Home / Keynotes / Europe / Amsterdam
Available in AmsterdamNo city in Europe has been more honest in public about what human oversight actually becomes. Amsterdam has written it into a register, into a research publication and into a parliamentary inquiry, and almost nobody outside the Netherlands has read any of it.
Rahim Hirji is available for in-person AI keynotes in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and for online sessions worldwide. He is a London-based keynote speaker specialising in AI and human judgement, and the author of SuperSkills (Kogan Page, 2026). He founded the skills platform EtonX, later acquired by Eton College, and led Quizlet’s international growth across more than 60 countries.
The city algorithm register, and the Amsterdam AI LabRead at the issuing body’s own page, and quoted in full below.
Watch the showreel · 2 minutes
A feel for how I work with an audience before you put me in front of yours.
SuperSkills is endorsed by Karim Lakhani (Harvard Business School), Alnoor Bhimani (London School of Economics), David Rowan (founding editor, WIRED UK), Sherry Coutu CBE and ten others. Rahim has spoken to leadership teams at Google, Barclays, Kaplan, BPP University and Next 15. Published by Kogan Page, part of Hachette UK.
In their words
“A standout highlight was an inspiring session with Rahim Hirji exploring SuperSkills and Human Judgement. As AI transforms daily workflows, the real differentiator isn't just algorithmic speed, it is intentional human design, critical judgement, empathy, and ethical stewardship. Technology accelerates the how, but human judgement defines the why.”
“We are pretty selective about the speakers we put in front of our audience: they come to our events to learn, be engaged and inspired. Rahim was a standout speaker. He told our audience something they did not especially want to hear, and explained it in a way that encouraged them to take action. He was as generous with his wisdom in the room afterwards as he was on stage.”
On the book
“ A guide to the AI age grounded not in futurism or hype, but in wisdom and humanity. He asks not how technology will change us, but how we can change ourselves.”
Every keynote is tailored after a briefing call, and the larger engagements start before the day: a diagnostic of the client's own people, so the audience hears its own evidence. Whatever the people there agree is written down.
What that has looked like: about 1,500 people joining a session run hybrid from central London at short notice, for a technology business changing AI tools faster than its people could absorb, which became executive coaching for the transformation lead; and an agency business convening Asia, Asia-Pacific, EMEA and North America into one event, where the work was naming the recurring situations nobody had vocabulary for, and the company took that wording into its strategy.
Six of the seven engagements published on this site produced further work after the session ended. The seven are set out in full at case studies, each with a line saying what it does not show.
How to read these examples. They are published to show how the work is put together, not as a client list for Amsterdam. Most engagements are covered by confidentiality and are described without naming anyone; where a client is named anywhere on this site, it is with their agreement.
Amsterdam publishes a register of the algorithms it uses. The entry for its welfare investigation model, now marked buiten gebruik, out of use, contains this under the heading on human intervention: there is no automated decision-making, there is meaningful human involvement before a decision is taken, and work instructions are being drawn up om teveel vertrouwen in de uitkomst van het model (“automation bias”) te voorkomen, to prevent too much trust in the model’s outcome.
A municipal register, in Dutch, naming automation bias as the thing the work instructions exist to prevent. And the same entry records that the model tested fairer than the caseworkers on almost every sensitive characteristic. The city withdrew it anyway.
That is a harder and more interesting case than the usual one, because the easy story is that the algorithm was biased. Here it was less biased than the humans, and the city still decided that was not sufficient reason to keep it. Whatever you conclude from that, it is a real decision made by a real institution with the evidence in front of it.

On 4 August 2026 the Amsterdam AI Lab published work on human-in-the-loop as a design principle. Its conclusion, in the city’s own words: human-in-the-loop is a precondition that means something different to everyone, and in practice the easiest form usually wins, een vinkje op een lijst, a tick on a list. The risk, it says, is that human involvement is then formally arranged and adds little.
They built five playable prototypes to demonstrate it, including deliberate anti-examples. One is nicknamed the doorklikmachine, the click-through machine, in which the green button is larger than the red one and disagreeing with the system requires a lengthy justification.
A city government publishing a working demonstration of how its own safeguard fails. That is the argument at human in the loop is not a safeguard, made by somebody else, with a prototype attached.
The Dutch childcare benefits scandal is the most cited failure of automated government in Europe, and the detail that matters for this argument is almost always left out. The parliamentary inquiry’s final report, Ongekend onrecht, of 17 December 2020, records that de door het systeem geselecteerde aanvragen worden handmatig extra gecontroleerd: the applications selected by the system were additionally checked by hand.
There was a human in the loop. The government fell anyway. Anyone using that case to argue for human review is arguing for the thing that was already there.
The national picture is consistent with the municipal one. The Netherlands Court of Audit found 433 AI systems across 70 government organisations with only about five per cent in the public register, and wrote that there is an incentive to rate risks as low. Dutch enterprise AI use is 33.2 per cent on Eurostat’s 2025 figures, sixth in the Union, with a break in the series that year.
Municipal and national government, banks and insurers, the technology and scale-up community, and the conference circuit around World Summit AI. Dutch audiences ask direct questions early and do not soften them, which suits a talk whose sources are published.
One honest correction to carry: the Dutch impact assessment for algorithms is recommended rather than mandatory, whatever a briefing note may say, and the binding obligation is the AI Act article it was rewritten to serve.
Amsterdam's algorithm register admits in public what human oversight can turn into, research from the Amsterdam AI Lab backs it up, and the whole country followed the parliamentary inquiry into the childcare benefits case. Employees, works councils and regulators now ask what your human in the loop actually decides. I have advised companies across Europe on answering that, and I gather examples from your people ahead of the day. Your organisation ends with a review step it can describe in one sentence and defend in public.
Rahim writes Box of Amazing, a free weekly letter on emerging technology, and has done so since 2017. Keynotes · Advisory · Box of Amazing
Keynotes run 30 to 90 minutes, in person or virtual. A 30-minute main-stage version of each talk is available for conferences, and the full talk runs 45 to 60 minutes. The sector examples are chosen for each audience, around the same argument. All three, with the showreel, are at keynotes, and the programme copy is at the speaker pack.
Drift versus Design is built from your room. Your audience answers five anonymous questions beforehand, their answers shape the talk, and afterwards you get a one-page readout with the three decisions to look at first.
Also speaking nearby: London · Copenhagen · Paris.
Drift versus Design: why most organisations hand their judgement to AI without deciding to, and how to design your way through instead.
Amsterdam wrote automation bias into its algorithm register. The talk brings that candour inside a company: where has human review become a signature, and what would review that still decides look like?
We Are Superheroes: AI is the suit. The human decides.
For a Dutch audience that remembers the childcare benefits scandal and what it cost families, Empathetic Communication comes first: hearing the person at the far end of an automated decision.
WTH (What the Human): a live test of a leadership team's own judgement.
The board's human in the loop is held up against the city's register and the lessons of the benefits case, to see what that person actually decides in a normal week.
World Summit AI runs 7 and 8 October 2026 at Taets, its tenth edition, and is the obvious platform in this city for this argument. IBC returns to the RAI 11 to 14 September 2026 with 44,000-plus attendees, and Money20/20 Europe is an Amsterdam event at the RAI rather than a London one.
Three corrections for anyone building a Dutch list from older material. Integrated Systems Europe has left Amsterdam for Barcelona. Amsterdam Drone Week is discontinued, on its own domain’s statement. And TNW Conference has no announced future edition.
Rahim Hirji is a London-based keynote speaker on AI, work and human judgement and the author of SuperSkills (Kogan Page, 2026). He speaks in English to government, financial services and technology audiences in Amsterdam. The Amsterdam version of the keynote is built on the city's own algorithm register, the Amsterdam AI Lab's August 2026 publication on human-in-the-loop, and the parliamentary inquiry into the childcare benefits scandal. The research behind the talk is published in full, drawn from work with more than 200 organisations in over 30 countries. The research behind the talk is published in full, drawn from work with more than 200 organisations in over 30 countries.
The register entry for the city's welfare investigation model, now out of use, states under human intervention that there is no automated decision-making, that there is meaningful human involvement before a decision, and that work instructions are being drawn up to prevent too much trust in the model's outcome, naming automation bias in Dutch. The same entry records that the model tested fairer than caseworkers on almost every sensitive characteristic, and the city withdrew it anyway.
Yes, and the detail is almost always left out. The parliamentary inquiry's final report of 17 December 2020 records that applications selected by the system were additionally checked by hand. The safeguard was present and the government still fell. Anyone citing that case to argue for human review is arguing for something that was already in place.
Three to six months ahead for an in-person date in Amsterdam. Shorter is often possible for a virtual session, and sometimes in person where the diary is free and the talk already exists in the form you need. Ask early. There is one of him, he carries advisory clients and other commitments alongside the speaking, so not every date can be taken.
Most conference keynotes come in around £10,000. What moves it: the time I commit, travel, how full the diary is that month, and how far the talk is built for your room. What moves the number is set out at what an AI keynote speaker costs. Send the date, the audience and what you need them to do differently, and Rahim comes back with a number within a working day. Schools, universities and charities are quoted differently. On travel there is one rule: outside London you book it and you pay it, because your rates are better than his and nobody is out of pocket waiting on a reimbursement. From London to Amsterdam is under three hours, so an economy fare and arrival the night before. One night is usually enough, and a same-day return is possible for an afternoon slot if that suits the budget better. A London booking carries no travel, accommodation or expenses at all.
When the decision has already been made and the session exists to announce it. When the audience has no authority over their own work, because the talk asks them to decide which repetitions are worth keeping. When the slot runs under thirty minutes, because the turn needs setting up. And when the session follows a vendor pitch, since order matters more than programmes usually assume. Where the conditions are wrong we will say so, and sometimes that means reshaping the session. Occasionally it means recommending somebody else.
Say who is coming and what you must decide. I reply within a day.
Enquire or email rahim@thesuperskills.com
Part of speaking across Europe, alongside Copenhagen and Helsinki. The parent page for all of this is AI keynote speaker. Browse every topic, audience and region, or take the speaker pack to whoever is running the day. Every talk so far is on the speaking record.
Not every brief is a talk. A board that needs to settle which decisions a machine may make wants a board briefing, a review or a standing advisor, and the five formats are set out side by side with what each one is for.
No enquiry today, or not yet the right time? The weekly letter is the low-commitment version of the same argument. Every week, an essay and ten links to broaden your view of the world. Read by 25,000 people, since 2017. Free, and one click to stop.
Opens Substack to confirm. No pitch in it, unsubscribe in one click, and nobody follows up because you read something.
Running an event, or responsible for how AI arrives in your organisation? AI keynote speaker · Advisory · Boards · Enquire