YACHT BUYERS ARE GETTING YOUNGER, SAYS AZIMUT/BENETTI EXEC

In the rarefied world of luxury yacht construction and design, the Viareggio, Italy-based Azimut/Benetti Group ranks high on the list of storied and sought-after names. The company’s clients include multi-millionaires and billionaires globally, and boldfacers such as Bill Gates have chartered its watercrated.

The company comprises two brands: Azimut, which produces smaller yachts that range in length from 10 to 35 meters, and Benetti, a mega- and superyacht producer behind ships from 37 to more than 100 meters long. It’s known for its technological innovations, including the extensive use of carbon fiber as well as hybrid diesel-electric vessels. Prices for the yachts between both brands range from US$1 million to more than US$300 million. Azimut/Benetti has four shipyards, three in Italy and one in Brazil, with the largest in Livorno, in Italy’s Tuscany region.

Paolo Vitelli founded Azimut in 1969 and acquired Benetti in 1985 to form Azimut/Benetti Group. His daughter, Giovanna Vitelli, 48, leads the family-run enterprise today. She spoke with Penta recently about how demand for yachts has increased as of late, its changing customer base, and the amenities on ships that owners most want today.

Penta: Has the demand for your yachts changed over the last few years?

Giovanna Vitelli: Despite initial predictions, the pandemic significantly boosted the yacht industry due to unforeseen mobility restrictions. The desire for freedom led to a surge in demand, and immediately after the COVID-19 lockdowns, every available boat, regardless of size, was sold out. Today, the demand has normalized, but the perception of what a yacht can offer has changed. As a result, our orders stretch to 2028.

Who are your primary customers, and how have they evolved over time?

Owners are now trending 10 years younger than before; they are typically men in their 50s. They are still very wealthy and successful, but unlike the past, where yacht ownership may have primarily symbolized opulence, today’s owner seeks something deeper: a private space to share with family and friends, a floating home with all the personal comforts, to enjoy a closer connection with the sea.

Can you share the amenities your customers want most on their yachts and how they differ from the past?

We are seeing a growing shift toward a more relaxed lifestyle on board. Owners seek areas ideal for sharing with loved ones. They have a preference for longer stays at anchor and want amenities that provide a comfortable, at-home experience. Popular requests include large social bars, extensive wine cellars, full office spaces for remote work, spa facilities, larger storage for water toys, and gym areas. These features blend luxury with functionality.

What are some of the unusual amenities or other requests your customers have requested?

We’ve added unique features such as a wood-burning pizza oven and a flower refrigerator. We even recreated a copy of the Sistine Chapel fresco over the dining table on a Benetti yacht. Another had spectacular interiors made with Lalique glass.

Tell us about the design features of your yachts. What aesthetic do you favor?

Twenty years ago, we began seeking designers from the luxury residential, hospitality, and fashion sectors rather than just the yachting industry. This brought a contemporary twist to a traditionally conservative sector. Each designer infuses the yacht with its own soul, but all have a simple elegance. Our most recent collaboration was with Matteo Thun and Antonio Rodriguez, inventors of eco-resorts, with whom we explored new frontiers for eco-friendly materials on Azimut’s Seadeck motoryachts .

One design concept that has influenced the lifestyle on board is the Benetti Oasis Deck. Previously, the stern was high and closed, but now, a lowered stern opens to the sea, enhancing the onboard experience.

How does sustainability figure into your designs?

Sustainability has been a core principle for us for over 20 years, and we started investing early on in technology to reduce fuel consumption. This philosophy continues to drive our innovations. Today, almost our entire fleet offers hybrid technology.

The newly launched Azimut Seadeck 6 became the most efficient and sustainable yacht ever produced by our group. In fact, the Azimut Seadeck Series can reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by as much as 40% in one year of average use compared to traditional yachts of similar size.

Our next goal is to further optimize consumption and emissions from onboard systems, especially for larger boats that spend around 90% of their time at anchor.

Also, our company has an agreement with the energy company Eni to use HVOlution, a biofuel made entirely from renewable raw materials.

Can you explain the concept of shadow yachts and tell us if they’re becoming more prevalent?

Shadow yachts, also known as support yachts or shadow vessels, are auxiliary vessels that accompany a main superyacht, providing additional storage for water toys, helicopters, and vehicles, as well as housing extra crew and guests. Currently, they represent less than 1% of the market.

Where do you see the future of yachts going?

I expect demand to continue at a steady pace in the coming years, especially as more people view yachts as residences rather than just for short trips. We have customers who’ve bought large yachts who anchor them and live in them for several months a year. They might dock in Monaco for six months, for example, and go to the Caribbean for the rest of the year.

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.

YACHT BUYERS ARE GETTING YOUNGER, SAYS AZIMUT/BENETTI EXEC

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.