Panel Discussion from Panoramai Swiss Generative AI Summit

Introduction: Redefining Creative Boundaries

The intersection of artificial intelligence and creative expression has become one of the most contested territories in contemporary cultural discourse. At Panoramai's Swiss Generative AI Summit, a distinguished panel of institutional leaders gathered to explore how AI tools are transforming artistic practices, challenging traditional notions of authorship, and reshaping the role of cultural institutions in fostering innovation.

Moderated by AC Coppens from The Catalysts, the discussion brought together three perspectives representing different facets of creative education and cultural programming: Alexia Mathieu, Head of Master Media Design at HEAD Geneva; Isaac Pante, Senior lecturer at University of Lausanne specializing in digital humanities and game development; and Anaïs Emery, Artistic Director of Geneva International Film Festival and Geneva Digital Market.

Educational Frameworks: Training Tomorrow's AI-Native Creators

Alexia Mathieu positioned HEAD Geneva's approach within the emerging landscape of "low-tech AI" and personalized creative tools. Rather than pursuing the spectacular capabilities of large generative models, her program emphasizes what she terms "small AI" - focused applications that enable new forms of human-machine interaction.

« The perspective we're trying to bring is the whole question of low-tech AI, more personalized things, » Mathieu explained. « We are perhaps not in everything that is AI generative, but more in the question of what type of new interactions we can create, thanks to machine learning in particular. »

This philosophy extends to HEAD's DataCraft research project, which teaches artists and designers the curation of datasets through what Mathieu describes as "cooking recipes" - structured exercises progressing from beginner to advanced levels. The platform, scheduled for launch in September-October 2025, represents a collaborative approach where experienced AI artists share their methodologies with emerging practitioners.

When questioned about acceleration in AI education, Mathieu emphasized foundational skills over technological novelty. « The fundamental skills of observation, of doing field research, of understanding uses - these are things we can't give to a machine, » she stated. « A machine can help us observe, perhaps analyze data, yes, but to conduct interviews, to have all these subtleties, to understand our relations with technology, for me, this is something that is at the center of creation. »

Isaac Pante brought a more critical institutional perspective, highlighting the dual challenges facing universities in the AI era. « What is decisive is to train people who will be able to take responsibility for what we will ask them on the labor market and at the same time be one of the last places that will be quite responsible on the use of these technologies, » he noted.

Pante expressed particular concern about the seductive nature of AI tools and their potential to obscure rather than illuminate creative processes. « I have a great vigilance, in general, in relation to any discourse that lets us hear that these tools, in two or three years, will be absolutely autonomous, » he warned. « I think it's part of the financial bubble. »

His approach emphasizes contextualization and ecological thinking about technology adoption. « We really need an ecological thought today. And ecological thinking is not only a question of durability, it's a question of saying, OK, artificial intelligence arrives in this class, what does it actually do? What does it do to the teacher? What does it do to the tools we are teaching? »

Curatorial Challenges: Programming AI in Cultural Institutions

Anaïs Emery offered insights from the frontlines of cultural programming, where AI's impact manifests both visibly and invisibly across production workflows. « In the audiovisual industry, which is a technological art, already in its basis, which has always been technological, there was an extremely rapid integration of AI in different levels, pre-production, production, post-production, » she observed.

However, Emery noted a crucial distinction between AI as production tool and AI as creative medium. « Maybe sometimes too fast, we could also discuss that, but it didn't have the same impact as, for example, how we work as curators... on our exhibition, where we also saw changes in our own perception of the works we are offered. »

The Geneva International Film Festival has deliberately avoided creating AI-specific categories, a decision Emery defends based on her observation of the medium's evolution. « We decided not to make sections related to the Gen AI. From what I observe, this type of festival makes me think a lot rather to the cabaret cinema of the time, where you could discover new talents. »

Instead, GIFF has observed AI's most significant impact in interactive installations where « the spectator or the spectatoress can herself be in installations where she or he has led to make prompts and thus have an agentivity on the work. » This shift toward audience participation represents a fundamental change in the relationship between creator, work, and viewer.

The Question of Authorship and Authenticity

The panel grappled extensively with evolving notions of creative authorship in an AI-mediated landscape. Pante drew historical parallels to generative art pioneers, particularly referencing Vera Molnar's approach to machine collaboration. « Long before artificial intelligence, generative art was one of the arts that questioned the place of the artist, especially because what is it to delegate a part of his creative competence to a machine? »

When AC Coppens conducted an informal poll asking whether participants view their relationship with AI as delegation, collaboration, tool use, or machine dominance, the responses revealed the complexity of current creative practices. The discussion highlighted how different creative disciplines experience varying degrees of AI integration.

Mathieu emphasized the continued centrality of human insight: « What remains the most interesting and what everyone is looking for, even the great teachers, is still the imagination, the ability to innovate, to say something new or emotional. »She cited the example of artist Holly Herndon, who has been pioneering AI vocal synthesis for years, as an exemplar of thoughtful AI integration.

Pante added nuance to the authorship debate by distinguishing between AI as creative tool and AI as process obscurer. « The risk, perhaps, on the part of AI in relation to digital humanities, is that often, these IAs have the pretension or the wish to make the process or the previous steps invisible. »

Economic and Professional Implications

The discussion turned to pressing concerns about AI's impact on creative employment, prompted by an audience question from Philippe, who noted significant budget reductions in design work. « We heard earlier the cost of producing a poster went perhaps from 12,000 to 1,000, divided by 12, » he observed, expressing concern about reduced opportunities for junior professionals.

Mathieu acknowledged the severity of these concerns: « Yeah, it's huge, huge issues, because I think now more and more you see less and less junior that are being hired, because they use ChatGPT for kind of, or AI for those tasks. So then you have less and less young people who are trained. »

Her response emphasized the importance of demystifying AI tools and teaching students to « go beyond the generative tools so they can really make it their own and make something that's very personalized. » This approach aims to create new professional opportunities rather than simply competing with AI automation.

Emery provided additional context from the audiovisual sector, noting that democratization tools don't necessarily disrupt established industrial structures. « You saw that the transition from black and white to color did not democratize the Hollywood machine, which is an industrial structure that does not want democratization. »

Geopolitical and Technological Sovereignty

The conversation addressed European positioning in the global AI landscape, with particular attention to technological sovereignty concerns. Pante expressed skepticism about current AI development models: « The web of the beginning... of sharing information, which was extraordinary. We know what it has become today... It has been completely devoured. »

He advocated for localized, specialized AI systems rather than pursuing competitive versions of large-scale models. « A good attitude would have been to say, for example, OK, we have a model... for five years, an incredible moratorium in the world that is ours, but in fact we say to ourselves, for five years we stay at version 2 of each GPT. »

Mathieu shared practical challenges from an educational perspective, noting that students creating installations for international venues face technical barriers: « We could not exhibit a particular piece that uses an OpenAI Api in China, it won't work because it's censored so we had to change our plans. This raises the questions of production and having to adapt to different political contexts. 

Her program's response emphasizes open-source alternatives: « It's true that we try as much as possible to privilege open source tools, especially HuggingFace, and to teach our students to train their model... on their own database. »

Regulatory and Ethical Frameworks

The panel addressed evolving regulatory landscapes, particularly around copyright and intellectual property. When asked about copyright protection for AI-generated works, Emery acknowledged the uncertainty: « I don't have an answer, but I think it's the big hot point, societal, legal, to be settled. »

Mathieu described HEAD's institutional approach through transparency requirements: « We really want students to be able, for example, in the writing of a memoir, to be able to say, I used this and that tool, in this and that way... there is this transparency. »

This emphasis on disclosure reflects broader institutional efforts to maintain ethical standards while embracing technological innovation. As Mathieu noted, « I think that in the practices of design and art, there is this transparency. »

Future Trajectories and Institutional Adaptation

Looking toward future developments, Pante predicted that relationship dynamics between humans and AI systems would become central concerns. « I think it's going to be a question of links and relationships... all of that is going to be covered by the GPT. I don't think we realize it now, but in two years it could be a central issue of discussion. »

The panel concluded with audience engagement around art's role as both collaborator and critic of technological development. Coppens posed whether art could "use technologies to criticize or subvert the same technologies and societal impacts," receiving enthusiastic affirmation from the audience about this "meta-recursive" approach.

Emery emphasized the importance of maintaining agency: « I think that we sometimes have an enchanted vision and that it's worth going there with caution and to maintain our freedom and our agency as much as possible. »

Synthesis: Institutional Leadership in Creative AI

The Panoramai panel revealed institutional leaders navigating between technological opportunity and cultural responsibility. Rather than wholesale adoption or rejection of AI tools, these cultural institutions are developing nuanced approaches that prioritize human agency, creative authenticity, and ethical transparency.

The discussion highlighted three key institutional strategies: educational programs that emphasize critical thinking alongside technical skills, curatorial approaches that integrate AI thoughtfully rather than creating artificial separations, and policy frameworks that require transparency while encouraging innovation.

As these institutions shape the next generation of creators and cultural producers, their approaches to AI integration will significantly influence how European creative industries evolve in an increasingly AI-mediated landscape. The conversation suggests that successful navigation will require continued dialogue between technical possibility and humanistic values, ensuring that AI enhances rather than displaces human creativity and cultural expression.