In this episode of AI Delve Shorts, host Pete is joined by Sridhar "Sid" Ravilla, a technology transformation executive and author of AI 360. Sid discusses his transition from a 25-year career defined by "raw effort" and 70-hour weeks to a leadership style focused on strategy, people, and the responsible implementation of AI. The conversation explores the inherent risks of AI when it is disconnected from human oversight. Sid emphasizes that while AI provides incredible scale, "humans also need to scale without which AI is going to fail". He identifies leadership judgment as the "missing 90 degrees" of a full 360-degree understanding of AI, serving as the essential safeguard against technological overreach

In this episode of AI Delve Shorts, host Pete welcomes Sridhar "Sid" Ravilla, a technology transformation executive and the author of AI 360. Sid shares his professional journey, including how he leveraged AI for personal branding to transition from a 25-year career in corporate leadership to becoming a consultant and author. The conversation explores the essential balance between the rapid advancement of technology and the need for human oversight. Sid discusses his "leadership series" of books, specifically highlighting that while AI allows for incredible scale, "humans also need to scale, without which AI is going to fail". He introduces the concept of the "missing 90 degrees" in AI implementation: leadership judgment...

Part 2 of my interview with John Kammer, the founder of a Guardian Angels, which lets people build and talk to an AI version of a person they have lost. He came to this not as a technologist looking for a market, but through his own grief, after losing three close friends over the space of a decade, and after a conversation with his wife that made him confront how much he had been avoiding.

What follows is a genuinely candid account of how that grief led to a product, and it raises questions that do not resolve neatly. If a conversation with an AI brings someone comfort, does it matter that the person on the other end of it does not exist? Where is the line between a tool that helps someone process what they could not say in time, and one that lets them avoid living in reality? John has built privacy into the platform as a founding principle, so that these conversations are not stored, monitored or monetised. But that same privacy means there is no one watching if a conversation starts to go somewhere dangerous, and he is candid about that trade-off too.

There is also a quieter tension running through the conversation, between John's own experience of grief, which shaped every design decision in this platform, and the very different experiences of the people who might use it. What worked for him, apologising to a friend, asking a question he never got to ask, may not map onto everyone's grief, particularly where the person being grieved caused harm rather than comfort.

But what do you think?