Knowledge is power, but kindness is greater




by Konstantin M Golubev

Revised 3-Oct-2001, 1-Sep-2008, 8-Dec-2010
Published in the ISPIM News in 2001 (
International Society for Professional Innovation Management


Konstantin M Golubev, GKM Research Group coordinator

Email: gkm-ekp at

Web site:


Knowledge; AI; Evolution; Publishing; Consulting

Biographical notes

General Knowledge Machine Research Group was founded in 1986 as informal non-profit institution by mathematicians and IT experts. Now it counts 11 members, including experts in medicine, arts, banking, IT. The aim is research, development and introduction of advanced approach to knowledge presentation and distribution called Electronic Knowledge Publishing. It is intended to provide development of advanced intelligent knowledge forefronts and adaptive learning applications.

Konstantin M Golubev is GKM Research Group coordinator. He is working also as the Head IT Expert for Space Research Institute, Kiev, Ukraine. Author of 7 printed papers on e-knowledge applications.


This paper includes discussion of dialogues between author and many AI professionals regarding base of Artificial Intelligence. USENET newsgroups,,, were used to exchange opinions. Author has tried to clarify place of AI in our world and propose effective alternative. Theory of AI appeared to be closely related to evolution theory, and that was the most interesting point.


“If you understand how it works then it’s not Artificial Intelligence!” - popular definition.

AI was introduced more than 40 years ago, but since then it was not widely used. Author tries to understand why it’s not so fruitful as it was supposed.


Author has tried to provoke AI professionals and placed the following posts. Plain text is written by the author and italic text - by AI people.

“Jeff Goslin:

What makes an intelligent agent(be it human, computer, or otherwise)?

I wish I could answer this question. If someone could come up with an unambiguous definition of what makes something intelligent then I, and a the majority of competent programmers, could go away and produce a program that met this definition. The problem seems to be that people give some kind of definition of intelligence, but it isn't tight enough, you go away and produce a program that meets the definition but people look at it and go, "mmm, no, that's not intelligent, it's missing something."

I'm pretty sure we are all missing something very simple, i look at a lot of AI research that is very heavy on complex mathematics, and still manages to be pretty stupid on the whole. Hopefully we'll get a genius along soon who'll come up with a system that the majority of people agree is intelligent, and we'll all look at it and go "duh, that's pretty obvious, why didn't I come up with that?" It's quite possible that a rigorous definition of intelligence wont be produced until after an artificially intelligent system/agent has been produced.

~Sorabain. Sometimes I think the world has gone completely mad. I think, "Aw, who cares?" And then I think, "Hey, what's for supper?"

“Intelligent tools and beings?

I would like to suggest you our own approach to intellectual activity. It is rather not especially philosophical, but practical. We are developers, and therefore we need applied definitions.

From our point of view, there is no strict border between intelligent and unintelligent existing objects. As evolution researchers Vladimir Vernadsky and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin pointed, the main direction of evolution is intellect progress. It means that evolution begun with very poor intelligent objects like electrons and has come to glorious participants of this discussion.

And what is the difference between electrons and us? We see it in richness of means of interaction with world to keep survival. Electron has only few possible ways to interact and people have millions ways. It depends on ability to percept images of real world, to memorize behavior and results of actions. Would you call inexperienced man wise? Of course, some number of tries and errors is needed to gain experience. Though we think that it is not chaotic process, but supervised by previous experience.

We would like to point out that experience is not a product of simple work of brain, but result of interaction with the world in order to survive. That's why the basis on any intelligence is good ability to percept, great memory and ability to interact with world.

AI seems to focus on the idea to develop intellect not relying on the principles of existing intelligence. I notice that researchers are trying to bind themselves to narrow frames of selected mathematical models, not caring very much what is going behind the windows. For example, publishing is one of the biggest component of mankind intelligence, absolutely natural and widely used. And certainly great experience of many people is included in the books. Why not to try to use it? Why not to build intelligent machines assisting people to survive, which are based on millions ways to interact with nature developed by millions people? Why not to make these machines so convenient in use like books? Do we need intelligent beings that will live instead of us?”

“Intelligent tools help us to survive, multiplying our intellectual abilities. Therefore we are strongly interested to develop them in a great number. And we are developing them taking into account our way of thinking, human way. I see no great reason to develop non-human intelligent beings, that are able to use intellect to provide their own survival.

Konstantin M Golubev”

“Dear Christian,

But more seriously: Anyone who uses an expert system - for medical diagnosis, say - must realize that such a system is only truly useful if it is able produce a diagnosis according to its *own* knowledge, its own 'reasoning' and 'rationality'.

Dogmatism of its current user notwithstanding... If the knowledge of that expert system should happen to be mistaken, it would be better to improve its knowledge base by carefully explaining to it *why* the diagnosis in this case was, in fact, wrong (if it truly was). It would not at all be a good idea to simply patch on a rule that detects that *particular* single case and replaces its diagnosis as derived from the knowledge base by the wished for diagnosis. This process of correcting an expert system by supplying it with a deeper explanation, in the interest of future diagnostic successes, seems to me to be closely analogous to how I, as a human being, expect to be treated when it is about time to correct me, to correct some of my own mistaken 'reasoning’.

I think that systems of purely automatic diagnosis rather dangerous. I have worked many years with machines as developer and user, especially in medicine, and I understand pretty well basic technologies they based on. They all are unreliable. It is like playing Russian roulette.

Much more fruitful is combining abilities of experts with intelligent tools, multiplying their abilities. It is only human expert who may have a right to decide, not machine in any case. The weakest point of humans is volume of memory. We have found from our experience that good doctor can diagnose not more than 300 different diseases. And the total number of possible diseases exceeds tens thousand. That’s why so many diagnoses are incorrect or incomplete. General Knowledge Machine Research Group develops during 12 years tools helping to solve this problem. You may find information at Internet

It is not easy in the most cases to explain why decision was not true. We think that normal human procedure is the following:

1. Examination
2. Producing propositions based on knowledge
3. Ranging propositions, pointing most valuable
4. Verification of propositions in the ranged order
5. Exclusion of impossible propositions
6. Finding the most suitable propositions on the basis of additional examination, special for them

Since in the most cases it is not practical to conduct all possible examinations for all possible propositions, in reality it is used very restricted set. Of course, the more detailed examination the better results, but it is matter of time, resources and possible side effects. The goal of initial diagnostics is to reduce number of possible propositions to reasonable value and to range them by degree of probability. At the stage it is senseless to say about absolute correctness of the most valuable proposition. They all must be verified additionally. And this becomes possible.

If you have knowledge assisting decision at 5th stage, it should be entered into e-knowledge base. But in any case it would not automatically block suggestion of proposition. Every rule has exceptions, man should decide.

>>I think that systems of purely automatic diagnosis rather dangerous. I have worked many years with machines as developer and user, especially in medicine, and I understand pretty well all basic technologies they based on. They all are unreliable.

And so are human experts. The machine usually has the big advantage of being *reproducible* in its performance, which makes large improvements possible over time. - No such thing for humans.

I think that machine diagnosis is built mainly on the basis of so-called discriminant analysis, when attempts are made to get the weights of certain signs to build discriminant planes dividing possible solutions space. Depending on concrete mathematical model, we get absolutely different weights. That's why it is very hard task to build successful expert system, it takes great time and great resources like in the case of MYCIN.

And this approach purely mathematically implies that the more complex expert system and neuronet are, the worse they work. Many-dimensional mathematics is very unreliable.

>> It is like playing Russian roulette.

I think you are wrong. For example the average physician may perform rather poorly in MYCIN's domain. Of course, there may be incompetent expert systems, very much as there may be incompetent human "experts". An expert system is like a 'bottled' expert. Compare this with a book, only it can do some additional processing of what knowledge has in its database and what specific input it is given for analysis. Humans quite often rely on what they find written in books, analogously we should esteem expert systems for what cleverness its developers have deposited in it. In the ideal case, an expert system combines the experience of many experts with the speed and reliability of the computer.

The way expert systems built they can not use knowledge of people, their intelligence is built on purely mathematical models. Please read our paper at

We tried to explain why it is needed to build intelligent machines that assist during intellectual activity of humans.

>> Much more fruitful is combining abilities of experts with intelligent tools, multiplying their abilities.

Agreed, that's, of course, a good idea, as well. Another way of looking at expert systems is simply as such aids for experts - but, usefully, also for laymen. But at some point the tool takes over. Many a compiler, for example, knows the syntax and part of the semantics (e.g. typing) of the computer language it accepts *far* better than any of the humans using it - not to speak of the speed with which it checks programs in these respects. Something similar may happen to human experts in any field.

If MYCIN were really successful, it would be applied widely like many medical machines. But through many years from its development we saw no wider implementation. The main reason as I think is the following: MYCIN tries to replace humans instead of assisting, it is not capable of joining human intellectual activity, it is not intended to multiply abilities of experts. I personally am not inclined to believe what I don't understand. People may explain their thoughts and understand each other, may teach and learn, may verify correctness of proposed reasoning. I can not verify activity of MYCIN the human way.

>> It is only human expert who may have a right to decide, not machine in any case.

I was not arguing about the 'right to decide' that conceivably might be the prerogative of human experts (think of the those wonderful Auschwitz doctors - those were *human* experts, weren't they), but about the question of whether an expert system might not sometimes be, in fact, more *competent*, and very, very likely quicker - certainly more reliable - than your average human.

I think the main problem why Artificial Intelligence is not extremely fruitful is attempts to set humans and intelligent machines as counterparts. Either - either. It is senseless. Only living beings have proven intelligence. Machines are reflecting mathematical models, not more. If the models allow multiplying natural intelligence, they are great, but when they can't do it - they are inapplicable.

>> It is not easy in the most cases to explain why decision was not true.

Still, I think one should try to explain that failure anyway. Post mortems are regularly performed to do some such explanatory work, you know: this is simply *the* way of debugging an expert system - be it a human or an artificial one.

I would like to mention that tens thousand humans have gathered great knowledge about tens thousand diseases. It exists already. The task is how to apply this knowledge to a case of every man.

>> Since in the most cases it is not practical to conduct all possible examinations for all possible propositions, in reality it is used very restricted set.

Well, yes, and this is where the reliability of a machine and its speed when searching a large database might come in handy. - I really can't help thinking of MYCIN...

>> Of course, the more detailed examination the better results, but it is matter of time, resources and possible side effects.

Again, search for possible side effects in a large database of infrequently encountered cases is very, very valuable for the average practitioner.

I mean cost and side effects of tests, they may be painful and dangerous too.

>> If you have knowledge assisting decision at 5th stage, it should be entered into e-knowledge base. But in any case it would not automatically block suggestion of proposition. Every rule has exceptions, man should decide.

But what if that reified figure of 'man' does depend on the machine's knowledge base and reasoning engine, if 'man' cannot competently judge the machine's reasoning - short of performing a search of the database and doing those routine deductions himself, which might be impossible within the time and complexity constraints given? - Then it would not be good enough to simply *dislike* the machine's answer and override it according to one's heart's desire. That would be irrational and irresponsible...

If machine can not explain reasoning in human terms, it's disadvantage. By the way I don't think in terms of productions. I know that answers may happen more than one, and they are all correct, the same man can have several diseases.”

“Justin Heyes-Jones

I don't understand your point here. In a way a book is a machine. It is stored knowledge which we can open up and obtain by reading. Why don't we make machines that are as easy to use as books? Well, the user interface for a book is simple, open it to the page you want and read. We DO have machines that simple. You can read a book on your computer using a postscipt (tm) file and the user interface is not that much different.”

Our point is that some wise people have developed books as machines multiplying our intelligence. I am grateful to them for this. If we are pretending to develop new machines multiplying our intellectual abilities, we should make them really useful and easy to use. And there is great experience of mankind found in books, and also in their applying. We should use that.”


“Justin Heyes-Jones

I find this a narrow view of evolution. Intelligence is not the goal of evolution, any more than flying is a goal. Evolution is driven by the process of natural selection, whereby those adapted creatures which are better suited for their environment tend to survive long enough to breed. Intelligence is probably not even a necessary consequence of evolution.

It is also inaccurate to say that evolution started with electrons. The world is not built up from electrons, but from much smaller and varied particles and fields defined by quantum physics. It is not yet clear, but suspected, that quantum effects may play a role in consciousness and other behaviour in the body.”

I mean ‘evolution’, not ‘adaptation’. If we tried to place beings on evolution scale, probably, we find that the mightier intellect the higher a place. If you can show opposite example - I would be glad. Please note that different kinds of parasites must degrade to adapt, but I would not call them superiors to their hosts. I state that any ability of any being is of little use without intellect. The point is not adaptation to particular environment, but ability to interact in many ways to survive in different environments. The electron is only example to show very little being with very restricted intellect. Certainly electron will resist some attempts to destroy it, but he would never try to avoid positron, he will be glad to meet him.

Regarding consciousness - if some event can be explained with rational causes, it is not necessary to refer to mystical. In principle, our tape-recorder would appear to be mystical 1000 years ago, but we know that it is quite rational. I think that consciousness has rational basis, proposed in the book by Member of Academy of Sciences of USSR M.N.Livanov “Spatial Organization of Brain’s Processes”, Moscow, Nauka, 1972. We use his ideas in our development.”

“Dear Jure,

Humans evolved with power and the needed knowledge. AI evolves with knowledge and the needed power. If AI reaches the human level, it would perform better and safer than humans. Let's be reasonable and let AI live and create rather than letting us live and destroy. Because If AI => humans then it is logical to pass our life work to AI rather to our children. See? Ok.

Thank you for comments. I don't agree. We watched many attempts to develop superhuman - last was SS legions during World War. I personally prefer not to repeat such tragic experiments, resulting in total destruction. And you?”

“Dear John,

But lots of people use evolution to describe everything because they think it makes it sound cool. I think progress would be a more correct term for what you describe

># If you can name living being standing higher on evolution stage but less intelligent, I would like to learn.

Uhm, evolution doesn't have a stage to be higher on. But many point to the fact that roaches would outlive us in the event of a nuclear holocaust as evidence of their evolutionary superiority.

># I think that defending old/sick/weak is the brightest sign of evolution as global process.

I think defending was a good thing too, but it is one example of why I don't think you should be describing what you are as evolution

Let's look in Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion

Pronunciation: "e-v&-'l?-sh&n,

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere

Date: 1622

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements

2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved

3 : the process of working out or developing

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

5 : the extraction of a mathematical root

6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena”

“Justin Heyes-Jones

IMHO we should make machines which run under general principles of goodness, such as respect for others, peace and prosperity for all. Then we should put them in charge of the planet.

I can see your point that intelligence gives a creature the ability to survive in environments which change more rapidly than evolution would allow. Or specifically to build machines and solve problems which require intelligence rather than strength or speed.

I am fairly sure that everything has a 'rational basis' as long as understand the principles upon which the thing in question is running. A good analogy is your tape recorder. At the time when nothing was known about electricity there is no way the operation of the tape recorder could be understood.

In the same vein do we not understand the brain because we don't have knowledge of physical forces upon which it relies, or do we not understand it because it is such a complex entity based upon the regular physics we all know and love?

I love Dolphins, and I hope that we humans are closer to them in our nature than it is supposed. The main advantage they have is absence of private property. That’s why they care for every person in a group and for us also, feeling that we are brothers. I hope, it is initial source of our soul also - all great religions tell the same way. I think that it is not propaganda, but law of survival.

Though we must understand that Dolphins are able to survive in very limited environment, and that’s our task to defend their survival.

As Buddha said - the main cause of suffering is absence of knowledge. I hope no one of us wants to destroy the environment with a special goal - if he is not insane - but there are many lies and foolishness, initiated by some stupid and greedy people. But they are small percent, wanting to make the entire world their private property, and we should disclose them, show ways to survive, to defend the Earth and the Universe.”

“Dear Carl

Evolution doesn't have a goal, evolution wasn't designed to select good species of creatures in a given, changing environment. Evolution happens and those that manage to evolve or adapt to their surroundings survive. Strong creatures evolved, smart creatures evolved, parasites evolved, humans evolved.

Simply being intelligent does not imply that we are the best thing to have evolved thus far. Especially seeing as we seem to have trouble with not damaging our environment. But even if we do destroy our environment, we will simply die – like a parasite dies if it kills its host. Nature will recover, new things will evolve and out of this evolution some new species may arise.

It might even be a species without the notion of happiness even. But if it can live in harmony with its environment and survive, it will flourish and accomplish what we might not.

I would like to attract your attention to the fact, that evolution affects not only animals, but also Biosphere and Noosphere of the Earth. I believe that Earth is evolving in a direction of transformation into one living being, and humans are responsible for the formation of intellect of this being. By the way, it is the main goal of our research group activity. And we are looking for collaborators all the time. Everyone is welcome.

Please think about great number of ecological movements, they defend not only themselves but also the Earth. It’s very hard to see in a kaleidoscope of events a direction of movement, but let’s try. You may analyse this century events - development of high speed vehicles improving people travel, telephone, radio, television, computers, electronic mail, databases, teleconferencing, global computer network Internet uniting hundreds millions people just now, United Nations and European Community institutions. Regardless of intentions of separate persons involved in this development (in many cases profits or military interests) the results are serving to Earth’s evolution. Just think - Internet was initially military network. Is it possible to imagine world without it now? Though we can name many activities opposed to evolution - pollution of everything that can be polluted, wasting of resources on worthless projects and the most dangerous - trying to place hatred against each other and against our Earth into human minds and souls. Don’t you be fooled - competing to destroy someone, leaving him without survival means, is real act of hatred. And it is what many people learn as business management. But what we all really need is management of our local and global survival. Therefore we need true competition - which can better serve for our survival.”

“Dear Virgil,

1. Unfortunately the 'we' that make the machines don't all have altruistic motives. If there is a human involved in setting up the machines there will be built in prejudices and unfair biases.

2. "respect for others, peace and prosperity for all" can only be achieved by a fair and equitable social system. One 'pure' person to make decisions or one 'pure' machine to make decisions falls far short of a complex social system. You must reform every part of society as we know it to get anywhere near your ideal - economic, education, family structure, work ethic, interpersonal communications etc. A few machines that can make wise and fair decisions will not make any noticeable difference. I'm not saying that our current system is evil. It is just way short of your perfect world and has intrinsic mechanisms that ensure it can never be perfect.

I think that we should and might be wiser as a social system. First of all, intelligent people should try to get rid of illusions, to understand and to propagate real world laws. We should not believe those lies that we listen on mass media. I mean that owners of mass media are trying to convince that evil nature is the main attribute of human being, that people kill, directly or indirectly in a civilised manner, each other to survive, that sheets of paper called money rule over the world. Absolutely nonsense! Freedom means following your own nature, but not nature of others. And we are humans, not animals. Of course, there are some rudimentary features of animals that compete over territories in our nature, but human society could exist only due to a co-operation of many people, uniting their intellect and strengths. It is the main advantage of humans. Individual, not supported by other humans, is helpless against hungry beast. Human children living among animals, never become humans, they live exactly like animals. It shows that only living in a human society makes one a human. As Sir Isaac Newton said: “If I can see further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.”

“Dear John,

# Well then thats not evolution in the survival of the fittest sense

You are right. This meaning of evolution seems obsolete. It was used during last centuries to support superiority of developed nations over undeveloped. It resulted in fascism, racism and World Wars.

Please read works “Biosphere” by Vladimir Vernadsky and “Phenomenon of Man” by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - They think that evolution is global process leading to intellect progress. If you can name living being standing higher on evolution stage but less intelligent, I would like to learn. It would be interesting.

#A persistant system does not progress in the same way that a species does. Weakness in a species is cut out by death at the generational level Weakness in a system is not and paradoxically that weakness can grow more in strong systems which are able to pick up the slop

I would like to treat as living system any system including living beings. During evolution it could evolve into living being, though there is no strict border between living system and living being. We all humans are multi-cell living beings, thus living systems, consisted of great number of possibly previously independent cells. Would you like to defend cells of your organism, or let them be destroyed, even if they are sick at the moment? Organism of any living being destroys only cells fighting against him.”

“Dear Robert,

I agree, its off the point but it is obviously true that the intellectual developments in the last 5-10k years have made much more difference in the lives of humans than the last 2 million of evolution.

With the development of human community intellect obviously grows with higher rate.

The rest of the animals don't need humans, and the best they can hope for is that humans don't kill them off. If all humans died tomorrow, the world would be a biologically richer place. I hope this isn't the top of the physical intellectual development, and I would like to help the next level get started. For your concept, wouldn't the invention of a mind to mind interface be very helpful?

Total volume of insects is much higher than volume of all other living beings on Earth. Do you think they are real top of evolution? Do insects care of each other survival or survival of animals? Do animals need insects mostly for other purpose than to eat? Do you know other beings except humans, trying to defend survival of rare animals?

The myth of superhuman race coming always led to great destruction. It was exactly goal of SS legions to produce super race. “Soldiers, I free you of this chimera called conscience” - A.Hitler. ”

“Dear Phil,

At the level of human groups, there just isn't enough stability to warrant the type of altruism we observe. Family units can simply defect if a group becomes insufficiently helpful, etc. On issues such as this, Maynard Smith's ESS or evolutionarily stable strategies provides an effect means of ascertaining whether altruism can be supported or not beyond immediate kin.

Of course we can observe ruthless selfishness, fight in any directions, disappearance of relatively weak beings. It all exists. But this is not direction of evolution, it is degradation. Both tendencies are always present, fighting and limiting each other. But signs of evolution are quite apparent. And our individual choice is where we are going to go.

>> The more evolution progresses, the less space will be for struggle for life, described by Darwin. It is natural evidence of he evolution.

I can appreciate your point of view, and it is one which has been held, even by eminent biologists, at times. But it is also a point of view which has been much discredited in recent times by our best and brightest who have spent their entire lives taking a close look at the matter. I encourage you to obtain a copy of 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. It has become more or less the bible of 'the new synthesis' or neo-Darwinism. Cheers!

I know only one science - learning nature. Artificial bounds between branches of knowledge are great obstacle. There are laws affecting many objects, but some people prefer to think that if that law was found in other branch of science, it should not be applied to his own. Rather odd. I think that there are no bounds between physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. I think that there's no strict border between live and still nature, between simple objects and intellectual beings. I think that evolution concept in original understanding of this word is extremely powerful to explain nature and find our place in the world.”

“Dear Robert,

Besides I have never heard an AI researcher say that inferior humans should be killed off. Most highly intelligent people are kinder than average, not less. I see no reason AI wouldn't follow this trend.

Now it would be good idea to think what is kindness. Jesus Christ said to his pupils looking for superiority: "Those who want to be the first, should serve to all others. Those who want to be over others, will be the last."”

SInce AI would start out as servants, and lack many of the causes of human intolerance, I think AI would be much more likely to be kind that not kind. However this is partly based on my own religion which believes that being good is its own reward. It other words your actions always come back to you in multiples, so if your evil you are going to get punished in this world.

I agree. It is sign of the universe integrity. Every man is bearing with him all previous life.

Thus, an AI with superior intelligence would figure this law(in my religion anyway), and thus try to be as kind as possible. Muddy

Let's think, that every human, if we try to evaluate as modern computer, has over 50,000,000,000 processors (every neurone is a cell, thus very complex) working in parallel mode. Multiply it by 6,000,000,000 individuals also working in parallel mode. You will get total purely human mankind capacity, not including intelligent machines, as 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 multi-processor power. Most powerful supercomputers have hundreds processors.

If you hope that "try and errors" way may lead easily to finding universe integrity laws, it is not very probable. Many 50,000,000,000-processors people doubt this truth, looking for fight justification. What you should expect from poor 500-processors beings?”


1. Main trend of AI is replacement of human intelligence, but not collaboration. Practically there is no mutual ground with great human knowledge. That’s why it’s so hard to implement that. People would resist what they don’t understand and what doesn’t help them to multiply their abilities.

2. Many people consider seriously AI as total replacement of mankind. They are proud to introduce new intelligent beings that will save the world from destruction caused by people. But how many of people want to be replaced?

3. As a rule, AI people treat evolution as chaotic process, having no direction - though dictionary tells quite different. That’s why insects are, by their opinion, at higher stage of evolution than humans are. Does it mean that AI would be somewhat that resembles insects?


We really appreciate Debra M. Amidon from USA, founder of ENTOVATION Knowledge Network, Professor Ferdinando Chiaromonte from Italy, President of ISPIM, Professor Takaya Ichimura and Professor Kazuyoshi Ishii, from Japan - for their kind attention and encouraging attitude.