From The BBC
29 July 2017
Humans should embrace the change smart machines offer society, says former chess world champion Garry Kasparov. In a speech at Def Con in Las Vegas he said the rise of artificially intelligent machines would not be a huge threat to humanity. However, he said, there was likely to be huge social change as the "shaky hands" of humans were replaced. Mr Kasparov welcomed the change and said it would be good if the effects could be accelerated.
In a wide-ranging speech that drew on his experiences playing chess against IBM's Deep Blue computer and many other so-called smart machines, he sought to put the current rise of AI into historical context. Only now, he said, were we starting to get true AI by which he meant a "black box" which reached its decisions by itself and whose reasons for making those choices was impossible to unpick. He cited Google's AlphaGo computer as an example of this kind of AI. By contrast, he said, the Deep Blue supercomputer that beat him at chess in 1996 and 1997 was simply a very fast computer that used "brute force" techniques to win. "Deep Blue was as intelligent as an alarm clock," he said "though losing to a $10m (£7.6m) alarm clock did not make me feel any better."
The arrival of more authentically intelligent machines did not spell doom for humanity, he said, because history showed that almost every novel technology or innovation was a force of creative destruction. "The problem is not that machines are replacing human jobs and that they are going after people with college degrees and Twitter accounts," he said. "Technology, before it creates jobs kills them, it's always done that." There were already examples of ways smart machines were helping some people do their jobs better by letting computers handle the bits that humans can struggle with. For instance, he said, expert systems that can diagnose conditions more accurately than people do the best job when paired with nurses that can then act on that diagnosis.
Future generations would look back and be amazed that 21st Century life was so people-centric, he said, especially in fields, such as car driving, where human fallibility put more lives at risk than was necessary. When humans work with smart machines there were huge opportunities for creativity and change for the better, he said. "We all have these fears that machines will replace us and we'll be extinguished but I believe there is plenty of room for creativity. And lots of it. It's up to us humans to do what only humans can do and that's dream and dream big so we can get the most out of these amazing new tools," he concluded.
[Of course Kasparov is right in many ways. Machines are, even today, faster, stronger and more accurate than human beings ever will be. Their introduction into fields across the human spectrum will make things better, more efficient and safer. Many mundane and, frankly, dangerous jobs that people do today, often to the detriment of their long term health, will be done by machines and life will be the better for it. But…. Will we leave it at driverless cars and expert systems making the world into a better place for everyone? Of course we won’t. Those made unemployed (and possibly unemployable) will not enjoy years or decades on government handouts or being reduced to jobs that either machines can’t (presently) do or work that is uneconomic for machines to do. That underclass of people will, more than probably, simply be abandoned on the scrap heap of history. Will we leave it at that? I doubt it. As with most things the technology around robotics and AI will inevitably find its way into the most advanced weapons systems ever devised and they will be dedicated to killing people – in other words those countries who cannot (yet) build or buy fighting machines of their own. As soon as it becomes clear (pretty immediately) that people cannot beat machines in a stand-up fight everyone will rush to build killer AI’s and killer robots. I’m sure that this will work out fine for all concerned and will result in no unscheduled casualties. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?]
9 comments:
In Vonnegut's "Player Piano", virtually everyone was rendered unemployed by the machines, but taxes were levied on the capital of the machines themselves and used to pay for their support. Asimov imagined a world where computers managed the economy and people just spent their days painting and such, but honestly...great art only comes from the passions of life, its activity. People with managed lives aren't going to produce anything, except for pieces about depression because there's no meaning in their lives.
I mention Vonnegut because it seems more likely to me that as more and more people are rendered jobless by machines -- assuming the pace of displacement exceeds the pace of new jobs/opportunities created -- the more inevitable that Player Piano scheme seems.
gowronggowronggowrong.... no matter what the near future holds, i think many will end up in the dumpster... just too many of us littering the planet...
@ Stephen: Automated factories and driverless vehicles (including trucks, delivery vehicles, trains, aircraft and ships) are pretty much inevitable. If any country tries to ban or restrict them that country will be taken apart economically by other countries with no such qualms. So if you're a driver of any kind or a factory worker you job is toast in the next 20-30 years. Expert Systems will eventually replace all/most knowledge based jobs too - including lawyers, doctors, teachers and the majority of office based professions. To be honest there won't be much that machines/AI's can't do in 20-30 years. What will take the place of these jobs (if anything) in unclear. As you said, the idea that our kids will spend their days painting or mountain climbing is pretty ridiculous. Of course there will be VR gaming where people will spend VAST amounts of time just having fun.....
@ Mudpuddle: Oh, yes. There are FAR too many humans here already. It's not going to get better in the short term.
I continue to be suspicious of the claim that robots will replace truck drivers, in part because driving trucks is not a matter of simply cruise-controlling one's way down the highway. To get into tight spots, human drivers have to think creatively and often consult with locals on alternative approaches -- obtaining permission to use someone's yard to turn around, for instance. City streets are full of random obstacles that can enter and exit the path without warning to the computer, too. When a vehicle like a fully-loaded truck is moving at speed, the current vehicle sensor ranges won't do. That's an area I need to look into more -- the potential expansion of collision detection sensors.
Future technology - especially robots and AI's - and how they will effect society interests me a great deal. Maybe between us we'll find some interesting ideas to put out there on the subject.
i like Stephen's analysis: the real world presents obstacles that evade awareness if the observer is not familiar with the context... i wonder if S ever drove truck...
I follow Kasparov on Twitter and he seems like a fascinating person. He talks a lot about the future of humanity and machines.
I am fairly optimistic about the future. there are terrible setbacks but I believe that in the long run humans will become more peaceful. Though technology is a double edged sword, I think in the end its effects will be more positive then negative. Admittedly Climate Change and a few other dangers might prove me wrong.
@ Brian: I'd like to share your optimism Brian, but I'm afraid I don't. The world is indeed, relatively, peaceful at the moment but I do wonder how long that will last. Technology is indeed a 2 edge sword and we need to keep a close eye on it to prevent it unexpectedly biting us in the ass. Again, unfortunately, we haven't developed that kind of oversight which we really need as technology gets smarter, cheaper and more widely distributed. unfortunately (yet again) the driving forces behind technological progress seem to be centred around making as much money as quickly as possible (hoping to fix any problems later with more technology) and military applications. This would be (relatively) OK if the military apps had a decent amount of oversight and the option to kill a project before it became too dangerous to the general population. But military needs are driven by the (often very real) fears that potential enemies might be developing exactly that technology that politicians might want to terminate. It's very difficult to argue with things like that - which means our weapons tech will get more and more lethal and that technology will, inevitably, spread to other countries or groups. Some of which are most definitely not our friends right now.
Oh, and Climate Change? That is the million ton elephant in the room isn't it? Maybe Climate Change will force the issue and actually save us from ourselves as we are forced, as a planet, to do something about it.
a bang, not a whimper....
Post a Comment