The Identity Threat: Why AI Adoption Is a Human Challenge, Not a Technology Problem

00:00:11:07 - 00:00:32:09 Michael Welcome to disambiguation. I'm your host, Michael Fauscette. Each week we interview experts in artificial intelligence, generative AI, and business automation to help business leaders understand how to use these tools for the biggest business impacts. 00:00:32:12 - 00:00:41:19 Michael Our show today The Identity Threat why AI is a human challenge, not a Technology problem.

I'm joined by Eva Minkoff, founder of Bold Being. Eva, welcome. 00:00:41:21 - 00:00:44:14 Eva Thank you so much for having me on. 00:00:44:16 - 00:00:46:02 Michael You know, to get us started.

00:00:46:03 - 00:00:50:10 Michael Why don't you give us a little bit of your background? And I know, you know. You. 00:00:50:25 - 00:01:15:22 Michael Focus around human transformation and not technologists and, you know, being to help leaders navigate AI.

You host human care podcast. You've done Ted talks on fixing health care. So how does that journey across health care coaching, chronic patient advocacy lead you to focus on helping organizations navigate AI adoption? 00:01:15:25 - 00:01:41:16 Eva Yeah, thank you for bringing that up because it is quite a journey.

As you mentioned, I've spent a lot of actually all of my career really up until now working exclusively in healthcare. Two decades of man. It's all over the place, like clinical and bench research, bedside care, media marketing and startups, both as a co-founder and early employee of multiple companies. And I gave a TEDx talk called five Minutes to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System.

I'm aware it's a very bold title. 00:01:48:28 - 00:01:51:08 Michael Yeah. Yeah, I was going to say five minutes. That's impressive.

00:01:51:09 - 00:02:17:07 Eva But yeah, if you watch it, you'll understand why it's called that. And it was specifically about the patient doctor relationship and why fixing that relationship is the foundation for fixing everything else. But the core argument was that when people operate under relentless pressure, they lose the ability to trust themselves in the room. For doctors, that breaks the relationship with the patient.

And for now, executives that I work with that refers to breaking everything downstream from that. The through line is the pressure collapse of self trust, and that's what eventually pulled me into coaching specifically. I kept watching brilliant healthcare leaders when they were in high stakes moments. They lost access to the very judgment that made them exceptional.

Like how they got in their positions in the first place. 00:02:48:26 - 00:03:20:04 Eva And now that's exacerbated by AI. And here's what makes this conversation timely for me on a personal level. So I shared with you, Michael, that my daughter was born on November 30th, 2022.

For those of you who don't know, that is the day ChatGPT launched publicly. Many consider that the first day of the AI era, and obviously that's the day my life changed completely as a new mother. And it was the same day the world changed completely in men's opinion. So I've been living in both disruptions, if you will, simultaneously, though it's been lovely on the daughter side for sure.

And I think that's made me a sharper observer of what this era is actually doing to people. 00:03:43:01 - 00:04:04:00 Michael Yeah, I have two daughters. I would say that did change my perspective of change management as well. So that's good.

You know, we were prepping for this. You made an interesting distinction in our conversation. You talked about, you know, we're experiencing right now. You know, we didn't really change management as we sort of classically have thought about it.

You called it more of an identity threat. I mean, that's an interesting statement, but could you unpack that a little bit for us? I mean, what does that what does that actually mean when AI threatens how people see themselves in their role? Why is that different from just normal technology disruption?

00:04:21:03 - 00:04:44:02 Eva I'm really glad you brought that up because I still hear the words change management coming up a lot. But when we talk about change management, we usually mean here's a new tool, here's a new process, here's training, and here's a timeline. Then often people will resist it. We manage the resistance and eventually adoption happens.

I think this is a known playbook. And this is not that. What AI is doing is closer to what the Industrial Revolution did, except that it's happening exponentially in real time rather than over decades. And it's reaching people who have never been threatened by automation before.

So we're talking. I mean, in my world, surgeons, executives, but lawyers, researchers, people in creative now, even coders, that was that was quite a throw off. People whose identity and authority and sense of legitimacy is built on a specific kind of expertise. And when AI starts doing versions of that work, the threat is not to the job description.

It's is to answer the question, who am I and do I? And that is an identity threat. That's not just something changing that you have to adapt to in the way that we're used to. You can't.

00:05:51:25 - 00:05:55:13 Michael That makes sense. It's much more personal. Right. Yeah, that makes sense.

00:05:55:15 - 00:06:00:27 Eva Yeah. You can't you can't manage an identity threat with a training program. 00:06:01:00 - 00:06:26:26 Michael Yeah. That's interesting.

I mean, I just read a report recently this earlier this week, I think actually, that talked about how they're finding that employees are actually sabotaging AI initiatives. And this is particularly strong in the Z workers. It seems sort of. And you mentioned industrial revolution.

I immediately think of the Luddites and sort of seems like the Luddite movement of our era. 00:06:26:27 - 00:06:42:07 Michael Right? I mean, what what do you think is driving that resistance, and how should leaders think about it? You know, rather than just dismissing it as as fear of change?

What should they think about and what do they do about it? 00:06:42:09 - 00:07:16:02 Eva Well, first I want to normalize this before explaining it. When you see those numbers like 30, 40, 50% of employees intentionally undermining AI initiatives, and actually a lot of the time it's like 70%, the instinct is to frame that as resistance or insubordination. And it's neither.

It's survival behavior, like caveman level survival behavior. When people think or feel their relevance, their legitimacy and their sense of professional identity is under threat. They're not going to respond rationally. They they respond protectively.

And that is not a choice. This is human wiring, you know, fight, flight, freeze. We are all familiar with that. And yeah, as you and I spoke about, the Luddites were not irrational people.

They were skilled workers whose entire livelihood felt like it was being erased. Yeah. And we are we're seeing the same dynamic right now, just across a much wider range of professionals and much faster. Yeah.

The mistake leaders make, I believe, is treating this as a communication problem, too. Like, we need to just explain the benefits better. No, like you cannot explain someone out of an identity threat. You have to address what it is underneath the behavior, which is fear about relevance and legitimacy.

Yeah. I mean, it is an emotional response, right? And that's certainly not something that you just explain away, because it's much deeper in each of the individuals than, you know, than just, oh, I don't I don't really want to change. Like, that's, that's that's fine.

Eventually either you have to or you have to leave. But this is a completely different sort of situation. Yeah. You can teach someone to use a tool and they still won't use it if they feel threatened by what the tool represents.

Skills. Yeah. It's like skills training assumes that the barrier is knowledge. And for some people, some of the time it is like, absolutely.

But the deeper barrier is, you know, the one that's actually stalling adoption at scale is going to be psychological and emotional. And it's the leader who steps trusting their own judgment because AI keeps second guessing it. That can be an even bigger threat because they're the ones leading the team. And then that team might perform compliance without genuine adoption because they're running on self-protection also.

00:09:34:04 - 00:09:59:27 Michael So I mean, that is a very different sort of mental state. And you said something when we were doing the prep call that I thought was really interesting. You said it's not ethical unpreparedness, it's human unpreparedness, psychological and emotional and preparedness, and that most of us, from an enterprise AI perspective, at least focus on skills gap training. But why is that?

00:09:59:28 - 00:10:09:24 Michael Why are we missing the real problem? I mean, what does psychological and emotional readiness actually have? Does that actually look like in this environment? 00:10:09:26 - 00:10:48:08 EVa Well, first, what it does not look like is decision latency.

That's one. Like leaders who were decisive six months ago are now deferring things that they would have called immediately, like they're in second guessing loops. And there's this autopilot kicking in, which is or again, they're operating system running on protection mode. And there's also performative adoption.

So like the tool is technically in use, but the behavior around it hasn't changed. People are using AI to produce the outputs and then they quietly redo it themselves. And I call that compliance theater. It's, you know, the tool is being used to satisfy mandate and not actually to change how the work gets done.

And then I'd also say that the easiest one to miss is leadership brittleness. Senior leaders who are like really good at ambiguity usually, and they start getting rigid or over communicating or even withdrawing. And that usually means that they've lost access to their own steadiness and are white knuckling the situation rather than leading through it. 00:11:31:24 - 00:11:53:27 Michael I mean, that must fundamentally be a feel like a threat from a middle manager or an executive because a big part of their identities tied around the fact that they make decisions.

Right. And if you start to introduce technology that takes away some of those decisions and, you know, because of its autonomy, I mean, that does seem threatening, I guess. 00:11:54:00 - 00:12:24:13 Eva Yeah, it's I think it's helpful to really know what what has to land first in order for them to overcome this identity, this identity threat to both them and those whom they lead. The first being that this is not a knowledge problem, as we've said, it's not going to be like a training problem.

Usually people understand actually what you're putting in front of them. What they don't trust is that the what they don't know what the tool is going to mean for them. I think it's also important that they understand that resistance is information. Like we don't we don't like resistance technically, but if you see it through a curiosity lens, there's so much there to unpack.

So instead of every act looking like pushback, like every quiet work around and even, you know, passive aggressive non adoption, it's your culture telling you something. Yeah. And if you suppress it it goes underground. But if you read it if you're present to it you start to get a roadmap for then what is possible.

Oh and really this is something that has to be said. Speed is not the right metric. Like if you think you are winning at AI adoption right now because you're adopting the fastest. That's that's not building sustainable adaptability.

You're just chasing the next capability. And those are very different goals and they produce very different cultures. Yeah. 00:13:38:02 - 00:14:04:13 Michael Yeah I mean it is certainly you can see and I've run across this, you know, just talking to clients about, you know, their their strategy, their process, where they're going that that there is a problem that says, you know, it's not it's not not adoption.

It's actually sort of the opposite. And you mentioned passive aggressive. It's like I if I if use these tools in a sloppy way, I get sloppy outputs, I get sloppy. You know, ways to demonstrate that this is a bad idea.

And and maybe subconsciously that is a defense mechanism. I really thought of it in that context. 00:14:14:08 - 00:14:34:26 Eva But yeah. Yeah, at the end of the day, something that I, I put forward in literally every aspect of my work is that we have to remember humans or humans.

And while there may be nuances to how we react, they all come from the same place. Yeah. Michael So you mentioned your superpower was simplifying. And, you know, taking all the complexity and getting down to the baseline to make things really understandable.

00:15:38:20 - 00:15:57:16 Eva I mean, in the AI space right now, there's a lot of noise and confusion. What are 2 or 3 things that you think leaders need to understand? You know, as a as a foundation really before they can move forward with their initiatives? Well, I have a framework for this that really demonstrates phases of what, like where where most people are starting, where most organizations are starting to what is possible.

And I want to again, note that everything that I've shared and will share applies to really any industry. Despite my focus being on healthcare. I just actually share later maybe that healthcare, just how much more it comes to the surface in healthcare because the type of environment it is. But again, I hope that this proves to be valuable regardless of industry.

So right now the first stage is instability. AI creates identity level instability for leaders, not just operational disruption. So the relevance feels threatened, their authority feels undermined, and their sense of decisiveness starts to road, as I've said. And that is the trigger for what we see happening.

And most organizations skip exploring this stage entirely and go straight into the adoption mandates. And that's why the mandates fail. The stage two is exploring the autopilot, as I call it, that shows up in these situations. So under sustained instability, leaders default to survival mode.

They keep executing, but they lose access to like really the judgment that they they know themselves to have. They wouldn't be in those those positions if they didn't have a good sense of judgment. And so their decisions get really reactive. They'll defer when they should be deciding themselves.

Like I said before, they'll go rigid when they should be adaptive and then pilot program stall. So sometimes people rush into them, but a lot of the time they also stall. And not because the tech itself has failed, but because the person steering it is running on a compressed version of themselves. So and then the third stage is really what is possible from that place, which I see as the opposite of autopilot, and I call it durable agency.

And this is really the work. It means interrupting the autopilot pattern and rebuilding the leader's capacity to make decisions from actual conviction rather than fear. So this isn't about catching up, and it's not about just performance confidence, its actual self trust. Under these real conditions.

I'd say the leaders that get to stage three are the ones who move from a pilot to production actually successfully, which is super rare right now, and not because they've learned more, as I've said, like not training or they feel like they're up to date on everything with AI, but because they are actually more themselves. And that ties right back to what we're we're saying with this identity threat. 00:19:15:02 - 00:19:22:16 Michael How do you combat an identity threat? You understand your identity better.

I mean, you use the term we were talking before, sustainable adaptability and saying that that's what's required. Not just, you know, not just catching up, but that. I mean, that seems like a very powerful concept. How how do you help leaders in their teams build sustainable adaptability?

You know, that capacity to be sustainable, authentic, you know, adaptable rather than just chasing every sort of new shiny object? 00:19:56:01 - 00:20:17:28 Eva Well, to take it from a high level first, the first thing is reframing what the goal actually is that they have. If a leader thinks a goal is to stay current, they're always going to be behind. Like there's always going to be a new model and a new capability and a new thing the board is asking about.

And I think of this like a treadmill. You know, you're not going anywhere. You're just running on it. Sustainable adaptability is not about any of that, not about staying current.

It's about building the internal capacity to to navigate constant change without losing yourself in it. So meaning that you're not a chameleon. It's not adaptability. We're like, you just have to put on a different outfit so that you can survive and be known as this great leader.

It means that you understand what's authentic about yourself, what's valuable about yourself, and you would use that to adapt to whatever comes your way. And that's why also the word durable is one that I use. It doesn't mean that I want to make it clear that it doesn't mean that you're never going to be thrown off the horse. Like we all get threatened.

We all go into these survival patterns, but it means you know how to get back on the horse. You know how to step back into that authentic, sustainably adaptive version of your of yourself. I don't think sustainability means that it's always consistent, but it means that you can get back to that level that you're aiming for. So it's knowing who you are as a leader.

When the external conditions keep shifting, that's stabilizing the identity and also building a durable decision making process, one that doesn't depend on certainty because certainty is not coming to bring you. But like it's not it's just not. Things are. We're in an era of constant change that is fueled by AI, but that's my true belief, is that that's where we are and that's where we're going to stay, if you will.

Oh, and the ability to hold ambiguity. Like I said before, not defaulting to paralysis or overcorrection, but understanding that ambiguity can be held in neutrality in itself and even in a positive way, especially when you are going that in yourself and the people that you're leading because it exists. And to ignore it is foolish. 00:22:33:25 - 00:22:34:13 Michael Yeah.

I mean, certainly the pace of change and and scope of change has dramatically changed since that November 22nd date, not just with the birth year daughter, but but also with the with the birth of generative AI. Maybe is the way to say it, but but I mean, that is definitely I'm sure people feel much less secure and there's a lot more, you know, kind of swirling around them as these initiatives have rolled out and not rolled out and failed and be pulled back and gone back in. 00:23:09:16 - 00:23:14:27 Eva And so it's it's a complex environment.

Yeah. I would say complexity is a word that comes up possibly on a daily basis. Complexity and uncertainty. Yeah.

00:23:23:10 - 00:23:47:18 Michael Yeah. That makes sense. Well, so you know, you mentioned that you work primarily in healthcare and and certainly healthcare does have some unique dynamics around trust. And and I mean, trust is certainly a issue in any place where we're talking about a genetic AI, but particularly patient relationships.

And, you know, this sort of deeply human nature of of healthcare. 00:23:47:20 - 00:24:00:15 Michael I mean, what have you seen in health care that could perhaps be applied in a broader business context that we should pay attention to? You know, when you think about AI in the human side of adoption. 00:24:00:18 - 00:24:35:08 Eva Yeah.

So other than the fact that I, my whole career before this was in the space of healthcare, healthcare is also the most human dependent industry on earth, in my opinion at least. And if it's failing the human layer of adoption, the AI, AI adoption in particular, and it is sorry, then every other industry should be paying attention because what plays out in healthcare plays out everywhere, just with higher stakes. The specific thing I want to name is that, well, I call something.

The specific thing I want to name is what I call regulated empathy. This is something that's really come from the healthcare space, but of course can translate anywhere. Healthcare leaders have been trained for decades to suppress emotional responses in order to appear professional and decisive. And of course, not just leaders, doctors as well.

But we're going to focus on leaders today. Like you don't show uncertainty when you're calling shots in the O.R., you don't let patients or physicians your doubt, and that suppression becomes the default operating mode.

What AI is doing is accelerating that pressure enormously. The margin for error goes down, and it's already, you know, not a great margin for healthcare. 00:25:34:01 - 00:25:41:15 Michael Well, it certainly has very high impact on on any. Thing in any decision.

Right. 00:25:41:18 - 00:26:03:21 Eva So I didn't mention this, but my husband is a physician and he likes to remind me that and I forgive me. I don't remember the exact stat, but he compares it to baseball, where they're expected to bat an average of like, I don't know, 30% or something like that, or even lower. And he's like, and doctors are expected to bat 100%.

And they're. Both it's. Fair and they're both. Yeah.

That's. Yeah yeah I. Look I get it. We don't want to have errors in healthcare, but at the end of the day it is run by humans.

So when you have AI involved, the expectations go up. The margin for error goes down, the speed of decision making also goes up and the expectation of certainty goes up with it. So this is when I'm seeing leaders double down on regulation, then press more and then suppressing more. They lose access to the judgment, the intuition, interpersonal attunement.

Like everything that we're we're talking about. And again this this shows up everywhere just because we're talking about the batting average of healthcare in particular. Expectations are rising in every industry. And so if we're dealing with an identity threat, plus the extra pressure of how we're supposed to perform, when we may not even know who we are in that performance, you're not going to get the best outcomes.

If I if it's all right. I'd actually like to share an example of this in one of my clients I'm incredibly proud of. He came into a new role as chief patient safety and quality officer. It's a long title, which basically means that he's responsible for the emergency department in addition to the rest of the hospital, but that acutely.

And he came to me in one of the most destabilizing periods of his career that collided with a hospital wide AI project implementation. And within a year, thanks to doing this inner sustainable adaptability work, his department had practically eliminated ed emergency department wait times, which was a huge problem, not the other Ed. I was going to say that that would also be pretty valuable. I think.

In the medical world there's lots of acronyms that I'm privy to that some others may not be, but he also saved this is crazy, like 20 million from a single initiative, 50 million, I think, in cost savings overall that year related to quality and patient safety. The hospital ended up having its best financial and quality year on record. And then he was promoted to CMO in that and within that first year. And I share that transformation story here, because that work was not operational in the slightest.

It was completely restoring his ability to lead from actual conviction instead of survival mode, which he was steeped in. So I have lots of examples of this my clients and outside of my clients. But that was just a beautiful example of this work come to life. 00:28:55:20 - 00:28:56:27 Michael Yeah, I mean.

I work a lot with, with with customer service, you know, customer facing parts of organizations. And, and I mean, obviously the the stakes are different, but from a, from a company, a brand perspective, that is one of the biggest concerns when you when you go into to the AI, you know, projects, proof of concept, that sort of thing that, that. It, that. It could have dramatic repercussions on a brand it machine speed if things can happen and, you know, unpredictable ways or unpleasant ways for, for customers.

So I, I can see how that crosses over from from that perspective, from a medical example into a business example. Makes sense. Well, so I like to. 00:29:47:25 - 00:30:06:21 Michael From, you know, from a practical perspective for leaders that are listening right now, you know, and in a lot of cases, I have this conversation quite often that their teams are resisting the implementation or they haven't been able to get out of proof of concept because of that resistance, you know, or maybe even sabotaging.

It. 00:30:06:27 - 00:30:20:00 Eva Although I haven't had that conversation quite as much because it is fairly subtle, I guess. But but what's the first thing they should do? And then, you know, not the technology fix, but like the human one, where what where do we start?

Yeah. May I say three things and they're in order. So you could say it's one, one bubble of human things that can be done. The first thing that truly the first thing is to name the instability out loud and not even necessarily as a problem to solve, but first as a reality to acknowledge.

Most leaders are trying to protect certainty right now, and I and I completely understand why. Again, as a human, they think that's what their teams need, but what they actually need is permission to be honest about what this feels like. I don't know if you're aware of this, especially medicine. A de-escalation tactic is naming the emotion that's in the room.

It's even better if you get them to name the emotion, and this is a version of doing that. 00:31:13:09 - 00:31:40:09 Eva So one direct conversation like you could just say this is a genuinely uncertain moment. And I know it's hard. And that changes the room more than any strategic roadmap does.

And the second is to audit your own autopilot of course. So in order to model what you want for your organization, for your teams, you have to do it yourself. 00:31:40:10 - 00:32:03:03 Eva Hate to break it to you. So do an audit of yourself.

Like where are you deferring decisions you would normally make confidently? Where are you going rigid when you would normally stay flexible. And these are questions that I mean there's lots of other ways and I can go into them another time. But like where is your own survival mode taking over?

00:32:03:06 - 00:32:13:18 Eva You cannot lead someone else through an identity threat. If you have not acknowledged the identity threat in yourself. I cannot stress that enough. 00:32:13:19 - 00:32:22:08 Michael Yeah, I mean, that really does make sense.

It resonates that I need to name the problem and then I need to own the problem. Right? That's. Yeah.

Yeah, that. Makes sense. 00:32:24:02 - 00:32:48:28 Eva And just the for this like is the human. This leads into a little bit more of the tangible aspect.

But I'd say the third is change the metric. So stop measuring adoption speed. Start measuring adaptive capacity to take on whatever it is that you are looking to implement and ask yourself, are my people becoming more capable of navigating uncertainty? 00:32:49:00 - 00:32:59:27 Eva Or are they just becoming more compliant because that produces very different cultures and only one of them is durable?

00:33:00:00 - 00:33:32:26 Michael Yeah. Now that that makes sense. You know, during the during the period when we were really focused on generative AI instead of a genetic, that one of the things that I saw in this, this ties directly into what you were saying there is that a lot of of executives that rolled out generative AI types initiatives set themselves up to fail because they put extreme metrics in place on employees that hadn't gone through any sort of program to help them understand what they were supposed to do or why.

00:33:32:28 - 00:34:00:03 Eva So all of a sudden, you're quotas or forex, what they used to be or your, you know, your productivity measures have gone up dramatically and you don't understand how. And that that was one of the biggest failure points I saw early on in, in the implementations from businesses was mis set that expectation and those those metrics to the point that it really it was sort of throw your hands up like, well, I can't possibly do that. 00:34:00:03 - 00:34:02:03 Michael I don't even understand what this is.

00:34:02:04 - 00:34:03:06 Michael Right. 00:34:03:08 - 00:34:04:19 Eva 100%. 00:34:04:21 - 00:34:05:12 Eva Yeah. 00:34:05:14 - 00:34:16:21 Michael Yeah, that makes sense.

Well, interesting, very interesting conversation. And I think that we spent a lot of time talking about the technology. And often we don't spend nearly enough time talking about the people. 00:34:16:22 - 00:34:17:15 Speaker 5 Because.

00:34:17:15 - 00:34:45:14 Michael That is one of the biggest issues. But so very interesting conversation. But before I let you go, one of the things I like to do at the end of every episode is get a recommendation, somebody that you think the audience should check out. Person A thought leader or an author speaker could be a regulation, I guess.

I mean, any anything that you think would be relevant that would help, you know, the the audience. 00:34:45:16 - 00:35:02:08 Eva I think my recommendation is specifically related to what you were just saying about, like focusing on the technology, not the humans. So just to put it plainly, I think most people think emotions, human needs are soft and I. Call them soft skills forever.

So yeah. Yeah, exactly. Man, I could go on and on and maybe it's been transparent here, but how they are not and they are absolutely necessary more than ever in the age of AI. And so my recommendation truly I want to push forward as I think the leader in soft skills work that is fundamentally game changing.

And that is a Brynn Brown. And she she might sound like an obvious choice, but I really want to talk about her work on shame and vulnerability, which she is known for. And this is why it's not obvious for me. So everything I do with leaders ultimately comes back to one question can you be honest with yourself?

And that is actually a lot harder than most people perceive it to be, or at the very least, a lot less frequent. People might even think it's easy, but how often do you really do that? How reliable are you to do that? And not vulnerable in a performative way, but like really vulnerable with yourself, like admitting things that are hard to admit, exploring things that are hard to explore.

And can you see your own patterns clearly enough to interrupt them? So Bernie's research on shame is the foundation underneath all of it. Shame is what makes leaders hide their instability instead of naming it. Shame is what keeps them on autopilot, and it's because they're not stopping to look at the pattern, as it means confronting what they're afraid to see.

A really quick note because I think this is one of the most important distinctions I ever learned from Bernie Brown, and everyone should read Atlas at the heart. It talks about the 87 emotions and the definitions and differences between them. It's incredible. Incredible.

It should be required reading for every human. And that is a distinction between shame and. Oh my God, I want to say disappointment. It's not disappointment, my God.

Shame it. Oh, sorry. The difference between shame and guilt. Guilt is about something we have done.

We are guilty about something that we have done. Shame is about who we are, shame about who we are as a person. And it's related here because we're talking about identity. So understanding your own relationship to shame and vulnerability is not soft work at all.

It is the precondition for everything else. And you cannot build durable agency from a place of self-deception. That honesty has to come first. 00:37:53:25 - 00:38:04:28 Michael Very interesting.

Yeah, maybe I have something to add to my reading list to. That's good. Well, Eva, thanks so much. Really interesting conversation and I really appreciate you joining today.

00:38:05:01 - 00:38:14:15 Eva Thank you so much. This has really been an honor. And it's I think one of the most important messages I can put out into the world. So thank you for giving me that opportunity.

00:38:14:18 - 00:38:18:14 Michael Yeah it's great. Thank you. 00:38:18:16 - 00:38:19:01 Michael And that's The show for this week. Thank you all for joining us.

Remember to like, share and subscribe to the show. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review to help others find us. For more research on AI and other software, check out arionresearch.com.

And if you're an expert in AI, generative AI, or business automation, either as a provider or an inducement, email your information to disambiguation at arionresearch.com. Don't forget to join us next week. Disambiguation is an Arion Research production.

I'm Michael Fauscette and this is the disambiguation podcast.