Inteligência Artificial e IA Generativa
Oradores que descodificam o impacto real da inteligência artificial em indústrias, força de trabalho e vantagem competitiva
Speakers Associates represents 355 speakers on Inteligência Artificial e IA Generativa, including Kemal Apaydin, Olivier Sibony, Rahaf Harfoush, Purna Virji, Itai Green, Limor Ziv, Tom Goodwin, Daniel Trabucchi & Tommaso Buganza, Katja Schipperheijn e Diana Verde Nieto.
Most boards understand that AI, 3D content and immersive platforms will reshape how brands meet customers. Few have any operational picture of what that actually looks like inside their business. The gap between strategy decks about the metaverse and a working AI commerce stack is where most digital ambition stalls.
Autonomous AI agents have started acting on people’s behalf, sending messages, booking, buying, and making decisions without a human in the loop. Organisations now have to decide how much of that autonomy to hand over, and who answers for it when an agent gets something wrong. The technology is moving faster than the controls and oversight meant to govern it.
Brands are investing heavily in digital experience and AI-driven personalisation, yet emotional loyalty is declining. Modern consumers – especially Gen Z and Gen Alpha – judge brands not by service quality but by authenticity, community, and belonging. Most leadership teams can describe their customer experience; almost none can explain why their customers stay.
Brand has slipped from a board-level capability to a campaign-level expense in many organisations. Marketing leaders are asked to defend brand investment against quarterly performance pressure, prove its contribution to growth, and integrate it with AI-driven targeting and personalisation. The frameworks most teams reach for were built for a different media economy and do not survive contact with current capital allocation conversations.
Hybrid work and generative AI have arrived faster than the operating habits of most teams. Leaders are watching productivity tools multiply while collaboration, creativity, and trust quietly erode. The hard question is not which technology to adopt, but how to redesign the daily practice of teams so that adaptability becomes a built-in capability rather than a slogan.
Boards have approved AI strategies and run pilots. Few have moved beyond them into operating advantage. Most leadership teams still cannot answer a basic question: which decisions, processes, and roles should an AI agent now own, and how do we govern that shift without breaking the business?
Most organisations now have inclusion language, sponsorship programmes, and executive commitments on record. The talent gap at senior level has not closed. The harder question is what stops capable people from converting access into power once they are inside the building, and which structural choices in hiring, capital allocation, and leadership development actually move the number.
Most leadership teams know they need a position on generative AI and immersive technology, yet very few can tell the difference between a real commercial use case and an expensive pilot. Vendors arrive with demos, internal teams chase tools, and the strategy stays vague. The hard work is choosing which technologies actually belong inside the business model and which are noise.
Boards are being asked to make calls on artificial intelligence and health technology before the evidence base has settled. Most senior teams have a strong grasp of the hype cycle and a weak grasp of what the science actually supports, where the ethical exposure sits, and which innovations will reach customers and workforces inside the planning horizon. The gap between confident vendor pitches and defensible internal judgement is widening.
Employees are told AI will augment them, and quietly conclude it will replace them. The doubt surfaces as disengagement: quieter meetings, and less of the judgement that made people worth hiring in the first place. Most AI rollouts hand a workforce new tools without giving anyone language for what remains theirs.
Most organisations evaluating AI can assess technical performance. Few can assess what AI systems do to decision-making structures and accountability lines once deployed. That gap, between what AI promises and what it changes about how organisations operate, is where governance risk accumulates before it becomes visible.
Boards are pouring resources into AI and seeing thinner returns than promised. Regulatory scrutiny is rising in parallel. The two pressures converge at the same operational layer, and that is where most deployments quietly fail.