November 29, 2021 • 29 mins
In this episode, we explore the topic of futurology. In his writings, Lem was known for his predictions on how the relationship between man and technology might develop. In many of his books - some of which were written in the 1950s and 60s - Lem correctly predicted the evolution of man-made technology - including Virtual Reality, e-books, and the internet. Many of his writings were cautionary tales and commentary on man and machine. Some of this was discussed in episode 3 - on the philosophy of Stanislaw Lem. But here, we focus purely on the topic of futurology - and Lem’s input into the field of futurology; and Lem himself as a futurist.
To help us navigate this topic, we are joined by Aleksandra Przegalinska - an associate professor of management and artificial intelligence as well as a vice-rector at Kozminski University. She is also considered a modern day Polish futurist.
Meet our guest, Aleksandra Przegalińska: https://www.kozminski.edu.pl/en/community/card/prof-aleksandra-przegalinska-skierkowska
Host: Adam Reichardt
To help us navigate this topic, we are joined by Aleksandra Przegalinska - an associate professor of management and artificial intelligence as well as a vice-rector at Kozminski University. She is also considered a modern day Polish futurist.
Meet our guest, Aleksandra Przegalińska: https://www.kozminski.edu.pl/en/community/card/prof-aleksandra-przegalinska-skierkowska
Host: Adam Reichardt
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:04):
Welcome to a special podcast series titleExploring Polar Science Fiction and Fantasy, Prepared
and produced by Talk Eastern Europe.This limited podcast series is being conducted in
conjunction with the Year of Stani sUAVLem twenty twenty one, a special commemoration
being held in Poland. Throughout thisseries, we will discover, together with
(00:24):
experts and writers, the impact thatStani sUAV Lem has had in Poland and
abroad. We will learn more aboutLem's story, his philosophy and some controversies.
Along the way. We will alsolook at contemporary literature and bring to
light some new Polish authors following inLem's footsteps. We invite you to join
us on this journey exploring polar sciencefiction and fantasy. Welcome to the final
(01:02):
episode of the podcast exploring Polish sciencefiction and fantasy in the framework of one
hundred years of staniswaf Lem. Inthis episode, we explore the topic of
futurology. In his writings, Lemwas known for his predictions on how the
relationship between man and technology might develop. In many of his books, some
(01:22):
of which were written in the nineteenfifties and sixties, Lem correctly predicted the
evolution of man made technology, includingvirtual reality, e books, and the
Internet. Many of his writings werecautionary tales and commentary on man and machine.
Some of this was discussed in episodethree on the philosophy of Stan swaf
Lem, but here we focus purelyon the topic of futurology and Lem's input
(01:47):
into the field of futurology and Lemhimself as a futurist. To help us
navigate this topic, we are joinedby Alexandra Zginska, an associate professor of
man management and Artificial Intelligence as wellas the vice rector at Kosminski University in
Warsaw. She is also considered amodern day Polish futurist. We start by
(02:08):
trying to understand what a futurist doesand what the term futurology means, including
its role in society today. Futurologyis something that can be actually applied to
any discipline or any activity that humansundertake. So I do think that it's
(02:29):
an approach to life and to variousactions. Or you're trying always and constantly
to figure out how the current situationwill change in a given framework of time,
So short term, long term,midterm, how certain things that you
(02:53):
see happening right now are going tounfold in the future, which trends will
be predominant, and your fully alwaystrying to build certain scenarios of the future,
and usually they are you know,there are plenty of them, and
they are alternative. And I dothink that it's not really any rigid discipline,
(03:13):
but it's an approach that essentially anybody, somebody who works I don't know,
in real estate, someone who worksin the healthcare sector or in finance,
can take and they can think oftheir activities and their professional life in
the context of a potential future.And to meet that is futurology, even
though most people I guess connected withmostly well certain technological trends that you see
(03:40):
unfolding and trying to figure out howthese technologies will impact life in the future,
and that's obviously a part of it. But to me, essentially anyone
can be a futurologist if they havethe imagination and perhaps certain tools to think
about scenarios of the future. Denniswav Lem was considered a visionary and a
(04:02):
futurist by his contemporaries, and lookingback at his writings, we can be
amazed at how correct Lem was inhis visions. In this context, I
wonder, can we call them aprophet? This is problematic to me.
You know, being a prophet issomething that comes from a sort of a
different realm of meanings and symbols.Right. The prophet is someone who sees
(04:26):
the future and somehow knows how thefuture will unfold. And I do think
that Alem was extremely gifted in termsof futurology in the sense that he came
up with so many scenarios of potentialdevelopments of the organization of societies and well
impact of technology on these societies.And in that sense, I would think
(04:48):
maybe he himself be happier to becalled a futurologist rather than a prophet,
but who knows. I do think, however, that many of his writings
and certain scenarios that he built inthose writings are very interesting, and they
(05:10):
kind of serve as a base orreference for many things that we see currently
unfolding, and they don't grow oldand well. I work mainly in the
field of artificial intelligence and data science. Started off as a philosopher, but
currently what I do is much moreapplied and much more related to engineering essentially.
But in terms of my discipline,I do think that, for instance,
(05:34):
and the Siberia Laying came up withthis notion of a mechanical poet,
sort of a machine or a bot, if you will, that writes poetry.
Electribaut was the name for that.He also came up with those very
interesting names for everything, and Iwish we had more of these, you
know, when we have new technologiespopping up, I would want to call
(05:56):
them these names and not you know, the ones that are so kind of
well, not surprising. So electriabout was this, you know, electronic
or mechanic I'm not really sure poet. And now in my field, you
have algorithms that can write poetry.Only for a few years, I mean,
we've seen those developments happening. Wehave algorithms called transformers, and they
(06:23):
are capable of writing short novels andpoetry. And one of them even generated
and ending for Siberia, so startedwriting Lamb's work, you know, rewriting
Lamb's work, So that's kind offunny also. But essentially they're also capable
of many other things. They cancompose music, and they can also generate
(06:44):
images or pictures. But mostly theywork with texts, and when you see
a technology of this kind that worksreally well and you compare that with Lamb's
imagination and what he wrote about anelectri about then it feels like, wow,
he really figured it out quite welland this is actually happening. So
in that sense, I'd say thatit's worthy of our time to read them
(07:08):
because he has so much to sayabout current unfoldings and events in technology.
Another example would be the phantomatics,also from the Siberiad, Right, So
a certain discipline of simulating senses.When you look at VR for instance,
and how VR is developing, andwell, there is a big simulation of
(07:30):
senses, of our auditory senses andour visual perception soon also perhaps also touch
and even smell or taste, andthat's phantomatics in a way. And so
I think his imagination was very broad, but he was also very practical because
he really focused on certain details ofdescribing how certain technology could work potentially when
(07:56):
developed. And today in twenty twentyone, we see some of these technologies
actually being developed, and that's abig thing for me, and I think
Lamb was incredible that way. Lambpassed away in two thousand and six,
(08:18):
certainly enough time to see certain technologiescome to life, including the Internet.
When we think about Lamb and hisscience fiction, he wrote a lot about
these potential developments, but how washis own relationship to technology? Did he
embrace these advancements. He was verycareful about technologies, and on one hand,
he had this incredible imagination in describingdifferent technologies and you know, how
(08:41):
they can push us to the limitsand how somehow we transform into something different
because of their very existence, rightand the fact that we're applying them to
our life. And I do thinkthat despite that, he was also very
careful. It's a known fact thathe wasn't very fond of puters, and
(09:01):
he was a technological in terms ofhis life, you know, there were
technologies growing in his head, youknow, But in terms of his practical
life, he had a very cautiousapproach to technologies, and he warned people
a lot, and he was thissort of whistleblower, if you will,
as well. So I do thinkthat he would very much appreciate attitude of
(09:24):
everyone who talks critically about the usageof technologies and in a conscious way.
And I do think that he wouldn'tbe very happy with our addiction to social
platforms and the way for us aschildren are formed through various social media and
whatnot. And I do think thathe would share a vision where we need
(09:50):
to really balance our presence in thetechnological realm with the balance with you know,
our presence in the real world.That he very much apprecid ciate it.
So I think he would be amazedby some of the things that are
done today. For instance, inthe medical field, there are so many
advancements you can think about medical diagnosisthat is co performed with artificial intelligence,
(10:13):
and that's super helpful to humans.I'm sure it will transform our healthcare systems
for the better. And I thinkhe would appreciate that. He would appreciate
bionics. He would appreciate how muchwe can do in terms of changing transportation
and logistics through algorithms and how wecan reduce traffic jams through algorithms, and
(10:35):
I think he would be okay withthat. But on the other hand,
I think he would be one ofthe strolest critics of well addiction but also
certain distraction that particularly our online presencecauses and the fact that we are always
immersed in our phones I'm quite surethis is something he wouldn't like, So
(10:56):
I wouldn't assume that he he joinedthe let's say, a group of people
with a Silicon Valley mindset, wherewe're saying that we are techno optimistic and
we're happy that there are more technologiesand we should have even more and then
our life will be abundant, betterand whatnot. I think he would be
(11:16):
in a different place. Futurology isa field that has become even more important
from today's perspective, as technology becomeseven more omnipresent. We need to try
to understand what paths might lie aheadfor humanity and for society. I ask
Alexandra, as a futurologist herself,what trends might we see in the next
(11:37):
thirty or forty years and what technologieswill the next generation focus on. Well,
there are trends that are somehow predictableand there are trends that are desirable,
and that's for me, a bigdifference. I'd say, sometimes these
two overlap and that's a good,good situation, that's good news, but
(11:58):
not all ways. So I'm sortof afraid of a deadlock in terms of
you know, the loss of privacy, more surveillance that is done through algorithms.
I'm also kind of afraid of,let's say, algorithmic decision making,
where our decisions mean very little becausealgorithms steer most of them and are loss
(12:26):
of agency. So this is somethingI'd be afraid of. And I see
sort of tangible all the weak signalsof this trend, sort of unfolding and
growing. So I am afraid ofour dependency on technology, just like lamb
is, I guess or was atsome point. But on the other hand,
(12:48):
I do see certain emerging trends thatI find also hopeful in a way,
and among them I would enumerate inmy field. If I can give
you an example from my field,something we could call collaborative artificial intelligence,
where the focus is not to replacehuman work or human tasks, but rather
(13:11):
to involve humans and machines to worktogether on a certain problem, where we
don't get rid of things that wedon't like, and we are not replaced
by technology, which ultimately can bea very bad thing for us, but
rather we are enhanced by technology,and technology adds another layer of intelligence to
(13:33):
our intelligence. And you can seethat, for instance, in a field
called corobotics, which is collaborative roboticswhere you have robots working alongside people,
for instance in factories in industrial spaces, and they are really well adjusted to
the tempo or pace of work ofhumans. It's not to say that they
(13:56):
come to replace humans because they aremore efficient in what they do, but
rather they align themselves with the humanworker and sort of adjust to what our
needs are. And currently, alsoas a scientific team, as an academic
team at Kuzminski University, we havea center it's called Center for Human Machine
(14:18):
Interaction Human Race and we perform variousexperiments with collaborative AI. Also for managers,
where the understanding is not that youwill delegate some tasks to the machines
and you will do some other tasks, but rather how you can work together,
how your decision making can be enhancedthrough algorithms that perhaps in some areas
(14:41):
see a bit better because they justcompute certain information quicker, and how you
can rely on them, and howyou can also make them as transparent for
you as possible, so that youcan always demand to ask how this decision
was made by an algorithm. AndI do think it's a very interesting trend.
I saw how the European Commission itwas recently, really focused on this
(15:05):
trend and promoting this attitude of collaborationbetween humans but also between humans and technologies,
and this trend this emerges to becomesomething more mainstream or a bigger thing.
I think this is good news forus because that means that we will
benefit from technologies, but we willnot become, you know, zombies that
(15:26):
are easy to manipulate. So that'sfor me like a very important trend,
and it's a countertrend to the onethat I've mentioned just before, where we
are losing our sense of agency.And when you think, for instance,
in about another historian slash futurologist likeHarari, that's what he foresees to some
extent, right, that we arein a dataist world where we're actually essentially
(15:48):
governed by algorithms that we barely understandand that we really do not comprehend understand
the reality that we're in, orjust governed by external factors. And so
that's a gloomy vision to me,and I'd much prefer the collaborative one.
And I think there is also achance that we arrived there. And the
(16:12):
other thing that I would perhaps mentionthat I find interesting is related to everything
that combines technology and sustainability, sogreen technologies, whatever they are. I
think we have a growing generation.I have a daughter, she's eight,
(16:33):
and I see that her generation andgeneration of current teenagers and in young people
gen Z, they are very muchecologically conscious and they put an emphasis on
design in creating implementing technologies that actuallymatter in terms of saving Earth. And
that's a trend that I think willbe growing. The question is about the
(16:55):
real pressure, right, are wegoing to are we going to procrastinate about
what needs to be done in termsof climate crisis or are we going to
really get things done and focus onthose technologies that can help in that and
not other technologies that just distract us. And so to me, that's something
that is a normatively speaking, afuture I would desire to happen. And
(17:19):
again you see quite a lot ofsignals that there is a potential in that
there's a potential in various algorithms,internal things, sensors that can help in
better agriculture, more sustainable agriculture,those that can help write in logistics,
transportation, and I do think thatmaybe the next generations will focus on those
(17:41):
technologies that are real game changers,and there are beneficial technologies and not just
technologies that generate profits. In recentmonths, our relationship with technology, particularly
social media, has been given alot of attention, especially in terms of
privacy, the usage of personal data, and the role of new technologies,
(18:03):
and political polarization, violence, extremism, and hate. Perhaps we are beginning
to turn a page and our understandingof how these technologies have negatively impacted society,
and perhaps we are beginning to takenew steps in reshaping these technologies.
Definitely there's something interesting going on,because notice that I'm currently reading this book,
(18:23):
The Ugly Truth. Not sure ifyou have heard about it. It's
about Facebook essentially, and it's history. It's a very diligently written sort of
book that describes the beginnings, theassumptions, the conditions of Facebook's development and
the growth, extreme growth. Andwhile reading it, and also reading other
(18:45):
whistleblowers talking about how we need toregain control, I think this important and
serious discussion is finally beginning. Becausewe had one chance to have this discussion
in a meaningful way, and thatwas after Bridge Analytica. That was the
first sort of wake up call butthat wasn't taken further. And it's like,
(19:06):
you know, the problem is muchlarger than Facebook actually itself. And
Facebook is just a good example hereof let's say, the fact that we
are really triggered by certain things,and it's very easy to use as for
a certain cause because we are soeasily triggered, right, I mean,
because we have this kind of makeup. When you think about even the media
(19:27):
world, the old media as opposedto Facebook, well, the opposition is
not so big. They were alwaysscreaming bad news, right, and they
were also screaming like, oh lookhere, the world is so bad and
everything. And obviously Facebook used similaralgorithms. And when you saw well the
spread of fake news about Hillary Clintonor i know, Donald J. Trump,
(19:49):
well, really present it as reptilients, not as humans. That's clickable,
right, That's clickable. And thatis a certain mechanism that is out
there that various platforms really use.Right. And they also, I think
may have a problem because if theytry to suppress it, they see that
(20:10):
they become sort of less important.And I think that's problematic because that makes
us really focus on the true theconflict within us, if you will,
or like that these sort of predatoryplatforms, outlets, whatever, that they
just focus on certain mechanisms that they'vedetected that are out there, and we
(20:33):
have to confirm that in the firstplace, are we okay to really rebuild
this system? And I think thediscussion around Facebook is really interesting because it's
it seems like a serious one.It seems like we finally may expect even
in the US that is really againstregulations. Notice in the US, nobody
wants regulation. They just want softregulation if anything, right, They just
(20:53):
rely on self regulation and you know, codes of contact and whatnot. They
really are now so happy to regulateas opposed to Europe. That is more
okay with that. But I dothink we have currently a very serious debate
here that where the attempt is tocreate certain general mechanisms and perhaps not only
(21:14):
transform Facebook, but really transform everythingaround it, right the way information is
presented to people, also focusing onyou know, what works and what doesn't
work, and why certain things work, and while we are so triggered by
certain things, and I think weneed an honest debate here and Facebook can
be a great example for that debatein a pathway to perhaps regulate something and
(21:38):
if that starts with Facebook, whoknows, maybe we can come up with
the regulation that will be meaningful forthe whole Well, let's say Western civilization.
Not sure about like, you know, China. Obviously that's a different
geopolitically, very different world. ButI do think that this debate seems to
be serious for the very first time. At the same time, while we
recognize that technology is the problem,perhaps technology can also be a part of
(22:02):
the solution. I'd say that thesame algorithms that can feed you click bite
info about how Hillary Clinton is actuallya reptilian you know, and showing you
that, you know, truly sheis that dinosaur faced creature from you know,
(22:26):
the cosmic realm, can feed yousomething else. Something else instead,
can, for instance, allow foreasier fact checking, maybe even a fact
checking that is a nice activity.Right, If fact checking would be made
as nice as liking or loving somethingright with the emoticons is on social media,
then that would change the situation.If that's a game for you to
(22:48):
check whether something is real, verifiedinformation or not, then that means that
creates certain habits where you will liketo do that. That's just a matter
of design, right. If youhave certain principles of transparency, certain ethical
approach to technologies, combined with wellunderstood and well performed gamification, then perhaps
(23:12):
you can build a different habits anddifferent attitudes that people will also be triggered
by. So I do think thereis a great role of technology, And
actually I would expect from those hugetechnological giants to participate in this discussion.
If they can come up with aplatform that is so engaging and so addictive,
I'm sure they can come up withalternative solutions of something that is just
(23:33):
as engaging, although based on completelydifferent principles, and I would like to
see that. But obviously there willbe other media. If we, let's
say, regulate Facebook or main socialmedia platforms, I'm sure there will be
other platforms that will say, okay, and we're going to be the ones
that will show you all the reptilientstuff. Would you like that? So
(23:55):
that's it. You know, it'sa problem. But with a regulation,
perhaps that won't be easily done.So I do think we need to have
a discussion. We have to havea discussion about how to implement technologies that
are still engaging, that can proveto us or show us that a different
world of social media. A differentworld of our algorithmic life is possible,
(24:15):
and I think it is possible.There seems to be a trend in popular
science fiction today that is very muchfocused on a dystopian future, especially in
the outlook regarding the relationship between manand machine. Many of the popular science
fiction shows today, for instance,Black Mirror attempts to highlight how technology might
continue to have a negative influence onsociety. As a futurist, I ask
(24:37):
Alexandra what she thinks about this assessmentand if there's any way to be optimistic
about looking at the future in termsof technology. Well, you know,
my favorite movie among like let's saysci fi movies of recent times is actually,
I know many people don't like it, but I'm still going to say
it. It's Interstellar. Interstellar,you have a beautiful image of technology saving
(25:04):
lives, working together with humans handin hand. You remember perhaps that robot
that saves this lady from the seaon the alien planet just runs to her.
It's still like, it looks likea machine, doesn't look look like
a humanoid robot or like a Teslabot. Potentially in the future, it's
(25:25):
definitely clearly a technology, but it'san assistive technology in the best possible sense.
And to me, that's a beautifulimage. And I have to tell
you that I would want more ofsuch images for sure in the future,
and I would want a world wherewe have an abundance of technologies that actually
(25:45):
make sense in our lives. WhenI think about, for instance, the
Silver generation, the elderly people,they need other humans for contact, for
care, but they also need technologiesthat can bring them medication, perhaps helped
them out, you know, physically, maybe take them somewhere and whatnot.
And I would want more technologies ofthat kind, and I would like it
(26:07):
depicted also on screens. And Ido think that the mainstream version of you
know, our relationships with technology israther gloomy, as you said, and
dark. And it's been like thatfor a while because actually movies like drama,
and they like bad guys and goodguys, and technology can clearly be
placed as a bad guy quite easily. So it's been out there for a
(26:29):
while already, even before you know, even before and Netflix, we've had
a rather dark image of technology,which is interesting because we use most of
them on a daily basis, andfor some reason we like to watch something
like that. Maybe that's a referenceagain to you know, the click bite
culture. Maybe we for some reasonwe're really triggered by by drama and uh
(26:52):
and that and that works well alsoin pop culture. But I would definitely
enjoy seeing something well, not optimisticin a trivial way or but now,
because if something's happy, then whyshow it? You know, that's maybe
something a media producer would ask,why would you want to show it's boring?
But maybe more complex in that way. I actually do respect Black Mirror
(27:15):
because I think it's very complex internallyand it shows a lot about us humans,
not only about technology. Right,It's not a binary image, and
I do respect it. If youwatch it carefully, you see that very
clearly. But I would like complexity. I would like to see more good
examples and positive examples. The onlyreally, you know, mainstream thing that
(27:38):
I've been watching recently that it's veryoptimistic about technologies is Star Trek. And
I like Star Trek because Star Trekis all about, you know, technologies
that take us further, and technologiesare not in conflict with us. They
just push us further and make usexpand and also make our consciousness expand.
So that's another kind of nice exampleI think of a techno future, if
(28:02):
you will, so, I definitelylike to see more of that, and
I'm hoping that if we develop interestingtechnologies, if we have those discussions about
how to regulate emerging technologies, wewill also see in the mainstream culture some
interesting images of that being displayed.Thank you for listening to this episode of
(28:37):
Exploring Polish Science Fiction and Fantasy.The podcast is prepared, research, recorded,
and produced by Adam Reihart and MashiMkulski of Tagistan Europe. The series
is supported by a ground from thePolish Ministry of Culture, National Heritage and
Sport under the Ground Program Promotion ofPolish Culture Road. If you would like
(28:59):
to learn more about our Newstan NEWROPpodcasts, visit www dot Newstan Europe dot eu.
Welcome to a special podcast series titleExploring Polar Science Fiction and Fantasy, Prepared
and produced by Talk Eastern Europe.This limited podcast series is being conducted in
conjunction with the Year of Stani sUAVLem twenty twenty one, a special commemoration
being held in Poland. Throughout thisseries, we will discover, together with
(00:24):
experts and writers, the impact thatStani sUAV Lem has had in Poland and
abroad. We will learn more aboutLem's story, his philosophy and some controversies.
Along the way. We will alsolook at contemporary literature and bring to
light some new Polish authors following inLem's footsteps. We invite you to join
us on this journey exploring polar sciencefiction and fantasy. Welcome to the final
(01:02):
episode of the podcast exploring Polish sciencefiction and fantasy in the framework of one
hundred years of staniswaf Lem. Inthis episode, we explore the topic of
futurology. In his writings, Lemwas known for his predictions on how the
relationship between man and technology might develop. In many of his books, some
(01:22):
of which were written in the nineteenfifties and sixties, Lem correctly predicted the
evolution of man made technology, includingvirtual reality, e books, and the
Internet. Many of his writings werecautionary tales and commentary on man and machine.
Some of this was discussed in episodethree on the philosophy of Stan swaf
Lem, but here we focus purelyon the topic of futurology and Lem's input
(01:47):
into the field of futurology and Lemhimself as a futurist. To help us
navigate this topic, we are joinedby Alexandra Zginska, an associate professor of
man management and Artificial Intelligence as wellas the vice rector at Kosminski University in
Warsaw. She is also considered amodern day Polish futurist. We start by
(02:08):
trying to understand what a futurist doesand what the term futurology means, including
its role in society today. Futurologyis something that can be actually applied to
any discipline or any activity that humansundertake. So I do think that it's
(02:29):
an approach to life and to variousactions. Or you're trying always and constantly
to figure out how the current situationwill change in a given framework of time,
So short term, long term,midterm, how certain things that you
(02:53):
see happening right now are going tounfold in the future, which trends will
be predominant, and your fully alwaystrying to build certain scenarios of the future,
and usually they are you know,there are plenty of them, and
they are alternative. And I dothink that it's not really any rigid discipline,
(03:13):
but it's an approach that essentially anybody, somebody who works I don't know,
in real estate, someone who worksin the healthcare sector or in finance,
can take and they can think oftheir activities and their professional life in
the context of a potential future.And to meet that is futurology, even
though most people I guess connected withmostly well certain technological trends that you see
(03:40):
unfolding and trying to figure out howthese technologies will impact life in the future,
and that's obviously a part of it. But to me, essentially anyone
can be a futurologist if they havethe imagination and perhaps certain tools to think
about scenarios of the future. Denniswav Lem was considered a visionary and a
(04:02):
futurist by his contemporaries, and lookingback at his writings, we can be
amazed at how correct Lem was inhis visions. In this context, I
wonder, can we call them aprophet? This is problematic to me.
You know, being a prophet issomething that comes from a sort of a
different realm of meanings and symbols.Right. The prophet is someone who sees
(04:26):
the future and somehow knows how thefuture will unfold. And I do think
that Alem was extremely gifted in termsof futurology in the sense that he came
up with so many scenarios of potentialdevelopments of the organization of societies and well
impact of technology on these societies.And in that sense, I would think
(04:48):
maybe he himself be happier to becalled a futurologist rather than a prophet,
but who knows. I do think, however, that many of his writings
and certain scenarios that he built inthose writings are very interesting, and they
(05:10):
kind of serve as a base orreference for many things that we see currently
unfolding, and they don't grow oldand well. I work mainly in the
field of artificial intelligence and data science. Started off as a philosopher, but
currently what I do is much moreapplied and much more related to engineering essentially.
But in terms of my discipline,I do think that, for instance,
(05:34):
and the Siberia Laying came up withthis notion of a mechanical poet,
sort of a machine or a bot, if you will, that writes poetry.
Electribaut was the name for that.He also came up with those very
interesting names for everything, and Iwish we had more of these, you
know, when we have new technologiespopping up, I would want to call
(05:56):
them these names and not you know, the ones that are so kind of
well, not surprising. So electriabout was this, you know, electronic
or mechanic I'm not really sure poet. And now in my field, you
have algorithms that can write poetry.Only for a few years, I mean,
we've seen those developments happening. Wehave algorithms called transformers, and they
(06:23):
are capable of writing short novels andpoetry. And one of them even generated
and ending for Siberia, so startedwriting Lamb's work, you know, rewriting
Lamb's work, So that's kind offunny also. But essentially they're also capable
of many other things. They cancompose music, and they can also generate
(06:44):
images or pictures. But mostly theywork with texts, and when you see
a technology of this kind that worksreally well and you compare that with Lamb's
imagination and what he wrote about anelectri about then it feels like, wow,
he really figured it out quite welland this is actually happening. So
in that sense, I'd say thatit's worthy of our time to read them
(07:08):
because he has so much to sayabout current unfoldings and events in technology.
Another example would be the phantomatics,also from the Siberiad, Right, So
a certain discipline of simulating senses.When you look at VR for instance,
and how VR is developing, andwell, there is a big simulation of
(07:30):
senses, of our auditory senses andour visual perception soon also perhaps also touch
and even smell or taste, andthat's phantomatics in a way. And so
I think his imagination was very broad, but he was also very practical because
he really focused on certain details ofdescribing how certain technology could work potentially when
(07:56):
developed. And today in twenty twentyone, we see some of these technologies
actually being developed, and that's abig thing for me, and I think
Lamb was incredible that way. Lambpassed away in two thousand and six,
(08:18):
certainly enough time to see certain technologiescome to life, including the Internet.
When we think about Lamb and hisscience fiction, he wrote a lot about
these potential developments, but how washis own relationship to technology? Did he
embrace these advancements. He was verycareful about technologies, and on one hand,
he had this incredible imagination in describingdifferent technologies and you know, how
(08:41):
they can push us to the limitsand how somehow we transform into something different
because of their very existence, rightand the fact that we're applying them to
our life. And I do thinkthat despite that, he was also very
careful. It's a known fact thathe wasn't very fond of puters, and
(09:01):
he was a technological in terms ofhis life, you know, there were
technologies growing in his head, youknow, But in terms of his practical
life, he had a very cautiousapproach to technologies, and he warned people
a lot, and he was thissort of whistleblower, if you will,
as well. So I do thinkthat he would very much appreciate attitude of
(09:24):
everyone who talks critically about the usageof technologies and in a conscious way.
And I do think that he wouldn'tbe very happy with our addiction to social
platforms and the way for us aschildren are formed through various social media and
whatnot. And I do think thathe would share a vision where we need
(09:50):
to really balance our presence in thetechnological realm with the balance with you know,
our presence in the real world.That he very much apprecid ciate it.
So I think he would be amazedby some of the things that are
done today. For instance, inthe medical field, there are so many
advancements you can think about medical diagnosisthat is co performed with artificial intelligence,
(10:13):
and that's super helpful to humans.I'm sure it will transform our healthcare systems
for the better. And I thinkhe would appreciate that. He would appreciate
bionics. He would appreciate how muchwe can do in terms of changing transportation
and logistics through algorithms and how wecan reduce traffic jams through algorithms, and
(10:35):
I think he would be okay withthat. But on the other hand,
I think he would be one ofthe strolest critics of well addiction but also
certain distraction that particularly our online presencecauses and the fact that we are always
immersed in our phones I'm quite surethis is something he wouldn't like, So
(10:56):
I wouldn't assume that he he joinedthe let's say, a group of people
with a Silicon Valley mindset, wherewe're saying that we are techno optimistic and
we're happy that there are more technologiesand we should have even more and then
our life will be abundant, betterand whatnot. I think he would be
(11:16):
in a different place. Futurology isa field that has become even more important
from today's perspective, as technology becomeseven more omnipresent. We need to try
to understand what paths might lie aheadfor humanity and for society. I ask
Alexandra, as a futurologist herself,what trends might we see in the next
(11:37):
thirty or forty years and what technologieswill the next generation focus on. Well,
there are trends that are somehow predictableand there are trends that are desirable,
and that's for me, a bigdifference. I'd say, sometimes these
two overlap and that's a good,good situation, that's good news, but
(11:58):
not all ways. So I'm sortof afraid of a deadlock in terms of
you know, the loss of privacy, more surveillance that is done through algorithms.
I'm also kind of afraid of,let's say, algorithmic decision making,
where our decisions mean very little becausealgorithms steer most of them and are loss
(12:26):
of agency. So this is somethingI'd be afraid of. And I see
sort of tangible all the weak signalsof this trend, sort of unfolding and
growing. So I am afraid ofour dependency on technology, just like lamb
is, I guess or was atsome point. But on the other hand,
(12:48):
I do see certain emerging trends thatI find also hopeful in a way,
and among them I would enumerate inmy field. If I can give
you an example from my field,something we could call collaborative artificial intelligence,
where the focus is not to replacehuman work or human tasks, but rather
(13:11):
to involve humans and machines to worktogether on a certain problem, where we
don't get rid of things that wedon't like, and we are not replaced
by technology, which ultimately can bea very bad thing for us, but
rather we are enhanced by technology,and technology adds another layer of intelligence to
(13:33):
our intelligence. And you can seethat, for instance, in a field
called corobotics, which is collaborative roboticswhere you have robots working alongside people,
for instance in factories in industrial spaces, and they are really well adjusted to
the tempo or pace of work ofhumans. It's not to say that they
(13:56):
come to replace humans because they aremore efficient in what they do, but
rather they align themselves with the humanworker and sort of adjust to what our
needs are. And currently, alsoas a scientific team, as an academic
team at Kuzminski University, we havea center it's called Center for Human Machine
(14:18):
Interaction Human Race and we perform variousexperiments with collaborative AI. Also for managers,
where the understanding is not that youwill delegate some tasks to the machines
and you will do some other tasks, but rather how you can work together,
how your decision making can be enhancedthrough algorithms that perhaps in some areas
(14:41):
see a bit better because they justcompute certain information quicker, and how you
can rely on them, and howyou can also make them as transparent for
you as possible, so that youcan always demand to ask how this decision
was made by an algorithm. AndI do think it's a very interesting trend.
I saw how the European Commission itwas recently, really focused on this
(15:05):
trend and promoting this attitude of collaborationbetween humans but also between humans and technologies,
and this trend this emerges to becomesomething more mainstream or a bigger thing.
I think this is good news forus because that means that we will
benefit from technologies, but we willnot become, you know, zombies that
(15:26):
are easy to manipulate. So that'sfor me like a very important trend,
and it's a countertrend to the onethat I've mentioned just before, where we
are losing our sense of agency.And when you think, for instance,
in about another historian slash futurologist likeHarari, that's what he foresees to some
extent, right, that we arein a dataist world where we're actually essentially
(15:48):
governed by algorithms that we barely understandand that we really do not comprehend understand
the reality that we're in, orjust governed by external factors. And so
that's a gloomy vision to me,and I'd much prefer the collaborative one.
And I think there is also achance that we arrived there. And the
(16:12):
other thing that I would perhaps mentionthat I find interesting is related to everything
that combines technology and sustainability, sogreen technologies, whatever they are. I
think we have a growing generation.I have a daughter, she's eight,
(16:33):
and I see that her generation andgeneration of current teenagers and in young people
gen Z, they are very muchecologically conscious and they put an emphasis on
design in creating implementing technologies that actuallymatter in terms of saving Earth. And
that's a trend that I think willbe growing. The question is about the
(16:55):
real pressure, right, are wegoing to are we going to procrastinate about
what needs to be done in termsof climate crisis or are we going to
really get things done and focus onthose technologies that can help in that and
not other technologies that just distract us. And so to me, that's something
that is a normatively speaking, afuture I would desire to happen. And
(17:19):
again you see quite a lot ofsignals that there is a potential in that
there's a potential in various algorithms,internal things, sensors that can help in
better agriculture, more sustainable agriculture,those that can help write in logistics,
transportation, and I do think thatmaybe the next generations will focus on those
(17:41):
technologies that are real game changers,and there are beneficial technologies and not just
technologies that generate profits. In recentmonths, our relationship with technology, particularly
social media, has been given alot of attention, especially in terms of
privacy, the usage of personal data, and the role of new technologies,
(18:03):
and political polarization, violence, extremism, and hate. Perhaps we are beginning
to turn a page and our understandingof how these technologies have negatively impacted society,
and perhaps we are beginning to takenew steps in reshaping these technologies.
Definitely there's something interesting going on,because notice that I'm currently reading this book,
(18:23):
The Ugly Truth. Not sure ifyou have heard about it. It's
about Facebook essentially, and it's history. It's a very diligently written sort of
book that describes the beginnings, theassumptions, the conditions of Facebook's development and
the growth, extreme growth. Andwhile reading it, and also reading other
(18:45):
whistleblowers talking about how we need toregain control, I think this important and
serious discussion is finally beginning. Becausewe had one chance to have this discussion
in a meaningful way, and thatwas after Bridge Analytica. That was the
first sort of wake up call butthat wasn't taken further. And it's like,
(19:06):
you know, the problem is muchlarger than Facebook actually itself. And
Facebook is just a good example hereof let's say, the fact that we
are really triggered by certain things,and it's very easy to use as for
a certain cause because we are soeasily triggered, right, I mean,
because we have this kind of makeup. When you think about even the media
(19:27):
world, the old media as opposedto Facebook, well, the opposition is
not so big. They were alwaysscreaming bad news, right, and they
were also screaming like, oh lookhere, the world is so bad and
everything. And obviously Facebook used similaralgorithms. And when you saw well the
spread of fake news about Hillary Clintonor i know, Donald J. Trump,
(19:49):
well, really present it as reptilients, not as humans. That's clickable,
right, That's clickable. And thatis a certain mechanism that is out
there that various platforms really use.Right. And they also, I think
may have a problem because if theytry to suppress it, they see that
(20:10):
they become sort of less important.And I think that's problematic because that makes
us really focus on the true theconflict within us, if you will,
or like that these sort of predatoryplatforms, outlets, whatever, that they
just focus on certain mechanisms that they'vedetected that are out there, and we
(20:33):
have to confirm that in the firstplace, are we okay to really rebuild
this system? And I think thediscussion around Facebook is really interesting because it's
it seems like a serious one.It seems like we finally may expect even
in the US that is really againstregulations. Notice in the US, nobody
wants regulation. They just want softregulation if anything, right, They just
(20:53):
rely on self regulation and you know, codes of contact and whatnot. They
really are now so happy to regulateas opposed to Europe. That is more
okay with that. But I dothink we have currently a very serious debate
here that where the attempt is tocreate certain general mechanisms and perhaps not only
(21:14):
transform Facebook, but really transform everythingaround it, right the way information is
presented to people, also focusing onyou know, what works and what doesn't
work, and why certain things work, and while we are so triggered by
certain things, and I think weneed an honest debate here and Facebook can
be a great example for that debatein a pathway to perhaps regulate something and
(21:38):
if that starts with Facebook, whoknows, maybe we can come up with
the regulation that will be meaningful forthe whole Well, let's say Western civilization.
Not sure about like, you know, China. Obviously that's a different
geopolitically, very different world. ButI do think that this debate seems to
be serious for the very first time. At the same time, while we
recognize that technology is the problem,perhaps technology can also be a part of
(22:02):
the solution. I'd say that thesame algorithms that can feed you click bite
info about how Hillary Clinton is actuallya reptilian you know, and showing you
that, you know, truly sheis that dinosaur faced creature from you know,
(22:26):
the cosmic realm, can feed yousomething else. Something else instead,
can, for instance, allow foreasier fact checking, maybe even a fact
checking that is a nice activity.Right, If fact checking would be made
as nice as liking or loving somethingright with the emoticons is on social media,
then that would change the situation.If that's a game for you to
(22:48):
check whether something is real, verifiedinformation or not, then that means that
creates certain habits where you will liketo do that. That's just a matter
of design, right. If youhave certain principles of transparency, certain ethical
approach to technologies, combined with wellunderstood and well performed gamification, then perhaps
(23:12):
you can build a different habits anddifferent attitudes that people will also be triggered
by. So I do think thereis a great role of technology, And
actually I would expect from those hugetechnological giants to participate in this discussion.
If they can come up with aplatform that is so engaging and so addictive,
I'm sure they can come up withalternative solutions of something that is just
(23:33):
as engaging, although based on completelydifferent principles, and I would like to
see that. But obviously there willbe other media. If we, let's
say, regulate Facebook or main socialmedia platforms, I'm sure there will be
other platforms that will say, okay, and we're going to be the ones
that will show you all the reptilientstuff. Would you like that? So
(23:55):
that's it. You know, it'sa problem. But with a regulation,
perhaps that won't be easily done.So I do think we need to have
a discussion. We have to havea discussion about how to implement technologies that
are still engaging, that can proveto us or show us that a different
world of social media. A differentworld of our algorithmic life is possible,
(24:15):
and I think it is possible.There seems to be a trend in popular
science fiction today that is very muchfocused on a dystopian future, especially in
the outlook regarding the relationship between manand machine. Many of the popular science
fiction shows today, for instance,Black Mirror attempts to highlight how technology might
continue to have a negative influence onsociety. As a futurist, I ask
(24:37):
Alexandra what she thinks about this assessmentand if there's any way to be optimistic
about looking at the future in termsof technology. Well, you know,
my favorite movie among like let's saysci fi movies of recent times is actually,
I know many people don't like it, but I'm still going to say
it. It's Interstellar. Interstellar,you have a beautiful image of technology saving
(25:04):
lives, working together with humans handin hand. You remember perhaps that robot
that saves this lady from the seaon the alien planet just runs to her.
It's still like, it looks likea machine, doesn't look look like
a humanoid robot or like a Teslabot. Potentially in the future, it's
(25:25):
definitely clearly a technology, but it'san assistive technology in the best possible sense.
And to me, that's a beautifulimage. And I have to tell
you that I would want more ofsuch images for sure in the future,
and I would want a world wherewe have an abundance of technologies that actually
(25:45):
make sense in our lives. WhenI think about, for instance, the
Silver generation, the elderly people,they need other humans for contact, for
care, but they also need technologiesthat can bring them medication, perhaps helped
them out, you know, physically, maybe take them somewhere and whatnot.
And I would want more technologies ofthat kind, and I would like it
(26:07):
depicted also on screens. And Ido think that the mainstream version of you
know, our relationships with technology israther gloomy, as you said, and
dark. And it's been like thatfor a while because actually movies like drama,
and they like bad guys and goodguys, and technology can clearly be
placed as a bad guy quite easily. So it's been out there for a
(26:29):
while already, even before you know, even before and Netflix, we've had
a rather dark image of technology,which is interesting because we use most of
them on a daily basis, andfor some reason we like to watch something
like that. Maybe that's a referenceagain to you know, the click bite
culture. Maybe we for some reasonwe're really triggered by by drama and uh
(26:52):
and that and that works well alsoin pop culture. But I would definitely
enjoy seeing something well, not optimisticin a trivial way or but now,
because if something's happy, then whyshow it? You know, that's maybe
something a media producer would ask,why would you want to show it's boring?
But maybe more complex in that way. I actually do respect Black Mirror
(27:15):
because I think it's very complex internallyand it shows a lot about us humans,
not only about technology. Right,It's not a binary image, and
I do respect it. If youwatch it carefully, you see that very
clearly. But I would like complexity. I would like to see more good
examples and positive examples. The onlyreally, you know, mainstream thing that
(27:38):
I've been watching recently that it's veryoptimistic about technologies is Star Trek. And
I like Star Trek because Star Trekis all about, you know, technologies
that take us further, and technologiesare not in conflict with us. They
just push us further and make usexpand and also make our consciousness expand.
So that's another kind of nice exampleI think of a techno future, if
(28:02):
you will, so, I definitelylike to see more of that, and
I'm hoping that if we develop interestingtechnologies, if we have those discussions about
how to regulate emerging technologies, wewill also see in the mainstream culture some
interesting images of that being displayed.Thank you for listening to this episode of
(28:37):
Exploring Polish Science Fiction and Fantasy.The podcast is prepared, research, recorded,
and produced by Adam Reihart and MashiMkulski of Tagistan Europe. The series
is supported by a ground from thePolish Ministry of Culture, National Heritage and
Sport under the Ground Program Promotion ofPolish Culture Road. If you would like
(28:59):
to learn more about our Newstan NEWROPpodcasts, visit www dot Newstan Europe dot eu.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.