IntelYour AI story now has several authors.
Enterprise workflows, a Palantir interview and the question of who gets to speak for a business online.
This week’s four links concern relationships: an AI supplier and an enterprise software company, a CTO and an interviewer, a website and an AI company, and two internet platforms in the same headline. That makes a useful edit for leaders thinking about who influences their company’s AI story.
The practical question runs through all four: when a supplier, platform or AI feature becomes part of your business, who owns the promise being made to the person on the other end?
An enterprise workflow has more than one owner.
OpenAI’s October 28 ServiceNow announcement describes an expanded partnership across enterprise workflows. The announcement’s subject earns attention because a workflow connects a business promise with work somebody must perform. Its value will depend on how well that connection works inside the business.
For a buyer, the interesting discussion concerns responsibility across that connection. If a suggested action is wrong, which team recognizes the problem? Who can pause it? Who explains the correction to the customer or employee? Those questions belong in the operating model before they become a communications problem.
A mid-market company can ask the same questions when an existing software provider offers new AI functionality. The size of the supplier does not relieve the customer of deciding how work should happen inside its own business.
Make room for a conversation with a point of view.
Stratechery’s October 29 interview with Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar is the long-read recommendation. Its title frames the conversation around an “AI Religious War.” The interview is a chance to hear a supplier’s senior technical voice at length.
The reason to choose an interview is the chance to encounter a specific person’s reasoning. Bring that approach to your own buying conversation. Ask a prospective supplier to explain a consequential choice and what would make them change it.
A strong answer should give your team something it can assess. The goal is to understand a supplier’s judgment well enough to decide where it fits your own. Agreement with a compelling speaker is a starting point for inquiry.
Who sets the terms of being found and used?
Two links to read together, while keeping their distinct subjects visible.
Websites expressing training preferences.
OpenAI’s October 30 announcement concerns making AI training preferences easier for websites to express. It is a reason for whoever owns your website and content agreements to follow the development. Anyone responsible for those decisions should examine what the proposed controls do and how they relate to existing agreements.
Google and Reddit in the same frame.
Platformer’s October 30 “What Google and Reddit’s bad days have in common” is a separate editorial recommendation. It prompts a useful question for a marketing team: which outside platforms have become important enough to your customer discovery that you should understand their changing incentives?
Ask what happens after the purchase.
The first demonstration gets a lot of attention. The changes that follow the purchase deserve some of it, too.
Before accepting a new AI feature, ask the supplier how your team will learn about changes, what it can control and how a problem gets escalated. Then ask the practitioner who will live with the feature whether those answers are workable. A compelling partnership announcement can earn a look; a business still needs an arrangement it can run.
Sources & further reading
OpenAI · 2026-10-28
Stratechery · 2026-10-29
OpenAI · 2026-10-30
Platformer · 2026-10-30