Marco Camisani Calzolari - Professor of Digital Languages, IULM University - CEO @ Speakage & Founder DigitalGround UK

Articoli

• 322 – Hanno comprato il biglietto aereo al robot umanoide

  27 maggio, di Team — Artificial Decisions
  They Bought a Plane Ticket for a Humanoid Robot Maybe as a stunt, maybe because they really do travel around with a robot in tow. Either way, here in the United States someone bought a plane ticket for their robot. A real seat, by the window. He registered it as Stewie, a humanoid, and it boarded a Southwest flight from Dallas to Las Vegas like any other passenger. They let it on. The next day the airline rewrote the rules. No more human-like or animal-like robots. Not in the cabin, not in the hold. Any size, any purpose. The real reason is the lithium battery these robots carry inside. The big ones catch fire now and then. The FAA here in the United States has counted 29 cases of smoke, flames or abnormal heat from batteries since the start of 2026 alone. If you follow me, you know I've made several proposals in institutional settings to regulate humanoid robots. Well, here's one of them, in its own way: no humanoids in the cabin. Now we need what I've been saying for at least two years. A large, clearly visible ID plate, and the obligation to be recognizable as a robot. Because I'm not sure it's clear to everyone, but we're building machines more and more like us. And at some point an airline has to put it in writing that a robot is not a passenger. What do you think? #ArtificialDecisions 

• 320 – The Pope’s Encyclical and Cyberhumanism

  26 maggio, di Team — Artificial Decisions
  The Pope's Encyclical and Cyberhumanism For ten years I've been repeating the same things, in companies and in schools and in books: technology is not neutral, Artificial Intelligence seems to understand but it doesn't, whoever has the data has the power. In Pope Leo XIV's encyclical on AI, Magnifica Humanitas, I found almost word for word the things I've always said. There's blind enthusiasm, where more powerful doesn't mean better. And there's confidence without comprehension, where these systems imitate humans, sometimes beat us on speed, but don't understand what they produce. They simulate empathy, they simulate understanding. They speak well, they're tidy, they seem neutral, but they're not. And meanwhile they get us used to delegating, to taking the ready-made answer and to using our heads less. The Pope seems to have read my book Cyberumanesimo. I did send it to him… He also writes about the fake relationship that AI creates. For a while now I've been saying that machines today comfort you without existing. And he makes it clear that when speech is simulated it doesn't build a relationship, but only an appearance of one, and the worst risk is losing the desire to truly look for real people. Then the big theme of whoever has the data has control. I've opened my lectures this way for years, and the encyclical calls the health and demographic data of entire peoples the new rare earths of power. Whoever owns them shapes needs, anticipates markets and decides who gets care and investment before everyone else. The concentration of power is something I've been calling out forever. The encyclical says AI mainly grows those who already have money, skills and data, and that a few very influential groups steer information, consumption and even democracy. Companies stronger than governments. Today certain decisions are made by a few, the ones who control the data. Finally it talks about AI and war, a theme anyone who follows me knows is close to me. A machine must not decide over a person's life. The Pope writes that with technology conflict only becomes faster and more impersonal, and the threshold for violence drops. Disarm AI, he says! In the end the thread is one: stay human. Keep the person at the center and technology at their service. The most institutional voice on the planet, today, is saying what I've been repeating for ten years. You don't need to believe in anything to notice it. And maybe, coming from there, someone is starting to listen. What do you think? #ArtificialDecisions #MCC 

• 319 – First Robot Maid in America. No Human in the Room, but One Behind It

  25 maggio, di Team — Artificial Decisions
  First Robot Maid in America. No Human in the Room, but One Behind It In San Francisco a humanoid robot walked into a regular person's home and cleaned it. They announced it as the first case in the United States. It shows up, works a few hours, leaves. Flat price, $150, big apartment or small. The company is Gatsby. You don't buy the robot, you book it on an app and it arrives, like calling a car at night. Headlines everywhere. The home robot is here. On its own the robot does the easy stuff: floors, kitchen counters, stovetops and mirrors. The hard stuff, no. A person moves that part, remotely, from a distance. Teleoperation. Someone sitting who knows where, cleaning our home through the robot. And when the robot has a doubt, where do I put this, it texts you and you answer from the couch. America's first home robot is part autonomous and part a guy with a joystick. Cleaning a messy home alone, for a machine, is still very hard today. That operator is temporary. He's there to make the robot work while the robot learns. Every cleaned home is data, every correction is training. In five years that operator is gone, and the robot does it all alone. Cleaning is just the start. Underneath there's a platform learning to live in our homes, or in our factories. For now we pay $150 for a robot that, sometimes, is a man. Soon it'll just be the robot. What do you think? #ArtificialDecisions #MCC

• 321 – $1,000 a Month to 2,400 Artists. No Strings

  24 maggio, di Team — Artificial Decisions
  $1,000 a Month to 2,400 Artists. No Strings Here in New York they gave 2,400 artists $1,000 a month for eighteen months. No conditions. No obligations. No need to explain anything. $43 million in total, funded mostly by the Mellon Foundation. 22,000 applied. For 2,400 spots. The same line always comes up on guaranteed income. Give people money and they stop working. They sit down. They wait for the transfer. That's not what happened. The artists kept working. They changed the kind of work. They dropped the side jobs (the bartender, the shop clerk, the waiter) and went back to what they had actually trained for: painting, writing, playing, teaching art in Brooklyn neighborhoods. Total income dropped, on average, by $11,600 a year. Almost exactly the amount they were getting from the program. Those $1,000 a month turned into time. Time to make art instead of serving coffee. A painter I know in Bushwick told me that once she stopped chasing the next paycheck, she got back the hours to think about the next painting. Here in the United States creative work is quietly being hollowed out. Midjourney makes ad images instead of photographers. ChatGPT writes technical copy instead of copywriters. Suno produces music instead of musicians. One job at a time. Artists are a particular category, driven by reasons that go beyond a paycheck. Guaranteed income doesn't fix everything. But those $1,000 shifted their time onto the work they actually wanted to do. And while machines are eating creative jobs for breakfast, giving people the hours to stay creative is a real possibility. Obviously they have to be truly creative and not just freeloaders, which is a whole other story. What do you think? #ArtificialDecisions

• 318 – A Man Beat the Humanoid Robots at Sorting Packages

  23 maggio, di Team — Artificial Decisions
  A Man Beat the Humanoid Robots at Sorting Packages. For Now… Figure AI, a company that builds intelligent humanoid robots, switched on a livestream on May 13 and turned it off yesterday. 200 hours of work. They put three humanoids sorting packages on a belt, taking turns, no breaks, day and night. The stream ran until one of them broke. That was the goal, to see when they collapse. In 10 days they sorted 200,000 packages. Three seconds a package, about the same as us. Nobody runs them from outside, they read the camera pixels and decide on their own. At one point they put them up against a human. Ten hours, man against machine. The human won: 12,924 packages to 12,732. By a hair, but a guy on his own beat them. Except he came out with a forearm nearly broken and his hands covered in blisters. The robot didn't, of course. And meanwhile there's another thing worth watching. The three robots are called Bob, Frank and Gary, well, it's the viewers in the comments who gave them those names, names the company then printed on a tag. People got attached to one robot or another, ten million views, some watch the stream like a reality show. We humanize whatever resembles us, and soon we'll grow fond of robots. Crazy? Think about the people who love their car and care for it like family, so imagine how this ends with humanoid robots. And this stream isn't just a toy. Behind it there's Microsoft, Amazon and OpenAI, almost two billion raised, a valuation close to 40 billion. For now it's more of a lab experiment than something ready for a real warehouse, they still mess up putting the packages down. But in 3 years things will look very different, a bit like when an IBM computer beat Kasparov at chess. Before then it seemed impossible it could happen, today we think it's the least a computer can do. What do you think? #ArtificialDecisions #MCC #AI

0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40