That semantic capital that makes the difference
In the debate on artificial intelligence, I believe it is essential to start from the premise put forward by physicist Federico Faggin, inventor of the microprocessor and the touchscreen: machines will never be able to possess consciousness. As he writes in his book Irreducible: “Computers are our creations, endowed only with the algorithmic part of our essence. That is why we are not computers, but creators of computers. Consciousness is our wealth, because it is what enables us to understand.”
Starting from this assumption, it becomes easier to define what distinguishes human beings: the capacity to experience ourselves and reality, made up of sensations and emotions whose meaning we are able to process. And there is a profound difference between the conscious processing of meaning and the automatic processing of symbols.
That said, the destructive potential of AI in the hands of “predators” — as writer and political advisor Giuliano Da Empoli calls the holders of new technologies — should not be underestimated. The point is to understand that “AI is a new form of power,” insofar as it is “capable of issuing strategic judgments about the future.” If the great political dilemma of the twentieth century was how to balance the relationship between the state and the market, the dilemma of the twenty-first century lies in defining the boundary between humans and machines.
One of the most compelling analyses is that developed over the years by philosopher Luciano Floridi, who now teaches Practice of Cognitive Science at Yale University, where he is also the founding director of the Digital Ethics Center. If in the past the risk was that of information asymmetry, today we face the risk of semantic asymmetry, because we will all have access to roughly the same information; what will make the difference is the investment required to stand out.
But what is semantic capital, and how is it built? At Orbits 2025, Floridi defined it as “that which allows us to read and interpret reality and gives meaning to our existence, deriving from our experience.” A constantly evolving treasure whose quality must be protected from a number of threats. First and foremost, the risk of general flattening — between uniformity of thought and sclerosis of cognitive processes — already demonstrated by numerous neuroimaging studies on brains engaged in using ChatGPT. Then there is the danger of vandalism caused by propaganda and fake news, that of “museumification” induced by a cultural heritage in which we risk taking refuge, and finally the depreciation caused by improper or instrumental use.
In short, today we have data, computational capacity, and financial capital. What is missing, Floridi argues — and what we must develop and sustain — are services with high semantic value added.
It is therefore clear that the issue of access to high-quality experiences for as many people as possible arises. Thomas Piketty, one of the leading contemporary scholars of economic inequality, points out that the enormous increase in prosperity in the Western world over the centuries is largely due to the growth of an increasingly inclusive and egalitarian socioeconomic system, particularly through access to basic education. However, he also notes that “the fact that we have, in a sense, given up on an ambitious egalitarian goal for higher education lies at the root of many of our current problems, relating to the economy and even more to democracy.”
As far as Europe is concerned, it must be acknowledged that there has been a massive investment in the enhancement of human capital, which over the past 30 years has led to a significant rise in average levels of education. Broadening the perspective, we can see what the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk recently noted in an interview with Corriere della Sera: “Europe is a vast educational context, a gigantic school in which each generation surpasses the previous one. Especially since the end of the Middle Ages, when Europeans rebelled against scholasticism. The Bohemian philosopher Jan Amos Comenius saw the entire world as a school. It is a process of accumulation of knowledge, but also of progression in knowledge and capabilities, a dynamism based on growth and self-reinforcement. This is Europeanism in its deepest sense — a model of inner and cultural growth that cannot be found anywhere else in the world.”
A model that has been followed everywhere. In this construction, Italy has made an important contribution. And yet today, despite having one of the most accessible education systems in the world, it has among the lowest numbers of graduates in the EU and a stifled social mobility that suffocates its young energies. How aware are we of this?