Dualite on reflexions

On the Imperceptive.

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000

1. An Appearance of Freedom

My reflections on technique and technology lead me to sometimes unexpected places. Recently, I wrote about a situation I observed when reflecting on our technical and technological uses: we are free, in appearance, but certain options become impractical or unthinkable without however being prohibited.

For example, and to take up the topic of the moment, we are free to use generative artificial intelligence just as we are free to send our mail by post rather than by email. Nothing forbids resorting to postal mail and no law prescribes email. No sanction strikes the person who sends a paper letter rather than an email. And yet, the freedom to use postal mail is very often reduced to nothing: the option exists but it is no longer reasonable. Nobody has really removed the choice or the possibility. They have simply made the alternative absurd.

Building a Glossary with GAI.

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Ars Industrialis offers, on its site, a vocabulary. This lexical choice is interesting because vocabulary is the living language of a thought. It is the typical or atypical formulations of that language. What I browsed of this vocabulary made me want to do the same with the concepts I have mobilized, developed, sometimes invented in my notebook.

The idea matured for a while. However, I have not invented a new language, so the term “vocabulary” does not seem relevant to me at this stage of my reflections. After a year of writing, I had covered enough notions in my notebook dualite for a glossary to become not only useful but necessary. Especially since I have started experimenting with neologisms. Imperceptif, ablation attentionnelle, depossession operatoire: these terms do not appear in the dictionary. Although they are defined within the written notes, grouping these concepts is a way of guiding the reader who encounters them and not leaving them to their own interpretations.

From Semantic Ablation to Attentional Ablation

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

What Damasio Said About the Machine

On February 19, 2026, Alain Damasio was invited on the show C ce soir on France 5. A novelist, often described as a techno-critic, he shared that he works with Claude on his writing and said he was “astounded by its creative capabilities on imaginary worlds.” The machine, he said, was “almost at the same level as (his) craft.” This statement fueled debate and criticism against Damasio, who was accused of having “turned his coat.”

Grammatize and observe. New therapeutic practices

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

In 1956, in the conclusion of Volume 1 of The Obsolescence of Man, Gunther Anders formulated a call that still resonates today:

Unless men begin, like conscientious objectors, to publicly commit, under oath and in full awareness of the possible danger, to never yielding to pressure — whether physical or merely the pressure exerted by public opinion — and to never collaborating in any enterprise that, however indirectly, could have any connection with the production, testing, and use of the bomb; to never speaking of the bomb except as a curse; to trying to convince those who have resigned themselves to it and merely shrug their shoulders; to publicly distancing themselves from those who defend the bomb.

Authenticity and sincerity. The aporia of transparency

Sat, 14 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000

For several months, I have taken the time to reflect on the question of transparency regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence (hereinafter GenAI) (see notably here). I had told myself that I would write a follow-up to that first note, as I had received quite a few comments that had reshaped my thinking. I eventually set the project aside. And as often happens, it resurfaced unexpectedly. First, following this article and then a few days later, during a reflection on a writing project integrating GenAI.

Phenomenological Experience of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Some Context

In December 2025, after the “buzz” following the release of Laurent Alexandre and Olivier Babeau’s book, I listened to a long interview with Laurent Alexandre to try, without having to trudge through his book, to understand his perspective on education, at least at a basic level.

Despite everything one might say about Laurent Alexandre, I still find it interesting to examine his positions and ideas, which are not all worth dismissing. In this context, Laurent Alexandre describes his use of generative AI and, more importantly, explains that he enables his AI’s memory. He develops a reflection on the rationale and the consequences, which he considers beneficial, of this feature.

Phenomenology of a Practice with Generative AI (2026)

Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Preamble

This text was written as part of an experiment I describe here: Phenomenological experiment with generative artificial intelligence.

1. The Observation Protocol

This text is born from a methodological paradox. When it was suggested that I keep an “ethnographic” notebook of my daily uses of GAI (generative artificial intelligence), my first reaction was pragmatic: the documentation workload would be too great. Keeping a daily journal would mean adding a reflective task to an already dense practice. But this very objection revealed something: if documenting my GAI uses seemed time-consuming, it is precisely because these uses have become sufficiently diffuse, normalized, and integrated that it would be difficult to isolate them as objects of observation.

Knowing Without Doing. Doing Without Knowing.

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

We read it constantly: generative artificial intelligence (hereinafter GAI) is presented as an extension of the individual that augments them in all their cognitive facets. GAI synthesizes, reformulates, explains, produces. Nevertheless, this narrative masks the more insidious and even pernicious consequences of this unrestrained use: we are gradually losing our operational capacity.

In many uses, and particularly in the legal field, GAI no longer merely supports reflection. It tends to take charge of reasoning itself, relegating the user to a validation role.

The Proletarianization of Law in the Age of AI

Sat, 03 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000

The Symptom of a Transformation

In December 2025, the French National Bar Council (Conseil National des Barreaux, CNB) removed the word “intellectual” from its definition of legal consultation. This administrative gesture inadvertently reveals the crisis of legal expertise in the age of generative AI.

From a report by the CNB’s commission on the practice of law:

The CNB General Assembly of December 12, 2025 approved the removal of the term “intellectual” from its proposed definition of legal consultation initially adopted in 2011, favoring an approach centered on the purpose of the service, to guarantee effective protection of the public and the scope of law in the face of the rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence tools.

Research vs production. The myth of AI in law.

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000

They sell us the revolution and deliver souped-up libraries.

The major legal publishers have all taken the AI turn. There is no denying it, their tools are powerful. But by adding an AI layer on top of their databases, they are making a mistake: a “non-practitioner” reflex.

A search engine, even on steroids, is still a search engine

Practicing law is not about spending your life searching for case law or legal scholarship. It is a preliminary and necessary step, but only one part of the work.

Ethics and Compliance. Beyond the Hype.

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000

The discourse on responsible AI is becoming increasingly pervasive. The declarations of tech players on the subject, the desire to regulate the sector and the technology to frame and demarcate it, are all made with an obsessive will to reach a sufficient level of trust in this “new” technology.

This essay aims to think through this notion of responsible and trustworthy AI and to establish that it rests on an illusion of ethics masking our systemic (and systematic) dependence on technology and our absolute pursuit of efficiency.

AI makes you write nonsense.

Sun, 02 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000

This morning, I read a newsletter in which the author wrote that:

“AI is no longer a trend, but a silent earthquake.”

A few weeks ago, I had spotted similar content. The reflection of an AI “thinker” in practice, who said he used it to explore subjects he was unfamiliar with. In this context, he explained how AI had led him, through his questioning, “down unexpected paths.”

These observations are not recent, but I have the feeling they are becoming increasingly numerous. Content generated with the help of artificial intelligence is being published without being truly understood by its authors. Until now, I had refrained from commenting, thinking I was splitting hairs, but this new episode makes me want to voice this frustration and try to understand why it makes my hair stand on end (to stay with the hair metaphor).

How Does AI Change Our Society-System?

Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000

1. Introduction

After exploring the “transformative” impact of AI, I continue my wanderings on generative artificial intelligence (hereinafter GAI) because what is at stake goes beyond the simple use of an LLM in one’s professional activity. Commentators on the subject regularly write about how AI will change our professions. This is a “micro” or verticalized analysis that focuses on a sector, an activity, or even a profession. Although it is difficult to consider the subject in its entirety given how complex things can be, examining the question from a broader angle should also be considered, because if GAI can change, transform, or perhaps even replace certain professions, these changes will inexorably have an impact on “our society.” GAI can impact our professions, but it also has the potential to modify the structure of our society in its “system” aspect.

Writing with LLM is not a shame. An essay about transparency on AI use.

Sat, 23 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

For people who are curious about AI, you rapidly detect people who are using it incorrectly (for those who use AI “smartly” or correctly, it’s more complicated to detect it). I’m pretty sure you already have seen tons of AI-written posts on social media. For me, I started to notice this in January 2024. At this moment, I was shocked of seeing all these AI-written articles or comments and I decided to disclaim my AI use as a transparency gesture. Rapidly, I received some questions about this transparency, and I was engaged with some people on a, literally, philosophical discussions about the question: do we have to disclaim (or not) our use of AI?

On confidentiality and tools for lawyers

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

An absurd situation this August 20, 2025.

I am scrolling through my LinkedIn feed and I come across a post by an AI consultant (one who was a Web3 consultant before — you know the type).

In summary, this consultant describes his encounter with a lawyer (Martin) who considers that professional secrecy issues are outdated nonsense because by using an Office 365 suite, data is already “in danger.”

According to Martin, the mere act of sending an email with Outlook containing confidential data would be a violation because confidentiality guarantees would not be met given the use of a US service provider.

Asking a LLM for help is fine

Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000

I read an David Gerard’s post and I don’t really get the point of condemning the use of AI as a helper.

I think a lot of people are affraid to ask for help at work or anywhere else. They worry it’ll make theme look stupid or they’ll be judged by their peers or by their boss.

So, if we take a step back and look at the problem at the bigger picture, AI is a good way (not the best) to ask some questions without disturbing your peers or colleagues from something you think can be silly. We can argue that the answer from the LLM is not always correct and can be mistrusted by the user who asked. This a valid concern but not at every level for any query. LLM can be used for a lot of things and can serve as a thinking partner on a wide range of topics. So does it depend? Yes, unfortunately and we will have a definitive answer about that before years I think.

AI Is Not a Product Feature

Sun, 27 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

I recently saw on HN an essay titled AI Horseless Carriages by Pete Koomen. In this essay, the author explains why integrating generative AI into existing products doesn’t work.

Since the democratization of LLMs, the first temptation has been to integrate them into our everyday software. We add an LLM to our email applications to help us write content, or to our document management software to summarize documents. We add the LLM as an additional layer on top of our existing tools. An “AI” button in our apps for “augmented production” without thinking further about the features. We see this in Gmail (per Koomen’s example), in the Office 365 suite, in content editing software, on social networks, or in messaging apps (WhatsApp). AI everywhere to “enrich” content and delegate writing to LLMs. Once the “wow” effect of the first few minutes of use wears off, you quickly realize the mediocrity of the results generated by these LLMs.

Digital Autonomy as Resistance

Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

In early March 2025, I wrote about digital resistance. This note was inspired by discussions during a seminar in December 2024 where the subject had been raised by some participants (if you recognize yourself, send me an email, I would be happy to know you read me;)). During this discussion, the question that emerged was what to do and above all where to begin in the face of the shift that was starting to take place.

On the Mass Decerebration

Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Interesting exchange on LinkedIn following a post published by a sociology professor, Dominique Boullier. A quick visit to his Wikipedia page will give you an overview of his background (it’s worth a look). As often, a seemingly reasonable position that subtly contains a rather divisive stance. The author of the post considers that:

The entire response system of generative AIs is a mass decerebration enterprise.

I had already jumped out of my chair when I read the provocative title of an op-ed published in l’Humanite on March 31, 2025: Is AI going to make us morons?. On substance, two academics take up the pen to share their views. I was drawn to Anne Cordier’s nuanced and user-centered approach, while Marius Bertolucci’s critical stance left me somewhat unsatisfied.

Duality

Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Duality is the name of my digital notebook collecting reflections on topics related to digital technology. Giving a name to this project is a way to structure it through a narrative thread and to set a framework to channel these reflections without confining them. It is also to continue doing so as current events, readings and experiences unfold.

Throughout my writing, I try to challenge my own perspective. I try to write about digital technology with a critical but non-dogmatic eye. What I observe often reveals tensions, ambivalences and even contradictions. For example, I use generative AI daily while also criticising it. I reflect on technological autonomy (aka technological sovereignty) but remain captive to certain software or hardware devices.

Delegate the Known to Better Think the Unknown

Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0000

I continue to reflect on how to use generative AI in our lives and its cognitive impacts. Without academic or scientific intent. Just a personal reflection that I transcribe to share it and to help me move forward in my thinking.

I am questioning my use of AI. While I had written here that the abusive and shameless use of generative AI to write “reflective” content was unbearable to me, I let myself get caught by the machine.

AI is a transformation

Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0000

In early March 2025, I came across a reflection on the distinction between SaaS business models and those offered for artificial intelligence. While the SaaS model is essentially based on providing standardized services accessible via subscription, AI, particularly through large language models (LLMs), introduces a different economic logic. It cannot simply be treated as an added feature because it profoundly impacts all of an organization’s internal processes, going well beyond a simple technological improvement or a new product characteristic — it is a genuine transformation.

Toward a digital resistance

Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0000

This is unfortunately the conclusion that some might draw from the events that punctuate our daily lives.

During the autumn of 2024, I discovered Jacques Ellul. I refer you to his Wikipedia page, which is quite rich. According to Ellul’s “techno-critical” theory, the preoccupation of the vast majority of people of our time is to seek the absolute most efficient method in all things.

This observation was made in the 1960s and remains strikingly relevant today. We tend, consciously or not, to seek efficiency in everything we do, everything we consume, sometimes at the expense of some of our freedoms.

A generative AI of nonsense

Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0000

I began exploring the personal website of Richard Stallman to deepen my reflections on the digital world and ways to “resist” the omnipotence of Big Tech companies.

There is a lot of content, and I started with What’s bad about ChatGPT.

Unsurprisingly, Stallman is not very enthusiastic about the use of this conversational agent, for several reasons, notably regarding the proprietary nature of the software (logical for the founder of GNU and the GPL).

The political impact of social media

Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0000

A virtual presence at all costs?

“Have no value judgments in your social media strategy. A social network is a technical device with strategic audiences. If a social network has your strategic audiences, go for it. An organization should not judge the political angle of a platform.” (source)

It was this provocative conclusion of a LinkedIn post that caught my attention. Published in January 2025, following Zuckerberg’s announcements about changes to the META group’s moderation policy. The post came from the director of a “consultancy firm specializing in communications and public affairs focused on decoding societal trends.” This statement raises the question of coherence between an organization’s stated values and its strategic communication choices. The proposition that an organization should not pass value judgments on a platform is certainly pragmatic, but it seems to overlook important elements: reputation, ethical alignment, and the impact of communication choices on the organization’s image.