Richard Hamming: Chapter 8. Artificial Intelligence III

“The goal of this course is to prepare you for your technical future.”

Hi, Habr. Remember the awesome article “You and Your Work” (+219, 2365 bookmarked, 360k reads)?

So Hamming (yes, yes, Hamming’s self-checking and self-correcting codes ) has a whole book written based on his lectures. Let’s translate it, because the man is talking business.

This book is not just about IT, it is a book about the thinking style of incredibly cool people. “This is not just a charge of positive thinking; it describes conditions that increase the chances of doing a great job. ”

We have already translated 11 (out of 30) chapters.
Thank you for the translation urticazokuwho responded to my call in the "previous chapter." Who wants to help with the translation - write in a personal email or e-mail magisterludi2016@yandex.ru (By the way, we also launched the translation of another cool book - “The Dream Machine: The History of the Computer Revolution” )

Artificial Intelligence - III

I suggest pausing and discussing the following question:

Can cars think?

and also why it is important to come to our own conclusions about what machines can and will not be able to do in the future. Consider the following list of statements:

1. Just because computers are not programmed to think does not mean that they are not capable of this; maybe these programmers are stupid!
2. Just because you want cars to be able to think doesn't mean they can; perhaps this is only your desire.
3. The Arthur Samuel checker program "learned" from my own experience, so the machines, apparently, can be trained.
4. The new proof of the isosceles triangle theorem is “original” - perhaps better than anyone else did. (Translator's note: we are talking about proving a theorem with a special program for proving theorems of Euclidean geometry. The computer created a completely new proof by turning the triangles 180 degrees and declaring them congruent. To which one famous mathematician remarked: “If one of my students made that, I would call him a budding genius. ”[ Source ])
5. Imagine the shortest program that can think. Not a single part of it can think by definition.
6. Think of the “logical” and the “psychological” novelty.
7. Whatever your opinion, which could prove its fallacy?
8. Thinking is probably a qualitative rather than a quantitative question.
9. Think, thinking can be a way to do something, rather than what is done, determining whether a thing will appear or not. AI has traditionally adhered to “what has been done” and rarely considered the “how” method.

You can start your discussion with these questions; I don’t care what position you take - there is always the opposite point of view, the main thing is that you can explain it. My task is to make you think about this strange topic, and not give answers.

Such discussions, as a rule, are very hostile to cars, although less and less every year. They often begin with remarks such as "I would not want my life to be dependent on a car." To which they answer: "Are you against the use of pacemakers?" Modern pilots cannot fully control aircraft, but must rely on computers to stabilize them. In the emergency room in modern hospitals, you automatically connect to a computer that monitors your vital signs and, in many cases, calls a nurse long before anyone can do this and do something. A simple fact - your life is often controlled by machines, and sometimes they are needed to save it - you just don't like to think about it again.

“I don’t want cars to control my life” - well, you don’t want to turn off traffic lights at intersections? See answers above. Yes, more often people get along with the car much better than with other people!

“Machines can never do what humans do.” I think cars do what no man can do. And in any case, how confident are you that a machine (program), which now cannot do anything better than a person, will not do it tomorrow? (Perhaps you will write such a program!). And how important are these perceived differences to your career?

People are sure that they are something more than a machine, but often can not bring any evidence until they think about religion. Foreign students of different faiths do this reluctantly - although for many (but not all) religions it is obvious that a person is different from all other species on Earth.

Another prejudice against computers is with experts. They are confident that a machine will never be able to compete with humans (see Part 1), forgetting about the advantages of machines. And this: economics, speed, accuracy, reliability, speed of management, freedom from boredom, throughput and ease of retraining, an aggressive environment and personnel problems. It seems they always cling to their alleged superiority, not trying to find places where cars can improve the situation! It is difficult to get people to look at cars as a useful thing, wherever they work - they continue to think so; people surpass computers in certain areas, and of course there are such areas, but now there are fewer than you think. The interaction between man and machine is important, not the conflict that flows from the human ego.

Second useful discussion topic:

Future use of computers in expert knowledge.

Too often, people report on the past and present use of computers, which is good, but not for those whose goal is to draw attention to future opportunities. It's hard to get people to think aggressively about how something in their area of ​​research can be done differently. Several times I wondered what could be better if I asked them to use computers in other areas than their own narrow specialty; perhaps they will be less suppressed by this!

Since my goal, as indicated above, is to make the reader think about the strange topic of “thinking” of machines and the vision of their personal future, you, the reader, must make your own opinion and try to express it clearly, and then explore with the help of arguments, until it becomes clear to you what you believe and why . The author doesn’t care what you believe, his job is to make you think and clearly state your position. For readers of the book, I propose instead of reading the following pages to stop and discuss these unpleasant issues with oneself or, perhaps, with friends; the more confident you are, the more you must argue with others!

To be continued ...

Who wants to help with the translation - write in a personal email or e-mail magisterludi2016@yandex.ru

By the way, we also launched the translation of another cool book - “The Dream Machine: The History of the Computer Revolution” )