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 leadership teams know they are behind on consumer technology, but cannot tell which trends will reshape their category and which will fade in eighteen months. The cost of guessing wrong is real: misjudged AI rollouts, security gaps, retail experiences that miss the customer, product roadmaps built on yesterday’s behaviour. Senior teams need a working filter, not another vendor pitch.
Most organisations have run AI pilots. Far fewer have managers who can govern AI decisions, interrogate model outputs, or redesign a process around an agentic system. The gap is not tooling. It is a workforce of decision-makers who do not yet know enough about AI to lead with it.
Most leadership teams understand that emerging technology will reshape their business. Far fewer can describe what a robot, a drone swarm, a generative model or a mixed-reality system actually changes about customer attention, trust and decision-making. The gap between technical capability and human reception is where strategy quietly fails.
Boards have approved AI strategies they cannot fully explain, govern, or defend. Pilots multiply, ethical frameworks lag, and the human side of the operating model erodes faster than anyone planned. The question is no longer whether to deploy AI, but how to do it without losing the judgement, trust, and accountability that hold the enterprise together.
Capable leadership teams routinely produce decisions worse than the people in the room are individually capable of. Large meetings amplify the loudest voice. Lone experts carry their own predictable distortions. The gap between what a senior group could decide and what it actually decides is not a culture problem; it is a question of how the conversation is structured, and that responds to design.
Most large organisations in emerging and developed markets are running digital transformation programmes that have stalled at the pilot stage. Boards want exponential technology translated into operating advantage, not slide decks. The harder question is whether the leadership team, the culture, and the customer model are set up to absorb it.
Most large organisations have run AI pilots. Few have turned them into operating advantage. The harder problem is cultural: senior teams know they need to move faster on AI, but the internal mechanics of how decisions get made, how creative work is commissioned, and how risk is held have not caught up. Without that translation, AI sits adjacent to the business rather than inside it.
Most organisations now run two AI agendas in parallel and neither one is working. The compliance agenda is ahead of the strategy agenda, and the strategy agenda is ahead of the operating model. Boards need a coherent way to think about AI as economic infrastructure, not as a procurement question, while the technology is still moving faster than their policies, their hiring, and their planning cycles can absorb.
Customers no longer believe corporate messaging, no longer feel loyalty, and no longer encounter brands the way marketing plans assume they do. Marketing budgets keep funding tactics built for an attention economy that does not exist anymore. The unresolved question for senior commercial leaders is what actually creates preference and belonging when advertising impressions have lost their pricing power.
Boards are being asked to make ten-year commitments on technologies that change every six months. Most leadership teams lack a decision architecture for this: they either freeze, or they pilot endlessly without operational deployment. The unresolved question is how to commit capital and reorganise work around AI without betting the firm on a single forecast.
Most enterprise AI programmes stall in the gap between vendor demos and operational reality. Leaders are asked to commit capital and reorganise teams before the evidence base for what actually works at scale exists. The pressure is to move fast on technology that rewrites how work gets done, without a credible read on which adoption patterns produce measurable outcomes.
Capital decisions are being made against a backdrop of stalled productivity, contested financial regulation, and a generative AI build-out whose macroeconomic payoff is still unproven. Boards need to read the policy weather accurately and price the implications into operating assumptions. The hard part is separating durable structural shifts from cycle noise and political theatre.