Ai Change Desk

About Ai Change Desk

AI Change Desk is a source-backed AI change management and AI governance podcast for leaders, managers, and operators. Hosted by Michael Hanna-Butros Meyering, each episode turns a current AI capability, policy, privacy, security, or workflow shift into a practical operating decision: context, impact, and action.

Publisher

Michael Hanna-Butros Meyering

Category

technology

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

11 Feb 2026

Latest episode

12 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

47 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   12 Oct 2026

   AI Change Desk | EP049: What Does the Watermark Actually Prove?

   Hey! I'd love to hear your thoughts, send me a voice note. (https://rss.com/podcasts/aichangedesk/voicemail) Your team has thirty minutes to publish a document. Someone asks whether AI wrote it. Nobody has checked whether it is right. In this 20-minute AI Change Desk episode, Michael asks what a watermark can establish, what it cannot, and who still owns the publication decision. A detector can be right while the document is wrong. Context: OpenAI's October 5 text-provenance announcement separates opt-in marking from restricted detector access. Its October 8 false-front report adds a different question: have you verified the contributor behind the submission? Impact: a provenance result does not settle factual accuracy, authorship, ownership, or permission to publish. No detected mark is not proof of human authorship. EU Article 50 also distinguishes provider marking from deployer disclosure and substantive editorial responsibility. Action: run one fictional workshop notice through three invented result cards: detected, not detected, and unavailable. Keep the factual error and contributor gap identical. Check the event details, the actual assistance policy, permission, and the accountable publisher before deciding what goes out. This continues episode 48's stop-and-restart discussion by moving to the publication desk: the work is already written, but your responsibility is not finished. The scenario and detector results are fictional, not vendor tests. OpenAI's incident and product claims remain attributed to OpenAI; multiple OpenAI pages are one source family, not independent validation. No deployed detector accuracy or organization-specific legal conclusion is claimed. OpenAI: Our approach to EU text provenance rules, October 5, 2026 (https://openai.com/index/eu-text-provenance/) OpenAI: Provenance signals and detector-access limits (https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8912793-provenance-signals-in-openai-generated-content) OpenAI: Disrupting AI-enabled false-front operations, October 8, 2026 (https://openai.com/index/disrupting-ai-enabled-false-front-operations/) European Commission: AI Act Article 50 (https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-50) European Commission: Article 50 transparency FAQ (https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/transparency-obligations-under-article-50-ai-act) The narration records an October 10 source check. These official pages were rechecked before release on October 12, 2026. Product scope and access rules can change. AI-assisted tools were used in parts of the research and production workflow. Final editorial judgment, risk posture, and release approval stayed human-led. This is operational guidance, not legal advice. These are my opinions and are not representative of any organization. My current role includes privacy work, so you will hear me pay closer attention to purpose, access, retention, deletion, and accountability. I will not discuss nonpublic work here. These are my personal views and do not represent the State of Oregon or any other organization.

2. 

   5 Oct 2026

   AI Change Desk | EP048: What Would Make You Stop the AI Run?

   Hey! I'd love to hear your thoughts, send me a voice note. (https://rss.com/podcasts/aichangedesk/voicemail) You hit stop. The screen goes quiet. Then the supplier gets the email. Which work actually stopped? In this 17-minute AI Change Desk episode, Michael separates a stop request from a verified stopped workflow, then asks what evidence and current authority are needed before work may restart. OpenAI's dots controls distinguish main tasks, delegated work and recurring schedules. API steering is a change in direction, not cancellation of tools already underway. Microsoft's Foundry guidance treats trace-linked recommendations as decision support that needs validation, not a real-time safety guarantee. Map five kinds of work: the main task, delegated work, future schedules, completed actions and unknown results. Give every unresolved effect an owner and deadline. Use a 45-minute tabletop with synthetic records to separate requests, acknowledgments and observed effects, then recheck purpose, data, destinations and authority before restart. The supplier example is fictional, not a reported incident. This continues episode 47's assessment-scope discussion by asking how an instruction to stop becomes an observable change in work. If you pressed stop now, could you explain what stopped, what already happened, and what is still allowed to happen next? OpenAI: Introducing dots, September 29 (https://openai.com/index/introducing-dots/) OpenAI: dots control scope (https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots/controls) OpenAI: mid-turn steering (https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/steering) Microsoft: Insights in Foundry, preview guidance (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/foundry/observability/how-to/agent-insights) Control, steering and preview-limit documentation rechecked October 5, 2026. These are two vendor source families, not independent testing of your deployment. A tabletop does not prove containment, safe cancellation or recovery. AI-assisted tools were used in parts of the research and production workflow. Final editorial judgment, risk posture, and release approval stayed human-led. This is operational guidance, not legal advice. These are my opinions and are not representative of any organization. My current role includes privacy work, so you will hear me pay closer attention to purpose, access, retention, deletion, and accountability. I will not discuss nonpublic work here. These are my personal views and do not represent the State of Oregon or any other organization.

3. 

   28 Sept 2026

   AI Change Desk | EP047: Who Checks the AI Safety Claim?

   A reviewer has expertise. A sponsor has a budget. An operator has a launch button. Who owns the answer when the safety finding says the work is not ready? In this 19-minute AI Change Desk episode, Michael follows a safety recommendation into an accountable decision and a concrete change to work. The practical distinction: changing a control, testing it, and verifying an outcome are three different claims. OpenAI's September 22 assessment proposal is a framework for scrutiny, not certification of a deployment. Its September 25 disclosure describes ongoing remediation. A separate September 28 Australian ministerial account describes a changed notification route and continuing investigation. Microsoft's September 24 worked example links a finding to a control and retest while preserving residual failures. Use the five-part Recommendation-to-Decision Check: the precise decision, evidence examined and excluded, actual recommendation, responding authority, and resulting change to work. Set aside 45 minutes with the people who can answer those questions. A worksheet cannot create missing evidence or grant exception authority. Listener question: can the operator explain what the review changed about the work they may do? This continues episode 46's incident-ownership discussion by moving earlier: what does a review establish, and what changes after the finding? OpenAI assessment principles, September 22 (https://openai.com/index/priorities-principles-third-party-assessments/) OpenAI incident updates, September 25 (https://openai.com/hugging-face-incident-and-misalignment/) Minister Gallagher interview, September 28 (https://ministers.finance.gov.au/financeminister/transcript/2026/09/28/radio-interview-abc-rn-breakfast) Microsoft control-and-retest example, September 24 (https://commandline.microsoft.com/run-assert-eval-responsible-ai-agent-risk-discovery-at-runtime/) Source-checked September 28, 2026. These are separately attributed accounts, not independent corroboration of one another or a guarantee for your environment. AI-assisted tools were used in parts of the research and production workflow. Final editorial judgment, risk posture, and release approval stayed human-led. This is operational guidance, not legal advice. These are my opinions and are not representative of any organization. My current role includes privacy work, so you will hear me pay closer attention to purpose, access, retention, deletion, and accountability. I will not discuss nonpublic work here. These are my personal views and do not represent the State of Oregon or any other organization. AI Change Desk (https://michaelhbm.com/AiChangeDesk)

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

3 ratings

Spotify

5.0 / 5

1 ratings

Contact Ai Change Desk

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.