We all love the idea of AI, until someone in accounting asks if it can “just do my job for me” and your CEO wants to patch it into every legacy system simultaneously. That gap, between the people who understand the models and the people who actually own the problems, is where projects stall, policies panic, and cool prototypes die quietly. The missing piece is rarely better models, it’s a translation layer, a person or a team who can speak both languages, technology and business, and actually turn curiosity into usable solutions.
When people ask, “How can we use generative AI to help us?” my first thought is always the same, and yes I ask it out loud, “what are your tasks?” If you cannot explain the problem in plain terms, you cannot map it to an appropriate technology. You also cannot define the success metrics, the risks, or whether this is even a task that benefits from probabilistic outputs.
Translation layers do three things, well. – They translate business problems into technical requirements. – They translate technical capabilities back into concrete, relatable use cases. – They act as a bridge for trust, compliance, and adoption.
I learned this listening to Ben Hoyle explain how a large company navigates the GenAI rush. He makes the obvious point that outsiders equate generative AI with ChatGPT, but the implications are much wider. The translation layer converts that general hype into something a project manager can actually pilot.
People do not get inspired by abstract promises, they get inspired by seeing someone similar to them succeed. One practical method is to build a menu of showcases, where colleagues demonstrate how they used an AI tool to solve a real problem. That closes the gap between “it can do a lot of things” and “it can do my thing.”
Showcases do two jobs, they spark curiosity, and they lower perceived risk. If a requirements engineer sees a peer using a document-based chatbot to parse technical specs, they stop thinking of AI as a magical black hole and start thinking of it as a tool that can be integrated into their workflow.
Next step is training that is neither preachy nor painfully abstract. People want practical instructions, like what data can I put into a tool, and what results should I expect. A few short, targeted courses plus quick reference guidelines about data privacy and acceptable inputs goes a long way. Ben described building these guidelines early on, because people need rules before they will safely experiment.
Training should emphasize: – Clear use cases that map to specific tasks. – Simple instructions that produce predictable outcomes. – Ways to delegate deterministic parts to existing systems, while using AI for the fuzzy bits.
Culture change needs pressure from both ends, upwards and downwards. You get buy in faster when leadership demonstrates the tool publicly. Ben tells it how he gets the highest ranking exec to do a live demo, then everyone else feels permission to try it too. That legitimacy matters.
At the same time, you build a grassroots movement of early adopters who become internal consultants. Hackathons and internal Datathons help here. They are not just competitions, they are discovery labs where business owners bring real data, and engineers build rapid proofs of concept. Those proofs seed the showcase library, and the cycle repeats.
One overlooked job of the translation layer is rebuilding trust, especially in companies wounded by data leaks or reckless early usage. Ben captures this problem well. People used the free tools, secrets leaked, and now the instinct is ban everything. Translation layers help craft compliant internal solutions, paired with clear policies, and they help people reassess modern capabilities. Sometimes, you have to get people curious again, not scared or defensive.
Ask the model to show if it’s useful, but also show how it can fail and how to mitigate those failures. Being honest about limitations builds more trust than marketing bravado.
A useful rule of thumb is, if a task is simple and deterministic, do not reinvent the wheel. Excel functions were not built to be dramatic, they were built to be reliable. If you need exact repeatable outputs, use deterministic tools and call them from AI when you want a natural interface.
That is the real power of modern systems, using language models as orchestrators. Let the model decide which tool to call, write the deterministic function, and run it. LLMs can be the brains at decision nodes, calling specialized functions for the parts that must be exact. That hybrid architecture is where reliability and flexibility meet.
If you are the CEO or the project sponsor, stop asking if you should have AI, and start asking how you should have it. Pull a translator into the room early. Build small, visible showcases. Create easy compliance rules. Run internal Datathons so people learn by doing. Then let technology integration take care of itself, because it will, given time.
You will still need patience. Integration is mostly an orchestration problem, not a model problem. But a good translation layer makes that orchestration meaningful, it turns curiosity into competence, and scattered experiments into repeatable value.
So hire someone who can speak both languages, or become that person yourself. The alternatives are messy, bureaucratic, or both. I would rather have messy innovation than bureaucratic stagnation, but that is a personal preference, and yes, it probably shows.
Commenting Rules: Being critical is fine, if you are being rude, we’ll delete your stuff. Please do not put your URL in the comment text and please use your PERSONAL name or initials and not your business name, as the latter comes off like spam. Have fun and thanks for your input.
Join a growing community. Every Friday I share the most recent insights from what I have been up to, directly to your inbox.
