The source text explores the use of artificial intelligence to recreate a deceased person for a legal proceeding, specifically discussing a case where a victim's image and voice were used to generate a video "impact statement" in court.

The author and commenters raise ethical and legal questions surrounding the authenticity and influence of such AI-generated representations.

The discussion extends to broader implications of using generative AI with a person's life materials after their death, contemplating scenarios ranging from creative endeavors like generating new content to the potential for misuse and the complex issue of digital identity and consciousness.

The conversation also touches on the appropriateness of judges accepting AI-created testimony and the potential for AI in judicial systems.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «The things we can now do after we die«

Enrique Dans' column and the subsequent comments raise concerns about the increasing use of artificial intelligence by technology companies primarily for advertising purposes, arguing this prioritization of commercial interests risks compromising user privacy and manipulating consumer behavior.

Dans suggests a potential future where AI-driven advertising automates creative and targeting processes, and expresses worry about platforms like Meta using personal data for hyper-personalized ads, potentially exposing sensitive information.

The article also discusses the structural changes at OpenAI, questioning if they truly protect the organization's mission from commercial influence, while advocating for the development of open-source AI models that prioritize ethics and transparency to serve the public good.

The commenters engage with these ideas, debating the shared responsibility between users and companies, the inevitability of privacy loss, the potential benefits and drawbacks of digital currency regarding financial privacy and control, and the possibility of open-source alternatives to counter commercially driven AI.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «Who is AI for, us or Big Tech?»

This collection of text, primarily an article by Enrique Dans titled "Cuando la pseudociencia mata: el coste real del movimiento antivacunas" and its associated comments, explores the concerning resurgence of preventable diseases like measles due to declining vaccination rates, fueled by misinformation and the anti-vaccine movement.

Dans highlights alarming statistics, particularly in the United States and Europe, and points to public figures spreading unsubstantiated claims as a major factor in eroding trust in vaccines.

The accompanying comments offer a range of perspectives, from agreement with the author's strong stance against vaccine denial to discussions about the role of pandemic information management, the complexities of vaccine side effects, and the social and historical context of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy.

The overall sentiment underscores the tension between scientific evidence, individual choice, and collective health responsibility in the face of widespread misinformation.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «When pseudo-science kills: the human cost of vaccine denial«

This excerpt from Enrique Dans' blog discusses the emergence of AI wearables as a new frontier for artificial memory.

Drawing on a Wall Street Journal article, Dans explores how devices like the Plaud NotePin function as personal memory aids, capturing conversations and interactions to generate tasks and notes.

While highlighting the benefits of enhanced productivity and information capture, the text also emphasizes significant drawbacks such as privacy concerns, the potential for data misuse, and the risk of technological dependency.

The future adoption of these devices, according to Dans, hinges on effective regulation, user education, and responsible innovation from manufacturers.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «From brain fog to Bee Pioneer: why think when you can wear it?»

This collection of texts, centered around an article by Enrique Dans, provides an overview of the current state of autonomous driving technology.

The main piece highlights the significant progress made by companies like Waymo, evidenced by a sharp increase in paid rides and a study showing drastically reduced accident ratescompared to human drivers, particularly in dense urban environments.

However, the article also points out a key challenge: the cost and difficulty of creating and maintaining high-definition maps required for widespread deployment.

The accompanying comments from readers engage with various aspects of the technology, including the practicalities of its implementation, its potential impact on personal car ownership, and the differing regulatory approaches between the US, China, and Europe, often expressing a mix of optimism and skepticism.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «Autonomy as infrastructure: the new reality of driverless mobility«

Enrique Dans explores the paradox of generative AI's impact on the labor market, arguing that while it's transforming work processes, it hasn't yet led to widespread job disruption or significant wage increases based on a study using Danish data.

He presents examples like Duolingo, Microsoft, and Google leveraging AI to enhance productivity and redefine roles rather than eliminate them entirely.

The article suggests that this is an early phase of organizational change, not a macroeconomic disruption, with the key for businesses being to restructure work and leverage human skills in new ways.

Comments on the article offer anecdotal support for increased productivity and reflect on past labor market shifts, while also raising concerns about the potential for future job displacement if the benefits of AI aren't shared with workers.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «Beyond the hype, AI is reshaping work, not destroying it«

This piece and its associated comments explore Amazon's brief consideration of displaying the cost of tariffs on their products and their subsequent decision to back down after facing pressure from the Trump administration.

The author criticizes Amazon's lack of resolve, arguing that the initiative would have transparently shown consumers the financial impact of Trump's trade policies.

The comments broaden the discussion, comparing tariffs to taxes and debating the transparency of pricing structures in different contexts and countries. Several commenters also discuss the potential motivations behind Amazon's initial move and their ultimate retreat.

The conversation further touches upon the differences in taxation and infrastructurebetween the United States and European countries, linking these disparities to varying societal expectations regarding public services.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «How Amazon backed down when Trump called its bluff«

Enrique Dans discusses how he was asked by the Financial Times to select an article from their "Business school professors’ picks" section and create a summary and discussion questions for a class at IE Business School.

He explains his methodology of using current news articles, like the one he selected on Apple's supply chain, as teaching tools instead of traditional case studies.

The chosen article examines Apple's effort to shift iPhone production for the US market to India, highlighting the complexities of relocating manufacturing and the difficulty of replicating China's established industrial ecosystem despite geopolitical pressure and tariffs.

The provided questions are intended to stimulate debate on the challenges and realities of global supply chains, emphasizing factors beyond labor cost.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «Discussing Apple’s supply chain in the Financial Times«

Enrique Dans' article and the subsequent comments discuss the challenges and strategies related to innovation in the European Union compared to countries like China and India.

The piece highlights China's long-term investment in education and deep tech, contrasting it with India's talent drain despite a large talent pool.

Key issues raised for the EU include lower R&D investment, a cumbersome regulatory framework, and a conservative venture capital landscape.

The comments reflect a debate on the extent of these problems, particularly regarding the burden on entrepreneurs and the nature of public-private collaboration.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «Is Europe ready to commit to deep innovation?»

Enrique Dans' article critiques the U.S. Take It Down Act, despite its stated goal of protecting victims from non-consensual intimate imagery, including deepfakes.

He argues that the law's near-unanimous passage suggests political self-interest is at play, enabling the government, particularly under leaders like Donald Trump, to demand content removal from platforms with limited safeguards for verifying claims.

Dans expresses concern that this legislation incentivizes platforms to premptively censor controversial content and potentially undermine privacy-protecting technologies like end-to-end encryption.

The comments section of the article reflects a broader discussion about the potential for such laws to be misused for censorship and political repression, highlighting fears that well-intentioned legislation can erode fundamental freedoms and restrict online discourse.

This article is also available in English on my Medium page, «Under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, this article could be removed«