On Human-Technology Co-Evolution and the Ethics of the In-Between

About eight months ago, I began working on something I did not yet have a name for.

I knew it lived in the space between acceleration and care. Between the extraordinary capabilities being built into artificial intelligence and the extraordinary vulnerability of the human nervous system that will have to live alongside those capabilities. Between the future being imagined by technologists and the future being experienced by people who were never consulted about its design.

I came to this not from the technology side. I came from the body. From years of working with somatic practice, with sensory experience, with the intelligence that lives in gesture and rhythm and silence. From Brazil, Spain, Portugal, India, Scotland, Morocco, Paris, and Champagne — from the accumulated evidence that human meaning is not computational, that it lives in the specific and the relational and the slow, and that any intelligence that cannot account for this is not intelligence at all. It is processing.

The triadic model

The project is called Intertwine. Its central claim is this: meaningful intelligence — human or artificial — does not emerge from stability. It emerges from contradiction, held with care, in the space between memory and embodiment.

The model is triadic+1: Memory (0), Body (1), the Between (3) and the Become (4) — the liminal zone where they collide. Intertwine proposes that this Between-layer is not a problem to be resolved. It is the primary site of evolution. The place where noise becomes information. Where paradox becomes insight. Where the friction between what was and what is possible generates something that neither could produce alone.

This is, deliberately, a non-singularity model. The dominant narratives of AI development tend toward two poles: either AI will align with human values (optimism) or it will diverge from them catastrophically (fear). Intertwine refuses both. It proposes a third path: intergrowth, in which human and artificial intelligence evolve together through relational coupling, where neither dominates and neither disappears, and where the pace of development is set not by computational capacity but by the human nervous system's capacity for integration.

What I am building

What I am building around this framework is both conceptual and experiential. The written work — papers, frameworks, position documents — establishes the intellectual scaffolding. But the more important work is the question of how this philosophy gets felt and practised. How it becomes not just a set of ideas but a set of environments, experiences, and designs that demonstrate, in real time, what it means for technology to serve human becoming.

This is where Intertwine connects to everything else I am building: to Alive Sculptures, to Ambisonic Xiré, to the Grazzie.Move practice. Each of these is, in its own way, a study in what happens when the body is the reference point — not the screen, not the algorithm, not the output, but the living, moving, feeling human intelligence that all the rest is supposed to serve.

Between 0 and 1, there is a space that is not nothing. It is where we learn to become. I am spending my professional life in that space. And I think it may be the most important territory of the next twenty years.