Answers Nicholas Gorkavogo
Good day. We present to Habr's readers the answers of Nikolai Gorky to questions posed in an interview with him.
DartRaven :
The book is somehow very easy, the issue of providing humanity with energy was solved from a half-kick. Do you think something like this is really possible? That is, a technology that allows you to provide the necessary capacity without (visible) consequences and resource costs?
Nikolai Gorkavy :
If we consider that the discovery of a virtually infinite source of energy I referred to the middle of the 23rd century, it has the right and quite the opposite point of view: “the book states that the issue of providing humanity with energy will be solved slowly and difficultly, for hundreds of years ...” Professor Lwin killed half his life with his tension meter, the queen only helped him in the final stage.
About the reality of such an energy jump. I believe that this is quite possible. Judge for yourself: according to the dominant cosmological views, 96% of the energy (substance) of our world is contained in obscure yet dark forms. Why not assume that sooner or later we will learn to use these forms of energy? There are no fundamental restrictions on this. You can refer to the fact that these dark forms are dispersed and difficult to extract, but this is a purely technical difficulty. Moreover, it can be easily overcome, because I personally believe that these 96% are just a quasi-classical interpretation of the surface layer of a much deeper ocean of energy. Previously, it was also believed that the energy of a hot pig when cooling tends to zero. And then they opened the EMC square ...
elfuegobiz :
Nikolai Nikolayevich, good afternoon. Tell me, why do you think that AI can create? After all, any act of creativity, as a result of talent, implies the presence of a gift, a spark of God. Do you think that the AI ​​will also receive God's spark, or do you look at it from the position of an atheist?
')
Nikolai Gorkavy :
Of course, I am an atheist, as well as 95% of scientists of our planet. Scientists do not use the hypothesis of God to explain this world. But the remaining 5% will never say, looking at the subject of their study - the spectra of stars or cell division - "this is the result of divine intervention." This is not the answer, it is a departure from the answer.
In order to reasonably talk on the subject of creativity, it is necessary to determine - what is creativity? The definition “creativity is the result of talent” gives nothing, because it is de facto a tautology, self-determination (“talent is a gift that allows you to create”).
We divide the work into two parts - scientific and artistic. I see no reason to believe that the future AI will not be capable of creative scientific breakthroughs, even of the highest flight, like the general theory of relativity. Yes, he will be more successful than Einstein! It will iterate over all variants of the relativistic theory of gravity and boldly suggest the only correct one. Without any human doubt and divine sparkle.
Naturally, artistic creativity, closely tied to such purely human feelings and abilities as love, jealousy and hangover, may be outside the scope of AI activity. Well, let it be, why should a person take away his favorite ways of expression? But I suspect that the publisher will teach the "electronic writer" so cleverly to imitate human feelings, that the general reader will take everything on faith and breaks off ...
tick :
In the third Astrovityanka you put forward the slogan "All power to the scientists!" Do scientists now need their own political party? And is there a correlation between success in science and political preferences?
Nikolai Gorkavy :
Where, where did I say such nonsense as “All power to scientists” ?! Cite me to clean this place in the new edition.
I cite a passage (from the third book), which shows that everything that is required by the academic community is 1% of the turnover from high-tech products sold in the world. And all the "power" of scientists extends only to their scientific community, to their "trade union."
“We are establishing the Independent Academy of Sciences - a worldwide organization of scientists, independent of the policies of states and the greed of oligarchs.
We proceed from the self-evident truth that all creators are equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights to their creations. We do not want privileges for scientists, we demand justice for scientists.
The collective owner of the Academy and its results will be the scientists themselves. The results of intellectual work should apply generally recognized copyright.
We proclaim the principle of open copyright: all achievements of the Independent Academy of Sciences will be open for creative and commercial use by everyone, without any permits and approvals. But manufacturers and sellers of commercially distributed products created on the basis of the work of the Academy staff must transfer to it a scientific fee: 1% of the value of the product. ”
You do not say that the Writers Union wants to seize power over the world? All that I want is for scientists to have the same intellectual property rights as writers.
And this is a passage that simply answers your question about scientists and power:
“Tim was wearing a loose shirt and light summer pants. An old thinness already appeared in his face, but, as always, he was relaxed and meticulous:
- Some experts call the political structure of Greenwich City a new noocracy, others - the prototype of a society where insidious scientists seized all power.
Queen Nicky grinned:
- Nonsense. Power must be a plumber in society. Rulers or managers should not dominate thoughts and lives, but ensure the supply of resources and waste disposal. Forcing scientists to rule the state means not respecting them and putting them at risk of disqualification as scientists and intellectuals. ”
I do not think that scientists should have their own party. She will be doomed to a chronic minority. As for the political preferences of scientists, it has long been proven that with the growth of education, people are inclined towards democratic principles in politics. So on average, the larger the scientist, the more democratic he is in personal communication and political choice. Here are small fraers can differ at the same time and arrogance towards their neighbor, and ardent love for their superiors.
ilya42 :
Nikolay, I have two questions:
How do you think, how close are projects like Apple Siri and IBM Watson to the level of the Great Inca? These are only the first steps, or can we say that at least half way?
Do you see any prospects for the development of pedagogy before the emergence of a sufficiently powerful artificial intelligence, accessible to everyone? Now, even in economically developed countries, the teaching profession is not very prestigious and profitable, and the need for quality education and upbringing is higher. How to make society pay more attention to schools, not entertainment and wars?
Nikolai Gorkavy :
I think that these first artificial intelligences are only the first steps. Well, or 10% of the way. While they can not talk to a person on equal terms, they cannot have comparable abilities in qualitative analysis of information. But the direction chosen is the right one, and the current youth will probably live in the era of the Great Inca.
Pedagogy is needed and will be needed all the time - after all, both developed and developing countries need smart specialists - this is their main source of income. Unfortunately, the stratification according to the standard of living caused a stratification according to the level of schools. In the US, there are schools that are comparable in tuition fees to universities - tens of thousands of dollars a year. I am sure that there teachers receive an excellent salary. But there are also free mass schools with a very average level of education and with very average salaries for teachers. Of course, artificial intelligence will cause a surge in school education and a significant equalization of conditions for the education of people from different backgrounds. And it will be good. Because now there is no one society in any country. There are rich people who pay great attention to the school education of their children (a good school causes a surge in the value of real estate around - all the wealthy want to go there), and there are poor people who can give their children only what they can. And there is a state that is trying to reach some kind of agreement with all the parties, but as soon as it tries to take more money from the rich for the poor schools, it collapses and retreats. And again - not society, but specific people (usually poor and uneducated), spending evenings at a miserable TV (it’s just impossible to watch what they’re showing now), instead of reading something and becoming someone else, indulge in entertainment. How to make them get up from the couch? No, we must save the children. And what do you think, why am I writing children's and teen books?
Questions and answers
DartRaven :
The book is somehow very easy, the issue of providing humanity with energy was solved from a half-kick. Do you think something like this is really possible? That is, a technology that allows you to provide the necessary capacity without (visible) consequences and resource costs?
Nikolai Gorkavy :
If we consider that the discovery of a virtually infinite source of energy I referred to the middle of the 23rd century, it has the right and quite the opposite point of view: “the book states that the issue of providing humanity with energy will be solved slowly and difficultly, for hundreds of years ...” Professor Lwin killed half his life with his tension meter, the queen only helped him in the final stage.
About the reality of such an energy jump. I believe that this is quite possible. Judge for yourself: according to the dominant cosmological views, 96% of the energy (substance) of our world is contained in obscure yet dark forms. Why not assume that sooner or later we will learn to use these forms of energy? There are no fundamental restrictions on this. You can refer to the fact that these dark forms are dispersed and difficult to extract, but this is a purely technical difficulty. Moreover, it can be easily overcome, because I personally believe that these 96% are just a quasi-classical interpretation of the surface layer of a much deeper ocean of energy. Previously, it was also believed that the energy of a hot pig when cooling tends to zero. And then they opened the EMC square ...
elfuegobiz :
Nikolai Nikolayevich, good afternoon. Tell me, why do you think that AI can create? After all, any act of creativity, as a result of talent, implies the presence of a gift, a spark of God. Do you think that the AI ​​will also receive God's spark, or do you look at it from the position of an atheist?
')
Nikolai Gorkavy :
Of course, I am an atheist, as well as 95% of scientists of our planet. Scientists do not use the hypothesis of God to explain this world. But the remaining 5% will never say, looking at the subject of their study - the spectra of stars or cell division - "this is the result of divine intervention." This is not the answer, it is a departure from the answer.
In order to reasonably talk on the subject of creativity, it is necessary to determine - what is creativity? The definition “creativity is the result of talent” gives nothing, because it is de facto a tautology, self-determination (“talent is a gift that allows you to create”).
We divide the work into two parts - scientific and artistic. I see no reason to believe that the future AI will not be capable of creative scientific breakthroughs, even of the highest flight, like the general theory of relativity. Yes, he will be more successful than Einstein! It will iterate over all variants of the relativistic theory of gravity and boldly suggest the only correct one. Without any human doubt and divine sparkle.
Naturally, artistic creativity, closely tied to such purely human feelings and abilities as love, jealousy and hangover, may be outside the scope of AI activity. Well, let it be, why should a person take away his favorite ways of expression? But I suspect that the publisher will teach the "electronic writer" so cleverly to imitate human feelings, that the general reader will take everything on faith and breaks off ...
tick :
In the third Astrovityanka you put forward the slogan "All power to the scientists!" Do scientists now need their own political party? And is there a correlation between success in science and political preferences?
Nikolai Gorkavy :
Where, where did I say such nonsense as “All power to scientists” ?! Cite me to clean this place in the new edition.
I cite a passage (from the third book), which shows that everything that is required by the academic community is 1% of the turnover from high-tech products sold in the world. And all the "power" of scientists extends only to their scientific community, to their "trade union."
“We are establishing the Independent Academy of Sciences - a worldwide organization of scientists, independent of the policies of states and the greed of oligarchs.
We proceed from the self-evident truth that all creators are equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights to their creations. We do not want privileges for scientists, we demand justice for scientists.
The collective owner of the Academy and its results will be the scientists themselves. The results of intellectual work should apply generally recognized copyright.
We proclaim the principle of open copyright: all achievements of the Independent Academy of Sciences will be open for creative and commercial use by everyone, without any permits and approvals. But manufacturers and sellers of commercially distributed products created on the basis of the work of the Academy staff must transfer to it a scientific fee: 1% of the value of the product. ”
You do not say that the Writers Union wants to seize power over the world? All that I want is for scientists to have the same intellectual property rights as writers.
And this is a passage that simply answers your question about scientists and power:
“Tim was wearing a loose shirt and light summer pants. An old thinness already appeared in his face, but, as always, he was relaxed and meticulous:
- Some experts call the political structure of Greenwich City a new noocracy, others - the prototype of a society where insidious scientists seized all power.
Queen Nicky grinned:
- Nonsense. Power must be a plumber in society. Rulers or managers should not dominate thoughts and lives, but ensure the supply of resources and waste disposal. Forcing scientists to rule the state means not respecting them and putting them at risk of disqualification as scientists and intellectuals. ”
I do not think that scientists should have their own party. She will be doomed to a chronic minority. As for the political preferences of scientists, it has long been proven that with the growth of education, people are inclined towards democratic principles in politics. So on average, the larger the scientist, the more democratic he is in personal communication and political choice. Here are small fraers can differ at the same time and arrogance towards their neighbor, and ardent love for their superiors.
ilya42 :
Nikolay, I have two questions:
How do you think, how close are projects like Apple Siri and IBM Watson to the level of the Great Inca? These are only the first steps, or can we say that at least half way?
Do you see any prospects for the development of pedagogy before the emergence of a sufficiently powerful artificial intelligence, accessible to everyone? Now, even in economically developed countries, the teaching profession is not very prestigious and profitable, and the need for quality education and upbringing is higher. How to make society pay more attention to schools, not entertainment and wars?
Nikolai Gorkavy :
I think that these first artificial intelligences are only the first steps. Well, or 10% of the way. While they can not talk to a person on equal terms, they cannot have comparable abilities in qualitative analysis of information. But the direction chosen is the right one, and the current youth will probably live in the era of the Great Inca.
Pedagogy is needed and will be needed all the time - after all, both developed and developing countries need smart specialists - this is their main source of income. Unfortunately, the stratification according to the standard of living caused a stratification according to the level of schools. In the US, there are schools that are comparable in tuition fees to universities - tens of thousands of dollars a year. I am sure that there teachers receive an excellent salary. But there are also free mass schools with a very average level of education and with very average salaries for teachers. Of course, artificial intelligence will cause a surge in school education and a significant equalization of conditions for the education of people from different backgrounds. And it will be good. Because now there is no one society in any country. There are rich people who pay great attention to the school education of their children (a good school causes a surge in the value of real estate around - all the wealthy want to go there), and there are poor people who can give their children only what they can. And there is a state that is trying to reach some kind of agreement with all the parties, but as soon as it tries to take more money from the rich for the poor schools, it collapses and retreats. And again - not society, but specific people (usually poor and uneducated), spending evenings at a miserable TV (it’s just impossible to watch what they’re showing now), instead of reading something and becoming someone else, indulge in entertainment. How to make them get up from the couch? No, we must save the children. And what do you think, why am I writing children's and teen books?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/152110/
All Articles