Tech Talks Daily

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.