Futuro della tecnologia speakers
Tecnologi e futuristi che esplorano come l’innovazione emergente trasformerà industrie, economie e la vita quotidiana
Speakers Associates represents 253 speakers on Futuro della tecnologia, including Kemal Apaydin, Michael Lyon, Mark Stevenson, Edvard Moser, Nikolas Badminton, Marc Saltzman, Alex Goryachev, Timandra Harkness, Chris Heemskerk, e Dame Wendy Hall.
Most leaders now agree that AI will reshape their workforce. Fewer can say what that looks like on a Monday morning for a marketing coordinator, a finance analyst or a field engineer. The distance between boardroom AI strategy and the person being asked to use the tools is where adoption stalls, budgets leak and cultural resistance hardens.
Boards are being asked to make decisions about biometric data, immersive interfaces and human-machine integration before most leadership teams have a working vocabulary for any of it. The technology is moving into products, workplaces and customer experiences faster than governance can keep up. Organisations need a credible human-side view of where this is going, and what to commit to now.
Generative AI is being deployed faster than the governance, voting, and ownership systems around it can adapt. Boards now have to decide which AI systems get a seat at the decision table, who is accountable when those systems shape public opinion, and what legitimacy looks like when a model can speak with more authority than an executive. The hard question is no longer whether to use AI. It is how to keep human institutions credible while doing so.
Most boards still treat cybersecurity as a compliance line item managed by the CISO. The attackers do not. They move faster than procurement cycles, exploit the gap between IT controls and human behaviour, and turn ransomware into an operating crisis within hours. Leadership teams need a sharper feel for how attackers actually work, not another framework.
Senior leaders are being asked to commit capital and strategy to technologies whose second-order effects are still being written. The gap is not a shortage of information about AI, cybersecurity or platform shifts. It is the absence of a sober, editorially disciplined read on which signals matter, which are noise, and what the next eighteen months look like for the companies making the bets.
Most organisations are deploying AI into environments designed for people, then expecting the people to adapt. The result is friction that looks like a technology problem and is actually a collaboration problem: badly timed hand-offs, brittle trust, staff working around the system rather than with it. The buyers who feel this most acutely are the ones who have passed the pilot stage and are now trying to make human and machine teams productive at scale.
Most senior teams have plenty of answers. What they lack is a disciplined way to surface the questions that would reframe the problem entirely. When the strategic terrain shifts faster than the playbook, the limiting factor is not analysis or execution; it is the quality of the questions being asked in the room.
Boards have approved AI investment. Most have not yet decided what good looks like. The question is no longer whether to deploy AI, but how to deploy it without inheriting failure modes that legal, regulatory and reputational teams cannot defend later.
Most early-stage ventures fail not for lack of product but for lack of access: to networks, to capital, to the unwritten knowledge that decides who gets a meeting. The same gap shows up inside large organisations, where good ideas die because the originator does not know how to build the relationships that move them. Treating that gap as a soft skill keeps it permanent.
Most large companies still run innovation as a closed loop: internal R&D, internal pipeline, internal launch. The assumption that the best ideas must come from inside is expensive, slow, and increasingly wrong. The harder question is how to bring external ideas in, send internal ideas out, and build a business model that actually captures value from either.
Boards know AI is not optional. What they do not know is which of the dozen initiatives on the deck will compound into advantage, and which will sink six quarters of budget into pilots that never scale. The gap is not ambition, it is a repeatable way to decide where the organisation actually stands and what to do next.
Frontier technology now arrives faster than corporate strategy, regulatory frameworks, or supply chains can absorb it. Boards face decisions about immersive platforms, defence-adjacent tools, and contested AI applications with no precedent to draw on. The cost of waiting is ceded ground. The cost of moving without judgement is reputational and ethical exposure that does not unwind.