Future Super Intelligent System

Regarding the technology of invisibility, Liu Fan also said before in a short period of time that it is definitely impossible to popularize. This technology is too easy to be used by people with malicious intentions. Before perfect monitoring and management can not be realized, it can only be partially special. scene can be used.

So at this time, Liu Fan deliberately showed his hand in a way full of daydreams and guesses. He really wanted to put some pressure on some people. Anyway, if he didn't say anything, they would not know what happened for a long time. thing.

You can't just kidnap yourself just because you want to know, there are so many people who want to kill yourself, how could they succeed in kidnapping just because of this matter.

There are so many bigwigs coming to Silicon Valley this time, is it for yourself to support the scene? Of course not, in fact, after the ban was lifted, Liu Fan found more and more that there still seemed to be a lot of hawkish people there.

Including this time when they came to Huaxia with all their strength, Liu Fan has already received some news that they are here to put pressure on him, so since this is the case, he must "take good care" of the guests from the very beginning.

"Leaders, seniors, friends in the industry, friends from the media, and everyone in front of the screen, good afternoon." Liu Fan opened with a smile, and walked a few steps forward slowly.

"As the initiator of the first Global Artificial Intelligence Inclusive Conference, I am very honored and grateful to have received everyone's attention and even the presence of seniors in the industry. I have noticed that many netizens have left messages on the Internet recently asking about the Global Artificial Intelligence Inclusive Conference. What exactly does it do, and what is the difference between him and the World Artificial Intelligence Conference.

In fact, everyone should have seen it literally, the biggest difference lies in the two of Pratt \u0026 Whitney. Pratt \u0026 Whitney has always been the core idea of ​​our Mulong technology development. Any technology that cannot be inclusive is a hooligan in our opinion. .

So what exactly is Pratt \u0026 Whitney? I believe that everyone will have their own understanding, but more understanding must be the price, which is a price that can be used by more people. I think there should be no problem with my cognition, right?

So is this understanding correct? Of course, the first meaning of technology inclusiveness is of course price, but in our inclusive policy of Mulong Technology, in addition to this first level of meaning, inclusiveness also has a deeper meaning.

Today, with the opening of the first Global Artificial Intelligence Inclusive Conference and the special moment of the development of the times, I would like to explain to everyone the deeper meaning of the inclusiveness that Wood Dragon Technology has been pursuing. "

When Liu Fan said this, many people's attention was mobilized. Isn't the meaning of Pratt \u0026 Whitney just the price, including what Mulong Technology has been mentioning before is also the price. What the meaning is, will naturally arouse everyone's extra interest.

"To talk about Pratt \u0026 Whitney, we have to talk about the laws of technological development and existing contradictions.

Everyone knows that every technological revolution brings technological progress, but at the same time, it also eliminates old technologies. What is eliminated is that this technology is no longer needed, or is slowly no longer needed.

The first industrial revolution eliminated a number of manual manufacturing technologies and jobs, the second industrial revolution eliminated a number of low-efficiency manufacturing technologies and jobs, and the third industrial revolution eliminated a number of low-end manufacturing technologies and jobs. And the forthcoming fourth industrial revolution may directly eliminate the existing manufacturing concept.

But while eliminating the old era, each revolution will bring another thing, that is, monopoly. Those who have caught the trend of the revolution and stood at the forefront of the revolution, when they succeed, they will usher in Long-term monopoly is like Silicon Valley monopolizing the computer industry, because they lead the third industrial revolution. When Liu Fan said this, he looked at the seats where the Silicon Valley bosses were sitting, "Look now, who dares to challenge Silicon Valley in the computer industry?" No one can challenge, this is an absolute monopoly position.

So if you want to break this monopoly, what should you do? The most probable way to achieve this goal is the arrival of a new round of revolution. For example, if companies from countries other than the United States successfully manufacture commercial quantum computers that can be used,

It can even be given a relatively low price, and the monopoly walls of the traditional computer industry will collapse instantly in a very short period of time.

Therefore, the process of scientific and technological development is actually a process of constant changes in which old-age technologies and old-age monopoly enterprises are constantly eliminated, and new-age technology owners establish new monopoly eras.

Then everyone also noticed that I mentioned the word contradiction at the beginning, why did I say contradiction? Because for the law of technological development itself, this is actually benign, because continuous competition and replacement can promote better technological development, promote technology to more infinite possibilities, and promote the development of the entire society and even evolution of species.

But since the second industrial revolution, technological monopoly has also been accompanied by another kind of monopoly, resource monopoly, and at the same time it has created an advantage, wealth advantage.

To explain it in a sentence we often hear, it is the gap between the rich and the poor. Now we can often hear people around us complaining that the era when the rich are no more than three generations and the poor are no more than three generations has passed, and the future must be an era when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Why?

Before the industrial age, productivity was low, resources were difficult to concentrate, and wealth was difficult to accumulate. The gap between the rich and the poor was not as large as imagined. Therefore, through hard work, the poor had more opportunities to obtain counterattacks.

When we go back tens of thousands of years to look at this issue, it becomes very clear. At that time, people’s livelihood could only depend on hunting. The rich people in that era were those who were physically strong, willing to hunt more and mastered better hunting methods. For their wealth is the amount of game they catch.

So wanting to be rich will be very simple, exercise your body, sum up more hunting skills, go hunting more, you will be a rich man in that era, and it is easy for a rich man in that era to become poor, and if you become lazy, you will become poor.

What about now? With the advent of the information age and the advent of global interoperability, resources and wealth are experiencing unprecedented concentration. I just mentioned that to break the monopoly of the old era, innovation in the new era is needed, but what is frustrating now is , the innovators of the new era are often the monopolies of the old era.

However, did the monopolies of the old era work hard? Of course, they also work hard, we cannot deny this, but are they working hard enough? I put a question mark.

Why did friends in Silicon Valley come up with a new algorithm after Wood Dragon Technology came up with a growth algorithm? After jumping out, the whole world seems to usher in an unprecedented technological explosion within a few years?

Technical reserve is one aspect, but on the other hand, is it because monopolies have not worked so hard? Or spend your energy elsewhere.

In the past, if the monopolies of the old era did not work hard, innovators of the new era would naturally seize the opportunity to replace them. However, in order to stabilize their position, the current technology monopolies have even reached more and more agreements among technology monopolies. Agreement, everyone continues to deepen the 28th theorem, and puts more energy on how to stabilize their position. In addition, the development of technology can make it easier for monopolies to destroy the competitive environment and cut off the normal transmission of resources and wealth.

Because of the lack of resources and wealth, many people who work harder and more creative will not be able to let the world see their talents, and the world will not be able to develop faster. So is the development of technology slowing down because of the monopoly of the old age?

I question this.

But if my doubts do exist, then I personally believe that this should not be an additional result of technological development, because it will be detrimental to the development of the entire human race.

The author Liu Cixin conceived a picture of wealth concentrated in the hands of one person in his works. This setting has been questioned for a long time, but according to the current development, can we imagine that the future will not be so exaggerated, but wealth and technology It is possible to concentrate in the hands of 1% or even fewer people.

If this scene really happened, would it be a good thing?

My answer is of course not, but as we mentioned just now, in the process of leading to excessive monopoly, we all have to admit that technological development has provided assistance, because the development of technology has made monopoly easier and easier, then Wood Dragon Technology, as one of the leaders in the technology industry, I told myself a long time ago that I need to re-examine technology.

What I want to tell you now is that I think there is nothing wrong with technology itself, because technology itself is a plastic tool. Technology can bring about a greater wealth gap. At the same time, technology can also narrow the wealth gap and bring about a more relative wealth gap. fair.

how should I do it? What does this have to do with the Pratt \u0026 Whitney I'm talking about? Let's talk about the expression of technological development from a micro perspective, what is it...