I was recently invited as a guest on \u201cIndustry Experts,\u201d a program focused on entrepreneurs and companies that discusses topics of great interest. My main contribution, within my professional context, focused on Artificial Intelligence.<\/p>\n\n
In the debate surrounding AI, there is a tendency to attribute an artificial personhood to it, using pronouns such as \u201cshe\u201d or \u201che.\u201d I myself sometimes fall into this mistake during discussions. In my view, the reason for this lapse is mainly linked to the complexity of the concept of intelligence. Even though it is followed by the adjective \u201cartificial,\u201d the word itself tends to evoke, in the human mind, an association with the human figure, because intelligence has traditionally been considered a distinctive characteristic of human beings.<\/p>\n\n
Speaking about AI as if it were human creates both a lexical and cognitive problem, as it can lead to harmful consequences: it may cause the brain to perceive AI-generated text as part of a conscious line of reasoning. It is therefore essential, before using these technologies\u2014especially for younger people\u2014to distinguish between what is produced by an algorithm based on statistical evaluations over hundreds of billions of data points and what is instead the product of human experience, shaped by intuition and consciousness.<\/p>\n\n
An algorithm cannot replicate human consciousness, because it arises from feelings and reflections generated by lived experiences.<\/p>\n\n
Being human means knowing pain, which guides us toward greater empathy. Imagine a person who has just been laid off and is ready to tell their story.<\/p>\n\n
The response of an artificial intelligence system might be something like this:<\/b><\/p>
\u201cI\u2019m sorry that you lost your job. It\u2019s a difficult situation. You might consider updating your r\u00e9sum\u00e9, looking for new opportunities online, and evaluating training courses to improve your skills.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/p>\n\n
The response is accurate and rational, but it lacks empathy for the human situation.<\/p>\n\n
The response of an artificial intelligence system might be something like this:<\/b><\/b><\/p>
\u201cI\u2019m sorry that you lost your job. It\u2019s a difficult situation. You might consider updating your r\u00e9sum\u00e9, searching for new opportunities online, and evaluating training courses to improve your skills.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/p>\n\n
In this context, typically human behaviors can be observed: the recognition of emotion as a shared experience, and the emotional exchange that encourages the listener to resonate with the state of mind of the person who has been laid off. There is a relational presence that offers availability: \u201cwe can think about it together,\u201d \u201cif I can, I\u2019ll give you a hand.\u201d Instead of immediate technical assistance, there is an emotional exchange, mutual understanding, and a solution proposed after a period of reflection.<\/p>\n\n
Human empathy goes beyond simple logical understanding; it includes a component of emotional resonance.<\/p>\n\n
An even stronger example could be this:<\/p>
\u201cToday I sold my father\u2019s violin.\u201d<\/p><\/p>\n\n
A possible response from an AI might be: \u201cIf you tell me the model and brand of the violin and the selling price, I can tell you whether you made a good deal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
A possible response from a human might be: \u201cBut the violin your father always played, the one you carefully kept in that display case? It must have been very difficult for you to part with it; that violin surely carried many memories.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Here it becomes even more evident that the interlocutor\u2019s attention is not focused on the object itself, but on what lies behind it: memories, emotions, and lived experiences.<\/p>\n\n
Be careful: depending on the model, AI might also produce a similar response. What does this mean? It is essential to remember that AI models are based on information provided by human beings. In this situation, it could emulate human behavior, but it is important to clarify that it is not actually human. It would simply provide the response that is statistically most probable for a human to give to such a statement, yet once again devoid of any real emotion.<\/p>\n\n
There are numerous accounts of individuals who reveal that they share their thoughts and feelings with AI models more often than with real people. This situation is concerning, but it has a plausible explanation.<\/p>\n\n
To make valid comparisons, AI should not be compared with extreme negative cases, but rather with rational human reference models. In a situation of need, relying on artificial intelligence might be safer than relying on a murderer (the fair of banality), but fortunately murderers are few and the world is still populated by honest people.<\/p>\n\n
When we think about young people who suffer from school bullying, it is easy to understand why they might feel comfortable opening up to AI, because they find a form of support that:<\/p>\n\n
Although effective at processing text, the system is not capable of understanding and integrating emotions, operating exclusively on textual data. In social interaction, gestures reveal a great deal about people\u2019s emotions. AI, due to its limited understanding of nonverbal language, struggles to build real relationships. Tone also plays a fundamental role.<\/p>\n\n
Very often, when I am contacted by companies, the common question is this: \u201cEngineer, where can I integrate Artificial Intelligence to save on personnel costs?\u201d\u2026 Translated\u2026 Where can I implement AI to lay off some people and put more money in my own pocket?<\/p>\n\n
I cannot help but describe this entrepreneurial vision as decidedly short-sighted!<\/strong><\/p><\/p>\n\n The integration of AI aims at productivity and speed, not at laying off employees. With a solid financial situation and available liquidity, what benefit comes from using AI to reduce the workforce?<\/p>\n\n It would be like saying I have a car, I install a more powerful engine but remove the brakes because my only goal is to accelerate faster. Fine\u2014but when you find a wall in front of you, what do you do? Do you ask it to move?<\/p>\n\n The integration of AI to reduce staff makes sense only in one specific case: when a company is going through a critical period, with declining work, growing debts, and an inability to meet its financial obligations. To avoid closure, staff reductions may be carried out in an attempt to contain costs and preserve some jobs by trying to replace part of the workforce with AI.<\/p>\n\n However, this is an exception\u2014an emergency situation, not the norm! It is like saying: \u201cLet\u2019s save what we can by laying off 10 people before it is too late and 100 people lose their jobs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n The problem is that the companies asking me these kinds of questions often do not suffer from a lack of liquidity, nor do they experience any difficulty in maintaining their current level of employment.<\/p>\n\n A complex ethical question therefore arises for the entrepreneur and for the company tasked with developing these tools.<\/p>\n\n A legal framework on this matter would be essential to guarantee employees greater peace of mind when facing the introduction of artificial intelligence as an ally in the workplace, and it would ensure continuity in employment levels while avoiding the classic ethical conflicts that arise between client companies and software houses. Because, dear readers\u2026 Einstein once said that \u201cit is easier to split an atom than a prejudice.\u201d Personally, every time I find myself facing proposals of this kind, I do my utmost to convince the person in front of me of the short-sightedness of such a vision: \u201cuse this personnel in more strategic areas, perhaps in marketing to increase demand.\u201d But let\u2019s be honest\u2014many entrepreneurs focus solely on short-term profit, ignoring the ethical implications of their decisions and overlooking the long-term consequences.<\/p>\n\n On the other hand, an effort is also required from employees. As the saying goes, we must strike a balance\u2026 A permanent contract should not be seen as a university degree\u2014\u201cI\u2019ve graduated, now I\u2019m set for life, no one can take this piece of paper away from me.\u201d Many employees, to use a euphemism, tend to \u201crelax\u201d once they are converted to a permanent contract. Some accumulate sick leave after sick leave even while in perfect health. Others arrive at the office and simply warm the chair, doing the bare minimum.<\/p> Of course, when I speak with entrepreneurs about maintaining employment levels, I stand up for diligent and virtuous workers, not for those who merely occupy a seat.<\/p><\/p>\n\n In this interview, we touch on some of these points. Enjoy watching.<\/p>\n\n