Tetsuya Hattori - Retiring in AY2022

I believe the privilege of being a researcher, from a social standpoint, is that studying the forefront of human knowledge is, in itself, a form of social participation. How we, as a biological species, understand the world is constrained by the era and stage of human development. Therefore, the current cutting edge is likely a poorer, lower-resolution level of understanding than what humanity will ultimately achieve before our species goes extinct. Nevertheless, I feel I have been able to learn a great deal.

As someone from a generation that grew up witnessing the stagnation of artificial intelligence research, it was difficult to predict whether human information processing capabilities were a profound phenomenon beyond human comprehension. Now, it seems it was simply that the computers of the last century were inadequate. Today, various intellectual abilities once considered unique to humans—in the sense of producing outputs unforeseen by their developers—are now matched or surpassed by computers. I feel this has revealed that human intelligence and the ability to understand things are also merely phenomena within the scope of what is humanly comprehensible.

Just as we have gradually tamed forces far greater than ourselves since prehistoric times, defying our physical limitations which are not particularly superior among living creatures, I believe that even if the intellectual limits of the unaided human mind are small compared to a level that would flatter our sense of superiority, the joy of intellectual progress, study, and research will continue for future generations, for example, by mastering computers. The meaning of "understanding" will likely change, and with it, the way we find joy and the significance of researchers as participants in society will also change.

Personally, it seems that Japanese society is ending its deflation just as I am beginning to live off my savings. This looks like a direct realization of a "simple scenario" one might find in an introductory university economics textbook: exiting from life just as one's savings run out. Thinking about it more precisely, I have entered an age where the distribution of life expectancy has a thick tail on the shorter end, so I must be frugal and plan for a future where there is a high probability of leaving money behind. Is the fact that we do not know something as crucial as our life expectancy when planning for the future because it was advantageous for human evolution? Or is it that the very framing of the problem of "future planning" is flawed?

The discontinuity of retirement in one's life is clear, but fortunately, I have a scientific research grant for four years after retirement. In terms of the amount, the luxurious term "research funding" is misleading, but I understand its essence is that anonymous researchers in related fields have given me this opportunity through a peer-review and selection process. I will continue to wholeheartedly pursue topics far from the mainstream—ones that are difficult to recommend to young researchers who need to secure their place in society. However, as of this writing, the continuation of my KAKENHI grant is uncertain for institutional reasons. Here again, is the fact that we do not know important things about the future because such a society is more stable? Or is the framing of the problem flawed?

In childhood, one cannot understand the content of research, so straightforward honors and rewards are likely effective for attracting people to the field. However, not limited to research, as one grows older and hears unbalanced stories, such as the great burden borne by some anonymous person surrounding a successful individual, one realizes that the dreams and aspirations of youth were merely a "simple scenario." It seems that life as a researcher, in both its personal and social aspects, is also something that changes, where important things about the future remain unknown.