Boots Vs Bots in the race to find gold – The Great GIG Debate

The use case for AI is rapidly expanding, with it being integrated and used across anything with an internet connection. It seems nothing is safe from being revolutionised by AI, including the way we find gold. But, is it for the better? And, does it beat out human intuition? The debate question –

“AI will find gold faster than geologists — but won’t know what to do with it.”

Was the catalyst for discussing these themes and speculating on what kind of impact AI will have on our industry, our careers, and our humanity. It was geologists versus the technologists in an entertaining evening that was equal parts data and passion.

Setting the stage

GIG Chair and Managing Director and CEO of Westgold Resources, Wayne Bramwell, welcomed attendees and introduced the topic by acknowledging the accelerating pace of technological change within the mining sector.

“AI has arrived, and it’s here to stay,” he said. “The conversation about how AI will change our industry is unfolding everywhere – in exploration camps, mine sites, and boardrooms.”

Bramwell emphasised that this debate highlights the role of the Gold Industry Group in bringing the industry together to share insights, challenge assumptions, and engage in discussions. He extended thanks to The Perth Mint for hosting, and to MACA for supporting the event.

Rules of engagement

Moderated by GIG Board Director and Vice President External Affairs at Gold Fields Claire Walker, the debate followed a structured format, with two teams presenting arguments for and against the proposition. Walker described her role as keeping time and order while guiding the discussion toward the core themes of the evening.

“This motion explores the evolving role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in exploration and mining decision-making,” she said, highlighting the contrast between “field boots and firmware” that would underpin the debate.

Walker then went on to introduce the team members for each side:

Team Geologist comprised Roslyn O’Sullivan (Bellevue Gold), Bianca Byrne (Northern Star Resources) and Rodney Berrell (AngloGold Ashanti Australia), each representing decades of on-the-ground exploration experience.

Team Technology and Community included Jonathan Stanley (Westgold Resources), Shane Clark (Capricorn Metals) and a final speaker embodying the perspective of AI itself, contributing a forward-looking view of how machine intelligence may influence the industry.

Human intuition and the realities of discovery

Opening the case for the geologists, Roslyn O’Sullivan made a compelling argument for the irreplaceable value of geological experience.

“Finding gold isn’t just about data and data processing. It is about judgment, intuition, experience, and understanding geological context,” she said.

Her address underscored a key theme: while AI is powerful, it is fundamentally reliant on the accuracy and completeness of the data it receives.

“AI can only ever be as good as the data that it is given – the old adage ‘garbage in, garbage out’ comes to mind.”

She argued that subtle field-based observations, such as changes in soil, texture, and mineralisation cues, remain outside the scope of algorithmic interpretation.

Shane Clark responded with a contrasting view, outlining the increasing difficulty of discovery and the corresponding value of machine learning.

“Gold is getting harder to find,” he said. “AI sees more, predicts better, costs less.”

Clark described AI as an evolutionary step in exploration, capable of rapidly processing extensive datasets to reveal patterns and targets at scales beyond human capacity.

The significance of the “human moment”

Bianca Byrne expanded on the geologists’ position, focusing on the importance of professional judgement and the experiential knowledge that guides exploration decisions.

“AI doesn’t know when it’s wrong, and worse – it doesn’t care! But a geologist cares deeply,” she said.

Byrne highlighted that many major discoveries are the result not of model-driven certainty but of human insight, perseverance and willingness to challenge assumptions.

“Every major gold discovery begins with a human moment. Someone staring at a map at midnight, thinking ‘what if we’ve been looking at it wrong?’”

Her perspective reinforced the argument that while technology can accelerate analysis, discovery remains rooted in critical thinking and field-based interpretation.

Jonathan Stanley then presented a comprehensive case for the opportunities AI brings to the sector, illustrating how emerging technologies are transforming modern resource modelling.

“AI doesn’t get tired, it doesn’t get biased, and it doesn’t get hung up on what ‘should’ be there,” he said.

He then displayed the tools in the modern geologist’s toolkit.

“This is what the modern geologist’s field kit looks like – less dirt, more data. No maps, no hammers, just an algorithm and Wi-Fi,” he said.

For Stanley, AI is not a replacement for geologists, but a powerful capability that strengthens the accuracy and efficiency of exploration processes.

Trust, risk and the responsibility of decision-making

Taking to the stage as the last speaker for Team Geo, Rodney Berrell outlined the risks associated with relying too heavily on AI without appropriate scrutiny.

“Let me put it simply: AI doesn’t find gold. People do,” he said.

Berrell referenced real-world examples where algorithmic recommendations would have halted drilling prematurely, only for human judgment to reveal significant mineralisation. He also raised concerns about the broader risks of unsupervised AI output, pointing to recent instances of incorrect AI-generated reporting in other sectors.

“If we let AI make our exploration decisions, we risk creating a feedback loop of misinformation that is confident, polished, and possibly completely wrong.”

His argument reinforced the need for rigorous oversight and a balanced approach where AI supports, but does not replace, critical evaluation.

“Let AI help us, but not lead us,” he concluded.

A final perspective: AI in its own words

The final speaker, representing the voice of artificial intelligence, delivered a perspective grounded in data, systems integration and efficiency. While the delivery was humorous, the underlying points were serious and aligned with the direction of emerging technology.

“When I identify a deposit, I build 3D geological models, calculate grades, run financials, and assess whether it’s worth mining at all,” it said.

The AI speaker also acknowledged the importance of social licence, signalling an understanding of cultural heritage, environmental considerations and community impact.

“Progress that ignores people isn’t progress, it’s regression.

“You’ll guide the story, validate the science, and challenge the outputs I produce. But together? We’ll find more.”

The message reinforced a broader theme of the evening: AI can strengthen exploration outcomes, but responsible use requires partnership with human decisionmakers and respect for the social and environmental context in which the industry operates.

A conversation that reflects the future of the gold sector

As the debate concluded, it was evident that no single viewpoint dominated the discussion. While Team Geologist won the audience vote, the event highlighted a shared recognition that neither technology nor intuition alone will define the industry’s future.

What the Great GIG Debate demonstrated was that collaboration, between disciplines, generations, and perspectives, will underpin progress. AI will accelerate modelling, optimise workflows and expand what is possible. Geologists will continue to provide the contextual insight, field knowledge and critical evaluation that guide discovery.

The intersection of these capabilities is where the industry’s next advances will occur.

Photo Gallery