=en-GB&i=1000747143762Anthropic statement on the Fable / Mythos suspension — https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access

    Anthropic's Model Suspension, Europe 2031, and G7 World Leaders Lunching with Frontier AI Lab & Tech CEOs: The Week in Tech & Trust with Yours Truly (EP 29)

  8. 11. Juni

    AI and The Cognitive Atrophy Trap: What Happens When We Let Tech Shortcut the Hard Parts of Learning - Tobias Burkhardt (EP 28)

    🎙️ Tobias Burkhardt, Founder of The Shift School AI, trust and learning are on a collision course, and the casualty is judgment. Tobias Burkhardt, founder of the Shiftschool, argues that the way individuals and organisations are adopting AI in learning is a cultural problem: the reflex to make learning faster and cheaper is precisely what makes AI dangerous to the people using it. This conversation is for anyone who suspects the upskilling programmes around them are solving for the wrong problem. 💡 Episode overview Tobias Burkhardt has spent years advising organisations on learning and organizational development, and his diagnosis is uncomfortable: cognitive atrophy is real, it is already happening, and it predates AI. The impulse to shortcut understanding — to reach for the tool before doing the thinking — is a cultural pattern that AI accelerates but did not create. In this conversation, he makes the case for treating AI as a relational technology rather than a productivity instrument, and for rebuilding learning around curation, community, and continuity rather than content delivery. He also names something most learning institutions will not: that the ultimate goal of good education is to make oneself obsolete. 🔑 Key themes Why treating AI as a tool rather than a collaborator is ill-advised, and what the alternative requiresThe faster-and-cheaper reflex in organisational learning, and why it compounds the problem it is meant to solveWhat a school without content actually means, and what takes content's placeThe bilateral responsibility in learning, and why self-discipline alone will never be sufficientTrust as an investment: why waiting for certainty before engaging with AI is the wrong posture🎤 About the guest Tobias Burkhardt is the founder of The Shiftschool, a learning institution he built because he loved learning and never liked schools. He advises organisations on learning strategies and has developed a philosophy of education built around what does not change — judgment, curation, social interaction, and continuity — rather than around the tools and content that do. His concept of a school without content is a practical response to the decreasing half-life of knowledge in an AI-native world. ⏱ Chapter markers [00:00] Can we trust ourselves to use AI — not just trust AI itself[04:00] Why the information abundance problem predates AI[08:30] From tool to collaborator to environment — how the relationship with AI evolves[11:00] Cognitive atrophy and the shortcutting reflex[18:30] Lifelong learning as personal obligation — and why institutions cannot wait[22:30] The school without content — what takes knowledge's place[30:00] Redesigning Shift School for an AI-native world 🔗 Links Tobias Burkhardt on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/meetropoly/ Eva Lihotzky on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/evalihotzky/Visit the Shift School: https://shiftschool.deListen to the related episode with Simon Berkler on organisational AI adoption or trust in digital systems (EP 22): https://open.spotify.com/episode/6y8PMaVUnZVAR1hOAR15DN

    AI and The Cognitive Atrophy Trap: What Happens When We Let Tech Shortcut the Hard Parts of Learning - Tobias Burkhardt (EP 28)
Alle anzeigen (35)

Bewertungen und Rezensionen

5
von 5
2 Bewertungen

Info

The podcast explores how we build, break, and rebuild trust in a world shaped by accelerating technology and artificial intelligence. Hosted by Eva Simone Lihotzky, AI adoption and ethics expert with 12+ years of experience in tech, the podcast creates in-depth conversations at the intersection of AI, business, ethics, and human connection. Through various lenses - across business, politics, neuroscience, tech and systems thinking in organizations - it hosts expert conversations for you to deep dives into one of the complex topics we need to solve as a society and beyond.

Informationen

Das gefällt dir vielleicht auch