Inside AI - Ep 4: AI Trajectory, Resilence, and Ethical Frameworks
In this episode of Inside AI, CTO Consulting’s Sam Bradon (Director of Platforms) is joined by Jacqui Adams, Head of Digital Transformation at Kinetic IT, to explore what it really takes to make AI adoption succeed beyond the technology itself.
Jackie argues that a great AI strategy starts with a clear "why." Who you serve, what outcomes matter, and what you deliberately won't do. Without that foundation, organisations risk jumping to solutions before understanding the problem.
The conversation turns to trust, resilience, and ethics, particularly in government contexts where public confidence is hard to rebuild once lost. Jackie reveals that Australia has the lowest AI trust rates among developed nations, with only 30% of people believing benefits outweigh risks.
On operationalising ethics, Jackie offers three practical anchors: running pre-mortems to surface ethical risks early, building shared language through real-world examples, and measuring actual behaviour — not just policy sign-offs.
A rich, thought-provoking discussion on why the human and organisational dimensions of AI matter most.
Runtime [00:35:35]
Inside AI - Ep 4: Australia’s AI Trajectory, Resilence, and Ethical Frameworks.
Our Speakers
Sam Bradon
Sam Bradon is a seasoned professional services leader with deep expertise across sales, delivery, and customer success. With a track record of leading large consulting teams and solving complex client problems, he helps CTO Consulting clients design and deliver innovative, strategic, and impactful business solutions.
Jacqui Adams
Jacqui Adams is a seasoned transformation leader with deep expertise across digital strategy, operating model design, and program management. With a track record spanning government and private sectors, she helps organisations design and deliver ethical, people-centred digital and AI-driven solutions.
-
Sam (00:02.446)
Hello and welcome to another episode of AI with Intent, the podcast where we focus on providing unfiltered, real-world views on AI-driven transformation based on our experiences. I'm Sam Bradon, your host today. Jan Esmond, our usual host, has decided to realise one of his life goals and is currently sailing his boat around Australia, so we wish him good luck on that. At CTO Consulting, I run our platforms business.
Personally, I've been in IT coming up to 30 years now, both in the UK and in Australia, and I've really focused on helping organizations get real value from their investments. Today, we're very lucky to have Jacqui Adams with us. Jacqui is Head of Digital Transformation at Kinetic IT, where she's accountable for modernizing and simplifying their client services, platforms, and practices. Jacqui has 25 years of experience working across public and private sectors.
specialising in enterprise strategy, digital transformation, enterprise operating models, program management, and service strategy. Jacqui is energised about the future: one where digital and AI capabilities, enabled by great strategy and operating models, create exceptional experiences for customers, employees, users, and partners. We should state before we start that the opinions expressed in this podcast are our own personal ones and not necessarily
linked to our employers or our customers. So, on to today's topic. With AI-driven transformations starting to really impact commercial and government organisations, we want to discuss Australia's AI capability, what it looks like or needs to look like, and, in relation to this, how important resilience is.
And what role do, or should, ethics play in AI transformation? To say there is a massive focus on AI and agentic AI technologies at the moment is probably one of the biggest understatements I've ever made. But equally, there seems to be a real lag in the organisational changes required to make AI adoption successful. I suspect a lot of this starts with having a robust AI strategy and an enabling operating model.
Sam (02:23.02)
Jacqui, so we're all on the same page: where does strategy, or what do strategy and operating model, mean to you?
Jacqui Adams (02:30.601)
Great question, Sam, and such a good foundation to launch from. I think I've got a fabulous person I work with and everything you say. What do you mean by that? So it's always a great starting point. For me, strategy is an integrated set of choices about where you'll play, how you will win, and what you deliberately won't do. I think that last bit is the one that we often forget about.
In my experience, great strategy starts with who you serve, understanding the market in which you operate, understanding what is the unique thing you do to contribute to society and what outcomes do you need to deliver to make things better for your customers. And if I break it down systematically, I found it really helpful to pull it apart with a few quick questions and
Sam (03:22.207)
Okay.
Jacqui Adams (03:27.209)
The first thing I always sit down with clients and ask is, what is a compelling view of the future for your organization? And what is it that you will do to serve others? And I think one of the ones that has stuck with me, Services Australia has an incredible vision statement. They say that we want to make services simpler so people can get on with their lives.
I think that has so much going for it. It's not self-referential, which is refreshing. It's clear, it's human. It's broad enough to endure through a changing environment and it's connected to a meaningful outcome, not just commercial drivers. So that's the very first thing. What does incredible look like for your organization or your department? And then one of the things that I often find really helpful, there's a great model that BCG has.
It's called your strategy needs a strategy. One of the most powerful models I've used in the last five or 10 years. And it talks about, can you predict the market you operate in and can you control it? And so often strategies don't fit in with that reality. So we kind of have a strategy about where we think we are or where we want to be. But if you can't predict and can't control the market in which you operate.
Sam (04:51.64)
Mm-hmm.
Jacqui Adams (04:52.233)
You probably need to be adaptable. But if you can predict and you can control, a visionary strategy. So it talks through that, but really drawing people back into where are you. And then once you understand that, what is stopping you in that environment from achieving that ideal vision? And again, a terrific book that someone recommended to me, a great strategy, good strategy, bad strategy.
But he really focuses on being clear on the barriers. Otherwise, it's just a vision statement. So first step, what does great look like? Second step, what's the market you operate in? Third step, what's stopping you from getting there? And then with all of that context, working collaboratively in the massive ecosystem you may operate in to say, how do you organize yourself to enable that strategy? And a lot of the work
that I've seen done really well is when people do a systematic and methodical or adopt a systematic and methodical approach. Then once you've got that, you know what AI needs to be and do. So you understand, is it about better regulatory outcomes? Is it about faster service delivery? Is it about helping you be more adaptable? Is it helping you be a visionary? And then you set up a success because you've thought through about
the workforce capabilities, the partnerships you need, your culture, your service strategy, your revenue model, all those good things, tools data that go into an operating model, it all then is contextualized on a really solid foundation. And I do find that it requires so much restraint not to jump to the end point, but to go through quite a methodical. And I'll just wrap up.
There is such a great study. came out, I think it was done by the Columbia Business School and an option to BCG. They showed that companies that prioritise employee experience are seven times more likely to have high adoption and success extracting value from AI. So all of that, if you're starting from how do we make money and that's all, how do we just be more efficient?
Sam (06:54.324)
Mm-hmm. Yep.
Jacqui Adams (07:15.913)
There is solid research to say having a really clear why will paradoxically lead to far better commercial outcomes rather than doing it the other way around.
Sam (07:27.042)
Yeah, yeah, I totally get that. It's interesting because, sometimes, when people are talking about adopting AI, they really focus on speed rather than employee experience. But do you think that conversation has shifted? Do you think resilience and Australian capability are becoming more relevant to government organisations as they think about AI adoption?
Jacqui Adams (07:54.654)
Yeah, such a good question, and I’ll be a good politician and say both. So I think it's all about context. I was fortunate enough to work with some really incredible people who made a significant impact during COVID. I'll take a different department, but if I think about the ATO's ability to administer JobSeeker payments—$89 billion to 1 million businesses, I think it was—
Sam (08:01.208)
Yeah.
Sam (08:11.086)
Mm-hmm.
Jacqui Adams (08:25.029)
And the ANAO went in afterwards and said that program was really effective and it was one that had to happen really quickly. So it wasn't speed at any cost but it was enabled by really clear policy intent and a clear why but they accepted the trade-offs that came with speed. I think if I compare that to something like digital ID that's being delivered by Services Australia that is a program where speed cannot be
the primary leader, that is about trust and accountability and resilience. And I think if they move too far from that, what they're doing really well is holding that intention because if we lose public confidence, it is very difficult to recover. So what I'm loving is that I'm seeing the government optimise across a broader set of leaders. So it could be speed, could be trust, it could be resilience. And to answer your question, I think there's far more nuance.
coming into that conversation.
Sam (09:26.19)
Yeah, I get that. I think trust becomes very important, doesn't it? Especially in lot of those governments situations where trust becomes far more important than speed, basically.
Jacqui Adams (09:40.85)
Yeah, yeah, and I think it's probably helpful to ask why. That's probably a more interesting question than simply saying yes, it's both. I've observed a shift: digital transformation is now far more about enabling the core of government business. It's no longer on the edges; it's central to how we support decisions, how services are delivered, and how citizens experience government.
Sam (10:00.202)
Mm-hmm.
Sam (10:08.771)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (10:10.079)
I think, therefore, it's really important to ask the question about who controls those capabilities. Whereas before, if it's on the fringes, it's less important. And even the risk profile has fundamentally shifted in the last 12 months. If you had asked me five years ago what risks I was tracking, I would now talk about geopolitical instability, vendor concentration, and loss of internal capability.
Sam (10:15.662)
Jacqui Adams (10:39.197)
And something that I, mean automation was certainly quite prolific, but now it's about explainability of AI decisions. So that risk profile has changed. And the last thing I would say with all of those two things moving, the question can't be anymore, does the system work? Like that's where speed comes in, does it work? It's not enough anymore. It needs to be, do citizens trust that system?
Sam (11:03.139)
Yep.
Jacqui Adams (11:09.533)
And that is really difficult; your benefits become far more intangible than just speed. I've really enjoyed reading a report issued by the University of Melbourne and KPMG. It has raised a whole lot of questions in my head that I haven't necessarily got answers to, but it showed that Australia has the lowest rates of trust
in AI among developed countries, and only 30% of people in Australia believe that the benefits of AI outweigh the risks. So that is quite a startling statistic.
Sam (11:53.454)
That's interesting, why do you reckon that is? Is that something to do with the Australian psyche or what's your take?
Jacqui Adams (12:03.185)
Yeah, I think I'll need to have you over for dinner to answer that, Sam, because I'm still exploring my answer. I think there is something about economic journalism and trust, but Australia traditionally has a very high trust index for government services, so we have a lot to lose. I think perhaps in other countries, where trust in government or institutions isn't as high, there's not as much to lose.
I think there is certainly—I'm toying with the idea—that the report also touched on a fear of loss of human connection. So that's why I think you're onto something with this idea of mateship, and I think there’s a fear there. I also think that we perhaps are more cynical.
Sam (12:39.896)
Yeah.
Sam (12:57.87)
Jacqui Adams (12:59.465)
I do remember someone from the UK saying, “Jacqui, I can't help but think every time I look at you that you're descended from convicts.” And I thought, gee, thank you very much—yes indeed, just straight off the boat from the UK. But there is something in that. We've also got a really strong heritage
of trade unions, and Australia has been leading the way in workers' rights, so I think there is something good in that. For me, it's a great question. I’d welcome anyone contacting me and letting me know if they have thoughts on our aversion.
Sam (13:47.176)
Sounds like that might need to be the subject of another podcast as well. A couple of things you're talking about there are really interesting. You're quite rightly highlighting that trust and ethics are really key. What do you reckon are some of the biggest misconceptions leaders are carrying into those conversations about resilience and ethics in relation to AI-driven transformation?
Sam (14:14.676)
And what do you wish they understood a little bit better?
Jacqui Adams (14:20.613)
Yeah, look, I'll share my own observations and I guess my own growth in this area. I think had you have asked me a few years ago before I started thinking about this, I probably would have defaulted to control. I would have equated resilience or sovereignty to control. I think that as I've thought about it more, there's a more nuanced view and it's not just about making every part self-sufficient.
Sam (14:33.378)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (14:49.801)
But I think if you try to do that, can become very expensive and unhelpful. I think if you go back to that framework that we spoke about right at the beginning, doing that really hard work, rolling up your sleeves and doing the work, you then have clarity on what systems, data, capabilities, decisions do you need to maintain meaningful control over. So that is why
I think that it may mean owning some components, but in others it may be deliberately accepting dependency. So if we go back to the COVID payments, it wasn't about controlling every aspect. It was about knowing what parts were mission critical and then accepting the trade-offs. So I think that if I break down, I guess, how to make that pragmatic, because that's the question I've struggled with,
Sam (15:25.454)
Mm-hmm.
Sam (15:46.893)
Okay.
Jacqui Adams (15:48.95)
I think it's about your risk appetite. So we touched on that. think knowing where what risk is non-negotiable. So anything that citizen facing, you know, you need to be clear on that so your teams can move quickly within the boundaries. One of the things that I've had firsthand experience on the receiving end of is not having an exit strategy defined. So if you implement
digital capability, you need to be really clear on what the dependencies are and what the exit strategy is. So what do you need to be able to do to make sure that you can change or pivot if that falls over? Data. I never appreciated just how glorious and important data was until I started diving into AI. I think I fully, you know, in the past had diminished it to information management and I think now
Sam (16:29.262)
Yep.
Sam (16:37.422)
Yep.
Jacqui Adams (16:46.537)
that conversation is far more mature and richer about data boundaries and domains and what we need to remain legal and have operational control over. Decision making, I think that's an obvious one. And making sure that you have clear accountability and the federal government is doing an excellent job of making sure all of the unit chief data officers, AI accountable and it's all very transparent, which I think is wonderful.
And lastly, know, resilience comes down to great business and technical architecture. We often forget much to the disdain of the business architects out there, but business architecture as well as technical architecture. So practically, how do you improve modularity? How do you decouple systems so that you can introduce things incrementally? And when you need to turn things off or pivot, you can do that without needing to move a whole ship.
Sam (17:34.574)
Mm-hmm.
Sam (17:38.371)
Yeah.
Sam (17:44.652)
Yeah, yeah, I like that. That makes a lot of sense. I suppose the other part of question more also relates to ethics. And, you know, suppose, why do you feel that ethics, you know, is important to organizations, especially now in the AI transformation? And, and also, love your opinion on is ethics the same as culture? Or is there a difference? What do you think?
Jacqui Adams (18:10.537)
Mmm.
Excellent question and I will start off. A lot of people study many, many years on ethics. I will start off with a clear disclaimer that I'm not a psychologist. So I'll speak broadly about my observations, but the first thing that I think is misunderstood, I'll answer that part of the question first. I think that it's a brake pedal.
something that slows down delivery. I've certainly seen that and I felt it myself and had to, all the things I'm about to talk about, I've had to coach myself through. I think people can see it as friction, but if you reframe it, it is not there to stop transformation and I'm a big believer that it's there to make your transformation more durable or stickier.
it helps clarify what human oversight is required and it's one of those conditions that makes innovation sustainable. So I often see when people hear the word ethics, it's delay, fear, someone saying no and I think people can then become quite defensive very, very quickly. But there's some good work by Adam Grant and he talks about
When companies have a culture where people can challenge assumptions and raise concerns, they are far higher performing and that's very relevant to ethics. So I think it's very relevant to ethics. Then we might need to cut this bit out. Sorry, I'll just come back on track.
Sam (20:02.904)
Jacqui Adams (20:03.529)
I'll just go back to this. And that's very relevant to ethics. So it's not just about hearing from staff, but if we broaden that and think about citizens and our partners, it's about should we be doing this and who could be affected by the decision and how could we explain that outcome? And I think those questions need to start very early in the conversation so that ethics can be a strategic enabler and not a roadblock.
Sam (20:16.387)
Mm-hmm.
Sam (20:20.867)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (20:33.449)
So summarizing all of that, I think if it's not seen as an obstacle, but a really helpful tool for making better decisions, if you see it as a way of codifying what grant looks like, I think you will start off on a much better foot than, yeah, in defense of ethics.
Sam (20:55.109)
Yeah. No, no, look, and it's interesting because it's a very, it was a very philosophical concept, ethics as it exists. And I suppose the challenge is, as you've not just as you defined it, but the challenge is how do you then sort of operationalize some of that ethics, you know, and, and what role does governance perhaps play with in relation to ethics as well?
Jacqui Adams (21:03.541)
Mm-hmm.
Jacqui Adams (21:12.213)
you
Jacqui Adams (21:20.305)
Yeah, I think I'll answer the last part first. It's a bit easier to tackle. So how does ethics relate to governance? Is it the same? I think that for mine, I love explaining governance. Just it's the process of checking. Are you doing what you said you do to the agreed standard in accordance with the right principles and are you fit for the future? So when you're doing what you said you do,
Sam (21:25.528)
Yeah.
Sam (21:32.12)
Okay.
Jacqui Adams (21:49.28)
to the agreed standard and are you fit for the future? So I think that's one of the conditions that makes your ideas and efforts sustainable because you're answering that question. Are we doing what we said we do according to the right principles? So I think for mine, I would say ethics is almost the why and the what of governance alongside things like strategy and legality and performance and risk.
But too often, and I noticed this a lot when I started working in the FedGov.
governance was more reduced to the systems and practices that sit above it to help you answer those questions like decision rights, controls, oversight. So that's the system that sits above it. But more importantly at its core is, are you doing what you said you do? And ethics is a really important pillar because it answers the question according to the right principles. So I, yeah, sorry.
Sam (22:32.205)
Yep.
Sam (22:51.832)
Yeah, and I would agree with no I would agree with that as well You know its its governance is sort of what are you making sure that you're doing it in the same in the way? said you were going to do it, but actually ethics is the why are you doing this if you see what I mean? It's the enforcement of ethics so yeah, I totally agree with you
Jacqui Adams (23:04.884)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (23:10.473)
Yeah, now the media part of your question is why is it so hard to operationalise? Well, if we answer this, we're in good stead. I think that if I just zoom out a bit, and again, I'm sure I'm going to get crucified for the people that are actually qualified to talk about this, but if I just zoom out, we've got three major ethical frameworks and they all focus on different things.
they can point you in different directions. So if I think at a really basic level, consequentialism. So what outcome produces the greatest good or the least harm? So that's modern day consequentialist Peter Singer is a really good example. So that can just come down to how do we improve efficiency, safety, public benefit, very great good. And then you've got a deal on deal on to logical view and that
Emmanuel Kant would be your good poster boy for that. So that's about what duties or rights or rules must we uphold regardless of the outcome. So practically that brings into questions around privacy and consent and procedural fairness. And then you've got the great Aristotle who promoted the golden mean in virtue ethics. So that is all about what kind of society or institution
do we want to be? So that shifts the conversation more towards judgment and responsibility and prudence and virtues. So what you've got is these three frameworks that point you in different directions and ethics is, it's easy to articulate what's ethics. What's tricky is what do do when there's a trade off or a, so if something produces the greatest good but breaks a rule or if something, the rule,
Sam (24:44.91)
it.
Jacqui Adams (25:05.981)
isn't virtuous, what do you do then? And I think Australia, we're a democratic country and we're trying to operationalise all of those ethical frameworks at once. And I think the issue then isn't technical, it's codifying in a really diverse culture what good looks like. Yeah, and I think, yeah, that's a lot. before, that's kind of...
Sam (25:08.408)
Yep.
Jacqui Adams (25:34.771)
first big reason. I might just pause because there's a lot in that. But my first big reason about why it's so hard to operationalise is it's never about saying what's ethical. It's how do you know what path to choose in an environment at a given time and that requires judgment, which is very tricky.
Sam (25:36.268)
Yeah.
Sam (25:51.15)
Yeah, and it's an interesting, it is a very interesting subject. I I actually did do a little bit of ethics at university. Again, not an expert, but you can actually find that some of those ethics are in direct confrontation to each other. So there's a classic ethics problem known as the trolley problem, which is, you have five people that are tied down to a railway and a trolley is heading towards them and it will kill them.
Jacqui Adams (26:12.426)
We love
Sam (26:19.114)
you're took by a a lever but that you can pull or not pull and you follow that through in the consequentialist you should it says you should pull the lever and sorry i should say pull the lever it means that one person is going to die so they're saying the greater good you should pull it and then if you look at the and i'm going to pronounce this badly as well the deontological view
Jacqui Adams (26:19.175)
Right.
Jacqui Adams (26:32.754)
Mm.
Jacqui Adams (26:36.629)
Mmm.
Sam (26:45.718)
which is actually, you're committing murder by pulling it, then it's a challenge around whether you should or shouldn't be doing that. So these two things can be in absolute sort of confrontation with them. These problems have been discussed by people far more intelligent than me over the years. It all depends on your point of view, but there is a real challenge and attention, basically.
Jacqui Adams (26:48.693)
you
Jacqui Adams (27:08.979)
Yeah, I love what you said then Sam, it depends on your point of view and that's why democracy is so powerful because it never comes down to one person's point of view. It's about what a society, you know, what a society upholds and I think that then leads into the second point of why it's so tricky. You know, in Australia we've seen an erosion or a fragmentation of a common moral understanding
And that's common in many democratic societies. So we have citizens that hold really different values and institutions have different mandates and government is expected to act in a way that's lawful and contestable and publicly defensible. But that is really tricky when there's really one contested answer. What makes democracy amazing and rich, but it's what makes it tricky.
And it probably leads into the third thing, is that the crux of all of it, it's really easy to state but hard to translate into a set of choices. And I touched on that. So, you know, what does fairness mean in a particular policy context? First of all, transparent to what standard? How much human oversight is meaningful rather than just performative?
When should a decision be explained and at what level of detail? Anyway, I could go on for a thousand, but I think when you get to those nuts and bolts, that's when ethics stops becoming a statement of intent or a policy and a question of design and governance and trade-offs that you've brought to the surface, had a meaningful conversation on, and you're transparently describing your decision-making. So the other thing,
I had an incredible experience at Services Australia and I grew so much because in that environment, everything isn't just owned by one team. It's a very, very big institution and it has to show up consistently across policy, procurement, legal, digital service design, frontline delivery. There are so many moving parts. So it's also not owned by one person, but it requires
Sam (29:02.094)
Thank you.
Jacqui Adams (29:28.199)
a really collaborative and cross-cutting discussion. So, yeah, yeah. And I've got some thoughts on how you can embed it, thought a lot about that, but I'll just pause and it'd be good to get your reflections on. I mean, the three things I spoke about was three big frameworks often competing. The second one is we live in a pluralistic society. And the third one, it's easy to...
state and intent but very tricky when it requires choices or trade-offs.
Sam (29:58.99)
It does it's you know, it goes back to some of those as you said with ethics, know, whose ethics you know, from what perspective are you coming from? But I think it's important for organizations though to have an understanding of what their ethics or their and it's more than a you know, a value proposition or a mission statement. It's what are they really trying to achieve as an organization because I think
Jacqui Adams (30:06.357)
Yeah.
Sam (30:26.53)
the more having those ethics understood both internally and externally should then start to drive into, OK, for that to happen, we need this type of operating model. We need this ability around how we're implementing AI. We need it to be, let's assume, we need it to be fair. And it sort of drives down further into the, eventually, into the technology.
Jacqui Adams (30:38.698)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (30:46.901)
Mm.
Jacqui Adams (30:53.941)
world.
Sam (30:54.584)
But yeah, it's a very... It's not a grey area, it's something that just needs to be thought through and it's definitely something that needs to be a top-down view in my opinion.
Jacqui Adams (31:00.373)
I'm sorry.
Jacqui Adams (31:07.495)
Yeah, that's right Sam and I'll pop it if we can pop it in the show that the notes of the podcast but I think there are there's probably like eight things I've thought through and I've got my own little checklist when I'm helping executives think about embedding ethics but I think there's probably three that really stand out to me and the first one is
music to my ears for all my pre-crastinating friends out there, running pre-mortems and scenario testing rather than just post-mortems, I think you want that person in the room that will say, how could this fail ethically, legally or socially? And I think it helps teams practice judgment, not just compliance. And I think that you're encouraging people
Sam (31:51.214)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (32:01.238)
to dissent and you're encouraging that thinking and that you need to fight a lot against a biased towards agreeing to their most senior person in the room. So I think practice in pre-mortems and really encouraging dissent in a helpful and respectful way. The second thing that I've seen work very effectively and what I seek to embed in the organizations I support is establishing a shared language through exemplar and precedence.
Sam (32:12.131)
Yep.
Sam (32:31.107)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (32:31.379)
So, you know, large organizations, they learn by pattern. And so if you can build a library of worked examples showing what great ethical practice looks like across procurement and service design and citizen-facing decisions, people can draw on that. you know, we touched on him before, but Aristotle has a lot to say on this, and he did say that virtue isn't innate. You have to practice it.
And it comes about through habituation. And lastly, I think as I said, I will bore everyone if I go through my eight, but the last one that I, it is really tough to do in the public service, yields big benefits is measuring behavior, not just policy adoption. So rather than just asking, did a team complete the training or sign a framework? The questions that I love are when did you change your design?
Sam (33:17.251)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (33:28.231)
When did you escalate a concern? When did you improve explainability? When did you adjust a process because of the ethical framework that you've been encouraged to apply judgment to? So yeah, as I said, I can pass them on, but they're three really effective, I guess, practical applications of how to embed ethics into, yeah.
Sam (33:40.92)
Yeah.
That's brilliant. Jacqui, thank you so much for your time today. We're sort of coming to the end of our slot. I have to say, I wasn't quite expecting so much conversation around philosophy and philosophers, but it's very interesting, as with AI adoption, how important ethics as a subset of philosophy and how you approach this actually becomes. You know, it's interesting—we haven't talked about the technology at all today.
That's brilliant. Jackie, thank you so much for your time today. We're sort of coming to the end of our slot. I have to say, I wasn't quite expecting so much conversation around philosophy and philosophers, but it's very interesting as, you know, with AI adoption around how important ethics as a subset of philosophy and how you approach this actually becomes. You know, it's interesting, we haven't talked about the technology at all today.
Because I feel in some ways I feel the technology is probably ahead of the operating models and the approaches that are being used and I do feel that and I think we've touched on it for the real I suppose promise to be delivered by AI, know the the operating structure the the model the ethics all needs to catch up with or at least catch up with the pace or that the Technology is moving at this moment in time
Jacqui Adams (34:29.93)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (34:46.197)
Yeah.
Jacqui Adams (34:53.171)
That's right. It's fascinating. probably, you know, and there are a thousand technical applications or challenges we can talk about. I am so encouraged that the conversation is absolutely shifting more towards how does AI enable that you're just cause and how do you do that in a way that builds staff, citizen and partner trust.
That's where I am so excited that when done well, we can really make a meaningful contribution.
Sam (35:26.294)
I totally agree there was a couple of ex colleagues that were talking about the idea of not calling it artificial intelligence but augmented intelligence i.e. it's helping the employee or the customer make the decision basically so yes I think there's lots more to come on this but again thank you so much for your time today really appreciate it and thank you again
Jacqui Adams (35:43.485)
Yes? Yes.
Jacqui Adams (35:50.389)
Thank you, Sam.