KI-Ethik und verantwortungsvolle Technologie
Experten, die die menschlichen Folgen von algorithmischen Entscheidungen, Datenethik und Zukunftstechnologien hinterfragen
Speakers Associates represents 149 speakers on KI-Ethik und verantwortungsvolle Technologie, including Kemal Apaydin, Rahaf Harfoush, Limor Ziv, Harriet Farlow, Saakshar Duggal, Dr Sidney Shapiro, Tina Stowell, Timandra Harkness, Dame Wendy Hall und Susi O’Neill.
Most large organisations have run AI pilots. Very few have turned them into an operating model that moves revenue, cost or risk at the scale of the business. The gap is not the technology. It is leadership conviction, governance design and the discipline to industrialise what works before the next cycle of tools arrives.
Most boards are now briefed on AI, but few have thought seriously about what happens when AI has a face. Customer service, healthcare, education and hospitality are all heading towards interactions with machines that look back at you, recognise you, and hold a conversation. The strategic question is no longer whether the technology works. It is how organisations design for trust, responsibility and emotional register when the interface is a humanoid.
Boards know AI will reshape their operating model. They do not yet know how to make defensible decisions about deployment, workforce displacement and public legitimacy at the same time. The leaders who launched the current AI systems are now the ones warning about where they lead, and the gap between corporate ambition and public trust is widening faster than governance can close it.
Most organisations have committed to an AI strategy. Very few have built the governance architecture to make that strategy accountable at scale. The gap between an approved AI roadmap and actual enterprise-wide adoption is where initiatives stall, risk accumulates, and boards are left approving decisions they cannot yet evaluate. Closing that gap requires a different kind of expertise – one built inside organisations, not just around them.
Most boards now own an AI strategy on paper. Very few can describe the governance, the deployment route, or the human-machine boundary their organisation will actually operate against once the pilots end. The harder question is not whether to invest, but how to make defensible decisions about autonomy, accountability, and workforce design when the technology is moving faster than the policy around it.
Most enterprises have bought into generative AI in principle and stalled in practice. Pilots multiply, demos impress, but very few make the jump to operating on proprietary data inside real workflows. The hard question for boards is no longer whether to adopt AI, but how to make it useful at scale without losing control of accessibility, governance and the workforce alongside it.
Most organisations have run AI pilots. Few have moved beyond them. The gap is not technological – it is organisational. Building the internal structures, teams, and decision-making capacity to deploy AI at scale is the challenge most leadership teams have not yet solved. Without a systematic approach, AI investments accumulate without compounding.
Most boards are now expected to take a public position on AI and immersive technology before the rules that will govern them exist. They are making capital decisions on cities, infrastructure and customer environments under standards that are still being drafted. Knowing who is writing those standards, and how to align to them early, has become a leadership question, not a technical one.
Employees are arriving at work already exhausted by their relationship with technology, then asked to absorb AI on top of it. Attention is fragmented, identity is leaking into datasets, and the human costs of always-on connection are showing up in engagement scores and mental health budgets. Leaders are running wellbeing programmes that do not touch the actual mechanism causing the harm.
Polarisation, conspiracy movements and coordinated disinformation now move from fringe networks into mainstream politics, regulation and consumer behaviour within weeks. Boards and policy teams are exposed in three directions at once: platform liability, employee safety, and the political stability of the markets they operate in. Few advisers can read the underlying networks with any precision, which leaves leadership teams reacting to symptoms.
Most organisations still run on a model of emotion that science abandoned a decade ago. Senior leaders are asked to read faces, manage their own stress, and design culture using assumptions about feelings that do not survive contact with the brain. The cost shows up in misread performance reviews, blunt wellbeing programmes, and AI tools that promise to detect emotion but cannot.
Most breaches do not start with a flaw in the firewall. They start with a person who answered the wrong email, trusted the wrong voice, or approved the wrong wire. Security spend keeps rising while the attacker keeps targeting the human layer, and most organisations still treat that layer as a training problem rather than a behavioural one.