Writing forthe public argument

What we should be asking is how we build critical thinking, and how we learn to live with error. As long as we measure only the perfection of the answer and overlook the reasoning behind it, we will have condemned the «I think» Descartes placed at the centre to ride in the last carriage.

For the first time in history, millions of people hold daily conversations with something that speaks like a human but is not one. That space is quietly becoming where we rehearse how we treat whoever answers us.

Higher access costs, weaker bargaining power over wages and the sense of an unbridgeable productivity gap together make fertile ground for social discontent and the rise of populist narratives.

A 30-year-old studying for a technical degree is not only after a credential; they are giving up time with their children or at work to improve their future, in a system that is now closing the door on them.

The fear of being replaced by artificial intelligence is not unfounded; it is felt daily, especially far from the places where the technology is being built.

Where a student comes from dictates where they end up: those who start with the best conditions enjoy every structural advantage, while the rest must offset an unequal school system with exceptional performance.

Give or take a figure, we can always tell ourselves the story we want. Inside an ideological dispute, data is used to confirm existing worldviews far more often than to confront the structural problems it reveals.

If we do not act now to anticipate its costs and benefits and distribute them fairly, AI can become a powerful catalyst for social discontent. Anti-AI populist rhetoric will thrive in that vacuum, finding an ideal enemy in the technology.

Governing Chile with a regional eye is not just about announcing the end of presidential delegates or promising more public infrastructure outside the capital.

Unless we take up the debate with ambition and policies that reach beyond corporate and academic niches, the spread of AI risks becoming an amplifier of inequality.

History is clear on this: extreme movements do not emerge because citizens suddenly turn radical, but because centralist elites stop providing answers.

This did not begin with artificial intelligence or social media: first came conspiracy theories; today it is the passive acceptance of information without reflection or cross-checking.

Perhaps the real debate in this election is not how many jobs are created or destroyed today, but what kind of work can be generated tomorrow.

When the results of 16 November come in, the conversation will not only be about who wins, but about where they win.

On the strategies of polarisation and electoral division at work in contemporary presidential races.

On the role and the effectiveness of presidential primaries in the Chilean political system.

On what the cryptocurrency scandal implies for the Argentine president's political standing.