June 22, 2019 at 11:28DEFCON 25 conference. Garry Kasparov. "The last battle of the brain." Part 1
- Transfer
I am honored to be here, but please do not need to hack me. Computers already hate me, so I need to make friends with as many people in this room as possible. I want to bring one small trifle from my biography, interesting for an American audience. I was born and raised in the very south of the country, right next to Georgia. This is actually true. Wait a second, I told you computers hate me!
One slide was lost, but it really is the very south of the USSR, where I was born in a republic located right next to the Republic of Georgia (translator's note: the name of the state of Georgia and the republic of Georgia in English sounds the same).
Speaking of my homeland, the funny thing is that my last book, Deep Thinking, was written about artificial intelligence, about my own experience in battles with computers, and the book, written two years before, was called "Winter Is Coming." This was not a synopsis of the Game of Thrones, it was about Vladimir Putin and the struggle for a free world, but when I was touring the presentation of this book, everyone wanted to ask me about the chess and the IBM Deep Blue computer. Now that I am presenting the book Deep Thinking, everyone wants to ask me about Putin. But I try to stick to the topic, and I am sure that after this presentation there will be several questions that I will be happy to answer. I am not a politician, so I do not shy away from answering questions.
It may seem strange that a game of chess that originated thousands of years ago, God knows when, is an ideal analogy of artificial intelligence, because when we talk about AI, we must remember that the letter I means "intelligence", and there is nothing that demonstrates it is better than chess.
Many people think that chess is nothing more than fun, which people indulge in in cafes. If you look at the creations of Hollywood, then everyone plays chess - aliens, people X, Wizard, vampires. My favorite painting “Casablanca” with Humphrey Bogart is also about chess, and when I watch this film, I always want to get in such a position to look inside the screen and see the Bogart board. He plays the French defense, which was very popular in the early 40s. I think Bogart was a pretty decent chess player.
I want to mention that Alfred Binet, one of the co-authors of the IQ test of the late 19th century, admired the mind of chess players and studied it for many years. Therefore, it is not surprising that the game of chess attracts those who wanted to create smart machines. However, it often happens that intelligent machines, such as the "Turk" von Kempelen, are simply a grandiose swindle. But at the end of the 18th century, this chess machine was a great miracle, it toured Europe and America and fought with strong and weak players such as Franklin and Napoleon, but of course, all this was a hoax. "Turk" was not a real machine, it was an original mechanical system of sliding panels and mirrors, inside which a strong player - a man was hiding.
It is interesting that after a hundred or two hundred years, over the past twenty years, the opposite situation has been observed - we observe at tournaments that human players are trying to hide computer devices in their pockets. So now we have to look for a computer hidden in a human body.
However, stories with mechanical devices are relatively little known. The first mechanical device for playing chess appeared in 1912, it played with the help of one mechanical part, could make a mat a rook, but it could not be called a prototype of the first computer.
It is interesting that the creators of the basics of computer design, such as Alan Turing and Claude Shannon, showed great interest in chess. They believed that playing chess could reveal the secrets of artificial intelligence. And if one day the computer defeats an ordinary chess player or world chess champion, this will be a manifestation of the evolution of AI.
If you remember, Alan Turing created the first computer program for playing chess in 1952, and this was a great achievement, but even more significant was that there were no computers at that time. It was just an algorithm that he used to play chess, and it acted like a human computer processor. It is important to remember that the founding fathers of computers determined the path along which AI was to develop, following the processes of human thinking. The opposite way is what we call a brute-force attack, or a quick search of possible moves.
I did not hear anything about competitions with computers in 1985, but in this photo you can see 32 boards, and although I played with people, in reality it was a real game against computers. At that time there were 4 leading manufacturers of chess computers, which just introduced them to the world. Perhaps some of you still have such computers, now these are real rarities. Each manufacturer had 8 computer modules, so I really played with 32 opponents and won all the games.
It is very important that this was not a surprise, but a natural result, and every time I look at this photo, where my victory is captured, I remember this time as the golden age of chess machines, when they were weak, and my hair - thick.
So, that was June 1985, and after 12 years I played against just one computer. There was a rematch in 1997 because I won the first match that took place in 1996 in Philadelphia. I lost this rematch, but for the sake of justice, the turning point in computer chess did not take place in 1997, but in 1996, when I won the match, but lost the first game. Then I won 3 games, and the score was 4: 2 in my favor.
In fact, the fact that the computer at that time was able to become the world chess champion if he played in a regular chess tournament is important here. I did not expect from IBM that they could do such a serious technical work in a year to strengthen their computer. But my biggest mistake, with the exception of a sharp increase in IBM's stock price, which 2 weeks after the match jumped from a few points to a billion dollars, was the inability to read the fine print. Because one of the problems of 1996 that I encountered playing with the Deep Blue computer was that it was a “black box” for me. I did not know anything about the opponent, about how he thinks, what tactics he uses. Usually, when you are preparing for a game, you study the opponent, it does not matter if it is a chess game or a football match, and, observing the manner of the game, you study his strategy. But there was no information regarding the "manner of playing" Deep Blue.
I tried to be smarter and stated that for the next match I should have access to the games played by Deep Blue. They replied: “Of course!”, But at the same time added in small print:
“... only during official competitions.”
And this despite the fact that Deep Blue did not play a single game outside the laboratory walls. So in 1997 I played against the “black box”, and everything turned out the opposite of the events of 1996 - I won the first game, but lost the match.
By the way, where were you hackers 20 years ago when I needed you like that? However, when I glance over the rows of those present, I understand that many of you, probably, were not born yet.
My biggest mistake was that I perceived the match with Deep Blue as a great scientific and social experiment. I thought that he would be great, because he would really find that area where human intuition can be compared with the "brute force" of computer calculations. However, Deep Blue with its phenomenal computational speed of about 2 million chess positions per second, which was not bad for 1997, was anything but artificial intelligence. His game made no contribution to uncovering the secrets of human intelligence.
He was no more sensible than a normal alarm clock, but it’s not easier for me to lose an alarm worth $ 10 million.
I remember the press conference during the opening ceremony of the match, when the person who led the IBM project said that this would mark the end of scientific experiments and the victory of science. Since we had one victory and one loss, I wanted to play the third match to find out who is still stronger, but they took apart the computer, apparently in order to remove the only impartial witness. I tried to find out what happened to Deep Blue, but could not find out. Later I learned that he had made a new career and is now preparing sushi in one of the terminals at Kennedy Airport.
I love sushi, but I don’t need a computer there. So, on this my story with computer chess ended pretty quickly. But those of you who also play chess or other games know how vulnerable we are to computers, because we are not so stable, impartial, and make mistakes. Even the players of the highest level make mistakes, for example, during a champion’s match, where 50 or 45 moves are made, at least one tiny mistake is inevitable. If live people play, it does not really matter, but if you make a mistake when playing with the machine, then it is possible that you will not lose, but you won’t, because the machine will be able to avoid defeat.
At some point, I realized that it was just a matter of time, because we cannot achieve the same level of vigilance and accuracy that is necessary to defeat a computer, because the machine is unusually stable in its actions. Years later, we witnessed cars constantly winning matches. I repeat once again - this all applies only to the game of chess, which is very vulnerable to the brute-forse method of the game, when the computer goes through many options of moves with great speed and selects the most optimal one. This is not artificial intelligence, so people make a mistake when they say that a human chess player has been defeated by artificial intelligence.
Later I played some more matches against computers. I once analyzed these games using modern chess engines, and it was a rather painful experience. It was a journey into the past, and I was forced to admit how poorly I spent these matches, because I could only blame myself. However, at that time the computer “demon” was not so strong, you may not believe it, but today the free chess application on your mobile device is stronger than Deep Blue was. Of course, if you have a chess engine like asmFish or Comodo and the latest laptop, this system will be even more powerful.
When I played against Deep Blue, I think it was game 5, the endgame computer in the endgame, and everyone began to say that this was a great victory and that the computer showed a phenomenal quality of the game. But today, with a modern computer, it looks just ridiculous. Our entire match can be played in 30 seconds, a maximum of a minute depending on the performance of your laptop. In the beginning I made a mistake, then I tried to save the game, Deep Blue made several reciprocal moves and won. These are the rules of the game, and there is nothing wrong with that.
In 2003, I played 2 more matches against the X3D Frintz computer, they both ended in a draw. The organizers forced me to wear 3-D glasses because the computer had a 3-dimensional interface.
But in any case, the story was over and I was thinking about the future. Look at this photo that was taken at the beginning of this century.
If you look at these children, you can see that they play on rare computers. Today, my children will not even understand what it is. Some complex keyboards are shown here, and now they simply slide their fingers across the touchscreen.
The important thing is that more intelligent machines make our tasks much easier. I probably say it in vain, because you know it better than anyone else. Thus, with the help of Peppa Pig and technical tasks, the path for genuine creativity is cleared.
I thought about how to connect the power of a computer and a person? One example is chess, because chess has a solution. You know very well in which areas the computer is strong, and in which it is inferior to humans. And then a concept came to my mind, which I called "advanced chess."
Following the Russian proverb: “if you can’t win, join us!” I called advanced chess a game when one person with a computer fights against another person with a computer.
In 1998, I played with a representative of the chess elite from Bulgaria, and the most interesting thing is that we both could not play well, because we could not maximize the effect of working with a computer. I wondered why the two great players could not benefit from collaborating with AI. The answer came later with the introduction of the so-called freestyle with a limited number of prompts from the computer. You can play by connecting to the supercomputer via the Internet, you can use your own computer or many computers. I want to note that a human-computer pair will always surpass any supercomputer. The reason is very simple - the computer compensates for our distraction, and we find ourselves in a good position, switching to the computer, because it eliminates the vulnerability,
But there is nothing sensational about this. The sensation was that the winners of the competition were not top-class players, but relatively weak chess players with ordinary computers, but who managed to create an improved interaction process. This is difficult to formulate, because it sounds paradoxical: a weak player plus a regular computer plus an improved process are superior to a strong player with a powerful computer, but a weak interaction process. The interface is everything!
The interesting thing is that you do not need a strong player at all, Garry Kasparov is not needed in order to be on the side of the car to find the best move, and there is a simple answer to this. If today we consider the relative strengths of man and computer, you can go beyond the boundaries of chess, but let's start all the same with them, because there are numbers in chess. So, my record chess rating was 2851 points, until I lost to Magnus Carlsen, and at the end of my chess career he was 2812 points. Today, Magnus Carlsen tops the rating above 2800 points. Approximately 50 players have a rating between 2700 and 2800 points. This is the elite of the chess world. Nowadays, the power of a computer is within 3200 points, and taking into account specialized software its rating can reach 3300-3400 points.
Now you understand why you do not need a strong player? Because a player of my level will try to push the computer to act in one direction or another, instead of being with him a simple operator. Therefore, a weaker chess player who does not have such “ambition” and such conceit as the world chess champion will interact with a computer much more efficiently and form a more productive human-computer combination.
I think this is a very important discovery not only for chess, but also, for example, for medicine. As you know, computers in many cases are able to make a more accurate diagnosis than the best doctors do. So what would you like more: a good doctor in the face of a computer or a good nurse who will just follow the instructions and make a small guide based on the recommendations of the machine?
I don’t know the exact numbers, suppose 60-65% of people will choose a doctor, and 85% will be for a computer, but psychologically, if you are a good doctor, you can’t accept it. If you look at today's technological progress, we can say that computers make a true diagnosis in 80 - 85 - 90% of cases, but 10% remain with people anyway! And this can be a huge difference, because when a bullet deviates by only 1 degree during a shot, it can fly at a distance of several hundred meters from the target. The question is whether we are able to direct the full power of computer computing in the right direction.
Therefore, I still believe that all the fears that cars will soon replace all of us, and this will be the end of the world, Armageddon are just rumors. Because, as I said, this concerns the creative abilities of a person, and the uniqueness of computer intelligence is that it only enhances our creative abilities, releases them and tells us how to use them in the best way.
Sometimes, to find the answer to a question, it is worth moving away from the world of science and delving deeper into the world of art. Somehow I found an excellent paradox set forth by the great artist Pablo Picasso: “Computers are useless. The only thing they can do is give answers. ” I think that this is great wisdom and these words sound encouraging, because the machines still give answers, and these answers are exhaustive!
However, Picasso was not satisfied with comprehensive answers because he was an artist. This is due to the constant rethinking of art, this is exactly what we constantly do - ask questions. Can computers ask questions?
One day I visited the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, where I was going to talk with Dave Ferrucci, one of the developers of the Watson IBM supercomputer. We talked about whether machines can ask questions, and Dave said, “Yes, computers can ask questions, but they don’t know which of the questions really matter.” That is the essence. Thus, we are still in the game and we have a chance to move on, because the game of man and computer is not finished yet.
On this slide you see several photos of possible areas of use of autonomous computers, machines that can program themselves, that is, have the ability to learn.
One of the photographs depicts Demis Hassabis with his self-learning neural network AlphaGo. In fact, this is probably the first machine that can be called a prototype of artificial intelligence.
As I said, Deep Blue is brute-force brute force, Watson is probably a transitional link, but not yet an AI. AlphaGo is a deep learning program that cultivates itself by finding matching models, playing millions and millions of games.
I can say that in the case of AlphaGo we are dealing with a real “black box” for the first time. Because, for example, if we spend a hundred years exploring thousands of miles of Deep Blue game logs, then in the end we will get to the original idea why this decision was made and this particular move was made. As for AlphaGo, I’m sure that even Demis Hassabis will not be able to say what version 6 is better than version 9, or vice versa, bearing in mind the decision made by this machine.
On the one hand, this is a great achievement, but on the other hand it can be a problem, because if the machine made a mistake, you will not be able to find out about it. However, in any case, this is a movement towards the creation of a real AI.
I once spoke at Google headquarters, and they organized a tour of Google X for me. This was very interesting, because this company is confidently moving in the direction of creating AI, solving the problems of creating a self-driving car or autonomous drones that independently deliver goods. However, no less problem than the technical support of AI, is the problem of regulating its activities. People say that AI can completely replace them, depriving them of work. However, let's call for help the history of human civilization - this has happened for hundreds and thousands of years!
24:35 min
DEFCON 25 conference. Garry Kasparov. "The last battle of the brain." Part 2
Thank you for staying with us. Do you like our articles? Want to see more interesting materials? Support us by placing an order or recommending it to your friends, a 30% discount for Habr users on a unique analogue of entry-level servers that we invented for you: The whole truth about VPS (KVM) E5-2650 v4 (6 Cores) 10GB DDR4 240GB SSD 1Gbps from $ 20 or how to divide the server? (options are available with RAID1 and RAID10, up to 24 cores and up to 40GB DDR4).
Dell R730xd 2 times cheaper? Only we have 2 x Intel TetraDeca-Core Xeon 2x E5-2697v3 2.6GHz 14C 64GB DDR4 4x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100 TV from $ 199 in the Netherlands!Dell R420 - 2x E5-2430 2.2Ghz 6C 128GB DDR3 2x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100TB - from $ 99! Read about How to Build Infrastructure Bldg. class using Dell R730xd E5-2650 v4 servers costing 9,000 euros for a penny?
One slide was lost, but it really is the very south of the USSR, where I was born in a republic located right next to the Republic of Georgia (translator's note: the name of the state of Georgia and the republic of Georgia in English sounds the same).
Speaking of my homeland, the funny thing is that my last book, Deep Thinking, was written about artificial intelligence, about my own experience in battles with computers, and the book, written two years before, was called "Winter Is Coming." This was not a synopsis of the Game of Thrones, it was about Vladimir Putin and the struggle for a free world, but when I was touring the presentation of this book, everyone wanted to ask me about the chess and the IBM Deep Blue computer. Now that I am presenting the book Deep Thinking, everyone wants to ask me about Putin. But I try to stick to the topic, and I am sure that after this presentation there will be several questions that I will be happy to answer. I am not a politician, so I do not shy away from answering questions.
It may seem strange that a game of chess that originated thousands of years ago, God knows when, is an ideal analogy of artificial intelligence, because when we talk about AI, we must remember that the letter I means "intelligence", and there is nothing that demonstrates it is better than chess.
Many people think that chess is nothing more than fun, which people indulge in in cafes. If you look at the creations of Hollywood, then everyone plays chess - aliens, people X, Wizard, vampires. My favorite painting “Casablanca” with Humphrey Bogart is also about chess, and when I watch this film, I always want to get in such a position to look inside the screen and see the Bogart board. He plays the French defense, which was very popular in the early 40s. I think Bogart was a pretty decent chess player.
I want to mention that Alfred Binet, one of the co-authors of the IQ test of the late 19th century, admired the mind of chess players and studied it for many years. Therefore, it is not surprising that the game of chess attracts those who wanted to create smart machines. However, it often happens that intelligent machines, such as the "Turk" von Kempelen, are simply a grandiose swindle. But at the end of the 18th century, this chess machine was a great miracle, it toured Europe and America and fought with strong and weak players such as Franklin and Napoleon, but of course, all this was a hoax. "Turk" was not a real machine, it was an original mechanical system of sliding panels and mirrors, inside which a strong player - a man was hiding.
It is interesting that after a hundred or two hundred years, over the past twenty years, the opposite situation has been observed - we observe at tournaments that human players are trying to hide computer devices in their pockets. So now we have to look for a computer hidden in a human body.
However, stories with mechanical devices are relatively little known. The first mechanical device for playing chess appeared in 1912, it played with the help of one mechanical part, could make a mat a rook, but it could not be called a prototype of the first computer.
It is interesting that the creators of the basics of computer design, such as Alan Turing and Claude Shannon, showed great interest in chess. They believed that playing chess could reveal the secrets of artificial intelligence. And if one day the computer defeats an ordinary chess player or world chess champion, this will be a manifestation of the evolution of AI.
If you remember, Alan Turing created the first computer program for playing chess in 1952, and this was a great achievement, but even more significant was that there were no computers at that time. It was just an algorithm that he used to play chess, and it acted like a human computer processor. It is important to remember that the founding fathers of computers determined the path along which AI was to develop, following the processes of human thinking. The opposite way is what we call a brute-force attack, or a quick search of possible moves.
I did not hear anything about competitions with computers in 1985, but in this photo you can see 32 boards, and although I played with people, in reality it was a real game against computers. At that time there were 4 leading manufacturers of chess computers, which just introduced them to the world. Perhaps some of you still have such computers, now these are real rarities. Each manufacturer had 8 computer modules, so I really played with 32 opponents and won all the games.
It is very important that this was not a surprise, but a natural result, and every time I look at this photo, where my victory is captured, I remember this time as the golden age of chess machines, when they were weak, and my hair - thick.
So, that was June 1985, and after 12 years I played against just one computer. There was a rematch in 1997 because I won the first match that took place in 1996 in Philadelphia. I lost this rematch, but for the sake of justice, the turning point in computer chess did not take place in 1997, but in 1996, when I won the match, but lost the first game. Then I won 3 games, and the score was 4: 2 in my favor.
In fact, the fact that the computer at that time was able to become the world chess champion if he played in a regular chess tournament is important here. I did not expect from IBM that they could do such a serious technical work in a year to strengthen their computer. But my biggest mistake, with the exception of a sharp increase in IBM's stock price, which 2 weeks after the match jumped from a few points to a billion dollars, was the inability to read the fine print. Because one of the problems of 1996 that I encountered playing with the Deep Blue computer was that it was a “black box” for me. I did not know anything about the opponent, about how he thinks, what tactics he uses. Usually, when you are preparing for a game, you study the opponent, it does not matter if it is a chess game or a football match, and, observing the manner of the game, you study his strategy. But there was no information regarding the "manner of playing" Deep Blue.
I tried to be smarter and stated that for the next match I should have access to the games played by Deep Blue. They replied: “Of course!”, But at the same time added in small print:
“... only during official competitions.”
And this despite the fact that Deep Blue did not play a single game outside the laboratory walls. So in 1997 I played against the “black box”, and everything turned out the opposite of the events of 1996 - I won the first game, but lost the match.
By the way, where were you hackers 20 years ago when I needed you like that? However, when I glance over the rows of those present, I understand that many of you, probably, were not born yet.
My biggest mistake was that I perceived the match with Deep Blue as a great scientific and social experiment. I thought that he would be great, because he would really find that area where human intuition can be compared with the "brute force" of computer calculations. However, Deep Blue with its phenomenal computational speed of about 2 million chess positions per second, which was not bad for 1997, was anything but artificial intelligence. His game made no contribution to uncovering the secrets of human intelligence.
He was no more sensible than a normal alarm clock, but it’s not easier for me to lose an alarm worth $ 10 million.
I remember the press conference during the opening ceremony of the match, when the person who led the IBM project said that this would mark the end of scientific experiments and the victory of science. Since we had one victory and one loss, I wanted to play the third match to find out who is still stronger, but they took apart the computer, apparently in order to remove the only impartial witness. I tried to find out what happened to Deep Blue, but could not find out. Later I learned that he had made a new career and is now preparing sushi in one of the terminals at Kennedy Airport.
I love sushi, but I don’t need a computer there. So, on this my story with computer chess ended pretty quickly. But those of you who also play chess or other games know how vulnerable we are to computers, because we are not so stable, impartial, and make mistakes. Even the players of the highest level make mistakes, for example, during a champion’s match, where 50 or 45 moves are made, at least one tiny mistake is inevitable. If live people play, it does not really matter, but if you make a mistake when playing with the machine, then it is possible that you will not lose, but you won’t, because the machine will be able to avoid defeat.
At some point, I realized that it was just a matter of time, because we cannot achieve the same level of vigilance and accuracy that is necessary to defeat a computer, because the machine is unusually stable in its actions. Years later, we witnessed cars constantly winning matches. I repeat once again - this all applies only to the game of chess, which is very vulnerable to the brute-forse method of the game, when the computer goes through many options of moves with great speed and selects the most optimal one. This is not artificial intelligence, so people make a mistake when they say that a human chess player has been defeated by artificial intelligence.
Later I played some more matches against computers. I once analyzed these games using modern chess engines, and it was a rather painful experience. It was a journey into the past, and I was forced to admit how poorly I spent these matches, because I could only blame myself. However, at that time the computer “demon” was not so strong, you may not believe it, but today the free chess application on your mobile device is stronger than Deep Blue was. Of course, if you have a chess engine like asmFish or Comodo and the latest laptop, this system will be even more powerful.
When I played against Deep Blue, I think it was game 5, the endgame computer in the endgame, and everyone began to say that this was a great victory and that the computer showed a phenomenal quality of the game. But today, with a modern computer, it looks just ridiculous. Our entire match can be played in 30 seconds, a maximum of a minute depending on the performance of your laptop. In the beginning I made a mistake, then I tried to save the game, Deep Blue made several reciprocal moves and won. These are the rules of the game, and there is nothing wrong with that.
In 2003, I played 2 more matches against the X3D Frintz computer, they both ended in a draw. The organizers forced me to wear 3-D glasses because the computer had a 3-dimensional interface.
But in any case, the story was over and I was thinking about the future. Look at this photo that was taken at the beginning of this century.
If you look at these children, you can see that they play on rare computers. Today, my children will not even understand what it is. Some complex keyboards are shown here, and now they simply slide their fingers across the touchscreen.
The important thing is that more intelligent machines make our tasks much easier. I probably say it in vain, because you know it better than anyone else. Thus, with the help of Peppa Pig and technical tasks, the path for genuine creativity is cleared.
I thought about how to connect the power of a computer and a person? One example is chess, because chess has a solution. You know very well in which areas the computer is strong, and in which it is inferior to humans. And then a concept came to my mind, which I called "advanced chess."
Following the Russian proverb: “if you can’t win, join us!” I called advanced chess a game when one person with a computer fights against another person with a computer.
In 1998, I played with a representative of the chess elite from Bulgaria, and the most interesting thing is that we both could not play well, because we could not maximize the effect of working with a computer. I wondered why the two great players could not benefit from collaborating with AI. The answer came later with the introduction of the so-called freestyle with a limited number of prompts from the computer. You can play by connecting to the supercomputer via the Internet, you can use your own computer or many computers. I want to note that a human-computer pair will always surpass any supercomputer. The reason is very simple - the computer compensates for our distraction, and we find ourselves in a good position, switching to the computer, because it eliminates the vulnerability,
But there is nothing sensational about this. The sensation was that the winners of the competition were not top-class players, but relatively weak chess players with ordinary computers, but who managed to create an improved interaction process. This is difficult to formulate, because it sounds paradoxical: a weak player plus a regular computer plus an improved process are superior to a strong player with a powerful computer, but a weak interaction process. The interface is everything!
The interesting thing is that you do not need a strong player at all, Garry Kasparov is not needed in order to be on the side of the car to find the best move, and there is a simple answer to this. If today we consider the relative strengths of man and computer, you can go beyond the boundaries of chess, but let's start all the same with them, because there are numbers in chess. So, my record chess rating was 2851 points, until I lost to Magnus Carlsen, and at the end of my chess career he was 2812 points. Today, Magnus Carlsen tops the rating above 2800 points. Approximately 50 players have a rating between 2700 and 2800 points. This is the elite of the chess world. Nowadays, the power of a computer is within 3200 points, and taking into account specialized software its rating can reach 3300-3400 points.
Now you understand why you do not need a strong player? Because a player of my level will try to push the computer to act in one direction or another, instead of being with him a simple operator. Therefore, a weaker chess player who does not have such “ambition” and such conceit as the world chess champion will interact with a computer much more efficiently and form a more productive human-computer combination.
I think this is a very important discovery not only for chess, but also, for example, for medicine. As you know, computers in many cases are able to make a more accurate diagnosis than the best doctors do. So what would you like more: a good doctor in the face of a computer or a good nurse who will just follow the instructions and make a small guide based on the recommendations of the machine?
I don’t know the exact numbers, suppose 60-65% of people will choose a doctor, and 85% will be for a computer, but psychologically, if you are a good doctor, you can’t accept it. If you look at today's technological progress, we can say that computers make a true diagnosis in 80 - 85 - 90% of cases, but 10% remain with people anyway! And this can be a huge difference, because when a bullet deviates by only 1 degree during a shot, it can fly at a distance of several hundred meters from the target. The question is whether we are able to direct the full power of computer computing in the right direction.
Therefore, I still believe that all the fears that cars will soon replace all of us, and this will be the end of the world, Armageddon are just rumors. Because, as I said, this concerns the creative abilities of a person, and the uniqueness of computer intelligence is that it only enhances our creative abilities, releases them and tells us how to use them in the best way.
Sometimes, to find the answer to a question, it is worth moving away from the world of science and delving deeper into the world of art. Somehow I found an excellent paradox set forth by the great artist Pablo Picasso: “Computers are useless. The only thing they can do is give answers. ” I think that this is great wisdom and these words sound encouraging, because the machines still give answers, and these answers are exhaustive!
However, Picasso was not satisfied with comprehensive answers because he was an artist. This is due to the constant rethinking of art, this is exactly what we constantly do - ask questions. Can computers ask questions?
One day I visited the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, where I was going to talk with Dave Ferrucci, one of the developers of the Watson IBM supercomputer. We talked about whether machines can ask questions, and Dave said, “Yes, computers can ask questions, but they don’t know which of the questions really matter.” That is the essence. Thus, we are still in the game and we have a chance to move on, because the game of man and computer is not finished yet.
On this slide you see several photos of possible areas of use of autonomous computers, machines that can program themselves, that is, have the ability to learn.
One of the photographs depicts Demis Hassabis with his self-learning neural network AlphaGo. In fact, this is probably the first machine that can be called a prototype of artificial intelligence.
As I said, Deep Blue is brute-force brute force, Watson is probably a transitional link, but not yet an AI. AlphaGo is a deep learning program that cultivates itself by finding matching models, playing millions and millions of games.
I can say that in the case of AlphaGo we are dealing with a real “black box” for the first time. Because, for example, if we spend a hundred years exploring thousands of miles of Deep Blue game logs, then in the end we will get to the original idea why this decision was made and this particular move was made. As for AlphaGo, I’m sure that even Demis Hassabis will not be able to say what version 6 is better than version 9, or vice versa, bearing in mind the decision made by this machine.
On the one hand, this is a great achievement, but on the other hand it can be a problem, because if the machine made a mistake, you will not be able to find out about it. However, in any case, this is a movement towards the creation of a real AI.
I once spoke at Google headquarters, and they organized a tour of Google X for me. This was very interesting, because this company is confidently moving in the direction of creating AI, solving the problems of creating a self-driving car or autonomous drones that independently deliver goods. However, no less problem than the technical support of AI, is the problem of regulating its activities. People say that AI can completely replace them, depriving them of work. However, let's call for help the history of human civilization - this has happened for hundreds and thousands of years!
24:35 min
DEFCON 25 conference. Garry Kasparov. "The last battle of the brain." Part 2
Thank you for staying with us. Do you like our articles? Want to see more interesting materials? Support us by placing an order or recommending it to your friends, a 30% discount for Habr users on a unique analogue of entry-level servers that we invented for you: The whole truth about VPS (KVM) E5-2650 v4 (6 Cores) 10GB DDR4 240GB SSD 1Gbps from $ 20 or how to divide the server? (options are available with RAID1 and RAID10, up to 24 cores and up to 40GB DDR4).
Dell R730xd 2 times cheaper? Only we have 2 x Intel TetraDeca-Core Xeon 2x E5-2697v3 2.6GHz 14C 64GB DDR4 4x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100 TV from $ 199 in the Netherlands!Dell R420 - 2x E5-2430 2.2Ghz 6C 128GB DDR3 2x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100TB - from $ 99! Read about How to Build Infrastructure Bldg. class using Dell R730xd E5-2650 v4 servers costing 9,000 euros for a penny?