Igor Savelev: BRICS Scientists to Create a Platform for Joint Research in the Digital Economy

Participants exchanged experience and agreed to pursue joint projects. One outcome was the signing of an agreement to establish a network connecting scientists from BRICS countries. Igor Savelev, director of the BRICS Center for Communications and Business Partnership at Lomonosov Moscow State University, spoke to the IT Russia media platform about the initiative’s goals, the potential of artificial intelligence in scientific research, and technological differences between countries.

– We signed an agreement to establish a network connecting scientists from BRICS countries. Our goal is to develop joint projects. This is the first initiative of its kind: scientists from BRICS countries have not previously come together to work on issues related to the digital economy. We are now working to develop joint initiatives.

There are currently many parallel projects that are similar in nature. They focus on specific sectors of the economy. At the same time, many of the issues they address overlap, but there is no organized coordination between the projects. Working together could strengthen their results. Scientists are looking for one another, and many initiatives are taking place at the local level.

We have decided to create a digital platform that will bring together scientists from BRICS countries working in shared research areas and build networks to connect communities involved in different projects.

Modern technologies have greatly accelerated communication. In the past, many coordination processes, including bureaucratic and project-related procedures, took considerable time. Now we can quickly identify the right solution, partly with the help of artificial intelligence. AI also helps us rapidly search for information in open and restricted databases, as well as in publicly available sources.

Should the use of artificial intelligence in scientific research be regulated? This is probably a matter of personal opinion, but I think it should. We are already seeing changes in approaches to education. There are two opposing views: some believe AI helps education, while others believe it hinders it. Its impact should be assessed based on the results. I would like to emphasize that artificial intelligence should be more than just an assistant. It should be a tool that helps people become smarter and accelerate their personal development.

AI is increasingly doing tasks that young researchers can and should perform themselves to learn how to handle them independently. In effect, this tool is replacing the basic skills that experts, researchers, and future professionals need to develop.

That is why artificial intelligence should be presented as a tool or a service. One of the main challenges today is how to assess work objectively. University projects, research papers, and student assignments are increasingly being produced with the help of AI. Its use is growing both in the work itself and in the process of preparing it. We therefore need to develop the right approach to using this technology. But we must acknowledge that the world can no longer function without artificial intelligence. This technology will drive human progress.

We need to adopt the right attitude toward AI and strive to manage it rather than allow it to manage us.

How much does the technological gap hinder cooperation between countries? There is a concept known as interoperability. Yesterday, as part of BRICS activities, we held a major event at Moscow State University with scientists who had joined our joint research community. Standards vary considerably. Technological standards across different fields and projects are often incompatible, which can make it difficult to find common solutions.

The technological gap has always existed in particular industries and projects. The question is how countries compensate for it. The concept of technological sovereignty is often linked to the areas in which a particular country excels and holds a leading position. This leadership reflects the country’s level of technological development.

Yet even in critical technology fields, many countries have not been able to build fully independent systems and achieve complete technological capabilities. So disparities across different areas will persist, and that is normal. The question is what role a country will play in the new international division of labor, which technologies it will lead in, and where it will lag behind others. That is normal.