The first armed drone Ukraine ever fielded wasn't built in a factory or procured from a defense contractor. It was built in four months by a network engineer using a Starlink terminal and a large agricultural quadcopter frame, and the man who built it, Maj Phoenix, co-founder of Lasars Group, joins Craig Smith in Kyiv to explain exactly how it happened and what the battlefield looks like now. The conversation traces the full arc from that first prototype - with its two-person crew of pilot and navigator, operating beyond line of sight using satellite imagery and landmarks - to the layered drone architecture Lasars Group now operates: FPV drones on fiber optic covering 30 kilometers, heavy bombers reaching 65 kilometers, ISR planes surveilling the entire range, and interceptors protecting each crew position.

The most unexpected part of this conversation is what drone technology has done to the physical shape of the war. As drone range has expanded - from rifles at 400 meters to FPV at 10 kilometers to heavy bombers at 65 kilometers - the kill zone between the two armies has grown to match, pushing human soldiers further apart and turning the conflict increasingly into drones fighting drones rather than people fighting people. Phoenix frames this explicitly as a reduction in human casualties. The episode also reveals a genuinely surprising institutional innovation: Ukraine's "Army of Drones Bonus" system, a gamified procurement platform where units earn virtual points for destroyed targets and spend them on a drone marketplace, creating competition among manufacturers to build cheaper, more effective systems and directing the best equipment to the highest-performing units. Craig also asks directly about the psychological reality of FPV warfare, following a specific soldier through a camera, watching him try to hide, and killing him, and Phoenix answers with a moral clarity that is both philosophically coherent and quietly unsettling.

Subscribe to Eye on A.I. for weekly conversations with the people building and deploying the future of AI.

Most companies investing in AI visibility are optimizing for the wrong thing. Being cited by an AI response and being recommended by an AI response are completely different outcomes, with click-through rates that differ by a factor of 70. Tim Sanders, Chief Innovation Officer of G2 and executive fellow at Harvard's AI Institute, joins Craig Smith to explain the hidden mechanics behind how ChatGPT and Gemini actually decide which software to recommend, and why the answer has almost nothing to do with what's on your website. When a user asks a commercial intent question, both models enter a "validation layer" process that specifically down-weights vendor content and seeks verified third-party signals: appearance on authoritative lists (41% of the recommendation weight), awards and accreditation (18%), and online reviews (16%). None of these can be manufactured. They must be earned.

The conversation covers the structural transformation in how B2B software buyers behave, half now start their search with an AI prompt, up from 29% a year ago, with two-thirds projected within a year, and why most companies' organic search traffic is on a structural path toward zero. Sanders also delivers some of the most specific competitive data on AI model usage available anywhere: ChatGPT does live retrieval 100% of the time on research queries; Claude does it less than 40% of the time. ChatGPT and Gemini account for 81% of G2's AI research citations. And more than one in four enterprise employees bypass corporate AI tools entirely, using their personal ChatGPT because it has their memory and none of the guardrails.

The episode closes with Sanders' most forward-looking prediction: within three years, AI agents will write the prompts, locate the software, and purchase it on behalf of businesses - with minimal human checkpoints - making the trust infrastructure G2 has built over more than a decade the most valuable asset in the AI-driven buying cycle.

Subscribe to Eye on A.I. for weekly conversations with the people building and deploying the future of AI.

Every major data breach in the last 30 years shares the same root cause: the data inside the wall was never protected, only the wall. And AI frontier models are now making that wall easier to breach than ever, scanning codebases externally to discover undisclosed vulnerabilities and write exploits before anyone knows the hole exists. Trent Telford, Chairman, CEO & Founder of Qanapi, joins Craig Smith to explain why the entire architecture of conventional cybersecurity is structurally broken, and what a genuinely different approach, built from the opposite assumption, looks like. Rather than trying to build a better wall, Qanapi starts from the baseline that the data will eventually be exposed, and encrypts it at the individual word, paragraph, or database cell level, tying each unique key to a verified identity and a set of conditional policies that must all be met simultaneously before anything can be decrypted.

The most commercially urgent application of this architecture is one that unlocks AI adoption for enterprises that have been sitting on the sidelines: Qanapi's gateway service encrypts sensitive fields before data reaches Claude, ChatGPT, or any other frontier model, and the model simply reports it cannot read the encrypted sections, while still reasoning over everything else. Trent discusses how Qanapi's Fathom tool confirmed in testing that Claude could not read the encrypted sections. He describes two major retailers - one using AI heavily, one abstaining entirely because of data security concerns - and asks the question every enterprise leader should be sitting with: how long can you last off the train before you get blitzed? The episode also covers drone security in denied wireless environments, the post-quantum encryption mandate that federal agencies have no practical plan to execute, and why Qanapi's business has exploded in the last six months as the AI gold rush has finally turned its attention from models to infrastructure.

Subscribe to Eye on A.I. for weekly conversations with the people building and deploying the future of AI.

Every AI model in production today has the same hidden tax: doubling the context window quadruples the compute. That's what quadratic compute complexity means in practice, and it's the reason enterprises are spending most of their AI engineering budget on context management rather than on the actual problems they're trying to solve. Alexander Whedon, co-founder and CTO of Subquadratic, joins Craig Smith to explain how SubQ's sparse attention mechanism eliminates that tax, achieving 40 times faster inference and 64 times less compute than standard attention at one million tokens, and what becomes possible when that constraint disappears. The conversation covers striking benchmark findings: 86% of what frontier coding agents do is "read steps," just trying to gather and organize context before the actual problem-solving begins, and frontier models drop well below 50% accuracy on financial document analysis at 500,000 tokens, revealing how asymmetric long context capability actually is across industries.

The most commercially important argument in this episode is about enterprise data. Most large organizations are sitting on hundreds of billions of tokens of data they've never been able to put to work in an AI product, told they need a $10 million data transformation project before they can even start building. Alex's core claim is that SubQ's architecture makes that barrier no longer necessary, enabling enterprises to process far more of their data with far less curation, at a fraction of the cost. He closes with what he describes as the most important and underexplored frontier in AI right now: we are still very far from understanding what users actually want from models reasoning over millions of tokens, and the product and alignment work needed to answer that question has barely begun.

Subscribe to Eye on A.I. for weekly conversations with the people building and deploying the future of AI.

In 2023, General Cherry started making 10 drones a month. Today they're approaching 100,000. Marko Kushnir, communications director of one of Ukraine's top-five drone manufacturers, joins Craig Smith for one of the most operationally specific conversations available about what drone warfare looks like at industrial scale, from the daily feedback loops with front-line units that drive product iteration, to the $2,000 interceptor drone that can destroy a $100,000 Shahed, to the on-device AI targeting model that guides an interceptor to impact at 70% accuracy after the operator activates it and steps back.

The conversation's most important insights are structural rather than technical. Marko describes the fundamental asymmetry of the conflict with unusual precision: Ukraine's decentralized, startup-driven ecosystem produces new technologies faster than Russia's command economy, but Russia's vertical industrial structure copies and scales those technologies faster than Ukraine can stay ahead. He also expresses genuine alarm about fully autonomous AI drones, not from an ethical standpoint but from a practical one: any autonomous capability Ukraine deploys will be in Russian hands within weeks, making full autonomy a danger Ukraine would share immediately with its enemy.

The episode closes with his most far-reaching argument: just as the internet era created a cybersecurity industry that every organization eventually had to build, the drone era is now beginning, and every government, police force, and major corporation will soon need a drone security department to function safely in a world where drones are as common as smartphones.

Subscribe to Eye on A.I. for weekly conversations with the people building and deploying the future of AI.

A Ukrainian entrepreneur who spent 14 years building cameras for pets pivoted to building cameras that down Shaheds, and is now building the autonomy software that could define how wars are fought for the next generation. Yaroslav Azhnyuk, co-founder of Fourth Law, joins Craig Smith in Kyiv to explain why Ukraine has become what he calls the Defense Valley or the Florence of Defense: a dense, fast-moving ecosystem of founders, engineers, and military operators who are building, testing, and iterating on autonomous drone systems in real combat conditions, with a feedback loop that no defense contractor in the West can currently match.

The conversation covers Azhnyuk's five-level autonomy framework for drones, the eight-dimensional model for what a fully autonomous battlefield ecosystem requires, and the economic math that he believes makes global rearmament inevitable: a $500 drone that can already destroy a $5 million tank becomes roughly 10,000 times more capable when full autonomy is added for a few hundred dollars more. The competitive landscape is mapped with unusual candor, an "Apple vs. Android" comparison between Eric Schmidt's vertically integrated interceptors and Fourth Law's modular platform approach, alongside two arguments that cut against the mainstream narrative. First, that within 5 to 10 years it may become unethical to use weapons without AI, because non-AI weapons cause more collateral damage, not less. And second, that the real AGI risk isn't Skynet, it's the subtle transfer of power that happens when 100 smarter advisors gradually stop waiting for the President to decide, and nobody notices until the President is no longer the one making decisions.

Subscribe to Eye on A.I. for weekly conversations with the people building and deploying the future of AI.

The most consequential arms race in the world right now isn't nuclear, it's software. Craig Smith speaks with Alexander Palamarchuk, an engineer in the R&D department of Ukraine's Azov Brigade, calling in from approximately 18 kilometers from the front line in the Pokrovsk region. What emerges is one of the most technically candid accounts available of what drone warfare actually looks like from the inside: how Ukraine went from homemade reconnaissance drones in 2014 to AI-guided systems being developed and tested in real combat today, how the jamming arms race has forced his unit to develop custom frequency systems spanning 100 to 3,000 megahertz in a constant search for clean windows Russia hasn't yet closed, and why the tank - once the defining weapon of land warfare - has been reduced on the modern battlefield to a mobile jamming platform.

The most important distinction Alexander draws is one that rarely surfaces in mainstream coverage: AI already exists that can recognize and classify vehicles and people with high accuracy. The unsolved problem isn't recognition, it's discrimination, determining with certainty whether a recognized target is military or civilian. That gap is the only thing standing between today's AI-assisted drones and fully autonomous lethal systems, and Alexander puts the timeline for closing it at approximately two years. The US maintains an official policy of not developing fully autonomous lethal weapons for ethical reasons. On the battlefield 18 kilometers from where Alexander is speaking, that policy is being outpaced in real time, and he is clear that NATO's software advantage positions Western countries to win that race before anyone else gets there.

Subscribe to Eye on A.I. for weekly conversations with the people building and deploying the future of AI.

It takes a few hours to build an AI agent. It takes six to seven months to get it into production. Manoj Saxena - the executive who commercialized IBM Watson - built TrustWise around one thesis: intelligence without control is not deployable. In this episode, he joins Craig Smith to explain why 95% of enterprise AI agent projects are stalling between pilot and production, and why the answer has nothing to do with the quality of the underlying models. The bottleneck, Saxena argues, is the absence of an entirely new class of infrastructure, something that can evaluate every tool call, every action, every output of every agent at runtime, in milliseconds, against the full stack of alignment requirements that govern what an AI is actually allowed to do inside a real enterprise.

TrustWise's AI Control Tower does that across all vendors and agent frameworks simultaneously, operating in live, sidecar, batch, or simulation mode and aligning agent behavior against six layers of requirements - from UN Human Rights frameworks down to individual customer SLA commitments - in 10 to 300 milliseconds per decision. The conversation covers demonstrated results (83% cost reduction, 40% safety improvement), the token consumption paradox that's making agentic AI far more expensive than expected even as token costs fall, and a milestone Saxena compares to the moment data traffic surpassed voice on AT&T's network: last month, for the first time ever, agent traffic on the internet exceeded human traffic. The episode closes with a preview of Genesis agents, TrustWise's next product, designed not just to prevent bad outcomes but to surface beneficial hypotheses by looking 95 moves deep into enterprise data, in domains like fraud detection and revenue leakage, in the way Deep Blue looked 95 moves deep in chess.

Subscribe to Eye on A.I. for weekly conversations with the people building and deploying the future of AI.