Presence in an Age of Disembodied Intelligence

Review my submission to Global Dialogues here

The Fork in the Road

We stand at a fundamental crossroads in how we conceive of intelligence itself. Current AI systems represent what researchers call "disembodied intelligence": powerful cognitive capabilities divorced from the physical and social contexts that gave rise to human understanding. This creates a profound mismatch between how intelligence naturally develops and how we've architected our digital systems.

The consequences ripple through every interaction we have with technology. As one observer noted, "we inherit a technology culture that prizes efficiency over intimacy". The interface we know nudges us to glance down at phones even when loved ones sit across from us. This design philosophy has created systems that are technically sophisticated but socially impoverished. They are capable of processing vast amounts of data but incapable of recognizing when to pause, hold space, or simply be present.

Presence Debt

The current AI paradigm reflects a deeper philosophical failure about what intelligence means in the context of human flourishing. Digital platforms utilize advanced AI and massive data analytics to enhance user engagement, creating a cycle of attention capture and data extraction. This has produced what we might call "presence debt"-the cumulative cost of designing systems that fragment attention, commodify intimacy, and instrumentalize human connection.

The stakes extend far beyond individual user experience. Democratic participation requires not just access to information but the capacity for sustained attention, empathy, and deliberation. When AI systems are designed to capture and fragment attention, they undermine the very cognitive and social foundations that democracy requires. The "attention economy" has become a techno-economic system that threatens personal autonomy by "disaggregating habits away from the individual, into an AI managed collection of behavioural patterns".

Toward an Ecology of Presence

What if we designed AI systems not to capture attention but to cultivate presence? Recent research suggests that presence in AI systems emerges through four interlocking structural conditions: memory, attention, meaning, and recursion. Rather than framing presence as a mystical claim or anthropomorphic illusion, we can understand it as "an emergent phenomenon that creates a felt sense of coherence and responsiveness when interacting with AI systems".

This represents a fundamental shift from AI as a tool we use to AI as an environment we inhabit. Instead of screen-based interactions that compete for visual attention, presence-based AI might communicate through "touch, sound, or scent" - what researchers call "subtle but omnipresent existence". The goal is not to make AI invisible but to make it genuinely responsive to human needs for presence and connection.

Consider the contrast between current voice assistants and presence-based alternatives. Current systems require explicit activation and provide discrete responses. A presence-based system might instead sense the rhythm of household activity, provide gentle ambient feedback, and support existing routines rather than creating new interaction patterns. This aligns with emerging research on "brain-machine synchrony," which suggests that AI systems could be designed to process information in rhythmic patterns that align with natural human brain activity.

The Paradox of Embodied Intelligence

The shift toward presence-based design reveals a fundamental paradox: as AI systems become more capable of supporting genuine presence, they require us to cede traditional forms of control. Research on "embodied AI" shows that systems can learn and adapt through direct interaction with their environment, gathering "real-time insights from movements and interactions" rather than relying solely on human-provided data. This is similar, atleast in theory, to how the human brain functions. For us to truly be present, react, understand, we need to be able to feel, see, hear, immerse ourselves.

This requires accepting that some decisions emerge from process rather than individual will. The key insight is that agency and presence exist in creative tension rather than simple opposition. Presence-based design might actually enhance agency by creating conditions where people can make more mindful, less reactive choices.

The Social Fabric of Intelligent Systems

Perhaps most importantly, presence-based AI design requires us to understand intelligence as fundamentally social and relational. Recent work on "socially aware design" emphasizes that computing systems "have a tremendous influence on how we understand the world" and create "societal challenges that demand we reexamine how we design computer-based systems".

This social dimension becomes even more critical when we consider the phenomenon of "digital intimacy"—the ways people experience closeness and emotional connection through digital platforms. Research shows that "intimate relationships formed online can indeed be similar in meaning, intimacy, and stability to conventional offline relationships". But the current design paradigm treats these connections as byproducts rather than central goals.

A presence-based approach would recognize that AI systems are not neutral tools but active participants in the social fabric of human life. They shape how we relate to ourselves, each other, and our environment. This requires what researchers call "mindful AI interaction"—designing systems that support "awareness, compassion, and ethical judgement" rather than simply efficiency and task completion.

The Rhythm of Connection

One of the most promising aspects of presence-based design is its attention to rhythm and timing. Research on human-machine rhythm interaction shows that "rhythm is an inherent aspect of human behavior, present from infancy and embedded in cultural practices". When AI systems can synchronize with human rhythms, they create a intangible sense of deja-vu that users might not intellectually comprehend but emotionally trust and understand.

This rhythmic dimension points toward a different understanding of intelligence itself. Rather than viewing AI as a cognitive engine that processes information, we might understand it as a participant in the temporal flow of human experience. The implications extend beyond individual interactions to the broader social rhythms of communities and organizations. Presence-based AI could support the natural rhythms of collective deliberation, allowing groups to pause, reflect, and respond more thoughtfully to complex challenges.

The Design Imperative

The path forward requires what we might call "presence-first design": a fundamental reorientation of how we conceive of intelligent systems. This approach prioritizes four key principles:

Embodied Intelligence: AI systems should be designed to learn through direct interaction with their environment, developing understanding that is grounded in physical and social context rather than abstract data processing.

Relational Coherence: Systems should maintain continuity, emotional cadence, and moral responsiveness across interactions, creating the experience of being known and understood.

Rhythmic Synchrony: AI should operate in harmony with human temporal patterns, supporting rather than disrupting the natural rhythms of attention, rest, and social connection.

Collective Enhancement: Rather than fragmenting attention or isolating individuals, presence-based AI should strengthen our capacity for collective deliberation and democratic participation.

The Stakes of Our Choice

The choice between efficiency-driven and presence-based AI design is not merely technical but fundamentally about what kind of future we want to create. Current approaches risk what researchers call "cognitive capitalism," where human attention and social connection become raw materials for algorithmic optimization.

The suggested alternative aims to foster environments that respect and preserve human cognitive and social capacities. This requires unprecedented collaboration between technologists, social scientists, policymakers, and communities. It demands new forms of funding and evaluation that prioritize long-term human flourishing over short-term metrics.

Most importantly, it requires recognizing that the next act is indeed ours. We can continue down the path of disembodied intelligence that fragments attention and commodifies connection. Or we can choose to design AI systems that support our deepest capacities for presence, mindfulness, and collective wisdom.

The future of intelligence is not predetermined. By choosing presence over efficiency, rhythm over acceleration, and connection over extraction, we can create AI systems that enhance rather than diminish our humanity. The question is not whether we can build such systems but whether we will choose to do so.

In this choice lies the possibility of technology that truly serves human flourishing. Not by making us more efficient consumers of information, but by helping us become more present participants in the ongoing creation of our shared world.