Our KEEP IT REAL  theme this year is a powerful provocation in the context of AI. How do you interpret this theme in light of the increasing integration of artificial intelligence into creative processes?

KEEP IT REAL resonates deeply with me because at its heart, this theme reminds us to focus on authenticity and genuine human needs. It challenges us to stay 'real' while exploring new possibilities. When I look at how AI is entering design, I get excited by designers using these new tools to extend human creativity whilst maintaining the empathy, cultural understanding, and human insight that makes design meaningful in the first place. The most interesting work I've seen uses AI not to replace human creativity but to push it into unexplored territory—whilst being completely honest about both what these tools can and can't do.

The title of our Symposium 'AI & I' is simple but evocative. What does that phrase mean to you personally? How does it reflect the human–machine relationship we’re exploring at the symposium this summer?

For me, 'AI & I' represents the conversations we need to have about how these tools fit into our creative work and what ordinary people can actually do with them. The symposium examines this evolving relationship from multiple angles—practical, ethical, technical, emotional—because there's no single answer. What I find fascinating is how this relationship is constantly shifting—sometimes AI feels like a helpful assistant, other times like a creative partner, and occasionally like something that challenges our assumptions about what creativity even means.

AI is often discussed in abstract or speculative terms. How did you approach curating sessions that focus on the practical, real–world impact of AI on design, art, and architecture?

Our approach deliberately focuses on human stories rather than the technical—something that's often missing from AI conversations. We've included lived experiences from a wide range of people, including those who've actively chosen not to use AI tools at all, because their perspectives are equally valuable. By building sessions around these lived experiences, we create space for practical knowledge–sharing while still addressing deeper questions about creativity and ownership. Every session is built around real examples—from artists experimenting with AI–generated patterns to interior designers using AI for space planning, to architects questioning whether widespread use of AI harms the preservation of cultural identity.

Together we have gathered a diverse range of speakers. What perspectives or tensions are you hoping to surface by bringing together voices from generative art, ethics, architecture, and beyond?

Rather than presenting a single narrative about AI in design, I wanted to surface the real differences in how creative fields approach these tools. Some are exploring radical new possibilities, others are preserving traditional values, and many are somewhere in between. We've also deliberately included voices from people who are cautious about AI adoption or actively working against certain uses. By bringing these diverse perspectives into the same room, the hope is that we move beyond simplistic narratives about technology as either saviour or threat. The symposium creates space for contradictions and disagreements that ultimately lead to more thoughtful decision–making in people's own work.

There’s a lot of hype, and a lot of fear, around AI. How do you see this symposium helping creatives move beyond binary thinking—utopia vs dystopia—and into a more nuanced dialogue?

We've structured sessions to highlight both the exciting possibilities and the legitimate concerns, acknowledging that both can be true simultaneously. With this nuanced approach, we hope to give participants permission to hold contradictory thoughts—to be both excited by new creative possibilities and worried about what we might be losing or overlooking in the process.

How is the symposium making space for deeper ethical inquiry—particularly around authorship, bias, and creative agency?

We've very deliberately woven ethical considerations into every session rather than throwing them to the side in a 'ethics panel'. When discussing AI–generated materials, for example, we address questions of environmental impact. When exploring cross–cultural applications, we examine potential biases. This integrated approach reflects how ethical considerations should function in practice—not as an afterthought but as a fundamental part of design decisions. We're especially interested in who gets to make decisions about AI implementation and whose perspectives are valued in that process. By grounding these questions in specific case studies and practical scenarios, our hope is that we can move 'AI ethics' from theoretical discussion to actionable insights.

Are you seeing AI become a collaborator, a tool, or something else entirely in how creatives are working today?

I'm seeing a hybrid emerging that doesn't fit neatly into existing categories. AI can be a tool one moment and almost a collaborator the next, with the relationship constantly shifting as projects evolve. The symposium examines these evolving relationships not to reach definitive conclusions but to help participants develop more thoughtful frameworks for their own work and day to day lives.

AI–generated work is often seen as 'unreal' or inauthentic. How do you think creatives can KEEP IT REAL while also embracing the surreal, synthetic, or machine–made?

In my humble opinion, authenticity comes from intention and context, not just production method. When designers use AI with clear purpose—to solve specific problems or explore particular questions—the results can be profoundly authentic even when they incorporate 'synthetic' elements. 'Keeping it real', to me, isn't about rejecting new tools but about being honest about their use, transparent about process, and grounded in genuine human needs. The symposium showcases designers and creatives who maintain integrity while pushing boundaries, showing how technology and authenticity aren't mutually exclusive.

What conversations do you hope people walk away from the symposium still thinking about six months from now?

I would absolutely love for people to walk away feeling more confident and more educated about AI capabilities and limitations, with practical ways to start learning and experimenting safely in their own work and lives. I hope they'll carry forward a more sophisticated way of evaluating these tools, asking not just, “what can this technology do?” but, “what should it do, for who, and under which conditions?” And equally importantly, to develop their own informed position on these rapidly evolving tools.