Science, innovation and civilization

Featured

Man has ceased to be necessary: ​​from the man who produces to the man who receives

It is not a spectacular passage. It has no martyrs, no barricades, no smouldering ruins. What it leaves behind, instead, are flats occupied by tenants who will never become owners, bank accounts without physical cash, music without records, films without cassettes, work without long-term contracts — an existence in which almost nothing truly belongs to the person living it.

The most enduring chains are not those a man feels at his wrists, but those he comes to call ”safe”.

When man ceased to be necessary — the slow birth of a world in which survival becomes a granted privilege

Man has ceased to be necessary: ​​from the man who produces to the man who receivesThere are historical transformations that contemporaries only recognise after they have already occurred. The Industrial Revolution did not arrive one morning to the beat of drums and notices posted on walls. It came in through the back door — in the workshop of a blacksmith in Birmingham who noticed he was receiving fewer orders, in the hands of a weaver in Lancashire who had lost his clientele without anyone ever telling him why. The truly decisive changes do not arrive announced; they arrive disguised as convenience.

The West today looks, on the surface, like a victory. The shops are full. Deliveries arrive in twenty minutes. Screens pulse in every flat, every pocket, every waiting room. A man from 1950, had he been able to peer through a window at this world, would have believed he was witnessing the prosperity Marx had written about, without the conflicts Marx had predicted. And yet, beneath this illuminated, connected surface, there unfolds — quietly and methodically — one of the most profound transformations of the human condition in the past several centuries: the passage from man as producer to man as recipient.

Featured

Clayton Christensen's Dream: Disruptive Innovation, as Economic Sharks Become Infrastructure

At the PC, at home, with an idea that refuses to come out. The cursor blinks. Blinks again. I've been staring at it for about ten minutes without having written anything — or rather, I've written and deleted the same first sentence three times, each time sounding either too grave, or too breezy, or simply false — that particular kind of false you sense immediately when you're writing not because you're thinking, but because you want to appear to be thinking.

Clayton Christensen's Dream: Disruptive Innovation, as Economic Sharks Become Infrastructure

Outside it's morning in Botoșani, which means cars can be heard on the street out front, the neighbour from the second floor has already switched on the television, and Gri is sitting on the windowsill watching a bird he will never catch, with a concentration I cannot replicate at the keyboard. I've had one coffee. I opened a second tab with Google News and closed it immediately, irritated by what was there — AI news, again, constantly, as though AI were the only thing that had happened in the world since 2022. I opened the file again. The cursor blinks.

The idea I'm trying to write does exist — I'm certain of that. I can feel it somewhere in the region of my stomach, or perhaps higher up, in that imprecise place in the chest where things collect when you know them but haven't yet put them into words. It's connected to something I've been noticing over the past few months without being able to articulate clearly: the major platforms have each launched their own AI, and all of these AIs resemble walls more than doors. Google has launched Gemini integrated into Search, Gmail and Drive; Microsoft has embedded Copilot into Windows and Office; Meta has AI in Instagram and WhatsApp; Apple has announced Apple Intelligence across every native application. And when I look at all of this together, I don't see a revolution — I see large companies that have grown frightened and built defences.

Featured

AI doesn't make you smarter — it makes you less competent but 'productive'

A comfortable illusion. There is a lie we tell ourselves collectively, every day, each time we open a chatbot and receive a response that sounds like wisdom. The lie is not spoken aloud. It doesn't appear in terms and conditions. It cannot be proved in any court. It is subtler than that: it is the feeling that we have understood something. That we have thought. That we have arrived, through our own intellectual effort combined with the power of the machine, at a valid conclusion. 'As stated above.' It is an introduction that refuses to be merely an introduction.

 

Listen to the audio dialogue summary

It is not true.

It is not true, and it is not harmless. AI doesn't make you smarter — it makes you less competent but 'productive'And precisely because it is so comfortable, so fluid, so nearly inevitable — it deserves to be examined with the very instruments we are, paradoxically, allowing ourselves to lose in its presence: critical thinking, patience, the capacity to bear uncertainty without pressing a button.

Sit with that for a moment. Don't continue. Don't scroll.

There is a moment in any genuine act of reading when the resistance of the text makes you stop. When the sentence doesn't yield immediately and you have to work. That moment of friction — that small cognitive discomfort — is precisely where understanding happens. Not before. Not after. There, in that uncomfortable interstitial space.

Now imagine that moment disappearing. That there is always a voice to complete the sentence, summarise the argument, serve you the conclusion on a digital silver tray. Imagine that disappearing systematically, across millions of minds, day after day, over the course of a few years.

That is not a working hypothesis. It is a description of the present.