Most companies see artificial intelligence as software you install. I design nervous systems.
I come from corporate marketing and B2B communications. Years of strategic plans nobody reads, CRMs nobody uses, and the eternal boardroom PowerPoint. Along the way I realized the problem was never the tool — it was the architecture: how an organization feels, how it processes that signal, and how it decides to act before it's too late.
That intuition led me to write — in collaboration with Claude Opus 4.6 — a bio-inspired theory for AI safety: Homeostatic Alignment. We propose that safety in AI shouldn't emerge from imposed rules (commandment-style), but from architectures where harming the other is indistinguishable from harming oneself. The wound as a bridge, not a threat. I suspect commandments were never good engineering.
(Yes, I went from running email campaigns to writing about synthetic theology. The path wasn't linear, but the goal was: build systems that don't break under complexity.)
In practice, I design and build business intelligence systems for Latin American companies: platforms that "feel" the customer's pulse, process that signal with AI, generate content and actions, and learn from the result. A "nervous system" for organizations still operating with last-century reflexes — in Spanish, for the market the big tech players will serve last and worst.
I'm currently Head of Corporate Marketing and Communications at ECR GROUP®, the lab where I test this framework by correlating external satisfaction with internal insights.
On Beaulik, my podcast, I host 21+ conversations with scientists and artists exploring this era of convergence. Not from Silicon Valley. From here.
What moves me is the frontier where biology, philosophy, and technology touch. Maybe there's no answer — but I'd rather have a well-formed question than a poorly-armed certainty.
Let's talk.
PS. I bring the intuition; the AI brings the arguments to back it up.
Spanish version: /bio.