- The Keynote Curators - Top Speaker Agency in North America
Can you afford to trust what looks credible anymore? In early 2024, an employee at the Hong Kong office of engineering firm Arup joined what appeared to be a routine internal video call. Familiar faces filled the screen. Familiar voices gave urgent instructions. The CFO delivered clear directives. The employee followed protocol and authorized transfers totaling HK$200 million—roughly $25 million. Every person on that call was fake. The entire meeting was a deepfake operation, and it succeeded because we’ve trained ourselves to trust the interface. This isn’t about better phishing emails or more sophisticated scams. This represents manufactured authority delivered through channels we’ve been conditioned to believe. AI is already sitting in the room, deciding what people see, what they believe, who gets hired, what gets flagged, and what gets funded. Most organizations are deploying it without being able to explain it.
The uncomfortable truth is that most companies are running AI systems without clear governance structures. There’s no clean accountability. No shared definition of what “responsible” actually means in practice. Just speed and a vague sense that everything will work out. This is the awkward moment in technological history where the tool has become incredibly powerful, but the rules governing its use haven’t been written yet. We’re operating in a space where decisions are being made by systems that nobody inside the organization can fully own or explain.
I’ve watched leadership teams adopt solutions because competitors are moving fast or because the vendor presentation was compelling. They implement systems that touch hiring, customer service, performance reviews, and strategic planning without asking fundamental questions about limitations, accountability, or failure modes. The assumption is that the technology itself is neutral, that it simply executes what we tell it to do. But that’s not how any of this actually works.
When you deploy AI at scale, you’re not just adding efficiency. You’re delegating judgment. You’re outsourcing parts of your decision-making infrastructure to systems that learn from data, replicate patterns, and make choices based on optimization functions that may or may not align with your stated values. The question isn’t whether artificial intelligence is useful. Of course it is. The question is whether you’ve built the structural capacity to understand what it’s doing and intervene when it drifts.
Guardrails aren’t brakes. They’re not obstacles designed to slow innovation or make teams cautious. Guardrails are steering mechanisms. They’re how you scale AI without waking up one day and realizing you’ve outsourced your hiring judgment, your customer trust, your brand voice, your compliance posture, and your organizational culture to something no one inside the company can clearly own.
Ethics is not a side project you assign to a junior team member. Governance is not paperwork you file once and forget. Guardrails are a strategy. They’re how you make intentional choices about what gets automated, what stays human, and how you’ll know when something goes wrong. When I talk about guardrails with leadership teams, I’m talking about the infrastructure that allows you to move fast without breaking trust.
The organizations that get this right aren’t the ones that move slowly. They’re the ones that move deliberately. They define boundaries before deploying systems. They establish accountability before things fail. They create feedback loops that surface problems early instead of discovering them through public crisis or regulatory action. Guardrails allow you to be more aggressive with innovation, not less, because you’ve built the scaffolding that makes responsible acceleration possible.
I’ve sat in enough strategy sessions to know that most conversations follow a predictable pattern. Someone presents the technology. Someone else raises concerns. The room splits between accelerationists and skeptics. Nothing gets resolved because the framing is wrong. The real conversation isn’t about whether to use AI. It’s about how to use it responsibly while maintaining competitive advantage.
These three voices change that dynamic. They don’t deal in panic or hype. They name the tradeoffs leaders are already making, often without realizing it.
Zack Kass lives in the uncomfortable middle between acceleration and restraint. He doesn’t present AI as either savior or threat. He presents it as a set of decisions that leaders are making right now, whether they recognize it or not. When Zack speaks to a room, he cuts through the mythology that surrounds artificial intelligence and focuses on what’s actually at stake.
He asks questions that force clarity. What happens when your team can’t explain why the system made a particular decision? What’s your reversal plan if the model starts producing outcomes you didn’t anticipate? Who inside your organization is accountable when the AI fails in a way that affects real people? These aren’t hypothetical questions. They’re operational realities that most teams haven’t addressed because they’re moving too fast to think about consequences.
What shifts in the room when artificial intelligence keynote speaker Zack Kass speaks is that leaders stop treating AI like a tool and start treating it like a set of strategic choices. They begin to see that adoption without governance isn’t bold. It’s reckless. And they start asking better questions about what they’re actually trying to accomplish. You can watch the full interview with Zack Kass here to see how he reframes the conversation around artificial intelligence for leadership audiences.
If artificial intelligence tools can manufacture credible content on demand, Greg Verdino asks the question most brands actively dodge: what happens when your audience stops believing any of it? He’s focused on trust in an era where authenticity has become a competitive advantage precisely because it’s become so rare.
Greg is sharp on the intersection of modern marketing and human consequence. He understands that efficiency for its own sake destroys the relationships that make businesses sustainable. When you optimize for scale without protecting credibility, you’re building a house on sand. Your audience will sense the shift. They’ll notice when the voice changes, when the responses feel automated, when the content starts serving the algorithm instead of serving them.
What shifts in the room when Greg speaks is that teams stop chasing scale for scale’s sake and start protecting the credibility they’ve spent years building. They recognize that loyalty isn’t created by volume. It’s created by consistency, by showing up as recognizably human even when you’re using powerful automation tools. The future of work isn’t about replacing human judgment with machine efficiency. It’s about knowing which parts of the experience need to stay human precisely because that’s where trust lives. You can watch the full interview with Greg Verdino here to understand his perspective on maintaining authenticity at scale.
Jonathan Brill is the foresight strategist for people who hate foresight strategists. He makes governance practical instead of theoretical. He focuses on what to predict, what to test, and what to monitor so you’re not writing policy after the damage is already done.
Jonathan’s approach is rooted in operational reality. He doesn’t ask teams to imagine abstract technology scenarios. He asks them to identify the specific moments where systems will intersect with high-stakes decisions. Where does your model touch hiring? Lending? Healthcare? Customer support? Performance reviews? Those are the pressure points where small errors compound into significant harm.
What shifts in the room when Jonathan speaks is that governance stops feeling abstract and starts feeling operational. Teams begin to understand that anticipation isn’t about predicting the future with perfect accuracy. It’s about building systems that surface problems before they become crises. It’s about creating the capacity to detect drift, to recognize when a model is behaving differently than it did three months ago, and to intervene before that drift produces outcomes you can’t defend. You can watch the full interview with Jonathan Brill here to see how he makes foresight practical for organizations navigating rapid technological change.
If you’re building a program around responsible artificial intelligence adoption, these four voices add depth and practical grounding. They’re not here to philosophize. They’re here to help teams actually implement governance structures that work.
Anders Sorman-Nilsson is a futurist who helps leaders connect AI to the bigger system it operates within. He doesn’t treat artificial intelligence as an isolated technology question. He situates it inside business models, organizational culture, sustainability commitments, and the larger question of what transformation actually means.
Anders is best for audiences who want clarity instead of trend soup. He cuts through the noise and focuses on the structural implications of artificial intelligence. What does it mean for your business model when automation can handle tasks that used to require specialized expertise? How does AI deployment affect the culture you’re trying to build? What are the sustainability implications of scaling compute-intensive systems? These questions matter because artificial intelligence doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It reshapes everything it touches, and leaders need to understand those ripple effects before they become problems.
If you want the ethics conversation to get real fast, Joy Buolamwini is the voice you need. Her work is a reminder that bias isn’t an abstract concept. It’s an outcome that lands on real people at scale. When systems fail, they don’t fail evenly. They fail in patterns that reflect the data they were trained on and the assumptions embedded in their design.
Joy is best for AI ethics, accountability, governance, and leadership teams who want truth without theater. She doesn’t soft-pedal the consequences. She shows what happens when systems are deployed without adequate testing, when bias goes unexamined, and when organizations prioritize speed over responsibility. Her voice brings moral clarity to conversations that often get tangled in technical abstraction.
Patrick Schwerdtfeger is excellent when an audience needs the full context. He’s focused on how technology trends collide with economics, media, and society, and what that collision means for decision-making. He doesn’t treat artificial intelligence as a standalone phenomenon. He shows how it intersects with labor markets, regulatory environments, consumer expectations, and geopolitical dynamics.
Patrick is best for executives and broad audiences who need a clear map of what’s changing and why it matters. He connects dots that most presenters leave disconnected. When he speaks, people leave with a clearer understanding of the forces shaping the environment they’re operating in and what they need to pay attention to as those forces accelerate.
Diego Soroa brings the “how do we actually adopt this responsibly?” lens to the conversation. He’s less focused on fascination and more focused on implementation. He understands the practical realities of transformation: the human dynamics, the system constraints, the incentive structures, and what breaks when you move too fast without adequate preparation.
Diego is best for leaders moving from pilot projects to real adoption without creating chaos. He helps teams think through the mechanics of change management when the change involves delegating decisions to algorithms. How do you train people to work alongside AI systems? How do you maintain accountability when the decision-making process becomes less transparent? How do you build organizational capacity to govern something that’s constantly evolving?
These aren’t commandments. They’re questions. And questions age better than rules because they adapt to context. Before you scale AI inside your organization, these five questions create the foundation for responsible deployment.
Where does this system touch real people? Any system that intersects with hiring, lending, healthcare, performance reviews, or customer support carries higher stakes. When AI tools make decisions that affect someone’s livelihood, their access to services, or their health outcomes, the margin for error shrinks dramatically. You need to know where those touch points are and what happens when the system gets it wrong.
Who is accountable when it fails? Not the vendor. Not the model. A human being with a job title and decision-making authority. If you can’t name the accountable person, you don’t have governance. You have chaos waiting to happen. Accountability structures need to be clear before deployment, not after a crisis.
What can’t it do? If your team can’t name the limitations of the system you’re using, they’ll discover those limitations at the worst possible time. Every model has boundaries. Every system has failure modes. Understanding what the technology can’t do is just as important as understanding what it can do. That knowledge shapes how you deploy it and where you maintain human oversight.
How will we detect drift? Models change. Data changes. Context changes. A system that performs well today might produce different outcomes six months from now because the underlying patterns have shifted. Governance is continuous, not a one-time exercise. You need mechanisms to detect when performance degrades, when bias creeps in, when the model starts behaving in ways you didn’t anticipate.
What’s the reversal plan? If you can’t turn the system off safely, you don’t control it. Reversal plans aren’t about paranoia. They’re about operational discipline. What happens if the AI fails in a way that creates legal exposure or reputational damage? Can you roll back to manual processes without destroying business continuity? Have you thought through what shutdown looks like before you’re forced to execute it under pressure?
If you’re planning a program for 2026, you’re not just booking content. You’re deciding what your audience walks out believing is true. And artificial intelligence is the ultimate belief-shaping topic because it touches everything: trust, work, identity, opportunity, and the stories we tell ourselves about what’s possible and what’s dangerous.
So if your agenda includes AI, the question I’d anchor everything to is this: what are we responsible for now that it can do this? Because the future isn’t just automated. It’s negotiated by the choices we make before the default choices make themselves. The conversations you facilitate now will shape how your audience approaches these questions when they return to their organizations.
This is why speaker selection matters. This is why framing matters. This is why the voice you put in front of the room determines whether people leave with clarity or confusion. The goal isn’t to answer every question. The goal is to ask the questions that create better decision-making frameworks. The goal is to help leaders see the tradeoffs they’re navigating instead of pretending those tradeoffs don’t exist.
The conversations happening in conference rooms right now will determine how organizations use artificial intelligence over the next decade. Those conversations need to be grounded in reality, focused on consequence, and honest about both the potential and the risk. That’s what these speakers deliver. That’s why they matter.
Want to compare notes on your agenda? Schedule a 15-minute conversation.
Or reach out directly: info@thekeynotecurators.com
If this resonated, subscribe to the newsletter because the next wave of AI decisions won’t wait for anyone to catch up. 📬
© 2026 The Keynote Curators. All Rights Reserved | Terms and Conditions
The Keynote Curators, 8275 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89123
Local (310) 299-4595 | Toll Free (888) 585-8715 | info@thekeynotecurators.com
The Keynote Curators - Top Keynote Agency, USA.
Booking a Keynote Speaker: The Essential Checklist
