2026 Community of Human and Organizational Learning 32nd Annual Conference

Artificial Intelligence is already drafting risk assessments, analysing incident data, generating safety communications, and automating assurance workflows. But does that trajectory end with AI supporting safety practice—or replacing it? This double breakout session uses a structured, high-energy debate format to test that question in real time, separating hype from operational reality and exposing what “replacement” really means in complex sociotechnical systems.
In the first 50-minute session, participants will nominate as speakers and be randomly allocated to either the Affirmative (“AI will replace the Safety Practitioner”) or the Negative (“AI will not replace the Safety Practitioner”). Teams will rapidly build their case using guided prompts and fast research, while the rest of the room engages in a facilitated, interactive discussion to surface assumptions, evidence, risks, and ethical boundaries. Together we will map the strongest arguments on both sides—covering capability, accountability, regulation, human judgement, leadership, organisational learning, and the messy realities of work-as-done.


In the second 50-minute session, the room becomes a formal debating chamber. Teams deliver timed opening statements, structured rebuttals, and closing arguments, supported by a timekeeper and clear rules of engagement. The audience acts as adjudicators, voting on the winner and sharing the reasoning behind their decision. The facilitator will officiate, synthesise themes, and provide feedback—connecting debate insights to practical implications for the safety profession: what to automate, what to augment, what to protect, and what new capability the next generation of safety practitioners will need.


Participants will leave with a sharper, evidence-informed view of AI’s realistic role in safety—and a clearer line between tasks that can be mechanised and responsibilities that must remain human-led.