Browsed by
Tag: social networks

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)

Comments 1 comment
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.
How the Education System Destroys Social Networks – Article by Jeffrey A. Tucker

How the Education System Destroys Social Networks – Article by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance HatJeffrey A. Tucker
******************************

I was at a restaurant for lunch and had time to visit with the waitress, who turns out to be a college graduate from a good institution. She has a degree in European languages. Here she is waiting tables with nondegreed people, some five years her junior, some 10 years her elder.

She is making good money, but so are her co-workers. You have to wonder: given her position, what was the professional advantage to her of those four hard years in school and the $100K spent on them? What were the opportunity costs?

This is not another article to disparage the value of a college degree. I would like to raise a more fundamental question. It concerns the strange way in which our education system has overly segmented our lives into a series of episodic upheavals, each of which has little to do with the other, the value of one accomplishment being oddly disconnected from the next stage, and none of them directly connecting to our professional goals except in the unusual case.

From the earliest age until adulthood, we’ve been hurled from institution to institution in a way that eventually sets young people back from developing continuity of plans and a social support system to realize their goals. At the end of it all, people find themselves back where they started: figuring out their market worth and trying to find a buyer for their services.

Instead of drawing down on accumulated capital, they end up starting fresh at age 22. Even after years of building social capital, they are drawing down on a nearly empty account.

There is something seriously wrong with this system. Shouldn’t our investments in our friendship networks extend across and beyond the stages of our development to make more of a difference in our lives?

The post-graduation diaspora

In a couple of months, for example, many millions of high school students will graduate. Celebration! Sort of. It’s great to finish school. But what’s next?

Many students find themselves devastated to lose the only social group and friendship network they’ve ever known. They worked for years to cultivate it, and in an instant, it is blown apart. They are left with a piece of paper, a yearbook of memories, a transcript, and, perhaps a few recommendation letters from teachers — recommendations that do them little good in the marketplace.

“Don’t ever change,” they write in each other’s yearbooks. The sentiment expresses a normal longing to hold on to the investment the students make in each other’s lives, even as everything about the system tries to take that investment from them.

Is this the way it should be?

Then, the same group, or at least many among them, look forward to college, where they are mostly, again, starting from scratch in a social sense. It can be very scary. College students begin their new experience isolated. They work for another four years to develop a network — a robust social group — to find their footing and to establish both a reputation and sense of self. This is the only world they’ve known for years, and they have invested their hearts and souls into the experience.

The social fabric ends up rich and wonderful, with intense friendships based on shared lives.

Finally, after four years, the graduation march plays, the tassel is moved from one side of the cap to the other, and the whole social apparatus goes up in smoke — again. Then, another diaspora.

Once again, students find themselves nearly alone, with few hooks into the world of commerce and employment. They have a degree but few opportunities to monetize it. Their social network is of limited use to them. All they have, yet again, is a piece of paper. Plus they have recommendation letters from professors that still do them little good in the marketplace.

This not always the case. There are workarounds, and digital networking is helping. People join fraternities and social clubs, and those can be useful going forward. But it might take years for these connections to yield results. The more immediate question is this: What do I do now? Lacking a broad sense of the way the world works, and missing any influential hooks into prevailing networks, a college grad can often find herself feeling isolated once again, starting over for the third time.

The failure of the central plan

This is the system that the civic culture has created for us. For the years from the ages of 14 through 22, students’ primary focus of personal investment and social capital building is centered on their peers. But their peers are just the same as they are: hoping for a good future but having few means to get from here to there.

Why does this keep happening? Looking at the big picture, you can start to see a serious problem with the educational system politicians have built for us. It is keeping people “on track” — but is it a track that prepares people for the future?

A core principle of the education system, as owned and controlled by government, is Stay in school and stay with your class. This is the emphasis from the earliest grades all the way through the end of college. The accidents of birth determine your peer group, your primary social influences, and the gang you rely on for social support.

To be “held back” is considered disgraceful, and to be pushed forward a grade is considered dangerous for personal development. Your class rank is your world, the definition of who you are — and it stays with you for decades. Everyone is on a track as defined by a ruling class: here is what you should and must know when. All your peers are with you.

Many factors entrench this reality. The public school system is organized on the assumption of homogeneity, a central plan imposed from the top down. It didn’t happen all at once. It came about slowly over the course of 100-plus years, from the universalization of compulsory schooling, to the prohibition of youth work, to the gradual nationalization of curricula.

In the end, we find the lives of young people strictly segmented by stages that are strangely discontinuous. Where are the professional contacts that result? Where are the friends who can smooth your way into the world of professional work? They aren’t among your former classmates. Your peers are all in the same position you are in.

Laws that lock people out

The workplace might help to mitigate this problem, but it’s incredibly difficult for young people to get a regular job thanks to “child labor” laws that exclude teens from the workforce. For this reason, only one in four high school kids has any real experience outside their peer group. They miss all the opportunities to learn and grow that come from the workplace — learning from examples of personal initiative, responsibility, independence, and accountability.

There are extremely narrow conditions under which a 14-year-old can find legal employment, but few businesses want to bother with the necessary documentation and restrictions. A 16-year-old has a few more opportunities, but, even here, these young people can’t work in kitchens or serve alcohol. The full freedom to engage a larger community outside the segmented class structure doesn’t come until after you graduate high school.

By the time the opportunity comes around to do authentic remunerative work, a student’s life is filled with other interests, mostly social, but also extracurricular. Instead of working a job, people are doing a thousand other things, and there seems to be no time left. It’s not uncommon for people to graduate with no professional experiences whatsoever to draw on. Their peers are their only asset, their only really valuable relationships, but these relationships have little commercial value.

How natural is any of this?

If you look at the social structure of homeschooling co-ops, for example, younger kids and older kids mix it up in integrated social environments, and they learn from each other. Parents of all ages are well integrated too, and it creates a complex social environment. The parents know all the kids and, together, they form a diverse microsociety of mutual interests. This is one reason that homeschooled kids can seem remarkably precocious and poised around people of all ages. They are not being artificially pegged into slots and held there against their will.

A better way

When you read about the experiences of successful people in the late 19th century, they talk of their exciting and broad experiences in life, working in odd jobs, meeting strange people of all ages and classes, performing tasks outside their comfort zone, encountering adult situations in business that taught them important lessons. They didn’t learn these things from sitting in a desk, listening to a teacher, repeating facts on tests, and staying with their class. They discovered the world through mixing it up, having fabulous and sometimes weird experiences, being with people who are not in their age cohort. They drew on these experiences for years following.

The system to which we have become accustomed is not of our choosing, and it certainly isn’t organic to the social order. It has been inflicted on us, one piece of legislation at a time. It is the result of an imposed, rather than evolved, order. Why wait until age 22 to get serious about your life?  Why stick with only one career choice in the course of your appointed 40 years in professional life? Why retire at the young age of 65, just because the federal government wants you to do so?

Think about this the next time you attend a graduation. Are the students shedding only tears of joy? Or, in the sudden mixture of emotions, is there also the dawning realization that they are witnessing the destruction of a social order they worked so hard to cultivate? Are they also overwhelmed with the knowledge that, in short order, they will have to recreate something entirely new again? Where is the continuity? Where is the evidence of an evolved and developing order of improved opportunities?

The most important question is this: What are the alternatives?

Bring back apprenticeships. Bring back remunerative work for the young. Look beyond the central plan, and don’t get trapped. Rethink the claim that staying in school is an unmitigated good. Find other ways to prevent your heavy investments in others from dissipating; ensure instead that they will pay more immediate returns. Our friends should remain in our lives — and yield a lifetime of returns.

Jeffrey Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email. 

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Tapping the Transcendence Drive – Article by D.J. MacLennan

Tapping the Transcendence Drive – Article by D.J. MacLennan

Comments 1 comment
The New Renaissance Hat
D. J. MacLennan
June 2, 2013
******************************

What do we want? No, I mean, what do we really want?

Your eyes flick back and forth between your smartphone and your iPad; your coffee cools on the dusty coaster beside the yellowing PC monitor; you momentarily look to the green vista outside your window but don’t fully register it; Facebook fade-scrolls the listless postings of tens of phase-locked ‘friends’, while the language-association areas of your brain chisel at your clumsy syntax, relentlessly sculpting it down to the 140-character limit of your next Twitter post.

The noise, the noise; the pink and the brown, the blue and the white. What do we want? How do we say it?

As I am a futurist, it’s understandable that people sometimes ask me what I can tell them about the future. What do I say? How about, “Well, it won’t be the same as the past”? On many levels, this is an unsatisfying answer. But, importantly, it is neither a stupid nor an empty one. If it sounds a bit Zen, that is only because people as used to a mode of thinking about the future that has it looking quite a lot like the past but with more shiny bits and bigger (and much flatter) flatscreens.

What I prefer to say, when there is more time available for the conversation, is, “It depends on what you, and others, want, and upon what you do to get those things.” Another unsatisfying response?

Where others see shiny stuff, I see the physical manifestations of drives. After all, what are Facebook, Twitter, and iPads but manifestations of drives? Easy, isn’t it? We can now glibly state that Twitter and Facebook are manifestations of the drive to communicate, and that the iPad is a manifestation of the desire to possess shiny stuff that does a slick job of enabling us to better pursue our recreational, organizational, and communicational drives.

There are, however, problems with this way of looking at drives. If, for example, we assume, based on the evidence we see from the boom in the use of communication technologies, that people have a strong drive to stay in touch with each other, we will simply churn out more and more of the same kinds of communication devices and platforms. If, on the other hand, we look at what is the overarching drive driving the desire to communicate, we can better address the real needs of the end user.

PongAs another example, we look back to early computer gaming. What was the main drive of the teenager playing Pong on Atari’s first arcade version of the game, released in 1972? If you asked this question to an impartial observer in 1972, they might well have opined that the fun of Pong stemmed from the fact that it was like table tennis; table tennis is fun, so a bleepy digital version of it in a big yellow box should also be fun. While not completely incorrect, such an opinion would be based solely upon the then-current gaming context. In following the advice of such an observer, an arcade-game manufacturer might have invested, and probably lost, an enormous amount of money in producing more and more electronic versions of simple tabletop games. But, fortunately for the computer-game industry, many manufacturers realized that the fun of arcade games was largely in the format, and so began to abandon the notion that they should be digital representations of physical games.

If we jump to a modern MMORPG game involving player avatars, such as World of Warcraft, we find a situation radically different from that which prevailed in 1972, but I would argue that many observers still make the same kinds of mistakes in extrapolating the drives of the players. It’s all about “recreation” and “role-playing”, right?

I think that many technology manufacturers underestimate and misunderstand our true drives. I admit to being an optimist on such matters, but what if, just for a moment, we assume that the drives of technology-obsessed human beings (even the ones playing Angry Birds, or posting drunken nonsense on Facebook) are actually grand and noble ones? What if we really think about what it is that they are trying to do? Now we begin to get somewhere. We can then see the Facebook postings as an individual’s yearning for registration of his or her existence; a drive towards self-actualization with a voice augmented beyond the hoarse squeak of the physical one. We can see individuals’ appreciation of the clean lines of their iPads as a desire for rounded-corner order in a world of filth and tangle. We can see their enjoyment of moving their avatar around World of Warcraft as the beginnings of a massive stretching of their concept of self, to a point where it might break open and merge colorfully with the selves of others.

E-Book Reader

One hundred and forty characters: I know it doesn’t look much like a drive for knowledge and transcendence, but so what? Pong didn’t look much like Second Life; the telegraph didn’t look much like the iPad. The past is a poor guide to the future. A little respect for, and more careful observation of, what might be the true drives of the technology-obsessed would, I think, help us to create a future enhanced by enabling technologies, and not one awash with debilitating noise.

D.J. MacLennan is a futurist writer and entrepreneur, and is signed up with Alcor for cryonic preservation. He lives in, and works from, a modern house overlooking the sea on the coast of the Isle of Skye, in the Highlands of Scotland.

See more of D.J.’s writing at extravolution.com and futurehead.com.

Bitcoin Donations and Direct Sharing on Social Networks Now Available on TRA

Bitcoin Donations and Direct Sharing on Social Networks Now Available on TRA

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
November 27, 2012
******************************

I am immensely pleased to announce two major improvements to The Rational Argumentator. I am grateful to Wendy Stolyarov for making these enhancements possible.

First, Bitcoin donations are now accepted via the address on the sidebar. With this enhancement, TRA has joined the Bitcoin economy and hereby expresses its support of this experiment in currencies that are free of central-bank manipulation and that can truly empower individuals.

Bitcoin donations will be used, where possible, on activities that are relevant to TRA’s purpose. It is still certainly the case that only a minority of participants in the tangible and digital economies accept Bitcoin. However, Bitcoin donations to TRA will give me the ability to productively interact with those who do. The uses of donations may include improvements to TRA’s content and infrastructure – as well as the acquisition of goods and services that are relevant to TRA’s purpose or that reward other creators whose work is aligned with that purpose. (I will post about such acquisitions when they happen.) Sometimes I may need to exchange Bitcoin for USD if this can become an effective way to pay for TRA’s web hosting or related upkeep of the site. No donation amount is too small – and every donation will be appreciated. Bitcoin transactions are intended to be anonymous, but you may feel free to otherwise inform me that you have made a donation, and I will thank you individually.

Because TRA is not a corporation or other formal legal entity, donations are not tax-deductible. But your purpose in donating to TRA should not be the achievement of a tax deduction in any event.

Second, you will notice that it is now possible to directly share specific TRA features via Facebook, Google Plus, and Twitter from the main Rational Argumentator page (without needing to click on the link for the individual article). Hopefully, this will encourage more of my readers to spread TRA’s content throughout their social network and thereby encourage the proliferation of rational thinking and high culture.