Philippe Buschini Posts

An AI doesn’t lie. But it doesn’t tell the truth either. It doesn’t know what is true or false — it only calculates probabilities. Its “reasoning” boils down to predicting which word is most likely to follow the previous one, based on the billions of sentences it has been trained on.

The result can be dazzling: fluid, elegant, convincing. Yet this fluency is nothing more than an illusion. What we read is not verified knowledge, but a sequence of words that “fit.” Sometimes accurate, sometimes wrong, sometimes neither — without the machine ever being aware of it.

The real danger is not the AI itself, but our very human reflex: confusing coherence with truth. In other words, mistaking the appearance of knowledge for knowledge itself. It’s this subtle, almost invisible shift that opens the door to confusion, born of ignorance about how it works, and of overconfidence in what merely “sounds right.”

OPINION

📌 Friday mood post 📌

BREAKTHROUGH: I’ve Discovered the Holy Grail of Disruptive Eco-Responsibility

My friends, we’re living in MAGICAL times.

I just witnessed a company that received the “Climatically Transcended Enterprise” label because they replaced plastic cups with… recycled cardboard cups… imported from Japan. By plane. In plastic packaging.

But wait, it gets BRILLIANT:

Their “Chief Happiness & Carbon Offset Officer” (yes, that’s a real title) explains that their 3D printer running 24/7 is now “carbon neutral” thanks to a “Symbiotic Impact Partnership” with a Bolivian farmer who promised NOT to cut down a tree.

Which one? We don’t know. Where? Trade secret.

And the cherry on top: their upcoming 47-person meeting in Dubai to discuss “Digital Sobriety” will be offset by purchasing “3.7 square meters of Amazonian forest benevolence.”

Via a mobile app, naturally.

OPINION COLUMN

OPINION

“Il avait tout : un site responsive, une charte graphique couleur lavande, et une bio écrite en Figma. Et pourtant… il s’est fait ghoster plus vite qu’un stagiaire en fin de période d’essai.”

À 23h12, pendant que vous dormez paisiblement, un inconnu Googlera votre nom. Et là, tout peut s’effondrer. Pas à cause de votre travail… À cause de votre profil Viadeo oublié de 2013 où vous vous disiez “expert en synergies transversales”.

Bienvenue dans le monde merveilleux de la crédibilité numérique passive-agressive, où un silence en ligne est plus suspect qu’un chat qui fait la vaisselle.

Parce que ce n’est pas votre site qui fait vendre. C’est votre trace. Même bancale. Surtout bancale.

OPINION COLUMN

Last week, I told you about the ants—those quiet beings who hold the world together while others parade on stage. This week again, I won’t be talking about artificial intelligence, robots, algorithms, or generative AI…

Once more, I’m staying in this very human, very intimate vein. Still about us. Always about us. Because before understanding what machines do to our thinking, we might first need to understand what we’ve done to our own capacity to think.

This time, I’m taking you into more subtle, more troubling territory: our relationship with our own ideas. A silent shift that concerns us all, connected or not, technophiles or technophobes.

I promise, starting next week, I’ll resume my “AI in All Its States” series. But for now, let me tell you about this strange thing that happens to us when we stop inhabiting our own questions…

You type a question into your search engine. In 0.3 seconds, you have your answer. Satisfying, right?

Yet… something strange is happening. This bewildering ease might be hiding a deeper transformation in our relationship with thinking.

There was a time when searching was already an act in itself. When not knowing immediately wasn’t a problem to solve, but a space to inhabit. Today, we slide from one answer to the next, from one pre-digested content to another. We validate more than we choose. We apply more than we understand.

But what happens when thinking becomes optional? Between the seductive efficiency of our tools and our old habit of thinking for ourselves, a silent shift is taking place. Not brutal, not visible. Just… comfortable.

The question isn’t whether technology is good or bad. It lies elsewhere, more intimate: do we still recognize our own voice when we think?

OPINION COLUMN