Bryce Goodman is a philosopher and technologist with more than 15 years of experience turning advanced AI into operational capability. He has helped lead AI and emerging-technology programs representing approximately $2 billion, co-authored the guidelines that operationalized the Pentagon’s Responsible AI Principles, and advised more than 50 institutions, including Google, Microsoft, NATO, the United Nations and NASA.

Artificial Intelligence , Ethics and AI, Regulation and Policy, Corporate Innovation, Change Management
In this inspiring session, participants will explore the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to drive sustainable development and address pressing global challenges. As the need for innovative solutions to issues such as climate change, resource scarcity, and social inequality becomes more urgent, understanding the role of AI in creating a more sustainable future is essential for professionals, policymakers, and entrepreneurs.
The session will begin with an introduction to the intersection of AI and sustainability, highlighting how AI technologies such as machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision can contribute to achieving the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Participants will learn how AI applications can optimize resource management, reduce waste, monitor and predict environmental trends, and support responsible decision-making.
Attendees will then delve into real-world examples of AI-driven sustainability initiatives across various industries, including renewable energy, agriculture, transportation, and waste management. Through case studies and interactive discussions, participants will gain insights into the benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations associated with leveraging AI for sustainable development.
The session will conclude with a forward-looking discussion on emerging trends and opportunities in AI for sustainability, inspiring participants to consider the potential impact of AI-driven solutions in their own fields of work.
Ideal for a diverse audience, this session will equip participants with the knowledge and motivation to embrace AI as a powerful tool for promoting sustainability and creating a more equitable, eco-friendly future.
In this session, participants will discover how artificial intelligence transcends the realm of mere technological advancement to usher in a paradigm shift with profound societal implications. Participants will explore AI not just as a tool but as a transformative force that reshapes how we think, innovate, and interact with the world.
AI's current usage often focuses on incremental improvements and sustaining the status quo, similar to how electricity initially powered steam-driven factories before transforming manufacturing. This session will challenge participants to rethink their approach, emphasizing the need to address the right problems and use appropriate metrics for progress.
Participants will delve into five new paradigms enabled by AI: Mostly Made - Achieving 90% solutions quickly and cost-effectively. Fluid Foundations - Shifting from static to dynamic systems. Lateral Linkages - Uncovering hidden correlations in data. Costless Customization - Making unique and personalized solutions the norm. Instant Iteration - Accelerating the pace of innovation.
Interactive discussions and case studies will highlight AI's societal impact and ethical considerations, examining responsibilities in deploying AI technologies and exploring frameworks for beneficial outcomes. Participants will explore AI ethics and risks from a "now, next, and beyond" perspective, contemplating how AI can ultimately enhance our humanity.
Ideal for professionals, entrepreneurs, and thought leaders, this session will inspire participants to adopt a forward-thinking approach, leveraging AI for transformative societal impact. By the end, participants will appreciate AI's potential and be ready to navigate its ethical landscape.
In this session, participants will explore how artificial intelligence is not just a technological advancement but a powerful tool for driving sustainability across various sectors. Participants will learn how AI can be leveraged to address pressing environmental challenges and foster sustainable development.
AI has the potential to revolutionize sustainability efforts by optimizing resource use, reducing waste, and enhancing decision-making processes. This session will delve into the ways AI is being used to create smarter, more sustainable solutions in energy, agriculture, transportation, and beyond. Participants will gain insights into how AI can help achieve sustainability goals and mitigate climate change impacts.
Interactive discussions and real-world case studies will demonstrate how AI-driven innovations are transforming industries to become more eco-friendly. Participants will examine key areas where AI is making a significant impact, such as predictive maintenance for energy systems, precision agriculture, smart grids, and efficient supply chain management. The session will also address the ethical considerations and potential risks of deploying AI in sustainability efforts, ensuring responsible and equitable use of technology.
Ideal for sustainability professionals, environmental advocates, and tech enthusiasts, this session will inspire participants to think creatively about how AI can be integrated into their sustainability strategies. By the end of the session, participants will have a deeper understanding of AI's role in promoting sustainability and be equipped with practical knowledge to implement AI-driven solutions in their own initiatives.
Participants will build a practical mental model of contemporary AI, from predictive models and generative systems to reasoning models, agents, and embodied AI.
The familiar image of AI as a chatbot is already incomplete. New systems can use tools, retain context, coordinate with other systems, and take sequences of actions toward a goal. Yet their competence remains uneven: an AI system can outperform experts on one task and fail unexpectedly on an apparently simpler one. Leaders therefore need to understand not only what a model can do, but how models become systems and where those systems break.
Participants will compare five forms of AI and examine the components that turn a model into an agent: instructions, tools, memory, permissions, orchestration, and evaluation. In a short diagnostic exercise, groups will assess one organizational task and decide whether it requires prediction, generation, reasoning, agentic execution, or no AI at all. They will then identify the principal failure mode of their proposed approach.
This session will be ideal for nontechnical executives, policymakers, investors, and professionals who need a current understanding of AI without a tour of computer-science terminology. Participants will leave able to ask sharper questions of technical teams and distinguish a compelling demonstration from a deployable system.
Participants will learn how to move from scattered AI experiments to an operating model that changes how work is designed, governed, and measured.
Most organizations no longer suffer from a shortage of AI pilots. They suffer from pilots that never alter a core process, produce evidence of value, or survive contact with security, procurement, and risk teams. The central challenge is organizational: deciding where AI should assist people, where it should make recommendations, and where it may be allowed to act.
Drawing on cases from defense, government, and industry, participants will examine the recurring differences between demonstrations and durable deployments. These will include workflow redesign, access to data and tools, product ownership, evaluation, human authority, and mechanisms for learning after release. Participants will also consider when organizations should buy a general platform, configure an existing model, or build a specialized system.
In an interactive exercise, groups will select a consequential workflow and redesign it around human and machine capabilities. They will specify the desired outcome, allocation of authority, evidence required before deployment, and measures that would demonstrate value after launch.
This session will be ideal for executives, transformation leaders, product owners, and functional leaders who already have AI activity but lack a coherent path to scale. Participants will leave with a practical framework for turning experimentation into institutional capability.
Participants will use five emerging rules to identify opportunities that remain hidden when AI is treated merely as faster or cheaper software.
Organizations initially apply a new technology to old processes. Electricity was first used to power factories designed around steam. AI is following the same pattern: many deployments accelerate existing tasks without questioning the assumptions that created those tasks. The larger opportunity appears when intelligence, personalization, and iteration become inexpensive enough to change what an organization offers and how it operates.
Participants will explore five paradigms enabled by AI: Mostly Made, in which useful first versions become cheap and immediate; Fluid Foundations, in which systems adapt rather than remain fixed; Lateral Linkages, in which previously separate information can be connected; Costless Customization, in which individual variation becomes normal; and Instant Iteration, in which products and decisions can be continuously tested and revised.
Groups will apply all five paradigms to an industry, service, or public problem. They will identify one inherited constraint that AI could remove, then examine the new risks or dependencies created by removing it.
This session will be ideal for strategy, innovation, and product leaders seeking possibilities beyond incremental productivity. Participants will leave with a structured way to imagine AI-native products, services, and institutions.
Participants will learn how to turn responsible-AI principles into deployment decisions that remain useful under operational pressure.
Most organizations now endorse fairness, transparency, accountability, and human oversight. These principles do not, by themselves, determine whether a system should be used, what evidence should be required, who may override it, or when it must be withdrawn. The gap becomes more serious when generative and agentic systems produce variable outputs or take actions across several connected systems.
Using cases from defense, public institutions, and commercial settings, participants will distinguish principles, policies, technical controls, and evidence of performance. They will apply a practical “responsibility stack” covering the intended outcome, affected stakeholders, foreseeable failure modes, allocation of human and machine authority, testing requirements, escalation routes, and post-deployment monitoring.
In small groups, participants will assess an AI deployment proposed under time pressure. They will decide whether to approve, restrict, redesign, or reject it, and state the evidence and stop conditions their decision requires. The exercise will reveal where reasonable people interpret the same ethical principle differently.
This session will be ideal for executives, product teams, risk leaders, policymakers, and legal professionals responsible for consequential AI systems. Participants will leave with a repeatable method for moving from ethical aspirations to defensible decisions.
Participants will learn how to distinguish AI applications that create measurable environmental value from those that merely attach AI to a sustainability claim.
AI can improve grid forecasting, detect methane emissions, optimize industrial systems, monitor ecosystems, and reduce waste. However, AI infrastructure also consumes electricity, water, land, and materials. Efficiency improvements can create rebound effects that increase total consumption. A credible AI-and-sustainability strategy must therefore examine both “AI for climate” and the environmental cost of AI itself.
Drawing on environmental monitoring, energy, logistics, and resource-management cases, participants will evaluate opportunities through three lenses: materiality, additionality, and system effects. They will ask whether AI addresses the binding constraint, whether a simpler technology could produce the same result, and whether the benefits survive comparison with the system’s full footprint.
Groups will create a compact impact ledger for a proposed application. They will identify the environmental baseline, intended improvement, infrastructure requirements, indirect effects, affected communities, and evidence needed to establish net benefit.
This session will be ideal for sustainability leaders, investors, policymakers, technology teams, and executives allocating capital to climate initiatives. Participants will leave with a disciplined method for selecting AI applications that can produce credible environmental outcomes.
Participants will understand how the convergence of AI, robotics, sensors, digital twins, and edge computing will change physical operations.
The Internet of Things connected machines and collected data. Physical AI adds perception, prediction, planning, and action. Warehouses, factories, vehicles, energy systems, infrastructure, and cities can now respond to changing conditions rather than follow fixed rules. However, when AI leaves the screen, mistakes can damage equipment, interrupt essential services, or put people at risk.
Participants will examine the architecture of a physical-AI system, from sensors and connectivity to models, control systems, and human intervention. Cases will show how these systems support predictive maintenance, autonomous inspection, adaptive logistics, infrastructure management, and human-machine collaboration. Participants will also consider cybersecurity, degraded communications, legacy equipment, and the difference between simulation performance and real-world reliability.
In an interactive design exercise, groups will map a physical operation and identify where intelligence should sit: centrally, at the edge, inside a machine, or with a human operator. They will specify the safe state when data, connectivity, or model performance fails.
This session will be ideal for operations, manufacturing, mobility, infrastructure, and smart-city leaders. Participants will leave able to evaluate physical-AI opportunities as systems rather than isolated devices.
Participants will learn to analyze geopolitical competition in AI by tracing the dependencies that produce and control machine intelligence.
The common story of a two-country “AI race” obscures the structure of the contest. AI capability depends on a global stack of semiconductor equipment, chips, energy, cloud infrastructure, models, data, talent, capital, and access to markets. Governments are using export controls, industrial policy, procurement, regulation, and technical standards to influence that stack. Organizations must now consider not only which AI system performs best, but where it comes from and which political dependencies accompany it.
Participants will construct an AI power map that connects technical resources to economic and strategic influence. Cases will examine compute concentration, sovereign-AI initiatives, open and closed models, military-civilian technology flows, and competing approaches to regulation. The discussion will separate genuine strategic dependencies from the rhetoric surrounding national AI competition.
In a scenario exercise, groups will advise an organization facing a sudden restriction on model, chip, cloud, or data access. They will decide which dependencies can be diversified and which require a long-term strategic response.
This session will be ideal for executives, policymakers, investors, and technology leaders working across borders. Participants will leave with a clearer framework for incorporating geopolitical exposure into AI strategy.
Participants will understand how AI is changing military decision-making, rather than simply adding autonomy to weapons.
The most consequential military uses of AI often occur before a weapon is fired. AI can shape intelligence analysis, operational planning, logistics, cyber operations, targeting processes, and the tempo at which commanders understand and respond to events. These systems promise decision advantage, but they also introduce brittle dependencies, adversarial manipulation, automation bias, and uncertainty about responsibility.
Drawing on unclassified cases from defense innovation and operational planning, participants will examine how AI changes the relationship between information, judgment, and command. They will distinguish decision support from decision substitution and consider how human authority can remain meaningful when operational tempo increases. The session will also address interoperability, testing under realistic conditions, escalation risk, and international efforts to govern military AI and autonomy.
In a command exercise, groups will receive incomplete evidence and conflicting human and machine recommendations. They will decide what action to take, what additional evidence to request, and which decisions may not be delegated.
This session will be ideal for defense professionals, policymakers, technologists, and business leaders working in national security. Participants will leave with a grounded framework for assessing military AI across strategic, operational, and ethical dimensions.
Participants will sharpen their judgment about AI by defending positions they may not personally accept.
AI ethics is often presented as a list of agreed principles. The difficult questions begin when worthy principles conflict: accuracy with privacy, speed with oversight, access with safety, or accountability with distributed responsibility. Structured argument helps participants uncover assumptions that remain hidden in consensus-driven discussion.
Participants will be assigned positions on current propositions such as: organizations have an obligation to use AI when it outperforms human decision-makers; deployers should bear primary responsibility for the actions of an AI agent; some consequential decisions should never be automated; or military commanders may delegate identification but not engagement decisions to machines. Teams will construct arguments, question opposing teams, and respond to objections.
After the debate, participants will step out of their assigned positions and identify which arguments altered or complicated their original views. The group will then translate the strongest considerations into practical conditions, safeguards, or decision criteria.
This session will be ideal for mixed groups of executives, technologists, policymakers, students, and professionals. Participants will leave with greater ability to reason through genuine conflicts rather than treating responsible AI as a set of slogans.
Participants will learn what evidence is needed before an organization can rely on an AI system for consequential work.
AI systems are probabilistic, context-sensitive, and frequently assembled from changing models, data sources, tools, and interfaces. A successful demonstration says little about how a system will perform with unusual users, adversarial inputs, changing conditions, or failures elsewhere in the workflow. Traditional software testing remains necessary, but it is no longer sufficient.
Participants will examine an assurance lifecycle covering intended use, evaluation design, scenario testing, red-teaming, human factors, traceability, deployment controls, incident response, and continuous monitoring. They will distinguish model evaluation from system testing and discuss how evidence requirements should change with the consequences, reversibility, and scale of a decision.
In a release-gate exercise, groups will review the evidence supporting a proposed AI system. They will identify what is missing, define acceptable failure boundaries, and decide whether the system is ready for unrestricted deployment, restricted use, further testing, or rejection.
This session will be ideal for executives, product leaders, technical teams, auditors, regulators, and risk professionals who must decide when AI is ready to trust. Participants will leave with an evidence-based framework for making and defending deployment decisions.
Participants will learn to identify the human value judgments concealed inside apparently technical AI decisions.
AI systems optimize objectives expressed through data, labels, rewards, rankings, and evaluation criteria. None of these are neutral. A metric defines what counts as success, a dataset preserves some features of the past, and a human-approval process determines whose judgment matters. Better models cannot resolve disagreements about which outcomes deserve priority.
Participants will examine cases in which systems performed well against their stated metrics while undermining the underlying purpose. They will learn to distinguish prediction from judgment, preferences from values, and measurable proxies from the goals those proxies are intended to represent. The session will connect practical AI design with questions from moral philosophy without requiring prior philosophical training.
In an interactive exercise, groups will unpack the objective behind an AI-supported decision. They will identify hidden value choices, stakeholders excluded from the metric, and circumstances in which optimization should give way to deliberation or constraint.
This session will be ideal for leaders, designers, policymakers, and technical teams responsible for setting objectives or evaluating outcomes. Participants will leave better able to recognize which questions AI can help answer and which must remain matters of human judgment and institutional responsibility.
Participants will learn how to make durable AI investments while capabilities, costs, vendors, and regulations continue to change.
Conventional technology strategies assume that organizations can define requirements, select a platform, and execute against a stable roadmap. AI weakens each assumption. A capability that requires specialist development today may become a standard feature next year. A promising model may create unacceptable dependencies. Waiting can avoid premature investment, but it can also prevent an organization from developing the data, talent, and institutional knowledge it will later need.
Participants will use a portfolio framework that separates no-regret capabilities, reversible experiments, strategic options, and high-dependency commitments. They will assess proposed investments against value, technical readiness, organizational readiness, reversibility, evidence requirements, and exposure to vendors or regulation.
In a resource-allocation exercise, groups will distribute a limited budget across competing AI initiatives. A change in model capability, regulation, or supplier access will then force them to revise the portfolio. The exercise will show which choices preserve room to adapt and which create lock-in.
This session will be ideal for executives, boards, investors, and transformation leaders making material AI commitments. Participants will leave with a practical method for acting decisively without pretending that the technology has stabilized.
This talk explores the profound impact of AI beyond its technological aspects, arguing that it represents a new paradigm that challenges our fundamental concepts. We'll examine how AI is not merely a tool, but a force reshaping the very fabric of organizations and society.
The discussion will delve into five key paradigms enabled by AI, demonstrating how organizations must transform to thrive in this new landscape. From decision-making processes to operational structures, we'll explore the necessary adaptations for success in an AI-driven world.
We'll also tackle the critical realm of AI ethics, focusing on immediate concerns, near-future challenges, and long-term implications. Our journey will cover pressing issues like algorithmic discrimination and autonomous weapons, as well as future concerns including biological warfare and existential risks posed by advanced AI systems.
Ultimately, this talk posits that the rise of AI paradoxically challenges us to become more human. As machines become increasingly capable, we must redefine and emphasize the uniquely human qualities that set us apart, ensuring a future where AI enhances rather than replaces our humanity.