I think that the problem is not that machines will replace a person in his workplace, including in the intellectual field of activity, and not that computers allegedly took up arms against people with higher education and a Twitter account. The introduction of AI is not at all fast, but rather too slow. Why? Because this is the normal cycle of human development, and we simply do not realize that the destruction we see means the introduction of new technology, which, before creating new jobs, destroys the old ones.
Technologies destroy obsolete industries and create new ones, such is the process of creation, such is the cycle of development. If you try to prolong the agony by inserting old technologies into the process or creating some advantage for outdated technologies, you will simply slow down the process and make it more painful. It will still happen, but the problem is that we are in the process of "regulating" the process, creating rules that deliberately slow it down. I think this is a bigger problem than the ones we are more aware of. It's more of a psychological issue, with people wondering "how can you feel safe while in a self-driving car"?
I looked into history and learned that one hundred years ago, one of the most powerful unions in New York was the elevator workers union, which united 17 workers. By the way, at that time there was already a technology when you could just press a button and you were done, but people did not trust it! It's just terrible - to press the button yourself to call the elevator! Do you know why this trade union "died" and people themselves began to use the buttons? Because one day the elevator workers decided to go on strike. They went on strike, and then the people who had to climb to the top of the Empire State Building took the risk of pushing the buttons themselves.
Remember what they said 20-30 years ago about children or grandchildren when they got behind the wheel of a car: “this is terrible, just look at the statistics, because cars are one of the main causes of human mortality, how can they risk their lives?”
Well, it's all pure psychology. We hardly pay attention to how many people die in car accidents, but it costs one person to die from an unmanned vehicle, as this event is blown to the sky. Any glitch, any error of artificial intelligence technologies is immediately covered on the front pages of newspapers. But look at the statistics, look at the number of incidents, and you will see what a tiny percentage of the total accidents it is. Therefore, the human community will only win if it can move forward without being paralyzed by such fears.
Another question comes up when we talk about fake news or cyber security, these are very politicized topics and I get a lot of calls asking how I deal with AI haters. For example, I keep a regular blog, and in my new article, which will be published in a couple of days, we are talking about hatred and the fact that salvation from hatred lies in knowledge, in learning. We just have to understand that this problem existed long before all these things were invented, it's just that now its importance has increased thanks to the Internet, which reaches millions and billions of people.
I think it's the other way around when someone tries to stop progress by trying to outlaw AI and you know it won't work because we have Putin and other bad guys wherever they are who use against us are our own technologies created in the free world. So I think we should just take it for granted.
The essence of the problem lies only in us, and the answers to the questions lie within us, in our own strength and our own confidence. My contention is that intelligent machines cannot make us "obsolete." However, it must be remembered that there are certain limitations regarding human-computer cooperation, and to a large extent these are just rumors that have existed before. As always, these are simply new opportunities that are destroying the old world and creating a new one, and the further we go forward, the better off we will be.
Now it is most reminiscent of moving into the world of science fiction. The paradox is that if we look back 50-60 years, we will see that in those days science fiction was absolutely positive, it was a complete utopia. However, then there was a gradual transition from utopia to dystopia, in such a way that we no longer want to hear anything about the future of humanity.
It didn't happen overnight. There was a time when people decided that space exploration was too risky. This is indeed a big risk, but imagine that in 1969, when the Americans landed on the moon, all of NASA's computing power was less than the power of any modern computing device that fits in your pocket. This device is a thousand times more powerful than a supercomputer that existed 40 years ago. Just imagine the computing power you carry in your pocket! However, I am not sure that the Apple iPhone 7 has the same processing power as the Apollo 7, that is, it is capable of producing the same effect.
However, machines have provided us with many great achievements in space or ocean exploration, and we must understand that computers provide us with the opportunity to take great risks.
I would like to end my statement on a positive note. Doesn't this slide show positive pictures? The photo in the lower right corner is not "photoshop", I actually met the Terminator in 2003.
He also loves chess since childhood, but he didn’t study it on purpose, so he lost very quickly. So I was very surprised when 6 months later he ran for Governor of California and won!
Why do I call these pictures positive? Because although in all series except the first, old Arnold is always on the side of the winners and never gets tired of fighting against new machines, it is in the first series that we see the combination that I spoke about - this is when a person plus an old machine plus a perfect interface defeat the newest car.
You can say: “yes, machines are stronger than people, because they can calculate absolutely everything!”. However, the point is not that they can calculate everything. For example, in chess you can technically talk about the mathematical infinity of the number of possible moves, equal to 1045, which is not difficult for any modern computer to calculate. However, in the game, it is not the calculations that are important, but the fact that the computer is ahead of the person, because it is always guided by the rules. And you know the effect of these rules, and you know why the computer chooses the best move out of a huge number of possible moves.
But if we turn to real life, then I'm not sure that a computer can always be useful. Let's consider the most typical situation - you have a computer that keeps track of the budget, you are in a store and you are going to buy an expensive gift. The computer evaluates the purchase and says, "no, you can't afford this item because you're over budget." The car calculated everything, but there is a small nuance - your child is standing nearby, and this gift is intended for him for his birthday. Do you see how this changes the conditions of the problem? This changes everything, because the child is waiting for this gift.
I can start adding these little things that change everything, but I don't think they can be included in the problem statement and get the right solution. We have a lot of rules, but we still have to ask questions because the situation is changing. This is what can be called an ordinary situation, but if you look at these films, you can say that the situation shown here is more dramatic and extraordinary. On this slide, you see a frame from Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.
Han Solo steers the ship right through the asteroid field, and C-3PO panics, reporting that the chance of surviving the field is 1:3122. Han Solo tells him, "Never tell me what our chances are!". Here the question arises, who is more right in this situation?
Technique in the person of C-3PO is absolutely right, because the chance to survive tends to zero. Perhaps from a robot's point of view, being captured by Imperial forces is a better choice that a human doesn't even consider than dying in an asteroid field. But if the computer decides that surrendering to the empire is the best option, then we can assume that the person has no options at all. It is very important that in both cases, ordinary and extraordinary, we have the opportunity to make the final decision, and such a decision still requires human leadership.
Sometimes that means you have to go against the computer's advice. The point of human leadership is not to know the odds, but to ask really meaningful questions, not just today or tomorrow, but in the distant future. This process can be called "man's guidance" or "human intervention", action without the help of intelligent machines. This is what our course should be in this century.
People are sometimes surprised by my optimism about intelligent machines, given my experience with them, but I'm really an optimist. And I'm sure all of you are equally optimistic about the future of AI. But we must remember that our technologies are agnostic. This is neither good nor bad, but can be used for both good and evil. Machines must become smarter and more capable. And we humans must do what only humans can do - dream, dream big, and then we can extract all the usefulness that these amazing new tools bring.
As planned, we still have 10 minutes to answer questions.
Question: Do you think it is possible to create a machine learning system that could determine which moves are more consistent with the human style of play?
Kasparov: First of all, we don't expect the computer to tell us the first move and the remaining 17505 moves. I think we should rely on the machine as the source of the best recommendations for unique moves. By the way, high-end players use computers as a guide to help them get into the most suitable position in the game. Again, 9 times out of 10, a computer's assessment of a situation is far superior to a human's.
Question: Do you agree that real intelligence requires freedom of choice, freedom to make decisions that only a person can make? After all, Deep Blue software and other computer programs are written by people, and when you lose Deep Blue, you lose not to the computer, but to the programmers who wrote this program. My question is: Is there any danger from any kind of machine intelligence as long as computers have the freedom to choose?
Kasparov: Here I must move from science to philosophy. With regard to Deep Blue, everything is clear - this is the result of a huge human work. In most cases, even in the case of AlphaGo by Demis Hassabis, these are all products of human intelligence. I don't know if machines can have freedom of choice, but I believe that whatever we do, if we know how to do it, machines will do it better. However, when doing most things, we do not know how to do them in the best way, so we often cannot understand what we will do. Simply put, we have a goal, but we do not know what it is, and the role of the machine is to help us realize this goal. Therefore, if we talk about the free choice of computers, then it should contribute to linking us to this goal. I think that for computers this is a very distant prospect.
Question: what do you think about human characteristics such as courage and morality, and about the decisions that artificial intelligence can make based on them? For example, what should an unmanned vehicle do - run into a child or avoid a collision with him, crashing into a rock and killing his passenger?
Kasparov: These are what people call "feelings", they are not quantifiable because they are a whole bunch of different human characteristics. If we are talking about courage, then this characteristic always goes against the chances of choosing the best option. Courage, like other human feelings, is by definition opposed to accurate counting.
Question: Mr. Kasparov, my question is not about computers: what is in your flask and can I try it?
Kasparov: what do you mean?
Host: He asks what is in your pocket!
Kasparov: in my pocket? "Capital"! This is not an advertisement, if you notice, I threw it away.
Question: Who do you think will be the next world chess champion and does the young Chinese chess player Wei Yi have a chance to overthrow Karelsen from the throne of the king of chess?
Kasparov: Karelsen is the No. 1 player, he is not a world champion, but simply the best chess player in the world according to the rating. He turns 27 this year, so he's still young, but not very young by today's standards. I think Wei Yi is now 18 or 19 years old. Magnus has outpaced the likes of Americans Wesley So and Fabiano Kerouana, and potentially Wei Yi could be his opponent. However, in order to become a world champion, talent is needed, it is not necessary to be young and energetic, it is enough to have a little luck. So, answering the question, I can say - yes, he has a chance to defeat Magnus Karelsen.
Q: When you talked about deterministic algorithms and machine learning, you mentioned the possibility of using machines as tools to augment our intelligence. What can you say about the possibility of maximizing resources to create powerful AI, or even putting a human brain into a computer?
Kasparov: I am not ashamed to admit my ignorance when I am not sure that I am not able to answer a question correctly. I struggle to understand what the human brain is, if we consider it separately from the human body, what functions it performs. Because it is difficult to imagine how the brain will behave separately from the body. Perhaps in the future such an experiment could be done, but I am sure that the combination of the human brain, human feelings and emotions with a computer will form a "mind" that will be much more effective than an extracted and frozen brain used as a device filled with neurons.
Question: Is there a universal basic approach to the problem of replacing human jobs with computers?
Kasparov: I think this is a very important question, because it is clear that we are approaching the moment when many people may be left without work. This is the paradox of technological progress: on the one hand, we have the latest technologies that provide a huge competitive advantage to the younger generation who deal with these devices and technologies. On the other hand, we have progress in medicine and healthy nutrition, which prolongs human life and gives a person the ability to work for many years. In this sense, the generation of the 50s, 60s or even 40s cannot compete with today's youth. We must find a solution to this paradoxical situation, when the gap between generations is so great. Historical experience says that such a gap always leads to a big bang. I mean the gap between the existing social infrastructure of society and technological progress.
This is the problem that politicians prefer to put off until the next election. Nobody wants to talk about it because it is a painful issue. It is very easy to print money, hoping that someone will pay for it sometime in the future. So there are many paradoxes in this area, for example, the accumulation of debts for providing social guarantees to the older generation in the expectation that the burden of paying for these debts will fall on the shoulders of the younger generation. There are a lot of questions that I don't have answers to and a lot of questions that I could ask, I hope the AI will help me with this.
It is very bad that for decades politicians have been trying to ignore the problems that we have just discussed. They are always ready for statements, they always have plans, but they do not want to understand the counterproductiveness of hushing up the problem of the conflict between technology and society. Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for staying with us. Do you like our articles? Want to see more interesting content? Support us by placing an order or recommending to friends, 30% discount for Habr users on a unique analogue of entry-level servers, which was invented by us for you: (available with RAID1 and RAID10, up to 24 cores and up to 40GB DDR4).
Dell R730xd 2 times cheaper? Only here in the Netherlands! Dell R420 - 2x E5-2430 2.2Ghz 6C 128GB DDR3 2x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100TB - from $99! Read about
Source: habr.com