Can Businesses Rely on AI? Veteran Journalist Beth Pariseau is Guest

AI demos are impressive. Making AI work reliably inside a business is a much harder challenge. In this episode of FOBtv, Kevin Benedict welcomes veteran technology journalist Beth Pariseau of Informa TechTarget to explore what happens when enterprise AI moves from experimentation into everyday operations. Drawing on Beth’s reporting, the conversation examines where companies are finding real business value, how poor data and operational complexity can undermine progress, and why reliability becomes critical as businesses depend on AI for results.



*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

AI Is Changing Software Development. Is It Changing Business Success?

AI can write code, but can it build a product?  In this fascinating episode A.J. Singh walks us through the strengths and weaknesses of AI code generation and its potential impact on business success, both good and bad, now and in the future.


My new book, The Future of Human Leadership, is now available here!

*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

The Leadership Revolution

Traditionally, leaders were evaluated for their ability to establish objectives, develop plans, allocate resources, organize people, supervise execution, and deliver results.

Those responsibilities are no longer sufficient to explain what effective leadership requires.

During the Sixth Great Transition, leaders increasingly govern systems that can observe, analyze, recommend, decide, communicate, and act with reduced direct human involvement. These capabilities operate at different velocities, extend across organizational boundaries, and generate consequences that may outrun traditional oversight.

A leader cannot personally supervise every consequential action. Nor can leadership depend upon the assumption that somewhere in the process a knowledgeable person will notice what is going wrong and intervene in time.

Instead, leaders must design the conditions under which intelligence can contribute responsibly, decisions can remain legitimate, errors can be corrected, people can adapt, and the organization can continue learning.

This changes the focus of leadership from the individual leader's ability to maintain control toward the organization's ability to remain governable.

It changes the value of human judgment from being present at every decision to establishing where judgment must remain meaningful.

It changes the objective of speed from moving faster to moving at rates the whole system can responsibly sustain.

And it changes the meaning of performance from delivering results today to delivering results without destroying the capabilities required for tomorrow.

My latest book on this topic is available here.


*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

Future Leadership Requires an Update

I have spent much of my professional life studying technological change and trying to understand what comes next.

One question has become increasingly important to me.

What is all this progress actually for?

We are creating machines that can reason, write, analyze, predict, and increasingly act with extraordinary capabilities.

Our organizations are becoming more intelligent, more connected, and more powerful.

But will those advances make us better human beings? Will they create stronger communities, healthier institutions, more meaningful work, and better opportunities for future generations?

Or will we simply become more efficient at pursuing objectives that ultimately leave people less capable, less connected, and less in control?

I wrote The Future of Human Leadership because I believe these questions deserve much more attention from the people designing our future.

The true test of progress is not how powerful our technologies become.

It is whether the world we leave behind is better for those who follow us.

To learn more: https://a.co/d/0c8AVw9H




*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

The Beliefs We Bring to the Future

Before we examine evidence about the future, our beliefs, experiences, and desires already shape what we expect to see. These influences affect what we notice, whom we trust, and whether we are willing to change our minds. This essay examines those influences so we can better distinguish what the evidence suggests from what we hope, fear, or believe must happen.

A dramatic black and white illustration of Earth viewed from space, with rays of light shining from a distant celestial city amidst clouds.
Imagine a company discussing whether to use artificial intelligence to do more of its work. One manager sees a chance to save money. An employee worries about losing a job. Another person remembers an earlier technology project that failed. Someone else has already promised the boss that the new system will succeed. They hear the same presentation, but different parts catch their attention. Before anyone studies the results of a trial, each person has reasons to welcome or resist what those results might show.

The Lever, the Fulcrum, and the Future of Human Leadership

More than 2,000 years ago, the Greek mathematician Archimedes explained one of the simplest and most powerful ideas in mechanics: the lever.

The principle was straightforward. Give someone a long enough lever and a properly positioned fulcrum, and a relatively small force can move an enormous weight. Archimedes is famously associated with the statement, “Give me a place to stand, and I will move the Earth.”

The important insight was not that humans had suddenly become stronger. They hadn’t.

The architecture around the human had changed.

The lever multiplied what a person could accomplish.

Human history can be understood, in part, as the continuing search for better levers.

Agriculture gave us leverage over food production. Machines gave us leverage over physical labor. Steam engines and electricity gave us leverage over energy. Industrial organizations gave us leverage through coordination and scale. Computers gave us leverage over calculation. Networks gave us leverage over communication and connectivity.

Now artificial intelligence is giving us leverage over something different: intelligence itself.

This is one of the defining characteristics of what I call the Sixth Great Transition.

For most of human history, intelligence was scarce, expensive, local and overwhelmingly human. If an organization wanted more analysis, writing, planning, design, problem-solving or decision support, it generally needed more people with the necessary knowledge and experience.

That assumption is changing.

Machine intelligence can increasingly analyze information, generate ideas, write software, create content, recognize patterns, coordinate activities and operate systems. One human working with intelligent machines may soon be able to accomplish things that once required dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people.

We are building an extraordinarily long lever.

But Archimedes’ lesson contains something else that deserves our attention.

A lever requires a fulcrum.

Where you place that fulcrum determines what happens when force is applied. The same is true of technology. Artificial intelligence does not determine its own purpose. People, organizations and institutions decide where it is deployed, what it is optimized to accomplish, what authority it receives and what boundaries surround it.

That makes leadership increasingly important, not less.

When intelligence becomes abundant, the central leadership question shifts from simply, “What can we do?” to “What should we do?”

Capability is not purpose.

Intelligence is not wisdom.

And intelligence does not confer moral authority.

The more powerful our technological leverage becomes, the more important human judgment, ethics, responsibility and stewardship become.

This is why one question runs through my book, The Future of Human Leadership: When Intelligence Is Everywhere:

“Whom do I serve?”

It is a deceptively simple question. But it forces us to think about the purpose toward which all this extraordinary capability is being directed.

Are we using our new leverage simply to make organizations faster? To reduce costs? To automate more work? To increase profits? Those may all be legitimate objectives. But they are incomplete answers.

The larger question is whether the systems we create ultimately help people, organizations, societies and ecosystems flourish together.

Archimedes taught us how a small force could move an enormous object.

The Sixth Great Transition gives us increasingly powerful technological levers of our own.

The challenge for this generation of leaders is deciding where to place the fulcrum, who controls the lever, what we intend to move—and, ultimately, whom all that power is meant to serve.

*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

The Backstory to the Book - The Future of Human Leadership

The backstory begins with something I kept hearing: “We’re doomed."

In conversations people kept expressing the same concern that technology is moving too fast. That artificial intelligence is taking our jobs! That AI is destroying our future, and that it will ultimately kill us all!” 

What bothered me the most was the sense of helplessness underneath it all. People were talking as though the future had already been decided, and all we could do was wait to find out how bad it would be.

I found myself asking, “Who is doing this to us?” And the uncomfortable answer was: we are. 

Humans are developing these technologies, funding them, choosing their purposes, and deciding how to use them. We don’t all have equal power, and nobody controls the whole process. But human decisions are shaping this future. That means we still have responsibilities, and we still have choices.

What’s AI For?

Telos is an ancient Greek word meaning end or purpose. Aristotle thought that to understand anything fully, we have to ask not only what it does, but what it’s for. That question sits very close to the philosophy in my new book,”The Future of Human Leadership.”

Today we have astonishing and fast growing capabilities. We can analyze faster and automate almost anything, but telos asks toward what? Capability answers “can we?”, while telos asks “should we, and for whom?” 

That’s why my book’s guiding principles, flourishing together and whom do I serve, really matter. They provide a direction, a reason beneath the speed. Aristotle thought that the highest telos for humans was flourishing. Today we face the same question at a civilizational scale. 

What is all this intelligence ultimately for? In an age of abundant capability, telos reminds us that purpose is not optional, it is the point.

*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

What Leadership Becomes When Intelligence Is Everywhere

Available on Amazon
For most of human history, intelligence was scarce. Leaders mattered because they knew more or could decide better. That world is ending. Artificial intelligence is making powerful forms of intelligence cheap, fast, and everywhere. That raises a much bigger question than productivity or management. When intelligence is everywhere, what are humans for? 

If machines can analyze, predict, recommend, create, and even act, then what becomes valuable is not simply having answers. It’s something else. Judgment, responsibility, ethics, trust, imagination, purpose, the ability to decide not just what can be done, but what should be done. 

That’s the territory of my new book, The Future of Human Leadership: When Intelligence Is Everywhere. This is not a book about becoming a better manager. It’s about what we must choose to become, as humans, when our machines become extraordinarily capable.


*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

Whom Do We Serve?

The world is racing to build smarter artificial intelligence. We want AI that can think, plan, decide, and act autonomously. We want machines that can do more work, solve more problems, increase profits, and make organizations more efficient.


But there is a question we should ask before we go much further:

Whom do we serve?

Why are we building all of this intelligence and automation? What is the destination?

Making things faster is not the destination. Cutting costs is not the destination. Increasing profits is not the only destination. Even creating more powerful AI is not the destination.

These are tools and means. They are not the reason for the journey.

The goal, I believe, should be Flourishing Together.

That means using our growing intelligence—human and machine—to help people, organizations, societies, and the natural world flourish together.

This does not mean everyone always wins. Hard choices will still have to be made. But it does mean we should think carefully about who benefits from our decisions, who pays the price, and what kind of future those decisions are creating.

*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

A Concise Synopsis of The Future of Human Leadership: When Intelligence Is Everywhere

The central argument of my new book, The Future of Human Leadership is that humanity has entered a historically significant transition in which capability is expanding faster than people and institutions can understand, govern, or absorb it. Artificial intelligence is an important part of this change, but the transformation is much larger than AI. Science, technology, society, geopolitics, economics, philosophy, and the environment are changing simultaneously and interacting with one another. I describe this convergence as the Sixth Great Transition. Its defining characteristic is not one invention or technology, but the redistribution and expansion of intelligence, perception, decision-making, and action across humans, machines, networks, institutions, and living systems.

The institutions we inherited were designed around an assumption that is becoming increasingly unreliable: somewhere in the system, a capable human being would have enough information, time, understanding, and authority to recognize what was happening, make sense of it, intervene when necessary, and accept responsibility for the result. Modern organizations still depend heavily on this assumption even as the operating environment moves beyond human scale. Information can circulate faster than people can verify it. Machines can analyze and act before people fully understand the situation. Consequences can spread across highly connected systems before formal authority has time to respond. At the same time, leaders face eight New Operating Conditions—Acceleration, Temporal Compression, Consequence Compression, Distributed Intelligence, Persistent Connectivity, Growing Interdependence, Continuous Exposure, and Compounding Complexity. These conditions greatly expand what organizations can accomplish, but they also make responsible leadership more difficult.

A major consequence is that organizations can exceed human limits while still appearing successful. People may remain productive while Judgment deteriorates, attention fragments, trust weakens, and their ability to understand what is happening declines. Technology may increase organizational capacity without increasing the human capacity required to govern it. This is why the book argues that human limits should not simply be treated as weaknesses to overcome through additional pressure. They are design realities. Human beings require certain conditions if they are to remain capable participants in increasingly complex systems. I identify six Human Viability Conditions: Coherence, Agency, Belonging, Fairness, Meaning, and Identity Continuity. When these conditions deteriorate, the deeper Human Capacities organizations increasingly need—Judgment, Ethics, Empathy, Creativity, Narrative, and Relational Trust—also become harder to exercise. Meaningful transformation consumes finite adaptive energy as people reconstruct skills, roles, routines, relationships, and identities. Leaders therefore cannot assume that every technically possible transformation is humanly absorbable.

The Future of Personal AI with Expert David Espindola

What happens when AI stops being generic and starts becoming deeply personal? In this episode of FOBtv, I welcome back AI strategist, entrepreneur, author, and BrainyUs founder David Espindola to explore the emerging world of personal AI knowledge systems. We discus how AI learns not just our documents but our ideas, values, experiences, judgment, personality. We also explore what this means for companies seeking to preserve institutional knowledge—and we explore a fascinating question: Could our personal intellectual corpus continue thinking, teaching, and answering questions long after we are gone?


*I use AI in all my work.
************************************************************************
Kevin Benedict
Futurist, and Lecturer at TCS
View my profile on LinkedIn
Follow me on X @krbenedict
Join the Linkedin Group Digital Intelligence

***Full Disclosure: These are my personal opinions. No company is silly enough to claim them. I work with and have worked with many of the companies mentioned in my articles.

The CEO We Need for the Sixth Great Transition

For generations, we have celebrated the CEO who seemed to know everything. The visionary. The strategist. The decisive commander. The person at the top of the pyramid who saw farther, understood more, made the difficult calls, and directed everyone else toward the destination.
Coming soon!


That model made sense in a world where information was scarce, expertise was concentrated, organizations moved relatively slowly, and most productive intelligence resided inside human beings.

That world is disappearing.

We are entering what we call the Sixth Great Transition, an era in which intelligence is becoming abundant, distributed, increasingly autonomous, and embedded throughout the systems around us. Artificial intelligence can already analyze, predict, recommend, create, communicate, coordinate, and act. Digital workers and AI agents will increasingly operate alongside human workers. Networks connect organizations, markets, machines, customers, suppliers, and institutions in real time.

The defining leadership problem is therefore changing.

The CEO of the future does not need to be the source of the organization's intelligence.

The CEO must learn to orchestrate intelligence.

The Great Transfer: From Human Muscle to Machine Intelligence

Human history can be understood as a long transfer of burden and capability. For most of our existence, what humanity could accomplish was limited by the capabilities of the human body. We could carry only so much, travel only so fast, work only so long, and remember only so much. Then we began moving those limitations outside ourselves.

We supplemented human muscle with animal muscle. Oxen pulled our plows, horses carried us farther and faster, and wind and water turned our mills. Humans still supplied purpose, direction, and judgment, but we had begun externalizing physical capability. Steam dramatically accelerated the process. Enormous amounts of mechanical power could now be generated without muscles at all, powering factories, locomotives, ships, and mines. Human beings increasingly became operators of power rather than its primary source.

Electricity took the next step. Steam had concentrated power; electricity distributed it. Energy could travel through networks and appear wherever it was needed. Petroleum and the internal-combustion engine distributed mechanical power even further through cars, trucks, tractors, airplanes, and construction equipment. Something profound was happening: capability was becoming detached from the individual person.

Then computers moved this same process from our muscles toward our minds. Computers externalized calculation, memory, information processing, and control. Tasks that once required human cognitive effort could increasingly be performed by machines. Eventually, billions of people carried networked computers in their pockets, providing almost instant access to information, navigation, communication, and computational power. We had entered the age of cognitive industrialization.

Your Personality May Be Distorting the Future

Futurists and business leaders spend enormous amounts of time trying to improve the quality of their information. We study weak signals, emerging technologies, demographic shifts, economic trends, geopolitical risks, consumer behavior, and scientific breakthroughs. We build scenarios, hire experts, analyze data, and increasingly ask artificial intelligence to help us recognize patterns that humans might miss.

But there is another variable sitting quietly inside every forecast: the personality of the person doing the forecasting.

We tend to assume that when two intelligent people look at the same evidence and reach very different conclusions about the future, one of them must have misunderstood the evidence. Sometimes that is true. But personality research suggests something more interesting may also be happening. People may be psychologically inclined to notice different kinds of evidence, tolerate different levels of uncertainty, prefer different time horizons, and imagine different ranges of possibility.

That makes personality another important lens through which we see the future.

Foresight and Doctrinal Future time

Disclaimer: I'm no expert in world religions, traditions, theologies, philosophies or doctrines.  The point of this article is not to judge, but to highlight the fact that many of us have grown up in traditions that may influence our perspective of the future in many different and interesting ways.  It is important to recognize that we are not all starting with a clean slate when we study the future.
Views on Destiny


Let's begin by exploring how doctrines, traditions, philosophies and religious beliefs might give us unique worldviews about the future and our destiny. I use the term Doctrinal Future Time: to describe the future as it has been taught, promised, warned about, or morally structured by various traditions and philosophies.

As a reminder, Historically Imagined Time gives us an imagined story about where we came from. Doctrinal Future Time gives us a story about where everything is going. The Vices of Foresight are the lenses many of us wear that can distort our views of the emerging future.

These influences create a powerful combination that can impact our perceptions of the future, and because of that a person may not approach the study of our emerging future as genuinely open for debate and inquiry. 

The Future Becomes a Script

Strong religious narratives can determine which futures seem possible before evidence is considered. A believer in an imminent biblical apocalypse, for example, may see political conflict, war, technological control, disease, environmental disruption, or changes in Israel and the Middle East not merely as historical events, but as signs within an expected and predetermined prophetic sequence.

The event is therefore interpreted twice. It is evaluated for its immediate political, economic, or social meaning, but it is also examined for its possible place in a sacred story. A war may become more than a war. A new technology may become more than a tool. A political leader may become more than a political leader. Each can be assigned a prophetic role.

This can create a powerful form of confirmation. When an event appears to fit the prophecy, it strengthens belief in the framework. When it does not fit, the interpretation can often be adjusted. The prophecy may have been misunderstood, the timetable may be longer, the event may be preliminary, or the true fulfillment may still be hidden.

The framework can therefore become extremely difficult to confirm or negate. Almost every development can be absorbed into the story.

The Future Through Distorted Lenses

Human beings like to imagine that the hardest part of seeing the future is that the future has not happened yet. We assume uncertainty is the main obstacle. If only we had better data, better models, better artificial intelligence, or more sophisticated forecasting tools, perhaps we could see what is coming more clearly.

But there is a deeper problem. We do not look toward the future with clear eyes. We look through lenses shaped by our fears, loyalties, ambitions, identities, memories, desires, and stories about the past. Long before the future reaches us, we have already begun editing what we are willing to see.

Two forces make this especially difficult: the Vices of Foresight and Historically Imagined Time. The first distorts how we interpret signals arriving from the present. The second distorts the historical reference points we use to judge those signals. Together, they create an extraordinary challenge. We can misunderstand where we are, misunderstand where we came from, and then attempt to navigate toward a future using both errors at once.

We Do Not Remember the Past. We Reconstruct It.

Foresight is Orientation

Foresight is often mistaken for prediction. We imagine its purpose is to tell us what will happen next: which technology will win, which market will emerge, which threat will become serious, or which opportunity will matter most. But prediction and foresight are not the same thing.
The Future is Many Possibilities

Prediction asks, “What will happen?” Foresight asks a different set of questions: What is changing? What might follow? What assumptions are beginning to weaken? And is our current understanding of the world still good enough to guide our decisions?

Frank Diana recently wrote a great article where he explains this in detail.

Prediction seeks an answer. Orientation points us in a direction and preserves the ability to revise.

Historically Imagined Time: When the Past Distorts the Present

Click to Enlarge
We like to believe we make decisions based on the present. We study the evidence, examine the risks, debate the options, and try to anticipate what comes next. But there is another influence quietly sitting at the table: our imagined version of the past.

I call this Historically Imagined Time.

Historically Imagined Time is not history itself. It is the version of history we carry in our heads—the compressed, edited, inherited, and often romanticized story of what life used to be like. That imagined past becomes a reference point for judging the present, and because the reference point is often distorted, it can distort our decisions about the future.

Why Foresight Fails, PT 2


Foresight is often described as the ability to see what is coming.  The challenge occurs when foresight forewarns, but the organization fails to act. They notice the anomaly, hear the warnings, but make excuses or ignore the significance of the insight.
Click to Enlarge

This is part of a series examining what I call the vices of foresight: recurring ways leaders and institutions distort, resist, or weaken signals about a changing world. One of the first breaks with reality is often moral.

When Reality Creates an Obligation

A signal appears that threatens a strategy, reputation, investment, promise, or identity. Leaders may understand what it means, but fully acknowledging it would create obligations they would rather postpone. It might require admitting an error, disrupting profitable operations, challenging powerful people, abandoning an investment, or asking others to accept an immediate cost.

So the signal is softened. It becomes preliminary, isolated, manageable, or insufficiently validated. More analysis is requested. Another meeting is scheduled. The organization continues moving by reducing the force of what it has already learned.

Interviews with Kevin Benedict