How many cybernetic eyes does a man of the future need and how to send a robomobile to work for himself? This and many other things are told by leading cryptographers at the All Time Half conference organized by ForkLog.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pPGqwV3dnkWill AI rule the man of the future?
Vladimir Understanding (POSTHUMAN, Sputnik Network: We already live in a world where people consult with ChatGPT on how to act in a given situation. The person acts according to the answer and gets a good result.
When people are guided by their personal beliefs and their ego, they are more likely to get what they expected. And vice versa — the chances of success, it seems to me, increase significantly if you listen to the "opinion" of artificial intelligence. So why should I listen to myself if the AI suggests a better option?
Or, for example, a person turned to a doctor who says: "Judging by my experience accumulated over 25 years of consultations, you have an 87% chance of having disease X, with 10% — disease Y, and what may be in the other three percent, I do not know." Artificial intelligence will tell the same patient: "You have a 98% chance of A disease." Who are we more likely to trust? The choice, it seems to me, is obvious.
It is the same with the courts. From the research popularized by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, we know that the verdict of a judge is highly likely to depend on whether he had a good breakfast on the day of the verdict. So personally, I would prefer that such important decisions be made by a normal objective artificial intelligence.
I am sure we will come to a world where people will do what the AI says. We need to moderate our egos and realize that artificial intelligence is capable of more than we are. That's what it was created for.
Is the future of man a "brain in a jar"?
Vladimir Understanding: We have two ways: cyborgization or death. Those who do not want the first will most likely get the second, that is, they will die. And vice versa. And the meaning of life, probably, is not to die after all.
We are already in a bank — just not an artificial one, but a biological one. Fragile, exposed to external influences, but moving on two legs. Why not move it on wheels, make it impenetrable, protected from radiation, and so on? What prevents us from replacing our natural aging-prone skin with the same, but better: UV-resistant, capable of changing color at the request of the wearer?
Young people rarely think about it, but the older we get, the more clearly we understand how wonderful it is to have a normally functioning body.
What kind of digital immortality can there be?
Dmitry Starodubtsev (cyber~Congress): I believe in a very simple idea of prolonging life — transferring consciousness to a computer. Imagine that you have five devices that you have trained to make decisions based on your data. If you add a high-speed interface to these computers, allowing them to instantly exchange information.
Let's say these models are not identical, but they are 99% similar, and they make decisions through multisig. Of course, you are unlikely to get much pleasure from such immortality, but this is already something more than our abstract ideas about the afterlife.
These are very specific "bodies" with data that will function as long as they have tokens in their account to pay for electricity, if they are computers, or order food, if they are biorobots.
The image is generated by DALL·E 3. Data: ForkLog.If you train a neural network on all Gogol's texts, will Gogol gain digital immortality?
Vladimir Menaskop Popov (Web 3.0): I think that's what he was aiming for when he burned the second volume of Dead Souls. It was about personal immortality that he probably wanted to tell people with this gesture — so that they would continue to wonder: what was it? And in search of an answer, they tried to restore the destroyed text.
Of course, Gogol did not imagine that some kind of artificial intelligence would arise for this, which would also earn a lot of money. But he definitely wanted his manuscript to move to a kind of metaverse.
I think this is a very correct application of AI, capable of deciphering texts or, for example, restoring dead languages so that we can hear how ancient people spoke. That's the most interesting thing, as the man said. If records of Joseph Brodsky's tedious recitation of his poems had not been preserved, it would have been a great loss for world poetry.
So yes, Gogol has gained digital immortality. At least because we are still discussing it and will always discuss it. This is how our historical economy works.
https://forklog.com/exclusive/ai/nauke-vsegda-predshestvuet-filosofiya-gosti-all-time-half-o-tom-chem-horosha-gipoteza-simulyatsiiIf cars work, who will receive a pension?
Vladimir is Understanding: I strongly doubt that such a phenomenon as a pension will persist at all. I think sooner or later we will come to an economy that will not be planned or market-based, but algorithmic, built on artificial intelligence.
We will get the best services and goods at the lowest prices, because AI will find the most favorable ratios, and the economy will be handled mainly by robots. As a result, a person will no longer need money as such.
Let's imagine such a situation. I bought a Tesla robomobile. I use it at most four hours a day, the other 20 it just stands under my window. Why don't I tell him, "Tesla, don't stand around, go work for Uber." And so the car delivers people, refuels itself, pays for it itself.
If it's broken, he calls to have it towed and repaired. If she suddenly doesn't have the money for it, let her take out a loan. Or better yet, let him rent another Tesla and send it to work for Uber.
More than one generation of people have struggled not to work in their old age. Last year, there were mass demonstrations in France against pension reform. People took to the streets to fight for the right to retire at 52, not 57. But I personally don't understand it. What is the pension? What are you talking about anyway?
People just don't know that there is any other way to live. It's not that we don't have enough tools to realize our natural utopias. The problem is that people don't know that these tools are there.
On the other hand, we don't go to some non-contact aborigines of the Amazon and tell them: "Your gods don't exist, here's quantum mechanics for you, let's build spaceships together."
Apparently, the future is unevenly distributed. We have a responsibility to tell people that a better life is possible. But we understand that it will not be possible to save everyone.
The image is generated by DALL·E 3. Data: ForkLog.How many eyes does a person need to be happy?
Vladimir is Understanding: The more, the better. At least three, at most — all the eyes of all other people should be mine. We will be a single entity with the help of decentralized data storage.
All people should become a distributed cloud service with neural interfaces, in which information is exchanged at the speed of light. Which, by the way, is faster than thoughts arise in the human brain.
Will the man of the future be able to create a state without a state?
Sergey Simonovsky (Citizen Web3): In fact, everything is closer than it seems. What we call the state exists digitally. They only lack a properly built Web3. If they get it, they will turn into "states without a state."
Vladimir Menaskop Popov: To quote the great Siberian philosopher Igor Fedorovich Letov: "Kill the state in yourself." That's all you need to build a "state without a state."