Browsed by
Tag: algorithms

Gennady Stolyarov I and Gennady Stolyarov II Discuss the Progress of Information Technology (2019)

Gennady Stolyarov I and Gennady Stolyarov II Discuss the Progress of Information Technology (2019)

Gennady Stolyarov I and Gennady Stolyarov II

On January 5, 2019, I spoke with my grandfather, Gennady Stolyarov I (1933-2025), who was one of the pioneering developers of computers in the Soviet Union, regarding his thoughts about how technology and the manner in which we interact with information have evolved during his lifetime and his anticipations about the future. At the time, when he was already 85 years old, he anticipated technology that would directly read human thoughts, advances in artificial intelligence, and even AI personal assistants, as well as using AIs to compose music and develop new inventions.

The discussion was originally conducted in Russian and translated into English by me.

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, January 27, 2025


Conversation of January 5, 2019

Gennady Stolyarov II (GSII): What is the primary difference between how people relate to information now as compared to the mid-20th century?

Gennady Stolyarov I (GSI): On the Internet today there is a far greater volume of content; it is incomparable with what one would have been able to find in books alone.

GSII: So this gives rise to an interesting question: how to increase the capacity of the human brain to absorb all of this information – since there is so much more information, but our brains remain the same?

GSI: I think that it will become possible to simply read thoughts directly and also to direct ideas into the mind. It is clear that the speed of work of which a computer is capable is incomparable to that of your mind. Therefore, systems will be developed so that, instead of spending so much time pressing buttons, one could analyze the electrical signals of the brain and search accordingly, forming an impression of what one wants to find. The mind already somehow formulates the goal of the search; it should be possible to improve the interface between the mind and the computer so that the computer perceives that goal clearly.

GSII: Even today, it is already the case that the information that one wishes to discover exists. For instance, on my mobile phone, it is possible to locate information on almost anything, but that information is not yet immediately accessible, in the sense that one must type something in, search for something – this is not always convenient.

GSI: Yes, exactly.

GSII: And furthermore, the human mind does not directly absorb the information; one must still read it and be capable of understanding the external content in some manner.

GSI: Yes.

GSII: I think that this is a barrier today, because there is a tremendous amount of information, including on science, current world events, history. It is possible to gather many facts, but the human brain is still as primitive as it has previously been.

GSI: Well, it is very difficult to call the brain “primitive”! After all, we still do not understand how it operates! But it would be possible relatively soon to develop this interface that I described for reading your mind in some manner regarding what you would like to search for. Even now there are attempts to access a person’s data – sometimes regrettably, as this may not coincide with a person’s wishes. However, the information that you access or generate can be restructured, regrouped. This could be a useful underprinning for later reorganizing information in accordance with your wishes and conceptions, into a form that is comfortable for you.

GSII: At present, there exist data about a person on various social networks. There is also information from businesses, from commercial transactions – and there is the question of who owns that information. My view is that individuals themselves should own their data and have the right to determine what happens to them – i.e., if anyone else uses that information, it should be with permission to use it for specified purposes.

GSI: It is necessary to develop an artificial intellect that would be capable of reasoning; right now, you are able to search by keywords – but this process should be simplified further, because it has become tedious to press keys on a keyboard; it consumes far too much time. But I think these improvements will arrive quickly enough. The artificial intellect will be able to sort data in accordance with your wishes and group the information it finds into useful categories. It will remember past queries that were made and related information. You might be making an inquiry about something, and you would see a semantic web of terms – showing you what else exists and suggest what you could search for next. For instance, there could be sidebars dedicated to this, and you would pose a query, and you would be asked if you would like a historical view of the matter – what existed previously, what exists now, what are the outlooks for the future; the system will find all this for you. Every step in this direction will substantially increase a person’s intellectual capabilities. This will be a highly interesting field to pursue, and in my view highly effective.

GSII: There are already algorithms which, if you are watching a video, will show you some related videos. Or you could be purchasing something on Amazon or browsing products there; you would be shown similar products.

In 2014 Google conducted its experiment with Google Glass – glasses with a computer display that showed various information – for instance, data about a place that a person was visiting – but this was a closed experiment for a small group of people that still paid over a thousand dollars to participate. Google did not sell Google Glass to the general public who were not signed up for the trial program, and when Google began its experiment, I think the people who did not have Google Glass were envious of those who did. Those who wore the glasses in public places experienced discrimination and complaints, and ultimately Google ended the trial. I think if Google had initially sold Google Glass products to everyone, then it would have been treated no differently from many other new technologies – for instance, mobile phones. Generally, people are not protesting against mobile phones.

GSI: This is true.

GSII: Was earlier technology – for instance, the large computers from the 1960s – more difficult to use compared to today?

GSI: No, the interface with the computer was far more primitive and quite simple to use. This is one of the reasons I think you are much better prepared than I am to interact with new technologies and devices. The interface will continue to be improved; it will present results informatively, work out associations, group and systematize data. This data processing is all work that you could do yourself, but the system will add value in that it could store far larger amounts of data and, based on the extent of progress in artificial intelligence, help you extract from the surrounding informational universe those parts in which you are interested. It would determine your profile; already the beginnings of this are occurring, as you are receiving automatically generated suggestions. And indeed the more sophisticated systems are already under development; improvements occur with every new operating system, and I often see various updates installing on my computer. I am actually a bit frustrated by this, because after the update is installed, one often has to learn to use the interface once again. I do not like that changes are constantly being introduced, and one needs to somehow adjust to them, and one completely lacks the eagerness to spend time on that.

GSII: Yes, but that will also happen with newer versions of operating systems that will replace existing ones entirely, such as Windows 10 replacing Windows 7 and Microsoft discontinuing support for Windows 7 in 2020.

GSI: This is a well-known contradiction [in regard to updates making a system more difficult to use because of the learning curve].

GSII: Now companies are frequently changing and updating their software, and I think it is easier when they update something that the user does not immediately see and use – such as a system file.

GSI: It is important for the user to have freedom from the involuntary introduction of changes to his systems. If he would like to use the new capabilities, there should be open access to them, but old functionalities should not be impacted.

GSII: Yes. What I dislike most about these updates is that the user interface is changed and previous options are sometimes removed.  Perhaps it may be possible for technologies in the future to help humans better and more rapidly adapt to such changes.

More generally, if through some method, using electrical signals, it were possible to download information into a human brain – so that humans would gain the capability to process information from the Internet much more rapidly – in your mind would this improve the quality of human decisions and behaviors? Would humans at last become enlightened?

GSI: This can happen, but it will be necessary to study and comprehend the brain in greater depth. This is extremely important. Actually, in the future your conversational partner will need to be an artificial intellect. You will be interested in some specific kinds of artificial intelligence, in the sphere of your interests and endeavors. Possible applications are quite varied. For some people, the artificial intelligence could aid in composing music. For others, it could help them track down criminals. For others still, it could help them create new inventions. The artificial intellects will be able to connect, analyze information, prepare data for use, systematize materials that you have gathered, This will be a personalized approach; the computer will, as this field progresses, become increasingly specialized toward fulfilling your needs.

GSII: So in essence these will be personal assistants in the form of artificial intelligences.

GSI: Yes.

GSII: What will happen to the interactions between people? What will happen if every person has an artificially intelligent assistant with access to facts and the ability to analyze them?

GSI: Then the artificial intelligences will establish their own network with the AI assistants of your colleagues. They will process information jointly and also present the results of your reasoning to others.

GSII: It is an interesting idea, that if people have these assistants, the assistants will communicate with one another as well – not just with people directly. This is similar to what secretaries of people in leadership positions might have done in the past, before the actual leaders would communicate with one another.

GSI: Also relevant to the topic of the conversation is a television documentary I saw recently, which showed that there already exist programs to create a simulated environment for a patient – for instance, in response to an injury to the nervous system, it is possible to create some kind of illusory world in which the patient could act and develop some sorts of skills. They also showed some interesting images [of the simulated environments] – so all this is also from that sphere of activity.

GSII: Yes, virtual reality is used for medical applications currently.

GSI: Yes, but the most important thing is that the technology that they are applying also follows the general idea that we discussed. The psychologists and neurologists working on this technology are developing an artificial reality.  This is from the same repertoire of approaches.

GSII: Yes, today it is possible for several hundred dollars to purchase glasses to visit virtual spaces. There are games, educational applications, various virtual worlds. Of course, they will need to be developed further and made more accessible to the majority of people. The technology is still not ideal, but something can already be accomplished.

Pictured here are several of Gennady Stolyarov I’s main medals, most prominently the Charles Babbage Medal for the IEEE Computer Pioneer Award, which he received during his visit to Boston in November 2002. Also pictured here are medals that depict Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Yuri Gagarin.
Gennady Stolyarov II Interviews Ray Kurzweil at RAAD Fest 2018

Gennady Stolyarov II Interviews Ray Kurzweil at RAAD Fest 2018

Gennady Stolyarov II
Ray Kurzweil


The Stolyarov-Kurzweil Interview has been released at last! Watch it on YouTube here.

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II posed a wide array of questions for inventor, futurist, and Singularitarian Dr. Ray Kurzweil on September 21, 2018, at RAAD Fest 2018 in San Diego, California. Topics discussed include advances in robotics and the potential for household robots, artificial intelligence and overcoming the pitfalls of AI bias, the importance of philosophy, culture, and politics in ensuring that humankind realizes the best possible future, how emerging technologies can protect privacy and verify the truthfulness of information being analyzed by algorithms, as well as insights that can assist in the attainment of longevity and the preservation of good health – including a brief foray into how Ray Kurzweil overcame his Type 2 Diabetes.

Learn more about RAAD Fest here. RAAD Fest 2019 will occur in Las Vegas during October 3-6, 2019.

Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside. Fill out our Membership Application Form.

Watch the presentation by Gennady Stolyarov II at RAAD Fest 2018, entitled, “The U.S. Transhumanist Party: Four Years of Advocating for the Future”.

Gennady Stolyarov II Interviewed on “Lev and Jules Break the Rules” – Sowing Discourse, Episode #001

Gennady Stolyarov II Interviewed on “Lev and Jules Break the Rules” – Sowing Discourse, Episode #001

Gennady Stolyarov II
Jules Hamilton
Lev Polyakov


U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II was recently honored to be the first guest ever interviewed on the video channel Lev and Jules Break the Rules with Lev Polyakov and Jules Hamilton. Lev and Jules have produced this skillfully edited video of the conversation, with content references from the conversation inserted directly into the footage. For those who wish to explore broad questions related to technology, transhumanism, culture, economics, politics, philosophy, art, and even connections to popular films and computer games, this is the discussion to watch.

This video was originally posted here. It is mirrored on Mr. Stolyarov’s YouTube channel here.

Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside. Fill out our free Membership Application Form here. It takes less than a minute!

It is republished with permission.

More information about Lev and Jules Break the Rules:
Patreon
Minds
Instagram
Twitter
Facebook

The Rational Argumentator’s Sixteenth Anniversary Manifesto

The Rational Argumentator’s Sixteenth Anniversary Manifesto

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
September 2, 2018
******************************

On August 31, 2018, The Rational Argumentator completed its sixteenth year of publication. TRA is older than Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit; it has outlasted Yahoo! Geocities, Associated Content, Helium, and most smaller online publications in philosophy, politics, and current events. Furthermore, the age of TRA now exceeds half of my lifetime to date. During this time, while the Internet and the external world shifted dramatically many times over, The Rational Argumentator strived to remain a bulwark of consistency – accepting growth in terms of improvement of infrastructure and accumulation of content, but not the tumultuous sweeping away of the old to ostensibly make room for the new. We do not look favorably upon tumultuous upheaval; the future may look radically different from the past and present, but ideally should be built in continuity with both, and with preservation of any beneficial aspects that can possibly be preserved.

The Rational Argumentator has experienced unprecedented visitation during its sixteenth year, receiving 1,501,473 total page views as compared to 1,087,149 total page views during its fifteenth year and 1,430,226 during its twelfth year, which had the highest visitation totals until now. Cumulative lifetime TRA visitation has reached 12,481,258 views. Even as TRA’s publication rate has slowed to 61 features during its sixteenth year – due to various time commitments, such as the work of the United States Transhumanist Party (which published 147 features on its website during the same timeframe) – the content of this magazine has drawn increasing interest. Readers, viewers, and listeners are gravitating toward both old and new features, as TRA generally aims to publish works of timeless relevance. The vaster our archive of content, the greater variety of works and perspectives it spans, the more issues it engages with and reflects upon – the more robust and diverse our audience becomes; the more insulated we become against the vicissitudes of the times and the fickle fluctuations of public sentiment and social-media fads.

None of the above is intended to deny or minimize the challenges faced by those seeking to articulate rational, nuanced, and sophisticated ideas on the contemporary Internet. Highly concerning changes to the consumption and availability of information have occurred over the course of this decade, including the following trends.

  • While social media have been beneficial in terms of rendering personal communication at a distance more viable, the fragmentation of social media and the movement away from the broader “open Internet” have seemingly accelerated. Instead of directly navigating and returning to websites of interest, most people now access content almost exclusively through social-media feeds. Even popular and appealing content may often become constrained within the walls of a particular social network or sub-group thereof, simply due to the “black-box” algorithms of that social network, which influence without explanation who sees what and when, and which may not be reflective of what those individuals would have preferred to see. The constantly changing nature of these algorithms renders it difficult for content creators to maintain steady connections with their audiences. If one adds to the mix the increasing and highly troubling tendency of social networks to actively police the content their members see, we may be returning to a situation where most people find their content inexplicably curated by “gatekeepers” who, in the name of objectivity and often with unconscious biases in play, often end up advancing ulterior agendas not in the users’ interests.
  • While the democratization of access to knowledge and information on the Internet has undoubtedly had numerous beneficial effects, we are also all faced with the problem of “information overload” and the need to prioritize essential bits information within an immense sea which we observe daily, hourly, and by the minute. The major drawback of this situation – in which everyone sees everything in a single feed, often curated by the aforementioned inexplicable algorithms – is the difficulty of even locating information that is more than a day old, as it typically becomes buried far down within the social-media feed. Potential counters exist to this tendency – namely, through the existence of old-fashioned, static websites which publish content that does not adjust and that is fixed to a particular URL, which could be bookmarked and visited time and again. But what proportion of the population has learned this technique of bookmarking and revisitation of older content – instead of simply focusing on the social-media feed of the moment? It is imperative to resist the short-termist tendencies that the design of contemporary social media seems to encourage, as indulging these tendencies has had deleterious impacts on attention spans in an entire epoch of human culture.
  • Undeniably, much interesting and creative content has proliferated on the Internet, with opportunities for both deliberate and serendipitous learning, discovery, and intellectual enrichment. Unfortunately, the emergence of such content has coincided with deleterious shifts in cultural norms away from the expectation of concerted, sequential focus (the only way that human minds can actually achieve at a high level) and toward incessant multi-tasking and the expectation of instantaneous response to any external stimulus, human or automated. The practice of dedicating a block of time to read an article, watch a video, or listen to an audio recording – once a commonplace behavior – has come to be a luxury for those who can wrest segments of time and space away from the whirlwind of external stimuli and impositions within which humans (irrespective of material resources or social position) are increasingly expected to spin. It is fine to engage with others and venture into digital common spaces occasionally or even frequently, but in order for such interactions to be productive, one has to have meaningful content to offer; the creation of such content necessarily requires time away from the commons and a reclamation of the concept of private, solitary focus to read, contemplate, apply, and create.
  • In an environment where the immediate, recent, and short-term-oriented content tends to attract the most attention, this amplifies the impulsive, range-of-the-moment, reactive emotional tendencies of individuals, rather than the thoughtful, long-term-oriented, constructive, rational tendencies. Accordingly, political and cultural discourse become reduced to bitter one-liners that exacerbate polarization, intentional misunderstanding of others, and toxicity of rhetoric. The social networks where this has been most salient have been those that limit the number of characters per post and prioritize quantity of posts over quality and the instantaneity of a response over its thoughtfulness. The infrastructures whose design presupposes that everyone’s expressions are of equal value have produced a reduction of discourse to the lowest common denominator, which is, indeed, quite low. Even major news outlets, where some quality selection is still practiced by the editors, have found that user comments often degenerate into a toxic morass. This is not intended to deny the value of user comments and interaction, in a properly civil and constructive context; nor is it intended to advocate any manner of censorship. Rather, this observation emphatically underscores the need for a return to long-form, static articles and longer written exchanges more generally as the desirable prevailing form of intellectual discourse. (More technologically intensive parallels to this long-form discourse would include long-form audio podcasts or video discussion panels where there is a single stream of conversation or narrative instead of a flurry of competing distractions.) Yes, this form of discourse takes more time and skill. Yes, this means that people have to form complex, coherent thoughts and express them in coherent, grammatically correct sentences. Yes, this means that fewer people will have the ability or inclination participate in that form of discourse. And yes, that may well be the point – because less of the toxicity will make its way completely through the structures which define long-form discourse – and because anyone who can competently learn the norms of long-form discourse, as they have existed throughout the centuries, will remain welcome to take part. Those who are not able or willing to participate can still benefit by spectating and, in the process, learning and developing their own skills.

The Internet was intended, by its early adopters and adherents of open Internet culture – including myself – to catalyze a new Age of Enlightenment through the free availability of information that would break down old prejudices and enable massively expanded awareness of reality and possibilities for improvement. Such a possibility remains, but humans thus far have fallen massively short of realizing it – because the will must be present to utilize constructively the abundance of available resources. Cultivating this will is no easy task; The Rational Argumentator has been pursuing it for sixteen years and will continue to do so. The effects are often subtle, indirect, long-term – more akin to the gradual drift of continents than the upward ascent of a rocket. And yet progress in technology, science, and medicine continues to occur. New art continues to be created; new treatises continue to be written. Some people do learn, and some people’s thinking does improve. There is no alternative except to continue to act in pursuit of a brighter future, and in the hope that others will pursue it as well – that, cumulatively, our efforts will be sufficient to avert the direst crises, make life incrementally safer, healthier, longer, and more comfortable, and, as a civilization, persist beyond the recent troubled times. The Rational Argumentator is a bulwark against the chaos – hopefully one among many – and hopefully many are at work constructing more bulwarks. Within the bulwarks, great creations may have room to develop and flourish – waiting for the right time, once the chaos subsides or is pacified by Reason, to emerge and beautify the world. In the meantime, enjoy all that can be found within our small bulwark, and visit it frequently to help it expand.

Gennady Stolyarov II,
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator

This essay may be freely reproduced using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike International 4.0 License, which requires that credit be given to the author, G. Stolyarov II. Find out about Mr. Stolyarov here.

Nevada Transhumanist Party Interview on the EMG Radio Show – November 7, 2016

Nevada Transhumanist Party Interview on the EMG Radio Show – November 7, 2016

The New Renaissance HatG. Stolyarov II
******************************

On November 7, 2016, Mr. Stolyarov had his first radio interview as Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party. The EMG Radio Show on 91.5 The Rebel HD-2, hosted by Andre’ Haynes, interviewed Mr. Stolyarov for about 10 minutes on the mission of the Nevada Transhumanist Party and transhumanist views on emerging technologies – such as artificial wombs, designer babies, artificial intelligence, and life extension.

The interview begins at 2:00 in the video.

This recording was reproduced with permission from the EMG Radio Show.

Download the interview recording here.

Visit the Nevada Transhumanist Party page here.

Join the Nevada Transhumanist Party Facebook group here.

Find out about Mr. Stolyarov here.

NTP-Logo-9-1-2015