Joan Rovira Martorell

En los últimos años las neurotecnologías han despertado un importante interés en la literatura académica, abriendo un importante debate acerca de si su implementación es moral o ética. En este artículo nos desmarcamos de este debate para explorar qué tipo de relaciones se producen entre los humanos y las neurotecnologías. Concretamente, nuestro principal objetivo es el de investigar el papel que juega la inteligencia artificial (IA) como mediador entre el sistema nervioso humano y las neurotecnologías, así como sus implicaciones en términos de gubernamentalidad. A partir de un estudio de caso del proyecto Neuralink, mostramos de forma empírica como la IA opera traduciendo los impulsos eléctricos del sistema nervioso a datos que, posteriormente, usa para influir en el propio sistema nervioso, por ejemplo, en términos de percepción visual. Concluimos argumentando que esto constituye la posibilidad de desplegar una gubernamentalidad neuroalgorítmica que evade la necesidad de un sujeto consciente, ya que opera en el ámbito de nuestro no-consciente cognitivo.

We are currently witnessing the rise of a platform capitalism that bases a significant part of its economy on producing behavioral profiles to direct users' actions towards private ends. By associating radical behaviorism techniques with algorithmic data processing technologies, a force that Bernard Stiegler has identified as "psychopower" has intensified and consolidated. This article aims to demonstrate how this is achieved by deploying two control technologies in the architecture of digital platforms: Affective Computing and the Hook Model. Through an ethnographic study on the BeReal social network, we show how these two technologies first capture users' attention and create usage habits and second, promote the circulation of emotions so that these can be linked to specific contexts and datafied to develop behavioral profiles. Finally, we conduct a theoretical exercise to argue that both control technologies are key elements of a new power dispositif that we call "pulsional," which triggers an action in individuals that bypasses their conscious reflection, leading to detrimental consequences for the exercise of their freedom.

The aim of this paper is to present artificial intelligence (AI) as an organ with a role in the production of judicial truth, expanding its objects, changing its procedures and reshaping the distribution of agencies within the judicial organism. To this end, it builds on Michel Foucault’s work on the procedures of truth production and the three subject forms involved: operator, spectator and object. This is then complemented by the general organological perspective proposed by Bernard Stiegler. On the basis of both, we will demonstrate two realities: first, that AI is shifting truth production from the individual to the profile, and second, that the types of associations that AI is forming have the potential to curtail human agency in the production of judicial truth.

This article analyses the forms of dividuation workers undergo when they are linked to technologies, such as algorithms or artificial intelligence. It examines functionalities and operations deployed by certain types of Talent Management software and apps—UKG, Tribepad, Afiniti, RetailNext and Textio. Specifically, it analyses how talented workers materialise in relation to the profiles and the statistical models generated by such artificial intelligence machines. It argues that these operate as a nooscope that allows the transindividual plane to be quantified through a process known as dividuation. Finally, by way of conclusion, the notion of the dividual is presented as the logic that characterises the human–machine relationship in the case of artificial intelligence and as the horizon of what Felix Guattari called “machinic capitalism”.