Philippe Buschini Posts

There is a strange moment when you realise something has shifted. You log in, you scroll, you click… and there’s this dull fatigue, as if every gesture demands a little more energy than it did yesterday. The services we once loved have grown heavy, chatty, saturated with demands. You catch yourself sighing at a feed that looks less and less like a conversation, and more like a supermarket hallway on stimulants.

This slide isn’t anecdotal. It’s a precise mechanism, patient, almost geometric. First the platforms charm us, then they tighten their grip, and eventually they squeeze. And we stay there, convinced it’s normal. Because “everyone is there”. Because leaving would cost too much, too many files, too many connections, too many habits.

What if this slow deterioration wasn’t a fate, but a system?
What if the tools designed to simplify our lives had turned into machines that erode our attention, our knowledge, and sometimes even our institutions?

We may have entered an era where technology doesn’t simply malfunction, it decays methodically, and takes us with it. The challenge now is not indignation, but understanding. Because once a mechanism is decoded, it stops being a trap.

OPINION

GPS corrects you before you make a wrong turn. Spellcheck smooths out your sentences. Code assistants anticipate your intentions. Everything becomes easier, faster, more seamless. But in this drift toward absolute comfort, something invisible happens: we gradually stop thinking for ourselves.

The philosopher Bernard Stiegler had a word for this: the proletarianization of knowledge. Where once the factory worker lost their craft to the machine, we now lose our capacity to reflect, decide, create. First, factories dispossessed the hand. Then, cultural industries standardized our ways of life. Now, artificial intelligence is proletarianizing thought itself.

This process didn’t happen overnight. It unfolded in three waves:

– The hand: the artisan becomes proletarian, the gesture empties of its intelligence
– Life: the consumer absorbs symbols they no longer create
– Thought: the thinker delegates judgment to the machine

Today, with generative AI, we’re crossing a new threshold. Thinking becomes a paid service. Creativity, a premium option. And surveillance capitalism, already capturing our data and predicting our behaviors, is preparing to monetize even our ideas.

But nothing is inevitable. Stiegler preached neither the rejection of technology nor nostalgia for the past. He invited us to understand that technology is a pharmakon: both poison and remedy. Everything depends on how we inhabit it.

So what do we do? Take back control of our attention. Redirect tools toward contribution rather than consumption. Make technology an extension of human intelligence, not its substitute. The choice doesn’t belong to machines. It depends on the care we bring to our own thinking.

It’s Prometheus’s fire: no longer the stolen flame, but the preserved light.

OPINION

A few years ago, we complained about having too much information. Today, our brains still run at their natural pace… but the world has hit x20.

So we tried to keep up. To go faster. And we did. So fast that we no longer read, we scroll. So fast that we no longer think, we react. And when we no longer have time to understand, we ask a machine to summarize the world for us. We’ve handed over to algorithms what made us most human: doubting, searching, fumbling, thinking. They answer faster, more clearly, more convincingly than we ever could.

And yet, something fades within that flawless surface: the effort to understand, the joy of discovery, the slow birth of meaning.

In this accelerated world, speed has become an ideal, almost a moral value. But by chasing it, we’ve stopped moving forward. We react instead of reflecting, we produce instead of thinking. What if real intelligence wasn’t about computing power, but about the ability to slow down?

That’s what this article is about: the speed that shapes our minds, the trap of automatic thinking, and the lucid slowness we must relearn, not to go backward, but to rediscover the art of inhabiting the world with attention.

Because in the age of artificial intelligence, thinking slowly is no longer a luxury, it’s an act of courage.

OPINION

What if, by letting machines think for us, we were slowly forgetting how to think at all?

Once, we had to get lost to learn how to find our way. Today, a synthetic voice guides us step by step, and our mind quietly drifts to sleep. We outsource everything: memory to the cloud, logic to algorithms, decisions to recommendations. It feels smooth, effortless, almost magical. But comfort comes at a cost, the slow erosion of intellectual effort.

We call it progress. Yet behind this promise of efficiency lies a silent drift: cognitive laziness. That subtle surrender where we stop reasoning, doubting, searching, and simply validate what a machine suggests.

This article explores that phenomenon, not to condemn technology, but to question what it’s turning us into: ever-assisted beings, seemingly brilliant, yet increasingly absent from their own thinking.

And perhaps, in this age of constant assistance, thinking is our last true act of freedom.

OPINION

There was a time when people said: “Americans invent, the Chinese copy, Europeans regulate.” Today, the US dominates AI, China manufactures the most advanced products… and Europe watches the train go by while debating whether ChatGPT should use gender-neutral pronouns.

Europe is quietly losing the global race for artificial intelligence and innovation. The United States invents, funds, and dominates: over $100 billion invested in AI in 2024, compared to less than $10 billion for China and mere crumbs for Europe. China, meanwhile, no longer copies, it now controls global production of robots, batteries, and semiconductors.

During this time, the European Union perfects its regulatory arsenal, without an industrial strategy or common vision. France loves to imagine itself as a Gaulish village: Mistral AI shines, Paris attracts attention, but 56% of French capital flees to the United States, and talent follows.

The result: a continent that regulates what it no longer produces, dependent on American clouds and Asian supply chains. If we’re not careful, the risk is becoming permanently a digital colony, merely consuming technologies designed elsewhere.

Europe can still react by linking regulation with industrial strategy, by investing massively, by unifying its markets. But the innovation train won’t wait for those who remain on the platform debating the color of the cars.

OPINION