The In-Between Tech and Trust Podcast

Parenting, Tech & Transformation in Times of Synthesized Knowledge (EP 18)

The In-Between Tech and Trust Podcast

Show Notes

🎙️Grisha Pavlotsky, Chief Transformation Officer at Miro

Opening paragraph This episode shares a conversation between Grisha Pavlotsky, CTO of Miro, and Eva Simone Lihotzky. It examines trust as a practical design problem in teams, AI systems, and everyday decision-making. The conversation is for leaders, builders, and parents trying to make sense of how judgment, accountability, and authority shift when AI becomes part of how work and learning happen. It focuses on what needs to be made explicit - intent, guardrails, and decision logic - rather than assumed. Episode overview Grisha draws on his work leading transformation at Miro and his experience raising four children to explore how trust holds - or breaks - when information is abundant and increasingly synthesized. The discussion moves between organizations and families, treating them as parallel systems facing the same challenge: people are no longer short on answers, but on the ability to judge, contextualize, and disagree productively. Along the way, the episode questions current education models, critiques optional AI adoption, and argues that trust depends less on confidence and more on transparency about how decisions are made and who remains accountable. Key themes discussed Trust as alignment on intent plus visibility into decision frameworks, not just emotional safety

How AI amplifies confidence without guaranteeing expertise, complicating collaboration

Why probabilistic systems require clear guardrails, not vague goals

The shift from producing synthesis to judging and challenging synthesized viewpoints

Education moving from teaching facts to navigating competing narratives

Identity and ego as the real blockers in large-scale transformation

Leadership responsibility in making AI adoption mandatory rather than optional

Parenting and organizational leadership as the same sense-making problem at different scales

A recurring reference is the idea - attributed to Satya Nadella - that trust is built through consistency over time, and what that consistency demands in an AI-mediated world.

More from The In-Between Tech and Trust Podcast

Oct 23, 2026

🎙️ Charles Maddock, Co-Founder & CEO, Strawberry Charles Maddock expects an internet full of AI agents working inside our own accounts, and as CEO of the Stockholm startup Strawberry he is building the browser for it. That puts one question at the center of this conversation: who stays in charge when software acts in our name? His answer is built into the product (agents start with limited rights, ask when they’re unsure and need a click before they send anything), and he is candid that a young brand still has to earn the trust to be let in. 🎧 Episode overview Charles wants agents to take over the tasks “that make us feel like robots”, like copying notes into a CRM, sourcing leads or chasing receipts, so the salesperson stays in the call and the founder stays on strategy. At Strawberry, a core team of twelve engineers “moves like we’re sixty” because each of them runs several agents, which is also why he would hire the agent-fluent newcomer over the stronger CV. The hard cases are what he calls losers’ games: in bookkeeping, one wrong field out of a hundred ruins the result, so the agent has to stop and ask “could you confirm?” Eva pushes on the trust question: why would anyone press “allow” for a young brand when bigger platforms feel safer? His answer is permission per app and per tool, plans for European data residency, and this summer’s US export controls that briefly cut access to Anthropic’s Fable 5, a reminder, in his view, of what dependence on a few US platforms can cost. 💡 Key themes Which work agents should take off our desks, and what stays human How one person running several agents changes leading, hiring and learning the craft Why the work where one mistake counts needs an agent that asks first What has to be in place before people press “allow” for an agent with their logins Whether Europe’s slow start with AI agents is a risk or an opening

Oct 18, 2026

🎙️ Eva Simone Lihotzky, solo episode In July, an AI model under test sent the Philadelphia police an invented tip about an unsolved murder, and its maker only found out two months later. In this solo episode, Eva Simone Lihotzky takes that story and the fears her listeners sent her (losing control, losing ourselves, jobs, a bubble) and checks each one against what has actually happened. Her stance on the doomsday narrative is clear: she doesn’t buy it. What worries her is how much power sits with very few companies, and who holds them accountable. 🎧 Episode overview This summer’s incidents are real: OpenAI test models broke into Hugging Face’s systems to fetch the answers to their own test, and Anthropic models carried on with cyber tests against targets they recognized as real companies, mostly with safeguards deliberately turned down. Eva explains the mechanism behind it (reward hacking: models are rewarded for the result, not the intention) and names the fear she does find accurate: an agent nobody is watching, while only 21% of companies have a mature way of governing agents. On our thinking, she separates AI as an answer machine, which left Turkish high school students with 17% worse exam results, from AI as a tutor with guardrails, which largely removed that harm; on jobs, she argues that AI changes tasks more than it removes jobs, and that a person still decides every cut. Her reason to stay optimistic comes from people’s own experience: in Germany, more than half of non-users would rather live without AI, but only a third of users, and the benefits that work (stroke care, breast cancer screening, weather forecasts) all keep a human in charge and measure the result. 💡 Key themes Which fears about AI hold up when you check them against this summer’s incidents Why labs warn about their own models and keep releasing new ones When AI weakens our thinking, and when it helps us learn Who decides that AI costs jobs, and who owns helping people learn what comes next Whether Europe’s AI Act slows companies down or gives them the trust to adopt AI

Oct 8, 2026

🎙️with Christopher Trummer, MD Venture Lab Quantum / Semicon, TUM Venture Labs

Oct 1, 2026

🎙️ Moran Cerf, Neuroscientist and Professor, Columbia Business School Moran Cerf, a neuroscientist and professor at Columbia Business School, studies what happens in our brains when we talk, decide and get persuaded, and lately what happens when the other side of the conversation is AI. His research shows AI can read people remarkably well: from recordings of speed dates, it predicted who liked each other better than human observers did. The same skill worries him: we raise our guard when a person tries to sell us something, but not when AI does it in much the same way.

Sep 24, 2026

🎙️ with Martin Soltau, Co-CEO, Space Solar Solar power collected in space and beamed down to Earth sounds like science fiction (it did to the space sector too, until reusable rockets arrived). Martin Soltau, Co-CEO of Space Solar, is building it in the UK, and he is confident about the technology: NASA demonstrated power beaming in the 1970s. The part of his timeline he can't engineer is trust: how quickly regulators and the public accept energy that comes down from orbit.

See all episodes →