One thesis, several grounds
This site does not stand alone. It belongs to a set of projects that all pursue the same hypothesis, each on its own ground, with its own readers and its own demands.
That hypothesis fits in one sentence: intelligence is not a possession, it is a property that emerges from relations. What holds for intelligence also holds, I believe, for suffering and for value — they reside less in individuals than in the ecosystems that carry them.
An idea like this cannot be proven in theory. It is put to the test, ground by ground: in a psychologist's consulting room, in a designer's craft, in the public debates about AI. If it held only on this site, it would not be worth much.
Hence these separate projects. They are not commercial variations of a single brand: they are distinct places, because the readers there are distinct and because what can be said there cannot be said the same way. What one writes for clinicians engages a code of ethics; what one writes for designers engages their income; what one writes here engages only thought.
Intelligences Plurielles — here
For whom: those who are tired of binary debates about AI, yet do not want to give up thinking about it seriously.
This site is the place of mediation. We do not settle whether AI is a blessing or a catastrophe: we try to make the question more interesting than the verdict. This is where the frames live — the pharmakon, the episteme, the fortress-identity, ecosystemic intelligence — and the articles that put them to work.
It is also the place where the hypothesis is stated in plain terms. The other projects apply it; this one exposes it.
AI and Psychotherapy — the clinical test
For whom: the psychologists, psychiatrists and psychotherapists who already see AI entering their practice and their patients' lives.
ia-et-psychotherapie.com deals with what AI does to psychic care — and what care demands of it. The register is different there: the clinic does not allow thought experiments without consequences. A patient who confides to an AI what they tell no one else is not a philosophical hypothesis; it is a situation a practitioner must know how to receive by tomorrow morning.
The back-and-forth is constant. This site poses the question of technological otherness; over there, it collides with professional secrecy, consent, responsibility. The ground is what verifies the theory — or corrects it.
Copryce — the test of the craft
For whom: designers, and more broadly all those whose work is judged by its creativity.
Copryce is a project led with François Caspar and Brigitte Borja de Mozota, around a very concrete question: how does the value of creative work defend itself when a machine produces, in a few seconds, something that resembles it?
Two places answer each other there:
- CoVisions — filmed interviews in which I am questioned about creativity, value and AI. The spoken form often says what writing does not dare: the hesitations, the objections left open.
- CoBlog — the Copryce Lab blog, which takes up some of the articles published here, the ones that touch on creativity, and comments on them for designers. One text, two readings: here the underlying question, there what it changes in a quote, a negotiation, a positioning.
This detour is not an affectation. A thesis about value that would not survive contact with people who must live off it would be an armchair thesis.
What these projects are not
They are not the aisles of a single shop, and they do not try to make you circulate from one to the other. Each serves readers who, most of the time, have no reason to look elsewhere — a designer does not need the clinic, a psychologist has no use for design pricing grids.
If they are listed here, it is for a simpler reason: when an idea is true only in the place that produced it, it is usually false. These grounds are what keeps me from being content with being right here.