AI at Work

What happens when companies stop adding isolated AI tools and begin redesigning entire business processes around AI employees?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Surojit Chatterjee, founder and CEO of Ema, which stands for Enterprise Machine Assistant. We discuss why the debate about AI replacing jobs often misses the larger business question: how should organizations redesign work when intelligent systems can coordinate tasks, access enterprise knowledge and complete workflows across multiple applications?
Surojit describes this as “agentic business transformation.” Instead of giving every employee another chatbot or assistant, organizations can use coordinated AI agents to manage processes that cross departments, systems and approval chains. People remain responsible for setting boundaries, reviewing sensitive decisions and deciding when an agent has earned greater autonomy.
He shares the example of Wipro, where an Ema-powered system called WiproNow supports around 240,000 employees across 65 countries. According to Surojit, it covers approximately 70 use cases spanning the employee journey from recruitment to retirement, connecting with over 100 enterprise applications.
The reported results show why workflow-level automation matters. Average response times for employee requests reportedly fell from five days to less than five seconds, while employee satisfaction increased by almost 20 percentage points. Surojit also says the number of people needed for this work fell from roughly 1,000 to 550, with employees reassigned to other areas.
We also discuss why companies do not need perfect data before beginning. Surojit argues that capable AI systems can identify contradictions, missing information and undocumented processes as they work. This can expose the informal knowledge that organizations often discover only when an experienced employee leaves or goes on vacation.
Trust remains the deciding factor. Surojit compares deploying an AI employee with hiring a talented new colleague. Leaders provide context, test performance, review early decisions and gradually increase autonomy. Clear boundaries remain necessary for sensitive issues involving areas such as employee relations, healthcare or financial decisions.
The practical lesson is that meaningful AI returns come from redesigning work across teams rather than measuring prompts, tokens or individual productivity gains. Is your organization preparing AI to own complete workflows, or giving employees another tool to manage? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.

Why are some businesses generating measurable value from AI while others remain surrounded by pilots, rising costs and impressive demonstrations that never reach daily operations?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Brad Hairston, Director of Strategy at SS&C Blue Prism, about the operational and cultural foundations that separate productive AI programs from expensive experimentation.
Brad spent 30 years in consulting before joining SS&C Blue Prism around seven and a half years ago. He now works within the company’s Customer Zero program, which deploys SS&C’s automation technology internally before it reaches customers. Brad says the program has helped SS&C grow revenue by approximately one billion dollars without adding headcount.
We discuss why AI programs should begin with the business outcome rather than the latest model. Brad explains why companies making progress connect their automation investments with corporate strategy, build on existing robotic process automation and create reusable governance, security, orchestration and measurement practices.
Brad also challenges the idea that AI agents will replace every deterministic automation. Rules-based digital workers remain useful for predictable processes, while AI agents can support work that requires reasoning and adaptation. Combining both approaches can also provide greater control over cost.
Our conversation examines what should happen before an AI agent receives permission to make payments, update customer records or initiate business processes. Brad recommends defined roles, limited permissions, human approval for higher-risk decisions, complete audit trails and an orchestration layer connecting agents with people, APIs and digital workers.
We also discuss how companies can give employees access to no-code automation while maintaining common standards and oversight. Brad describes the federated model used inside SS&C, where individual business units build automations through shared platforms, templates and governance.
For leaders feeling overwhelmed by daily announcements from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and other providers, Brad offers simple advice: take a breath, return to the business problem and begin with a process where the outcome can be measured.
Is your AI program building reusable capabilities with every deployment, or simply adding another experiment to the pilot queue? Please share your thoughts with me.

If anyone can produce a professional-looking image or video with AI, what will make audiences care about one piece of content over another?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Joaquín Cuenca, co-founder and CEO of Freepik, about how generative AI is changing creative work, business workflows, and access to professional production. Freepik serves over one million paid subscribers, while Joaquín says the platform attracts over 70 million monthly visitors.
At that scale, Freepik has seen the difference between an impressive AI demonstration and a tool people can rely on for real creative work. Joaquín argues that generating something attractive is easy. Producing something that reflects a precise idea, maintains consistency, and creates an emotional response requires direction, judgment, and human intent.
We also discuss what Joaquín calls the no-collar economy. His view is that lower production costs will allow individuals, smaller companies, and modestly funded creative teams to pursue projects that previously looked too expensive or risky. That could create opportunities for storytellers, photographers, audio specialists, performers, and other creative professionals. Joaquín also acknowledges that some existing roles will be affected as machines take over repeatable production work.
For companies adopting creative AI, Joaquín recommends looking past licenses, activity, and content volume. Experimentation has value while teams are learning, but businesses eventually need to connect AI adoption with revenue, costs, brand performance, or another measurable return.
We also consider the threat of AI slop. Better tools cannot provide taste, purpose, or a compelling story. As technical production becomes easier, those human qualities may become the greatest source of differentiation.
Will easier production produce a new generation of creators, or will businesses fill every channel with forgettable content? Listen to the conversation and share your thoughts with me.

What does an AI first workplace look like when every employee has an agent but every person remains responsible for the outcome?
In this episode of AI at Work, I speak with Alex Svanevik, co-founder and CEO of Nansen, about how his company is integrating AI agents into daily operations while retaining human judgment, security boundaries, and quality control.
Nansen has around 80 employees, and Alex says each person has been given an AI agent. His own agent, Winnie, prepares draft agendas using previous meetings, company objectives, strategy, and cultural context. Alex then works with the agent to improve the agenda before the meeting begins.
His use of AI extends beyond routine administration. Alex describes building the first version of a Nansen product through Telegram while walking with his daughter. By the time he returned home, the agent had created a working product that later became a command line interface used by thousands of people.
There is also a lighter side to this deeply connected life. Alex and his wife occasionally use their respective agents to broker disagreements. As someone who has been married long enough to appreciate the commercial possibilities of automated diplomacy, I suspect this could become an unexpectedly popular category.
The workplace message is serious. Nansen expects employees to use AI across much of their work, but Alex says the human must own the quality, output, and result. Employees cannot blame the tool for inaccurate, generic, or poorly reviewed work.
Alex compares the review process with sending a disappointing meal back to the kitchen. The first output may be acceptable, but reaching a high standard often requires several rounds of feedback. He believes judgment and taste will become strong sources of differentiation as average quality becomes easier to produce.
We also discuss the security tension surrounding workplace AI. Alex argues that companies must consider the risk of avoiding AI because attackers and competitors are using it. His preference is to provide employees with approved tools and safe environments rather than leave them to assemble uncontrolled alternatives.
One of his most practical recommendations concerns machine readable information. Documents, code, designs, spreadsheets, and diagrams must be accessible to both employees and agents. Nansen has moved internal work toward GitHub repositories, Markdown documents, CSV files, and other formats agents can process.
Making everything readable only by machines would create a different problem. People must retain the ability to inspect, understand, and approve the work. The aim is shared accessibility rather than transferring complete control to an agent.
Evaluation becomes especially important when agents influence financial decisions. Nansen tests trading agents through backtesting, measuring whether they can interpret data, judge the significance of news, and produce profitable decisions. A separate optimizer or coach then recommends improvements to each agent’s strategy.
Alex closes with four human traits he believes will matter in an AI first workplace: high agency, good problem selection, judgment and taste, and clear communication. Experimentation amplifies those qualities, provided people avoid unnecessary risk and retain ownership of the result.
Could giving every employee an AI agent increase productivity while making personal accountability even more important? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.

In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I speak with John Nay, founder and CEO of Norm Ai, about Agentic Law, AI native legal services, outcome based pricing, and the proposed legal framework for companies managed by AI agents.
John has worked on the application of AI to law and public policy for around 14 years. His research predates the current generative AI era and includes GovDeVec, an early attempt to train neural networks on legal and government text so they could identify concepts embedded across large bodies of policy information.
The arrival of frontier language models opened a different category of legal automation. Deterministic systems can complete forms and apply fixed rules, but language models can also examine precedent and guidance before applying it to a new situation.
John separates this work into three layers. The first covers deterministic rules and repeatable automation. The second uses model based analysis to interpret documents and apply legal guidance. The third preserves human supervision for legal advice, consequential decisions, client communication, and final approval.
We discuss how this structure works inside an enterprise. An AI agent could conduct an initial compliance review of marketing communications against SEC or FINRA rules. A human professional would then review the findings and complete the determination.
Norm Law applies a similar model to legal services. Documents received during a transaction can be processed immediately by AI agents, with the results presented to an experienced attorney. The attorney decides whether to contact the client, negotiate with the counterparty, request additional information, or move the matter forward.
For John, the value includes time savings and broader coverage. A legal team conducting due diligence may lack the time or economic incentive to inspect and cross reference every document in a data room. AI agents can examine a wider set of material and identify inconsistencies that could otherwise remain unnoticed.
Outcome based pricing changes the incentive structure. A law firm charging a fixed price can use AI to review additional evidence without adding hourly fees to the client. John acknowledges the limitations. Predictable transactions can be priced around outcomes more easily than litigation where scope, duration, and strategy may change dramatically.
The operating model also creates new roles. Norm brings together practicing attorneys, legal engineers, and AI engineers. Legal engineers translate professional knowledge and client preferences into agent behavior, while AI engineers build production systems and connect agents with live workflows.
Another part of the conversation concerns supervisory AI. As companies deploy agents that advise customers or take commercial actions, human reviewers may be unable to inspect every decision at machine speed. Norm Ai is developing agents that monitor other agents for compliance with laws, regulations, and company policies.
We also discuss Delaware’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Company initiative. The regulatory sandbox would test a legal entity managed by an AI agent while retaining human involvement, capitalization requirements, disclosure obligations, and government oversight.
John argues that autonomous agents will increasingly take consequential economic actions. The policy question is whether this activity develops within established legal systems or moves toward jurisdictions and technical environments offering fewer controls.
The supplied episode brief also provides significant company context. Norm Ai recently announced a $120 million Series C at a reported $1.2 billion valuation, bringing total funding above $260 million. Norm says organizations representing over $30 trillion in assets under management use its technology for legal and compliance work.