AI and finance: moving beyond the false human versus machine debate

February 9, 2026

In recent months, several new artificial intelligence platforms and applications have been widely discussed. Often spectacular, sometimes provocative, they raise questions about the future of work, the place of humans in relation to automated systems, and the risks of job substitution or loss. However, these highly publicized debates tend to oversimplify the issues, reducing them to a conflict between humans and machines.

In a previous article published on ISFB Insight, we already suggested shifting this focus. The central issue of AI in banking and finance is not limited to tools or even individual skills. It touches more deeply on the way financial organizations are structured, governed, and structure their decision-making.

Keep the machine in its place

Lino Finini, Director of the ISFB Future of Finance Certificate and senior executive in the banking sector, starts from a simple observation: some recent uses of AI can be frightening and fuel the idea of a possible reversal of roles between humans and automated systems. This perception is reinforced by the rapid adoption of experimental platforms by many users, whose stated goal is to push the boundaries of automation.

However, in the banking world, Lino Finini points out a fundamental reality: " The rise of AI-based support tools cannot, at least at this stage, take precedence over the primacy of human beings in the management of financial affairs." AI already plays an important role, particularly in improving and simplifying certain tasks, but its use remains " highly segmented, without optimal coordination between the various agents."

He cites concrete examples: solutions that facilitate KYC and compliance processes, tools to assist in the selection of portfolio components, and measures to combat fraud and cybersecurity attacks. All these solutions, he emphasizes, are designed to simplify and assist: " It is still up to humans to validate account openings, finalize portfolio strategies, and understand the nature of a cybersecurity attack. "

According to him, the challenge is not to reject these technologies, but to remain vigilant against the temptation to entrust them with decisions that involve the institution's legal, regulatory, and ethical responsibility: " It's about knowing how to keep the machine in its place. It's there to help us, not to replace us. " " In his view, this vigilance requires adapting regulatory frameworks and codes of conduct in order to integrate this new dynamic without losing control.

Adopt different levels of analysis

Fabien Giuliani, ISFB lecturer in foresight within the ISFB Banking Management and Adaptability Certificate program, suggests "zooming out." In his view, the current debate on AI is often "anxiety-provoking and superficial" because it focuses mainly on jobs and skills. However, the most significant impact of AI is on the very structure of organizations, particularly in highly information-intensive sectors such as banking and finance.

He points out that companies exist primarily as an economic response to coordination costs: deciding, supervising, controlling, arbitrating. AI agents are shaking up this compromise by reducing some of these costs. From this perspective, the focus shifts. Beyond the single issue of skills development, the rise of AI is prompting banking organizations to question the evolution of their coordination and decision-making methods in an environment where certain functions can be partially taken over by intelligent systems interacting with human actors.

Fabien Giuliani emphasizes this point: " AI does not replace human work, but it does reshape organizational boundaries." For leaders, this consideration goes far beyond the scope of individual training: it touches on the business models and organizational architectures of tomorrow.

A concept of organizational resilience

Mathias Baitan, Director General of the ISFB, agrees with these interpretations: artificial intelligence cannot be considered solely in terms of individual tools or practices. In his view, it is above all a societal issue that requires progressive organization at several levels. First, in terms of the economic environment, AI is part of a collective movement that goes far beyond individual companies. Regulatory frameworks, standards, and principles of responsibility are already emerging. The European Union has adopted a regulation on artificial intelligence based on a risk-based approach (AI Act), while Switzerland favors progressive regulation, based on existing law and strong requirements for governance and organizational responsibility, particularly in the financial sector. This external structure provides an essential foundation for ensuring that technological acceleration does not result in a loss of bearings.

At the organizational level, particularly in banks, the challenge is not so much to optimize efficiency through technology as it is to strengthen the collective ability to absorb, interpret, and arbitrate new situations. From this perspective, the key skill becomes organizational: clarity of roles, articulation of responsibilities, ability to activate available resources and maintain a shared sense of purpose in a changing environment. For Mathias Baitan, AI acts here as an amplifier of existing strengths, but also of structural weaknesses.

It is only within this framework that the issue of individual skills takes on its full meaning. For each employee, the challenge is not to "compete" with the machine, but to develop the ability to understand situations, exercise judgment, and adhere to rules and groups that give meaning to their actions. AI can support this dynamic, but it cannot produce it or replace it.

The impact on the meaning of work

Stéphane Bonzon, psychologist and director of the Career Counseling and Guidance Program at ISFB, extends this reflection by applying it to individual experiences. The capacity for judgment and discernment mentioned by Mathias Baitan is developed. And this development is primarily psychological: "Before training an employee to use AI, you need to understand how AI affects them: their sense of competence, their perception of their added value, the meaning they give to their work. Without this step, technical training risks encountering resistance that it cannot name or address." This is why discernment must precede use. Using AI is not always appropriate, and this is a question that needs to be asked before any other. But when its added value is proven, it is important to understand that AI does not simplify work, it transforms it. Supervising what a machine produces, identifying what is noise, detecting its errors, arbitrating between its proposals: all of this requires multiple skills, often invisible, and introduces new cognitive demands. AI produces at its own pace, and our control capabilities are not designed to keep up: cognitive biases and mental fatigue can be the direct consequences. Thus, using AI is not a gain in every situation.

In his interpretation, Mathias Baitan believes that the robustness of financial organizations will depend on their ability to articulate AI at these different levels of analysis—society, institution, collective, and individual—and to organize collective and individual resilience not as a one-off reaction, but as a systemic capacity to adapt over time.

Edouard Cuendet, Director of the Geneva Financial Center Foundation (FGPF), sheds light on digital practices: "Banks are moving towards hybrid models that combine human advice and digital tools with the aim of enhancing the customer experience." While the digitization of financial services is progressing rapidly, humans remain essential for key decisions. In concrete terms, administrative and transactional tasks are increasingly being entrusted to AI. According to Cuendet, training, whether basic, academic, or continuing, must be given greater attention, as "it is a trump card in supporting the development of AI."

He adds that the catalyst for change comes from the younger generation, who are not afraid of AI. According to the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), young people who are likely to join the financial sector in the future see new technologies as an opportunity. Only 14% of them perceive a significant risk in the labor market.

The contributions gathered in this article converge on a shared observation: artificial intelligence is not primarily a technological problem, but rather a challenge in terms of organization, governance, and responsibility. In the banking and financial sector, the challenge is neither to give in to a futile opposition between humans and machines, nor to seek to automate everything, but to know where, how, and under what conditions to integrate these tools into already complex environments. The ability of organizations to structure clear frameworks, maintain spaces for human arbitration, preserve the meaning of work, and support individuals through these transformations will be decisive. More than the sophistication of the systems deployed, it is the consistency between collective rules, organizational practices, and individual discernment that will determine the long-term robustness of financial institutions.