Show notes
Can organizations trust an AI recommendation when they cannot understand the evidence, relationships, and previous decisions behind it? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I welcome back Jim Webber, Chief Scientist at Neo4j, to discuss the company's acquisition of GraphAware and its move from graph database provider to graph intelligence platform. GraphAware has worked with Neo4j for many years and developed Hume, an intelligence analysis platform used to connect and examine complex information. Bringing the two companies together gives Neo4j a direct role in applications serving police forces, governments, intelligence agencies, and other organizations handling connected data. Jim explains why context has become one of the biggest requirements for dependable AI. Enterprises already possess enormous volumes of data, but facts alone provide endpoints rather than the complete path leading to a decision. An agent needs to understand the knowledge available, the conversation taking place, and the record of previous decisions. It also needs to know which actions produced good outcomes and which produced poor ones. Jim compares these information layers to SimCity. Each can be viewed separately, but their greater value appears when they are combined. Knowledge, conversations, and decision traces can then help an agent understand why something happened and learn from the result. This introduces an interesting lesson from scientific research. Positive outcomes are frequently published, while failed experiments receive less attention. An AI agent needs both. Recording the breadcrumbs behind good and bad decisions provides the material required to improve its future behavior. We also discuss why large language models cannot understand every organization by themselves. Jim describes a model as a lossy compression of the internet. It can generate impressive natural language, but it does not automatically understand a company's policies, customers, history, evidence, or operating environment. Retrieval augmented generation can introduce relevant organizational information into the process. Graph RAG adds relationships between facts, helping the system understand how people, events, products, accounts, and other entities connect. According to research Jim references from the National Innovation Centre for Data, Graph RAG can improve accuracy while reducing costs by using fewer, higher-quality tokens. Explainability becomes especially important when AI supports decisions across policing, cyber defense, taxation, intelligence, banking, and government. A fluent answer may sound authoritative while containing a serious technical mistake. Jim shares an example from his own work where an agent confidently warned him about a "committed minority" inside a fault-tolerant computing protocol. The statement sounded plausible, but only a majority could commit within that protocol. Someone without Jim's technical knowledge might have accepted the recommendation and removed working code. This leads us to human oversight. Jim argues that the correct level depends on the consequences of the action. Automating a routine banking process with monitoring and safeguards may improve the customer experience. Ordering someone's arrest based solely on an agent's conclusion demands human involvement. We also consider digital sovereignty and why control over data has become a strategic concern for governments and large enterprises. Geopolitical instability, overseas technology dependencies, privacy requirements, and changing national policies are forcing leaders to ask where their data resides and whether they can retrieve or move it. Jim explains how Neo4j intends to offer organizations flexibility over where their information is stored and how it is deployed. The discussion also examines the opportunity for Neo4j and Hume to provide an alternative within a market where Palantir has held a powerful position. Looking ahead, Jim imagines intelligence analysts directing swarms of digital agents. Those agents could search data, connect evidence, identify relevant patterns, and present findings while humans retain responsibility for consequential decisions. If AI can connect information at machine speed, how do we ensure the person making the final decision can inspect the evidence and challenge the conclusion? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.