Who controls your content? AI and content governance

What does it actually mean to govern your content in the age of AI, and who’s really in control? In this episode, Sarah O’Keefe sits down with Patrick Bosek, CEO of Heretto, to unpack why the quality, accuracy, and structure of your content may be the most critical factors in what your users experience on the other side of an AI model.

Patrick Bosek: In today’s world, you don’t have 100% control. There are a couple of different places where this needs to be broken up. One is the end user: what they physically get and what control they have versus what control you have. Then, there’s what control you have of how the AI model is going to behave based on your information and your inputs. Whether or that model is public, like a user accessing your documentation through Claude Desktop, or private, like a user accessing your documentation through your app or website, the governance piece comes down to what control you have immediately before the model. And that breaks down into a couple of things: completeness, accuracy, and structure of the content.

Related links:

• AI and content: Avoiding disaster
• AI and accountability
• Structured content: a backbone for AI success
• Heretto
• Questions for Sarah and Patrick? Register for the Ask Me Anything session on April 8th at 11 am Eastern.

LinkedIn:

• Sarah O’Keefe
• Patrick Bosek

Transcript:

This is a machine-generated transcript with edits.

Introduction with ambient background music

Christine Cuellar: From Scriptorium, this is Content Operations, a show that delivers industry-leading insights for global organizations.

Bill Swallow: In the end, you have a unified experience so that people aren’t relearning how to engage with your content in every context you produce it.

Sarah O’Keefe: Change is perceived as being risky; you have to convince me that making the change is less risky than not making the change.

Alan Pringle: And at some point, you are going to have tools, technology, and processes that no longer support your needs, so if you think about that ahead of time, you’re going to be much better off.

End of introduction

Sarah O’Keefe: Hey everyone, I’m Sarah O’Keefe. I’m here today with Patrick Bosek, who is the CEO of Heretto. Hey Patrick.

Patrick Bosek: Hey, Sarah. Long time no chat.

SO: That is, I guess for certain values of long time. We decided today that we wanted to talk about AI and governance, except I promptly tried to come up with a synonym for governance because I’m afraid that when I say that particular word, our audience just walks off. So, okay, Patrick, what is governance?

PB: Well, so first of all, thanks for having me on, and second of all, I’m excited about this one because based on our little bit of chat before the show, it sounds like we’re actually gonna have some things to argue about this time around. 

SO: I would never.

PB: Well, usually we tend to agree right like I think that we’re generally pretty on the same page about stuff. So I’m excited. I’m pumped. Okay, so governance. I mean, obviously it has a ton of different meanings to different people but in the way that I want to talk about it today, because it was my suggestion. It’s related to the governance of content, specifically in the way of the inputs to AI systems. So you can think about the process of controlling for quality, accuracy, the things that matter in the actual content and information before it gets into the AI system. So it’s kind of the upstream quality, totality, structure, all of that checking and assurance ahead of whatever your experience is going to be downstream, of which one is the most contemporary and most interesting is AI.

SO: Okay, so this is making sure that it is not garbage in so as to avoid garbage out. 

PB: Yeah, I would say that’s a fair statement.

SO: Yeah. Okay. And can we use AI to do governance of the content we’re producing?

PB: Well, that’s actually a very interesting question. And I think the short answer is somewhat right now. So before I go, okay, before I like fully answer that, I want to put a little disclaimer in here. The stuff with AI is changing so quickly that we should date-stamp this episode.

SO: It is March 19th, 2026. And it’s nine-ish Eastern time.

PB: Yeah, we are recording this on March 19th, 2026. Now I feel, yeah. Okay, so now that people know when it is that we’re talking about this, I feel a little bit safer in answering. So there are aspects of governance you can do with AI today, for sure. And there’s new capabilities coming online all the time. I actually think, broadly speaking, the thing that’s going to be most challenging about governance is going to be the pieces that can’t be done with AI continuing to not continuing to do them because it becomes like as the human part of the loop becomes smaller and smaller, it becomes so much easier and easier for the human to just click accept because like the AI gets it right, does it, the automation works that kind of thing. And you know, I’ll use like an AI coding analogy because that’s what I spend a lot of time with AI on. 

So I use Claude CLI. That’s my primary method of vibe coding or whatever you want to say. And I even find myself like just clicking accept sometimes. But I’m still forcing myself to like, get it, and read the code. And like, I had it write a shell script yesterday. And I was almost about to run it, and I was like, this is a shell script. I should not do that. I should definitely read what’s going on inside of this shell script, but it, gets to a point where like you start to trust it. 

SO: Yeah.

PB: And as we start to inject AI into the governance layer. So like we build skills that check certain parts of our information architecture or, you know, they kind of act as linters if we’re in docs as code or, you know, whatever it might be. There’s going to be like a form of trust that gets built up. And because we kind of like, tend to think of these agents as like human, they’re not, we tend to prescribe like a human form of trust, you know, like when you have a coworker that does the right thing all the time, you tend to just let them work. And I think that’s kind of the challenge and in the human side of governance. So that’s a really long way of saying.

You can build tools and skills and patterns and things like that in AI that will help with governance. But fundamentally, it’s my belief that for the type of documentation or content that you and I work on, and I think most of our audience works on, which is has to be right, has to be accurate, has to conform to standards, et cetera, et cetera, right? It’s product documentation. It’s critical information. I still think that every single word needs to be read and considered by a human being. So really long answer to that question.

SO: Right, and then fundamentally, if the AI is right half the time, then I’m going to read everything pretty carefully, knowing that 50% is wrong and I need to fix it. The problem, I think, is when it gets to be 90% correct, you just sort of glaze over because you’re looking for that last 10%, right? So it’s the difference between like doing a developmental edit, where you’re going deep into the words and just rearranging everything and fundamentally changing everything, versus doing a final proofread, where it is far more difficult to read 100 pages and find one typo than it is to read 100 pages that are just trash. And you’re like, start over, rearrange this, reformat everything. We’re not even worried about the typos yet because this is just fundamentally wrong. And so to your point, as it gets closer and closer, you start to believe in the output that it’s generating, which then means almost certainly that one typo, which in your example could be a shell script gone rogue, could be really, really problematic.

PB: Yeah. And that’s going to be the challenge of our times in a lot of ways. I think there’s still going to be some aspect of origination that’s going to be necessary for quite some time. even with like automated drafting and pipelines like that, coming online, because in certain places, those work really, really well. but in other places, they, they don’t really work very well yet. It’s going to be the process of like becoming orchestrators in a way where, you know, we’re not rubber stamps, and we’re like really truly adding value and actually defending against the challenges that are going to come up with the automation that we build.

SO: Fundamentally, like I saw a reference to this this morning and somebody said, you can write essentially an extractor that’s going to generate your release notes, right? So there’s code updates and you just automate the generation of release notes. Now, I personally am not so sure that you actually need AI for this. Given properly commented code, you could just generate the release notes, right? But setting aside that particular small argument in here. You automate, you can automate the generation of release notes because release notes are essentially, this is the delta between version one and version 1.01 or, know, and here are the changes. It’s a change log. What that means though is that the changes were captured in the code. They’re in the code, like the logic or the information is already there.

What we’re doing is extracting it and reformatting it into something that a human can look at on a single page and say, okay, I understand what the changes are and how these apply to me as the user of the software and whether or not I should upgrade. That’s different than we’re going to introduce a new feature into this code and I need to write about why this feature is interesting and relevant to you. The question to me is where is new information being introduced into the system? Where is that information encoded? And then once it’s encoded, we can extract it and process and do things to it. But the fundamental question is still at what point does new information get into the universe that the AI is capable of processing against?

PB: Yeah. So there’s like four things I want to pick out of this. Cause you just, you just touched on an area of like, I would say research for me, which we didn’t talk about beforehand. So this wasn’t intentional. so I’ve actually worked on deterministic and AI release notes systems myself. Like that’s been just like a thing that I spent quite a bit time on. 

SO: Define deterministic.

PB: So deterministic is like traditional software. So it’s just like, it’s running be a logical code that has no AI in it.

SO: And AI is not deterministic, which is kind of like the key point.

PB: Right. And AI is not deterministic. So AI is probabilistic. So it’s using math to generate outputs. So anyways, so I can tell you that using AI for release notes is a far produces a far better outcome than traditional deterministic because even though release notes are fairly well structured and understood, you know, input to output, you think it would be a pretty easy conversion sort of, there’s a lot of edges where it just doesn’t work. It gets too fuzzy. And then, one of the other things that AI is really, really good is good at is summarization and translation. So if you think about like what AI is doing inside of like generating a release note about a piece of code. So it goes in, it looks at the JIRA and the code and it says, okay, so the JIRA describes it as this, the code does this. I’m going to describe the new change, whatever it is, it’s summarizing all that information into something much smaller. And then it’s translating it from either being code to being English or from being developer English to being human English. And it’s putting it into something that you can then publish. And those are things that it does quite well, because it has pretty discrete inputs. a lot of the stuff, there’s a lot of patterns there that it’s very familiar with.

But as you were discussing, it’s like you were mentioning the things where it still struggles is less with like the what is in here and the why would you use it? What is like the, how you use it in like a higher sense. And you can actually like take this back to a similar issue we had with API documentation pre AI, where it was very common that people would go and build developer portals.

And the API documentation would just be a spec effectively, where it would list out the end points and the variables and that’s it. Right. And then Stripe came and like blew everybody’s minds about around and just put conceptual information around it and describe what the API was meant to do. and then like gave you examples of how to use it. and tutorials and patterns and things like that, that turned that information from being this kind of almost the conceptual educational purpose portion of the corpus in a way that the human beings can and should.

PB: A lot of it is generated, but like generated output to be something that was very usable by humans. And I think that like that piece of it in my experience so far is still quite necessary. I’m not saying that AI can’t get there, like we date stamped this, time stamped this earlier, but today from what I’ve seen, even the most contemporary models are not, they’re not coming in and building out.

SO: Because it’s not, the purpose is almost certainly not in the code, right? The purpose is in the product design meeting where someone says, we need a feature that’s going to accomplish these kinds of things. And the code says, do these kinds of things, but it doesn’t, the code itself doesn’t necessarily say why. And so unless you add a recording of that product design meeting into your AI corpus, which you can do, or the transcript, then maybe it can get to what was the intent as opposed to what does this code do.

PB: So that’s a good point. And I’m actually going to contradict what I said just slightly here.

SO: Ha!

PB: So you’re right. If you take really, really good product inputs and you run them through into the docs, that can get you a certain distance. But then we actually run into the thing we were supposed to be about, which is governance. And we started talking about, which is the human loop.

SO: Mm-hmm.

PB: And I think that those products, so I’ve actually done testing on this very recently. The inputs from at least our product team, they tend to work better in terms of like white paper style information than they do in terms of docs information. because like what’s in the product information, there’s a lot of like how and why and what’s covered and that kind of stuff. 

SO: Mm-hmm. 

PB: And like at a business level, but it’s not really a user level. It’s not, I’m struggling for the right words here, but it’s, it’s not the pieces of information that you want somebody who is thinking, should I go and touch this? Why should I go and do this? Is it going to serve me? Is it a good use of my time? Those kinds of things. What kind of value am I going to get out of it? Not the organization, not like, is it making a valuable feature? Like that kind of things. Like what is it, what’s in it for me as the user? it has been less good in creating those outputs in my experiments thus far. so that negotiation of like, okay, like what did product want us to build? What did engineering actually build? What got done? how does this incorporate with the rest of the product? you know, what’s our priorities? Like, how do I then take that down into something that is serving the user really, really well. To me, that’s still really a human skill that I think will stay that way at least this year. mean, I mean, but for the foreseeable future, know, obviously foreseeable futures feels a lot shorter sometimes these days than it did in the past.

SO: This year. This week. Yeah, okay. So on the topic of governance, we’ve talked a lot about sort of the backend development, whatever. But what about governance on the delivery side of things? if you have, because you do, end users are interacting with chatbots, with conversational interfaces to get the information that they want. And the question then becomes, how do you govern that? How do you manage that to ensure that they get the right information?

PB: Yeah, well, so I think we, this was really the thing we wanted to talk about today, right? Like this was the core, this is the hard problem.

SO: This is the hard problem.

PB: I think it’s fair to start by saying in today’s world, you don’t have a hundred percent control. I think you made that point when we were chatting before, like that’s just not part of like what happens today. So I think there’s a couple of different places. It’s like, this needs to be broken up. Like one is like the actual like end user, like what they physically get and what control they have versus what control you have, and then there is what control you have of how the model is going to behave based on your information and your inputs. You know, whether or that model is a public model, like somebody’s accessing your documentation through Claude Desktop, or whatever, or if it is a private model. like somebody’s accessing the information through your app or your website. so from my view, the governance piece really comes into like, what control do you have immediately before the model?

And that breaks down into a couple of things. So it is like completeness, accuracy, and structure of the content. Aand the completeness and accuracy are a thing that we’ve always had to deal with. The thing that’s different now is that, you know, we, as we were just discussing some, some portion of our content is going to be generated. Um, so there is going to be inputs coming in that need a different form of validation. I need, they need to be looked at a little bit differently than they would have had to in the past. Cause it’s not just an expert working on it and, so like you have the, so you have that piece. And to me, the key in making sure that you’re going to have the governance for the accuracy and completeness of the information ahead of the model really comes down to like still using structure. 

And like, there’s a big debate about is structure good or bad for models and those kinds of things. And I wanted to touch on this here, because I this is really important. Structure is not for the models, at least the structure that you maintain your content in. I’ve seen tests on both sides. It works, doesn’t, whatever. It’s markdown is better, this format is better, whatever. I think generally speaking, the idea that markdown is the thing that should actually be the final input to the model is probably true. But the structure is because without reuse, without the ability to use validation on the structure. The structure gives you the hooks to do deterministic validation and other forms of automated governance that are non-AI. Those things are very dependable. Humans will go crazy.

So like with the quantity of information you’re going to generate, if you don’t force those systems to use reuse, so humans look at less things and have been understanding of, this is supposed to be the same as this. Now it’s very similar, should it be? Like when something is reused, it’s not just an efficiency thing. It is a signal that that piece of information, that representation of the world is the same, except for maybe these little tiny things that are flagged as it is over here. That’s a signal to a human being to make sure that’s true. It should be true. Right? So this, these forms of information architecture, where we’re developing these structures that are signals to humans, are going to become more valuable as we need more and stronger signals to be able to do our jobs in the governance process for what’s generated. So that’s the point I wanted to make on like the pre, I would say like the pre-deployment piece of the content. And I just said a lot, so I’ll let you argue with me.

SO: Right, the question of, well, I think the question of in what form, there’s the question of how are we authoring this, which of it needs to be structured and organized and reusable, et cetera. There’s a completely separate question of how do we deliver this to the AI for processing, right? 

PB: Mm-hmm.

SO: Like what is the encoding for the AI delivery endpoint, and whether that’s XML, probably not, or Markdown, or you ship it through an API of some sort, that’s a different question from how do you develop and control the content in the authoring environment, right? So fundamentally, I don’t care how we’re feeding it into the AI. I got in a conversation with somebody the other day who said, well, we need an Excel spreadsheet for X, Y, and Z purposes. OK, well, I’m not authoring this stuff in Excel. That is not happening. And when I say this stuff, I mean a lot of content, right? So fundamentally, Excel, a really, really terrible way of doing this. But I don’t care. I’ll just author it in whatever and deliver it as Excel. Because we can do that. 

PB: Right.

SO: We can write a script, output it to Excel, and then pass it down the line. We can have extensive discussions about the use of Excel for content transport and how this is one of the seven what plagues or whatever. okay, so in terms of governance though, I think it’s fair to say that we are allowed to disclaim responsibility for the public-facing chatbots. If you, the end user, go to a public chatbot and prompt it to do a bunch of stuff and eventually get it to output a piece of content that makes you happy but is not accurate to what is in my source content, right? Because you just said, no, change it to this. Then that is on you, right? You operated all those prompts. That is fundamentally a you problem. And I’m talking about from a liability point of view more than anything else, right? You’re not going to get to call me up and say, hey, your product did bad things. Well, why did you do that? Well, know, the chatbot told me to. 

PB: Yeah.

SO: However, if we’re talking about a private LLM, now we’re talking about company.com’s private chatbot built on their internal content with their or our internal guardrails. Now we have some responsibility as the content creators and the operators of said AI chatbot to make sure that the content is accurate. And the thing that’s keeping me awake at night is, okay, I go in there as an end user and I say, give me the instructions for how to do a thing, right? And it comes back and it says there are eight steps and there’s a warning. Before you do step eight, make sure you turn off the power or something. And I’m like, you know what, these steps are too long. Hey chatbot, remove all the warnings.

PB: Yeah, so.

SO: That’s a thing I can do.

PB: Well, it’s a thing you can do. I have so, I have so many thoughts on this. So, it’s a thing you can do today with public models. I’m going to go one direction. Then I’m going come back to the internal stuff. All right. So in the public model space, I suspect that as these evolve, they will start to accept certain portions, like forms of metadata. However, it might be decorators, might be some form of tagging, might be, I don’t know, something else, right? When they’re referencing certain pieces of content, they’re given very strict like patterns they have to stick to, like they can’t delete warnings, right? So if you put like some kind of like biohazard on your published content, I don’t know, like something where it says like you can’t delete the warnings, right? That the public models will eventually respect that. I suspect we go that direction in the next call it two years. And at that point in time, I think that your responsibility as the content creator is going to be very, similar. I think it’s the same actually for the internal system and for the external system. 

Let’s not talk about like the development or architecture piece of it. Yeah, let’s talk about the content piece exclusively. And it’s going to come down to maintaining the proper structure. So it’s going to be the information model where a warning has to be a particular type of warning and it has to be labeled and placed in a particular place. A step has to be a step. Right? So like, you know, you can very easily see, an ordered list being treated in one way and a set of steps to be treated in another way. And this, this is already the case by the way. So like, this isn’t, this isn’t novel. if you go and you publish a public doc site and use JSON-LD to, specifically indicate, you know, using schema.org, Markup, you know, these are steps, whatever else you want in there, Google AI or not, we’ll treat that differently. Anthropic, I haven’t tested those. I’m not going to say for sure, but I think the other AI models also, when I asked Claude if it used it for a presentation, it said yes. But I actually tested it in Google now that I’m thinking about it. I don’t know if I should admit that publicly. But, my testing now that I’m thinking back to it. Yeah. And I’m thinking back to it. I was actually testing using Gemini.

SO: It’s impossible to keep up, you know?

PB: I wasn’t testing using Anthropic, but Claude’s response when you’re asking it, how it interprets these things, it says that it uses the JSON-LD as a portion of its interpretation of the response. And I believe that that is true based on the testing I did with the models basically behave the same way in these categories. So what’s your responsibility? Your responsibility is to govern the structure of the output in such a way where it gives the proper indications that comply with the contemporary understanding of the metadata that the models are looking for. 

So looping back to the internal systems, I think we’re going to come to a point where the internal models you’re running, like open source, open weight, whatever you want to call them in terms of, I think they’re going to be primarily open models, right? They’re going to be open source of some form. They’re more or less going to behave the same way as the public models. And you’d expect them to kind of comply with the same general things. The difference is that you’ll have probably a little more control over post-training, which I think is, I don’t know if it’s a good or a bad thing in the context of what we’re talking about. but you should be able to train some guard rails into them. And then you should be able to put some level of deterministic guard rails on them.

And you can always provide them guidance. Now guidance isn’t perfect. It’s flawed. Like people can circumvent it, you know, like pretend you’re a chatbot that doesn’t care about guidance. But like you really have to work to get around it. I think when you have those guard rails in place. So this doesn’t keep me up at night is what I’m saying. It’s a really long way of saying it doesn’t keep me up at night.

SO: Well, you know, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the analogy of the rise of desktop publishing to the rise of AI, which I understand fundamentally makes no sense.

PB: Let’s do it with it. I’ll do it.

SO: Yeah, let’s go with it. Think for a second about the rise, not the rise, but in fact, the an output. And this could even be in print. One of the most famous failure in techcomm examples that you see that everybody makes jokes about is like you’re going along on a page, a printout, doesn’t matter, right? And you get to the bottom of the page and it says, “Step one, cut the blue wire.” And then you turn the page, and it says, “But first…”

So in the AI world, okay, you know, we put in guardrails and we say you’re not allowed to remove the warnings and whatever, but fundamentally at the end of the day, I start processing this output, I mean, I’ll just tell it, hey, give me a PDF, right, of the output, and then I’m gonna reprocess that PDF somewhere else. I am bound and determined to get this thing down to like a quarter page of actual text because I don’t wanna read any more than that.

And you know how you get these terrible tech docs that are nothing but warnings for the first 20 pages? All those legal warnings? Warning, if allergic, do not use. Warning, do not walk underneath the unstable whatever because it might fall on your head, you dummy. All those warnings, right? Everybody thinks they’re useless, but they’re in there because somebody at some point said, I’m allergic, but how bad could it be? And they took the pill or whatever. They’re annoying. Don’t serve me. They serve the organization in protecting them from legal liability. So I’m just going to strip them. And if you try to prevent me from doing it, I’m just going to go around you. I’ll flatten it down to something that’s not smart anymore, and then I’ll take them out. 

PB: Right. Yeah.

SO: Now, arguably at that point, you know, when we’re in a courtroom years later, and they’re saying, why did you take the pill that almost killed you? It’s like, well, the docs didn’t say to, well, you know, they did. You went through like eight steps to get rid of that warning. 

PB: Yeah, there’s no liability here.

SO: I know. But the context issue is the thing, right? And the point that you’re making is that if the back-end authoring and governance is good enough, those warnings will make it into the initial output. And I think that’s true, and I agree with that. But fundamentally, and you know, removing warnings is a pretty extreme example, but fundamentally, the end users are basically saying, I don’t care how you package this content and I don’t care why you packaged it this way. I want this at an eighth-grade level instead of a 12th-grade level. I want it in French, and I want it to be no more than 100 words. And at that point, you start to lose information, right, and context. And how do we make sure that that end product is still, I mean, are we going to end up in a place where the AI says, I’m afraid I can’t do that, Patrick?

PB: So, okay, so this is actually a more interesting problem than the warnings piece because in the fact that it is more specific, like it is, it’s a not your problem because what you’re asking the AI to do is you’re asking it to perform one of its core functions, which is summarization. And I do think that you’ll be able to provide AI guidance inside of the content that you have. And now that I’m thinking about this, I’m not going to say for sure that you can’t do this today.

But the point is that when an AI is going and referencing, we’re going to say a procedure, right? If somebody wants, you know, give this to me in a fourth-grade level, and it’s written, you know, at a high school level, that’s a scary situation for sure. But I do think that you’re going to be, you’re going to see organizations being able to say like, you know, this is, this cannot be changed. Like this has to be delivered as… I think there are already some level of guardrails around those things. Again, like when you use good structure to indicate, like these are steps. They have to be reproduced as they are. Like I think the AI systems have been designed to understand that like those are, they can’t play with those because, like, you know, those are specific intentional procedures. But it’d be very interesting to test this. This is not a thing that I have specifically tested. Have you tested this? Are we?

Are you like about to drop a truth bomb on me? You’ve like gone and like looked at like some chemical engineering output and you’ve been like, Hey, give this to me at a second-grade level. It’s like mix the blue thing and the red thing.

SO: Let’s not go down that route. I don’t wanna say that, that we’ve pushed this into failure. But again, circling back to governance, I agree with everything you’re saying around making sure the content is set up in such a way that the AI will succeed. 

PB: Okay.

SO: The most common use case right now for AI is that there’s an AI team being stood up somewhere in the organization, a large organization. And all of that structure and all of that governance and all those attributes and all that metadata that you’re talking about is all in, hypothetically, it’s all in the content. We’ve got like the world’s greatest, you know, structured semantic content. The AI team is picking off the end product PDFs and shoving them into the AI.

PB: Yeah, I… Well…

SO: So yeah, now we’re very sad. like, yes, I agree with all of that. It’s just that the gap right now between what should be happening and what actually is happening, which is we don’t have time to wait for those people and we don’t have time to configure an API to inject, inject, ingest all this stuff, maybe inject.

And you know, we could run it through like an MCP, model context protocol, type of thing and that would make it so much better. But you know what? There’s a SharePoint bucket over here and I’m just gonna like trawl the whole thing and go for it. And I ingested five versions of the same document that are you know, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2 years old. Yeah, okay, whatever, who cares.

PB: So I believe this is happening because I’ve also seen it.

SO: Did I mention I’m not sleeping?

PB: So I’ll tell you why I am sleeping. So, for one, this doesn’t tend to be my problem. There’s that. I have the really nice situation of being kind of a solution to this problem. 

SO: Mmm! Huh. So you’re saying I should switch sides and get out of services and go over to product. That’s what you’re saying. It’s not a bad idea.

PB: So, you have to, no, I don’t know that I’m saying that, there’s, there’s plenty of other problems in product. So the reason I’m not concerned about this is because most of those projects that I’ve had, you know, a front row seat to fail. And they fail pretty quickly. They tend to fail before they launch, which is good. Actually. It’s really good. because like they’re like, we built this thing with this garbage and we got garbage and you’re like, sweet. So, and because that worked quickly, then they can go and they can do it right.

What I’ve seen, where I believe the future is, at least the immediate future in this is that content teams are going to be responsible for publishing very, very high-quality web materials, like similar to what they’ve done in the past, except better, right? Like has to have semantics, has to have certain aspects of structure, has to be well organized, has to have certain chunking and like all those kinds of things. And the models and the surrounding ecosystems are going to get very good at leveraging those materials. They’re already getting quite good at it. So the impulse for an internal AI team to go and get your PDFs off your SharePoint is going to go down because the barrier of getting information off of your extremely good help site is going to be extremely low. 

That’s going to be the easiest path. And then for the edge cases, when like, let’s say you’re doing post-training on like, like the FinBERT model or something like that, like you’re like building a very specific AI application and you want very specific pieces of information. In those cases, you’re going to have to use an API because you don’t want the whole set of information. You just want the 5% that applies to your use case. So those teams are going to be have to be sophisticated enough to leverage the, either the graph at a granular, like the graph, the structure or whatever it may be, the metadata, the selection mechanism, and then also the structure to like do the filtration to get the pieces they want. So those are the two worlds that I see. I see like very general-purpose stuff and that’s going to be hooked into what’s going to be great for just users anyways, like the better, the more semantic.

PB: The more well-organized your help site is, the better it’s going to be for humans. It’s going to be better for your AI agents, internal and external. And then for the other side of the world, the really, really specific use cases, those teams are going to have to be sophisticated enough to do the really, the deep engineering and concept extraction. so I think what you’re seeing right now is a symptom of just a nascent skill inside of organizations, but I don’t think it stays that way which is why it doesn’t concern me that much.

SO: Okay, well that’s a happy and optimistic world that I, too, would like to live inside. Before, I think that’s actually probably a good place to leave this, but did you have any final closing thoughts, encouragement for people as they’re listening to this ranty, well mostly me ranting, you sounded very reasonable, but do any final parting shots?

PB: Did I? Well, I appreciate you saying I sounded reasonable because I don’t hear that very often. 

SO: Compared to me.

PB: So I do think that profession is changing, and I think the world is moving very quickly right now. And I think that anybody that tells you otherwise is being disingenuous. I think there’s a lot of energy around how it is we leverage these systems and how that changes, you know, our profession is like, you know, content people, whatever portion of the content people you fit into. I personally don’t see the, the general profession going away, at least in our version of the world, like maybe the marketing content, is going to get swallowed a little bit more. I don’t know. I don’t spend a ton of time there.

I see the act of intervention, governance, orchestration, understanding, and coordination in our world as being essential. I haven’t seen anything that has indicated to me that that’s going to go away in the immediate term. And I think there’s a good chance that it genuinely just doesn’t really ever go away. I think it’s something which is going to be critical for the long term. But I do think that people are going to have to keep up on the current state of how we’re working with our tools. And it’s going to be a different pace than it has been in the past. and then I would offer one more warning on that. So one of the things that I see really frequently in our world is the impulse to go and use AI in places that you don’t need to. So a number of people have released like skills libraries, recently for Claude and some of them are really, really well put together. Like they’re really interesting. The people who are releasing them have done an incredible job and service the community by releasing these things. But one of the things that I’ve noticed about them is that a lot of the functionality that’s in these skills libraries that we’re outsourcing or automating with AI, it all works with deterministic systems already. And you should never replace a deterministic capability with an AI capability. There’s two reasons for that. One, it’s more expensive with AI. It may be less expensive to build and procure, but it’s more expensive to run. And the running is the thing that you do for the long haul. So like just on that basis, like you should not replace things that you can do with deterministic system relatively easily with an AI system. But the other thing is AI systems aren’t deterministic. So you’re not going to get the same result every time. 

So if it’s something that is well done in a deterministic way. You should do it in a deterministic way. So there was a package of skills that was recently released that I went and looked at that was, you know, kind of very, very well put together. I looked at the skills and I was like, if you’re using a structured CCMS, like in structured content, you don’t need 95% of these. Like all this stuff just happens. Like it’s all, it’s all solved problems. We solved these problems 20 years ago. Why are we writing skills to do this stuff? Like this makes no sense. So I do think as everybody should be keeping up with the AI, as it is a value-add efficiency improvement in their work, it should also be reasonable about where it’s applied. It’s really exciting and capable in certain places, but it doesn’t mean it’s a thing that should replace everything. There are still the historical tools still work really, really well. And over the long haul, they’re higher quality and lower cost. So that’s my kind of like ending word of warning, which you asked for it by the way.

SO: That sounds about right to me. So Patrick, thank you. And I’m sure this conversation will continue, and we’ll see what happens.

PB: Thanks, Sarah. Always a pleasure.

Conclusion with ambient background music

CC: Thank you for listening to Content Operations by Scriptorium. For more information, visit Scriptorium.com or check the show notes for relevant links.

Questions for Sarah and Patrick? Register for the Ask Me Anything session on April 8th at 11 am Eastern.

The post Who controls your content? AI and content governance appeared first on Scriptorium.