In the third and final episode on ACAPS' participation in the AI for Changemakers Bootcamp Ali, Yevhen and Lars Peter are joined by Konrad Pabianczyk who ran the Bootcamp for Tech to the Rescue (TTTR).

The Bootcamp is over and ACAPS has been matched with a tech company in order to develop an AI that can strengthen forecasting of crises.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (0:27 - 0:44)

Welcome to Trumanitarian and I'm your host Lars-Peter Nissen and today I have the great pleasure of being joined by Konrad Konrad Pabianczyk from Tech to the Rescue who will co-host this episode with me. Welcome Konrad.

[Konrad Pabianczyk] (0:44 - 0:45)

Hello, it's great to be here.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (0:46 - 1:15)

Tech to the Rescue runs a series of podcasts called Tech for Good Talks and we agreed that we would do this third episode of the AICAPS little mini-series we've had about our participation in the AI bootcamp together with you guys because you organized it and we thought it would be nice now that we are done with the old bootcamp and that went well that we could talk to you about how the experience was.

[Konrad Pabianczyk] (1:15 - 1:36)

Yeah, I'm excited to hear how you feel now that you've had time to reflect on the experience. It was definitely a lot for everyone. I think after seven weeks we all felt that we had gone through something together and I'm really keen to see what you've learned, what you've taken away and what you do differently in the future.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (1:36 - 1:50)

I, of course, very rudely forgot to mention that I'm joined in the studio by Yevhen and Ali who actually did most of the work in the bootcamp, so sorry guys and welcome back to Trumanitarian.

[Ali Arbia] (1:50 - 1:50)

Nice to be back.

[Yevhen Barshchevskzi] (1:51 - 1:52)

Nice to be here.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (1:53 - 2:18)

Now, I think the three of us, we are all sort of awestruck because, of course, Conrad, you sort of turned into our Gandalf of AI during the bootcamp, you know, the ultimate authority who waved his wand and we had to do what you told us to do and so from your humble hobbits here in Geneva, we would be very happy to hear what did you think of the first two episodes we did and our reflections on the learning journey we sort of went through.

[Konrad Pabianczyk] (2:18 - 3:33)

Yeah, sure. It's definitely humbling to hear being called Gandalf. I think I want myself more as a servant leader where I was there to empower you as best as I could, but just I'll keep in mind that I have a magic wand to wave if I need to.

When reflecting on the episodes that you shared, there was a stark difference in the tone, the experience, especially when comparing the first few weeks versus later on in the journey. I think we also felt that as hosts of the experience when after a long four-hour lecture, essentially, the energy levels were remarkably different whilst comparing that to sessions, for example, where it was a lot more interactive and cooperative, there was still the energy to go outside, do something, even get back to work and that was noticeable in listening to your previous episodes as well. So I think that we all had a similar reflection on whether or not that will to keep going is there after those four hours of each session is a good indicator on how that experience was. What do you think about that?

[Ali Arbia] (3:34 - 4:25)

I mean, keep on going. This is what hobbits do and after we have been introduced as hobbits, I guess that's quite fitting. I think your observation is correct. I share that feeling. The thing was that in the beginning it was very tech-centered, so people like me who probably were more on the idea side, it was a lot easier to be involved and to get into the bootcamp mood when the thing was about brainstorming, developing the ideas, then absorbing a lot of information passively about the technical side of it. So I think the dynamic that you observed definitely is true for me.

[Yevhen Barshchevskzi] (4:26 - 5:29)

Yeah, and I guess from my end, on the one hand I share this feeling that it's always nice to talk about things like designing and the prototype, identify your users, their pain points, the processes that we wanted to improve. I get this exciting part. But on the other hand, maybe just to challenge a bit, I do think that this tech piece of the first stages of the bootcamp were also beneficial to the audience, even though they were less engaging by design. So I guess maybe one thing you can reconsider is how you engage the bootcamp participants for these more tech talks. But I do think that those tech talks, they share, especially for people who are not working with AI daily, it shares the concepts, the really important concepts to understand how technology works. And I do feel you still need to do it. It just may be a matter of revisiting the format, how you engage the participants. But all good from my end, I guess, on this.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (5:29 - 6:44)

Yeah, I felt like the fact that the three of us from ACAPS or the four of us with Kiara who also participated, we have very different backgrounds. Ali, you are in training and sort of a conceptual guy, always thinking new thoughts inside ACAPS. Yevin and Kiara are much more on the technical side. And of course, I am more on the management side of things. And so I thought it was really great that the four of us, we took turns being uncomfortable, I think, or excited or whatever, because for me, the tech stuff, the AI stuff, I find it fascinating. But it was very new for me. I did not know a lot of those things. And Conrad, if I could give you guys a piece of advice, especially on the first part, I think it's important that you have non-techies there, right, to get it right. And then you have to come meet us a bit more in the way you teach the tech piece. It was very inside baseball-y sort of a thing. I felt it was very technical. It was challenging, and then I learned and I'm stretching mindsets and all of that.

But I think maybe sprinkle a bit more pedagogical approach on top of the tech piece. I think you'll get a bigger uptake.

[Konrad Pabianczyk] (6:45 - 7:49)

It's great to hear, Yevin, you say that you still found it useful. And Lars, in terms of how to share that information, a few of the things that we've reflected on for future editions of the Bootcamp is to have some pre-work where there's a glossary of key terms. That way, it's not immediately overwhelming, and you're not both learning new vocabulary and concepts at the same time. And then also pace out that theory, so you're not just having it condensed into two weeks. But in the format of seven weeks, you can spread out the theory and have some lecture, and then some reflections, and then some workshops, and then some presentations. That way, the content is still there, but it's broken up, and your brain has a chance to both reflect and internalize it. So I think that the reflections that you're having are ones that we've also had ourselves. This was the first edition of this Bootcamp, and we are creating it as we were going. So these are all really valuable to hear, and it's affirming to think that we've implemented those into future editions to make sure that other NGOs that join can have even more of a benefit from this experience.

[Ali Arbia] (7:49 - 8:09)

Just to clarify, I think that the comprehensiveness of the program is actually a strength. So that's not the issue. It's probably more of a question of the dosage, the depth you want to go, depending on your audience. But the comprehensiveness, you should really keep that because that's a big plus.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (8:09 - 8:14)

What did it do for us? How did our mindsets move in ACAPS over these eight weeks?

I guess just to chime in and continue with what Eli started. For me, this Bootcamp was a perfect opportunity to conceptualize many ingredients that make AI projects successful. So we at ACAPS, I come from more like a technical background, or the team members in the team are more technical people, and we tend to focus a lot on technology and optimizing the models and other interesting stuff that we do. But then the important question is always, how does this translate into the user's journey? How does it translate to the business needs of how we use the technology? And that we are not falling into the dilemma of chasing automation and just doing stuff because this is something trendy and everyone is doing. But how do we still keep a balance of focusing on the right problem at the right time? And how do we reign the technology? So how do we augment our workflow with the technology? And I guess the Bootcamp to me was a good mix of those things, especially for the part where we talk about the identifying the users, their journeys, their profiles, and pain points. It was really nice to see how this sort of universal patterns and universal conceptual things could be used in real life. And I guess that's my key takeaway from this Bootcamp, is the right mix of things. So it was not focusing solely on technology versus it's not just was like for some more philosophical concepts, but it was a right mix and blend of things that help us to come up with the actual prototype at the end of this journey. So thank you for that, Konrad, that was a really exciting journey.

For me, one thing on a personal level is definitely that I learned quite a bit thinking on the tech side of the question, which is ironic considering what we just discussed before. The other thing I think is we had a lot of conversations about who is actually using the tool? How do we want to use it? What can technology help us to achieve? And when do we really want to insist on human input? When do we think that should be prioritized? And I think it was really good to have these conversations because they happen on a general level. So it's not specifically, does a human need to push a button or not? It is really about, so where do we see the human input as being valuable or superior? And what are the things that actually machine can help us to make our lives or our analysts' lives easier?

Yeah, I think for me, the first big takeaway has been the demystification of AI. I'm really beginning to understand what it is and most importantly, what is not. I also think that in order for it to be transformative, I think you can't just have it sit in a corner of the organization. You actually need buy-in from the technical to management in terms of how do we embed this into our workflow. I think that's the only way to really make sure that it makes a difference in our day-to-day life and doesn't just become a show pony that we pull out every now and then. And then the third one I think is that it also, it helps highlight some of our bad habits and problems that already exist with anything from data governance to the way we do analysis. And so I think it's really a welcome opportunity to also get better just at being us, not necessarily us with AI, but just being us. And so I think we are off to a good start in terms of how we can make this something practical, not something scary or something magical, but really something practical that makes us better. That's actually the feeling I have.

It's affirming to hear you say that essentially it's no longer either overly hyped or scary. And at the same time, you're not treating it as a panacea key where if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I think that in the current climate of AI, there's a little bit too much hype on using gen AI everywhere, even if it's not even needed. So it's good to hear that we've been able to balance a little bit about what your actual needs are, where there makes sense for there to be human input and what potential unintended consequences you could have for implementing something and looking at the entire process. So it's good to hear that those have been at least somewhat checked off during the bootcamp.

Maybe a last thing I'd just like to throw in is because you mentioned risk and the ways in which AI can do harm. I think I probably have become less risk adverse because of this bootcamp. I think it is very risky and scary what AI can do and the impact it can have. And maybe exactly because of that, I feel like we really have to take gloves off and just get in there and start using it and understanding where are those concrete dangers. Because we can sit in a corner and think forever about what could go wrong. But if we are not in the game, if there are not humanitarian actors who are trying to ensure that the way we shape the use of AI does as little harm as possible, I'm worried that we will be out of the game altogether. So for me, it's like I think we need to have a sandbox where we test things and really are utterly unafraid. But then we have to be very careful before we take it out of the sandbox and sort of put it into our day-to-day life.

It sounds like you've become more risk aware while being less risk averse because we're no longer catastrophizing.

Cool. Maybe let's talk about pitch day. Because last we spoke, we were in the ideation phase and we were all starstruck by IDEO and how cool they were. And so how might we do a pitch for the pitch day?

To me, the pitch day was really an exciting opportunity to learn what other participants learn and present throughout the project, throughout the bootcamp. You know, it was a moment of where like you took the problem and you try to address this problem with technology. And the problems were so different, so versatile. There were so many experiences from other participants that it was, you know, just by being there and observing what others did throughout the seven weeks were already very exciting to me. I guess like it was what I like a lot about the pitch process that we went ahead is that the TTR team invited the future partners of our journey that we are building now with AI. And it was, I guess it was really beneficial for them to be in this room and for them to, you know, engage first time with us to learn who we are, what are the problems are, and how they can feed the skill set and the right technology that they, you know, work with other partners to help us out with our challenges. So I guess this idea of like blending, having this mixed format of like, you know, tech people listening to the NGOs who share what they learned. And, you know, we were, I guess, very good prepared to deliver the message, especially through the public pitch trainings that we have with you guys. I guess it was a week five or something. It was really nice because, you know, the people learn how to speak to the audience in the right messages. And it was really cool to see the outcome of that.

I think a lot of things we were supposed to do are actually things that you're quite familiar with. It was about telling a story. It was about getting a message across. It was about tailoring your story to the audience you have. So all of this was not new. And I think these are fun things to do. What was new was the type of audience we had to address. And I think that was very helpful. So the feedback we got, because there were a couple of things that I think we just did the way we always do them. And then getting that input, how we can tailor it better to tech companies, what they will be looking for. I think that was a very useful and interesting process.

That's right. As the pitch day was looming forward, I think it became more aware that it's not a pitch to raise funds. It's also not a pitch to get clients. It's something, as you said, there's an entirely different group. To remind anyone listening, the pitch day's goal was to essentially match NGOs with tech companies that will build their solutions pro bono or low bono shortly afterwards. And that's a very different context to be able to both inspire but also be clear enough on what you're solving. So it's good to hear that you felt prepared in balancing those needs. I'd be curious on how what you would have pitched at the start of the boot camp changed during your experience, because some projects were vastly different at the end, while some were very aligned. And I'm wondering if there's any indicators that we can look at to see what will dictate what use case an organization decides to move forward with.

I think what was important for me was that we would not be defined by what we were already doing. We have done some great experimentation with our Sophia AI that helps us collect data in a better way. And for me, it was important that we try to throw the net a bit wider and really think more strategically about where are the design spaces that we can operate in. And so for me, what I tried to push for was that we sort of identified, we came up with three different design spaces. So one around data collection, which is an extension of our existing Sophia project. One around sort of our internal, gaining insights from our internal knowledge using what we already know to sort of see things we can't see already.

And then the forecasting as the third big design space for me. And this is where it was very useful, because it's for me, it's always very dangerous when you start experimenting. You can get so much, you can fall so much in love with your own baby that you can't see the bigger picture. And I think the boot camp helped us see that bigger picture and appreciate how good it is, what we've already done. But then also add on a couple of siblings to baby SOPHIA so that we have a broader portfolio of AI activities.

Have you made Sophia into a cyborg that's an amalgamation of different parts and plan on kind of expanding that even further?

I think Yehven actually will call his next daughter for Sophia. That's I think what he has promised his colleagues here at ACAPS. I'm not sure his wife knows, but I guess she does now.

Yeah, she definitely knows this name perfectly. We had actually a couple of jokes at home around this, so this is not surprising what you're saying.

But Conrad, you saw our pitch. What were your reflections on the way we did it?

I liked how engaging, calm, and inspiring you were. There was a real sense of authority in your pitch, but it was not overly, it wasn't over the top kind of marketing spiel. I think it was genuine to what your mission was doing. So I was, I really enjoyed listening to your pitch. That's how I remember it.

But we need to dial up the hyper bit is what you're saying.

I think that it's a very, if you compare an American versus a European perspective, where does the sentiment lie on when saying something is awesome? What does that actually translate into the cultural meaning of that word? So I think that in Europe, we can be a little bit more over the top and in the US could be a little bit less. So yes, I think that finding a balance between both of those makes it both real, not grasping at straws, genuine. So yeah, that's what I would say.

So that's really useful feedback on the pitch, Conrad. I think next time we'll start with ACAPS in the house, something like that. I'll practice, I promise.

With nirvana.

But of course, no matter how toned down we were, you guys actually managed to find some people who want to develop a project with us. Omdena, which is a platform of people who are working with AI for nonprofits, is developing our foresight project together with us. And we're just starting and it's really exciting to see that going on. And also, you've invited us to speak at a conference in Las Vegas in December. And of course, there we will have to really turn up the volume. We've started practicing on Fridays, actually.

Yeah, that's going to be one where definitely being more showy is going to play to our strengths, especially in Vegas.

Cool. But Conrad, from your side, from tech to the rescue side, you've now completed the first bootcamp. And I know you have planned a string of 10, if I'm not wrong, a series of 10?

There's five total bootcamps.

Okay, five total bootcamps. Tell us a little bit about the ones that are coming now.

Sure. So we've reflected on and improved on the syllabus for the future boot camps. We have the 30, because as opposed to the first boot camp on disaster management, the second on climate is going to have 30 NGOs. So those have all been chosen. They're in the process of being welcomed to the process and will actually kick off in a few weeks time. So likely when this is already going to production and being published, this chat of ours that will have potentially kicked off. So after this second climate cohort, it's health, education, and economic opportunity. And in total, we should expect to have about 110 NGOs that have gone through this process, been trained, pitched their ideas, put together an entire strategy on where they see themselves moving forward, and hopefully are qualified to be junior or product owners on AI solutions to work in tandem with these tech companies on building these skills out. So that's where we're currently at in terms of the future additions.

In addition, there's also going to be pitch days, essentially demo days with investors, and those will happen once or twice during the entire AI for Changemakers process. And that'll be an opportunity for NGOs outside of the boot camps to help themselves raise funds for future investments. And we have some hackathons planned as well. So the boot camp is seven weeks, and that's supposed to allow you to have a unified use case brief and strategy. But the hackathon would be essentially a few days where hopefully some kind of prototype is able to be built and launched within just that short amount of time. So there's a lot going on, a lot of contexts.

But what I'm most excited about is seeing how the NGOs actually interact with each other. From the first boot camp, seeing where new cooperations are coming about, or even having certain NGOs ask, hey, can we be participants in future cohorts to be able to engage with those NGOs in additional additions? I think that that's going to be where the magic happens, because you all can definitely learn from each other's insights and check each other's blind spots and potentially work together in a more formal format. So that's kind of much beyond where we're currently going.

It's fantastic to hear just how much you have got in the pipeline, Conrad. It's really fantastic that you're building a community the way you are. I think that can be incredibly impactful.

I think maybe from our side, Ali and Yemen, what would we say? Why would we, if we had to sell boot camps to other NGOs, what's the pitch here? And hype it up a bit to Vegas style, Ali. Why should people join this boot camp?

I hope this is not turning into fear and loathing in Las Vegas. So the comprehensiveness that I mentioned in the beginning, that's really a big plus. So it doesn't matter where you come from, if you're from the tech side, from the idea side, there is something in there for everyone. And if you have a mixed team, everyone will get something out of it. And I think the other point that I would highlight is, it was really nice to be with those other organizations going through the same process, struggling with different things, learning different things, having very different projects coming from very different places, and seeing how this exchange also was very fruitful and helpful to learn and see and understand better where we are.

And I guess if I were to pitch a 30 seconds elevator pitch on TTR boot camp, it's a place where you can really master AI projects cookbook. So you can learn about all the nitty-gritty ingredients of how to make a successful AI project. It's an opportunity to network and partner, and not even network and partner in terms of AI, but just network and partner in terms of what others in the sector are doing and finding the synergy, because frequently many organizations might do very similar stuff but even don't know that similar stuff exists.

And last but not least, it's how do you take three core ingredients, which is business needs, tech stack that you have, or your tech expertise, and your users, your audience that you build the product for, and how do you mix those three things together and deliver? That's what is the TTTR bootcamp is for me. And I really, I guess, guys, thank you for that. You really do a great job in this.

I think from my side, it's all around a unique opportunity to get your feet wet and get started with AI and really comprehensively think through how this tech can be transformative for what you're trying to do. I think that's what it boils down to for me.

I'm going to ask a challenging question, if you don't mind. What would be a reason not to join, for example? Is it being overqualified? Is it time commitments? Is it being alone in the team? Where do you think, reflecting on the experience and what was a little bit more difficult, you would give words of warning?

If you don't really know why you're doing it, but you're driven by FOMO, fear of missing out, then don't do it. I mean, go into it with a purpose and with an intent to truly transform the way you do business. And then don't do it alone. Have diverse colleagues around you participating. It's a lot of commitment and many people would struggle to really follow the full course. So having more, we were four going in and out, and I think we managed to cover all of the sessions, but nobody was there for all of the sessions.

Yeah, I guess I echo what Lars Peter said. I guess the time commitment is substantial and any organization that wants to join the bootcamp should be really realistic. Maybe just to add on top of that, I guess to me one of the learning moments was also to have a right set of people from organization being present at the bootcamp. And I guess if any organization ends up a bit like shifting the balance from business to lots of technology people in the room or from the technology to a lot of the business people in the room, I guess you might miss the synergy points of how do you create this cool prototype, cool product. So I guess that be realistic and identify right team size and team set is very important for this bootcamp to be more efficient at its outcomes.

It was inspiring to hear what you said, Lars, to have a purpose about it. I was expecting a little bit more about being aware of the time commitments. You gave me chills in talking about having a purpose to avoid doing Thelma because otherwise you'll just be wasting your time. I think that's critical to realize that there's so much pressure to try and implement AI and novel technologies into what you're doing, that it's not just throwing darts at a board. It's trying to understand where you're trying to get to over the horizon and having a unified goal with your team. So it was inspiring to hear you put it so clearly.

Conrad, I think from our side, we want to say a big thank you. It's really been a great and fun experience and hopefully also a transformative one once we begin to get the projects into the sandbox, eventually out of the sandbox. I think this will actually have been a really important moment in ACAPS' development. And I think from our side, we would encourage organizations to engage with Tech to the Rescue, not to turn this into a total commercial spot for you guys, but you do really, really valuable work and the community you're building is really exciting. So thank you for that.

Thank you. It's very kind of you to say. I'm really excited to see where this goes. I'm looking forward to seeing your progress over the coming months, if not years.

Have a lovely day and I hope you had a time for some off time after a Herculean task.

It was a little bit of downtime, but it was a pretty intense past six months. Thank you very much. Take care. Thank you, Conrad.

Thank you.