Dimitris Dimitriadis He defines himself as a futurist and works at the Institute for Futures and Prospective Research (IFFR DAO). He points out that he does not predict the future, but rather he investigates for institutions, such as the Special Secretariat for Strategic Foresight of the Greek Presidency, and companies so that they can anticipate new developments and their consequences. Born in Thessaloniki 42 years ago, he collaborated with the cybersecurity company Kaspersky in its last meeting in Athens and is the author of 2049published in Greek last year by Key Books, translated into English and with a Spanish version planned for later this year. Its subtitle sums up his vision: A hopeful perspective on the future of humanity. This is the message that is being sent to multinationals, EU institutions and training entities with which it collaborates to, it says, help leaders take advantage of new technologies.
Ask. What is a futurist?
Answer. We cannot predict the future, we foresee it. As futurists, we don’t say there is only one future, but futures. But we cannot predict them no matter how much data we have. The important thing is to be prepared, to learn to make better decisions today and to extrapolate thinking, to scan the horizon for the convergence of technologies, social norms and other trends. Because we have all these new things from a technology perspective, but we also have trends from society, social norms or the economy and we need to understand all these forces and scan the horizon to be better prepared. We build scenarios and planning and horizon scanning with governments and with large organizations. We try to facilitate the process to anticipate the future, not to predict it.
P. Do you believe that in 10 years we will have a computer for 1,000 euros with the capacity of the human mind?
R. I base myself on the law of accelerated returns (Attributed to the American engineer Raymond Kurzweil, who maintains that any evolutionary system, including the technological one, tends to increase exponentially. and accelerates the rate of change). At the moment we have computers that perform calculations with more or less the same capacity as the human brain. If we continue with this acceleration, within 10 years we could have a computer with the capacity of all humanity for 1,000 euros.
P. Are there reasons to be afraid?
R. It’s scary in some ways, but it’s also hopeful because this capability in terms of computations and solving real human problems can solve a lot of things, like finding new proteins or curing diseases. If you look at it from the perspective of humanity and how we can use it to move forward, I think it’s really hopeful, not the other way around. Of course, malicious actors will always have access to these technologies, but the good guys, let’s say, or the positive ones and scientists who are working on the other side are doing it only with the human being in mind.
We grew up with the idea of flying cars and we don’t have them. But autonomous vehicles on roads or maritime cargo, for example, are inevitable.
P. In this anticipated future, will there be driverless cars?
R. It’s a great example. As millennials, we grew up with the idea of flying cars and we don’t have them. But autonomous cargo vehicles on roads or at sea, for example, are inevitable. Then there will be driverless cars in cities. Autonomous driving is a great thing because so many lives are lost on the roads. So they have to be developed. They are expensive now because of the systems and sensors they require, but think about the capacity of some technological tools 10 or 20 years ago and now. Now, every piece of this technology has to take into account humans and all the policy guidelines. For example, it’s really hard to have policy guidelines for drones right now. But we’re close and we have to anticipate.
P. And what about healthcare, will it be powered by artificial intelligence (AI)?
R. AI is really good at recognising patterns, so we have mammograms or X-rays and AI is great because it can learn from a trillion images and understand what it sees. But when you want to break the news of a disease, you don’t need an AI or a message on your phone, you need someone with empathy, who you can relate to, who you can trust. The human needs empathy and we will never replace this part.
Humans need empathy and we will never replace this part.
P. And virtual teachers?
R. Virtual teaching is also a big thing. A student can virtually walk around with Aristotle in the agora and, through this immersive AI avatar, learn more because it’s not something you read or something you’re shown; it’s an experience and we learn through experiences. We can build little language models that are specific teachers through a 360 euro phone with eight gigabytes and teach and solve all the first, second and third grade syllabus.
P. Is there any reason to be technophobic?
RWe are technophobic because of the narrative of technology. Sci-fi movies and fiction always need a villain, but in our real lives we need to start trusting our technology because as trust takes hold we will have more education and information integrity. This is a very slow process, but if you want to change an education system you need 20 years, so if we start now we should start with technology and within a generation we should change things. That is why I say we need an international multi-scale approach to how we perceive truth, values, social cohesion, our neighbour and how we see our parents. It is not just about technology.
P.And how is universal access to technological advances guaranteed?
RAccess to technology can be democratized and decentralized through policies. We need to build the political guidelines. For example, we have the AI law in Europe and it is, let’s say, a very difficult and phobic legislation because it has a risk approach and everything about this approach is on the side of fear. But, on the other hand, it has fundamental elements for AI to be equal and more diverse.
P. Is it dangerous for people to replace their human relationships with AI?
RThere are two sides. The good side is that AI can make a person happier or prevent them from committing suicide or improve their social skills by having conversations with AI to be more confident in real life. The bad side is that AI completely replaces personal relationship. But, when we have these two concepts of dystopia and utopia, humans are always in the middle. You can have an imaginary friend or a virtual pet that never dies, but you can learn things from it. I am always on the positive side.
