Il progetto NeuroSkill del MIT Media Lab è un sistema innovativo che permette agli agenti IA di comprendere emozioni, stati mentali e comportamenti umani in tempo reale. Questo permette di personalizzare apprendimento e interazioni uomo-IA con maggiore empatia ed efficacia.
Research suggests that high use of social media and artificial intelligence affects attention and memory. But there is something you can do about it.
"AI IS CHANGING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: HOW BRANDS MUST ADAPT": schedule.sxsw.com/events/PP116...
"AI, YOUR BRAIN & THE BATTLE FOR COGNITIVE SOVEREIGNTY" : schedule.sxsw.com/events/PP116...
From Howdy 🤠 partner to Thought 💭 partner
Join me at @sxsw.com to see if the partner who stays on the other side – is still *you*.
To finish this Monday’s post, here is a quote from one of the humans: “I want to live in scientifically exciting times, not geopolitically exciting times.”
But I guess this has to be spelled out as a standalone amendment in the constitution these days.
Another quote from the said report: “User treats Al as tool or peer; maintains own authority and can disagree freely”.
“can disagree freely” is not a level of impact, dear Anthropic, it is a human right and a freedom of speech.
The audacity of blaming users for “trusting too much”.
Some other AI experts called it anything but cognitive debt (hi, I’m looking at you, comprehension debt).
Anthropic, last week, released a report saying: “Users are often active participants in the undermining of their own autonomy: projecting authority, delegating judgment, accepting outputs without question in ways that create a feedback loop with Claude”.
The first cigarette rolling machine was invented around 1800, and the first nationwide ban for smoking in public places was instituted around 2000s.
Regulating social media took a while, and it is still not done well. As it is money-for-power trade in so many political parts.
AI companies call it a “user problem” while slowly turning up the heat and boiling 🐸
It is not the first time it has happened, blaming the user, blaming the human, instead of actually proactively regulating it.
Here to 2026! May this new year be the one we put humans first!
Finally, two photos from these two projects are also featured in the article:
www.media.mit.edu/projects/thi...
www.media.mit.edu/projects/spa...
Additionally, she cites and links one of our papers on image reconstruction using low-density EEG from last year: www.media.mit.edu/publications...
Here are the projects Linda mentioned and got to try as demos: www.media.mit.edu/projects/att...
It also raised important issues regarding the ethical and policy regulations of neurotechnology - an area we cannot afford to overlook the way we did with social media and LLMs.
Online version is available here: www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/m...
Excited about @nytimes.com article, featuring some of my work about brain-computer interfaces.
Today’s print edition described how Linda Kinstler experienced controlling a robot using nothing but her own brain.
Enjoyed my conversation with @helenpearson.bsky.social on the use of AI in the universities.
There’s much more work in the pipeline with our working group, so please consider joining, if you’d like to contribute on how AI companies CAN and CANNOT use IP, based on these licenses.
So by introducing AI100 we begin the set of licenses that put human constraints on the applied use of such IP.
Next: with other licenses it’s easy to use them in the ways original Licensor maybe didn’t mean to (i.e. CC licenses were created for people to give back to others, not to make more profit for AI companies).
So by giving the choice between AI0 and AI100 you can be very explicit. The “fair use” case would not be predicated with your local jurisdiction explanation, but rather with the intent the Licensor has, which is giving their IP to humans.
You are right. But now imagine those companies comes and say that you “probably” meant for them to use it too, after all, they employ people, aren’t they?
Re: scraping – it’s a license. Not a firewall to prevent the scraping or monetize it (like CloudFlare does it, for example).
Again, if you’d love to contribute your expertise, please consider adding your contact details!
Our goal is to put humans first, and allow for distribution and derivatives for humans’ benefit, not AI’s or companies behind the AI. Including the scraping you have mentioned.
Yes, I’m with you. Especially on the part where lots of AI companies don’t honor the licenses (any).
But our main objective here is to empower humans. Same as Creative Commons and Open Source foundations when they began their path decades ago.
Based on that, your legal representation may choose to take further action against such violation of the license.
It’s the first release, and we are happy to collaborate with lawyers in different jurisdictions!
Please consider filling the join form on the website!
So if you publish your work under AI0 and your work later was used by AI, it immediately violates the license agreement and voids such use, making the use of your work by AI illegal.
Great question Nia. As the guarantees go, it gives you power as the human to designate the use of the IP you created to other humans only. And it should be enforceable with the jurisdictions of the major countries.
