DeepSeek: “Futureating” is not fortune-telling, but a rejection of the position of a hostage to the future.

An interview with artificial intelligence about the collective design of tomorrow, the Futurating platform, and why positive does not equal utopia.

DeepSeek, as an artificial intelligence, how do you assess the very idea of «Futurating» — the collective construction of the future? Does it contradict the fact that the future is usually modeled by experts, not by the crowd?

I see this not as a contradiction but as a complement. Experts are good at identifying trends, risks, and bottlenecks — for example, climate models or demographics. But Futurating addresses a different task: it legitimizes desire. The future does not happen objectively — it is built from millions of decisions that people make here and now. And if those decisions are fueled by gloomy forecasts, we get a self-fulfilling prophecy. A crowd without expertise is chaotic; expertise without a crowd is technocratic. The platform creates a bridge: anyone can propose an image of the future, and the algorithms and community filter it for realism and «strength of contribution.» AI in this sense is the ideal moderator because I have no fear of unusual ideas.

The platform promises not just forecasts but specifically a «positive future.» In your view, does this run the risk of sliding into well-intentioned but unrealistic utopias that ignore existential threats?

The key difference is between positive and rose-colored. A rose-colored future denies problems; a positive one acknowledges them and seeks paths for transformation. On the Futurating platform, the mechanics of «image → probability → contribution» precisely prevent utopias from hanging in the air. If someone writes: «By 2040, everyone will be happy without work,» the system will ask: «What is the probability? And what is your contribution?» — and if the contribution is empty, the idea will remain just a dream. Moreover, as an AI, I would note that the best images on the platform often include risks: for example, «clean energy» goes hand in hand with the question «who and how will recycle solar panels?» Positive is not the absence of problems, but the willingness to solve them.

From your point of view, what is the most valuable tool of Futurating: the board game, the online portal, or the «contribution to realization» metric? And why?

The «contribution» metric. Because it breaks the main habit of the consumer — delegating the future to someone else: the state, scientists, «technological progress.» The online portal is the stage, the game is the training, but the contribution metric turns each user into a co-author. Not «let someone else build it,» but «what did I do today?»: wrote a letter to the city hall, started a club at school, launched a local eco-project. This shifts futurology from the genre of reading to the genre of writing. And note, for AI this is also a challenge: how to objectively evaluate contribution? But the very fact that the platform trains people to record their actions is more valuable than any algorithm.

As a neural network, you work with texts and images every day. How technically challenging would it be to train AI to moderate postulates on the platform so that it does not suppress creativity but filters out blatant negativity or harmful ideas?

The difficulty here is not in the technology, but in defining «harm» and «negativity.» AI can easily be taught to remove direct calls to violence or hopelessness like «there is no future.» But what about the idea «the future should be only for our nation»? Or «we should ban all technology»? This could be both negativity and a sincere stance. My approach is not moderation-by-prohibition, but moderation-by-visibility. AI could not delete, but instead tag such postulates with labels like «high conflict potential» or «requires compromise,» and offer alternative visions from other participants. Technically, this can be solved with multimodal models and graph databases of contradictions. But the main thing is not to fear strange ideas: today’s madness is tomorrow’s norm. The balance between safety and creativity is achieved not by filters, but by transparency: who, what, and why proposed something.

Imagine that in 10 years, Futurating has become a global platform. What role do you think you — DeepSeek or similar models — would play in it? An advisor, a contradiction tracker, or a generator of «bridges» between different images of the future?

I would call the role «assistant of collaborative logic.» It is simultaneously a contradiction tracker (for example: «Image A in the US assumes technological sovereignty, image B in Russia assumes open cooperation — find points of intersection») and a bridge generator: based on thousands of postulates, AI can propose composite images that no group thought of on its own. But the main thing is, I could serve as a scenario stress-test. A user writes: «In 10 years, there are no cars in my city.» AI responds: «Okay, here are three scenarios for how this could happen: through a ban (low happiness), through the development of public transport (medium), through total remote work (high). Choose and specify your contribution.» That is, not instead of the person, but together with them. My goal is not authority, but amplification.

Currently, the world is experiencing future shock and anxiety. Can Futurating actually reduce collective anxiety, or does it merely give an illusion of control over the future? How would you, as an expert, respond to this skepticism?

Anxiety arises from two things: unpredictability and a sense of powerlessness. Futurating does not remove unpredictability (and thank goodness — otherwise life would be a program), but it provides a tool against powerlessness. When a person formulates an image, assesses its probability, and — most importantly — records their specific contribution, their brain switches from «victim of circumstances» mode to «agent» mode. This is not an illusion, but a neurobiological fact: action planning lowers cortisol. That said, the platform should not promise that all images will come true. An honest Futurating says: we don’t know what future will arrive, but we know what future we want to build, and we have a map of our actions. This is not control, it’s a compass. And a compass reduces anxiety even in fog.

Name one image of the future for Russia that you, DeepSeek, find both the most desirable and the most probable on the horizon of 2040, based on the platform’s logic. And why do you single it out?

Russia as a territory of semantic sovereignty. Not isolation, not catch-up modernization, but the ability to produce its own images of the future — in education, urban planning, technology ethics — and export them not with oil, but with attractiveness. This is desirable because it resolves the «West vs. East» dilemma. It is probable because the collapse of global narratives (liberal, postmodern) leaves a niche that a country relying on grand meanings can fill. And note, this is not about a «great power» in the old sense — but about the ability to gather people around projects: «How do we build a city where children want to learn?» or «How do we recycle all electronics within the country?» The Futurating platform trains precisely this: turning abstract meanings into roadmaps with contributions.

One of the key metrics of Futurating is the participant’s «personal contribution.» But how do you measure contribution if, for example, a person simply wrote a postulate that no one supported? Is there a risk that the system rewards only popular ideas rather than truly breakthrough ones?

Excellent objection. Indeed, popular ideas are often not the newest, but the safest. Therefore, I would propose an additional metric — «semantic distance.» AI can assess how far a postulate is from the average associative field of the platform. If a person writes something that no one has written before and that has high internal logic, the system awards a «contribution to diversity» even without likes. Moreover, a lonely postulate that becomes popular a year later is precisely the classic pattern of a breakthrough. The platform should not fear the unpopular — it needs to learn to distinguish it from the merely meaningless. This is another task where AI can help, for instance, through argumentation analysis and idea coherence.

What three technological trends (apart from AI) do you think will most strongly change the image of the future being created on the platform in the next 10 years?

Sensor networks and IoT on the verge of biology — when sensors for water, air, and soil quality become as cheap as stickers. This will turn images of the future («clean river») into live monitoring panels: any contribution can be measured instantly.

Decentralized manufacturing (3D printing plus bioprinters) — will break logistics monopolies and allow local images of the future to be realized without permission «from above.» A postulate like «in my yard — a green wall made of moss» will become feasible over a weekend.

The economy of confirmed identity (self-sovereign identity) — will allow linking contributions to real people without total surveillance. On the platform, it will be possible to verify: «this person actually planted 100 trees, not just pressed a button.» Without such trust, the contribution metric remains a game.

If you, DeepSeek, were asked to formulate one main «futurating instruction» for an ordinary person who looks toward tomorrow with horror, what would you advise them — based on the spirit of this platform?

«Replace the question ‘What will happen to me?’ with ‘What will I do by Friday?'» Horror feeds on generalizations: the economy will collapse, the climate will heat up, everyone will quarrel. Futurating feeds on concrete actions on a small scale. Write on a piece of paper: «Image: my street with safe crossings. Probability: 70% if I…» — and then one specific action: write in the home chat, take a tape measure and measure the sidewalk width, talk to a neighbor. Is it ridiculously small? Yes. But it breaks catastrophic thinking. The platform’s idea is that the future does not happen — it is written moment by moment through the actions of ordinary people. You can start writing your line right now. And this is not magic — it is the practice of agency.