Don’t fear intelligent machines. Work with them | Garry Kasparov

Don’t fear intelligent machines. Work with them | Garry Kasparov

This story begins in 1985, when at age 22, I became the World Chess Champion after beating Anatoly Karpov. Earlier that year, I played what is called
simultaneous exhibition against 32 of the world’s
best chess-playing machines in Hamburg, Germany. I won all the games, and then it was not considered
much of a surprise that I could beat 32 computers
at the same time. To me, that was the golden age. (Laughter) Machines were weak, and my hair was strong. (Laughter) Just 12 years later, I was fighting for my life
against just one computer in a match called by the cover of “Newsweek” “The Brain’s Last Stand.” No pressure. (Laughter) From mythology to science fiction, human versus machine has been often portrayed
as a matter of life and death. John Henry, called the steel-driving man in the 19th century
African American folk legend, was pitted in a race against a steam-powered hammer bashing a tunnel through mountain rock. John Henry’s legend
is a part of a long historical narrative pitting humanity versus technology. And this competitive rhetoric
is standard now. We are in a race against the machines, in a fight or even in a war. Jobs are being killed off. People are being replaced
as if they had vanished from the Earth. It’s enough to think that the movies
like “The Terminator” or “The Matrix” are nonfiction. There are very few instances of an arena where the human body and mind
can compete on equal terms with a computer or a robot. Actually, I wish there were a few more. Instead, it was my blessing and my curse to literally become the proverbial man in the man versus machine competition that everybody is still talking about. In the most famous human-machine
competition since John Henry, I played two matches against the IBM supercomputer, Deep Blue. Nobody remembers
that I won the first match — (Laughter) (Applause) In Philadelphia, before losing the rematch
the following year in New York. But I guess that’s fair. There is no day in history,
special calendar entry for all the people
who failed to climb Mt. Everest before Sir Edmund Hillary
and Tenzing Norgay made it to the top. And in 1997, I was still
the world champion when chess computers finally came of age. I was Mt. Everest, and Deep Blue reached the summit. I should say of course,
not that Deep Blue did it, but its human creators — Anantharaman, Campbell, Hoane, Hsu. Hats off to them. As always, machine’s triumph
was a human triumph, something we tend to forget when humans
are surpassed by our own creations. Deep Blue was victorious, but was it intelligent? No, no it wasn’t, at least not in the way Alan Turing
and other founders of computer science had hoped. It turned out that chess
could be crunched by brute force, once hardware got fast enough and algorithms got smart enough. Although by the definition of the output, grandmaster-level chess, Deep Blue was intelligent. But even at the incredible speed, 200 million positions per second, Deep Blue’s method provided little of the dreamed-of insight
into the mysteries of human intelligence. Soon, machines will be taxi drivers and doctors and professors, but will they be “intelligent?” I would rather leave these definitions to the philosophers and to the dictionary. What really matters is how we humans feel about living and working
with these machines. When I first met Deep Blue
in 1996 in February, I had been the world champion
for more than 10 years, and I had played 182
world championship games and hundreds of games against
other top players in other competitions. I knew what to expect from my opponents and what to expect from myself. I was used to measure their moves and to gauge their emotional state by watching their body language
and looking into their eyes. And then I sat across
the chessboard from Deep Blue. I immediately sensed something new, something unsettling. You might experience a similar feeling the first time you ride
in a driverless car or the first time your new computer
manager issues an order at work. But when I sat at that first game, I couldn’t be sure what is this thing capable of. Technology can advance in leaps,
and IBM had invested heavily. I lost that game. And I couldn’t help wondering, might it be invincible? Was my beloved game of chess over? These were human doubts, human fears, and the only thing I knew for sure was that my opponent Deep Blue
had no such worries at all. (Laughter) I fought back after this devastating blow to win the first match, but the writing was on the wall. I eventually lost to the machine but I didn’t suffer the fate of John Henry who won but died
with his hammer in his hand. [John Henry Died with a Hammer in His Hand
Palmer C. Hayden] [The Museum of African
American Art, Los Angeles] It turned out that the world of chess still wanted to have
a human chess champion. And even today, when a free chess app
on the latest mobile phone is stronger than Deep Blue, people are still playing chess, even more than ever before. Doomsayers predicted
that nobody would touch the game that could be conquered by the machine, and they were wrong, proven wrong, but doomsaying has always been
a popular pastime when it comes to technology. What I learned from my own experience is that we must face our fears if we want to get the most
out of our technology, and we must conquer those fears if we want to get the best
out of our humanity. While licking my wounds, I got a lot of inspiration from my battles against Deep Blue. As the old Russian saying goes,
if you can’t beat them, join them. Then I thought, what if I could play with a computer — together with a computer at my side,
combining our strengths, human intuition
plus machine’s calculation, human strategy, machine tactics, human experience, machine’s memory. Could it be the perfect game ever played? My idea came to life in 1998 under the name of Advanced Chess when I played this human-plus-machine
competition against another elite player. But in this first experiment, we both failed to combine
human and machine skills effectively. Advanced Chess found
its home on the internet, and in 2005, a so-called
freestyle chess tournament produced a revelation. A team of grandmasters
and top machines participated, but the winners were not grandmasters, not a supercomputer. The winners were a pair
of amateur American chess players operating three ordinary PCs
at the same time. Their skill of coaching their machines effectively counteracted
the superior chess knowledge of their grandmaster opponents and much greater
computational power of others. And I reached this formulation. A weak human player plus a machine plus a better process is superior to a very powerful machine alone, but more remarkably,
is superior to a strong human player plus machine and an inferior process. This convinced me that we would need better interfaces
to help us coach our machines towards more useful intelligence. Human plus machine isn’t the future, it’s the present. Everybody that’s used online translation to get the gist of a news article
from a foreign newspaper, knowing its far from perfect. Then we use our human experience to make sense out of that, and then the machine
learns from our corrections. This model is spreading and investing
in medical diagnosis, security analysis. The machine crunches data, calculates probabilities, gets 80 percent of the way, 90 percent, making it easier for analysis and decision-making of the human party. But you are not going to send your kids to school in a self-driving car
with 90 percent accuracy, even with 99 percent. So we need a leap forward to add a few more crucial decimal places. Twenty years after
my match with Deep Blue, second match, this sensational
“The Brain’s Last Stand” headline has become commonplace as intelligent machines move in every sector, seemingly every day. But unlike in the past, when machines replaced farm animals, manual labor, now they are coming
after people with college degrees and political influence. And as someone
who fought machines and lost, I am here to tell you
this is excellent, excellent news. Eventually, every profession will have to feel these pressures or else it will mean humanity
has ceased to make progress. We don’t get to choose when and where
technological progress stops. We cannot slow down. In fact, we have to speed up. Our technology excels at removing difficulties and uncertainties
from our lives, and so we must seek out ever more difficult, ever more uncertain challenges. Machines have calculations. We have understanding. Machines have instructions. We have purpose. Machines have objectivity. We have passion. We should not worry
about what our machines can do today. Instead, we should worry
about what they still cannot do today, because we will need the help
of the new, intelligent machines to turn our grandest dreams into reality. And if we fail, if we fail, it’s not because our machines
are too intelligent, or not intelligent enough. If we fail, it’s because
we grew complacent and limited our ambitions. Our humanity is not defined by any skill, like swinging a hammer
or even playing chess. There’s one thing only a human can do. That’s dream. So let us dream big. Thank you. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Don’t fear intelligent machines. Work with them | Garry Kasparov

  1. I've talked to Garry about this. His understanding of the subject is limited. – Elon Musk
    It's a joke reference, don't start with the stupid comments.

  2. When the AI dominates, we don't need to go to the courts that controlled by corrupted people, we don't need to waste time and money and especially our lives to see and expect to get healed by those so called doctors, we then no need to have all these corrupted governments that work for the riches. Machinery gods better than humans gods.

  3. Do you ever worry that machines will rise to a level where humans can add nothing. That human ideas of strategy, experience, intuition are childs play compared to machine created concepts?
    We have already seen that eliminating human strategy altogether has resulted in a stronger Go AI alphago zero

  4. Working whit robots is ok but become one whit them is www 666 is the limit it will happens choose while you can accept Jesus its all becoming clearer know

  5. This session/speech will go down in history as one of the greatest stories ever told about man and machine.

  6. <Joke>In Soviet Russia "the workers owned the means of production" – In 2018 when Putin's SkyNet becomes self-aware on the google network, The means of production will own the workers. </end joke>

  7. the people that think that A.I is not a problem and will never be a problem are just Old or Simply Retarded

  8. The one TED talk I'm actually invested into. I always wanted a modern day response from Garry on the legendary deep blue match, given how pissed off he looked that day he lost. 20 years and things have changed drastically, and I'm glad to learn that he no longer has those sentiments but instead has so many grand thoughts on the implication of the match and ai future.

  9. Kasparov on 2017 says machines go to be taxidrivers – 2018 Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman LOL!!!!!

  10. He should include the 1994 Intel Grand Prix tournament when he was packed with a chess computer that put him in mental torture. Even Mr. Garry don't want to look back.

  11. The inventors who have created these beasts want us to be completely open and vulnerable to them but are hiding something wicked. Fear God who has sent this wickedness for the unsaved world. Jesus' return is near. Turn from sin and accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. You'll want to live a changed life for him without any fear of man their inventions, and their so called gods.

    2 Thessalonians 2:8
    “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:”

  12. As likeable as Mr. Kasparov is, it's clear that he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to the rational concerns many scientists have regarding AI–or even an understanding of the actual potential capabilities of machine intelligence. Being a great chess player doesn't grant you insights into computer science apparently. He doesn't seem to recognize the fact that at some point, humans will be completely obsolete. There will be no need to work with machines, because humans will simply slow them down. We'll be like the six year old who wants to help mommy make the eggs for breakfast–no help whatsoever, but mom will work a little bit slower so we can feel included and learn how to make eggs. Of course, that's only if we manage to solve the alignment problem–otherwise we'll all just end up dead.

    If you want a brief summary of the real concerns, I'd recommend viewing Sam Harris's TED talk.

  13. His experience with deep blue doesn't translate to most people. Kasparov didn't lose his job and livelihood because a computer is a better chess player.

  14. He is too used to chess, he is too used to thinking steps ahead, and in my opinion, this talk is thinking steps ahead about machines. Splendid, very splendid indeed

  15. "Deep Blue wasn't intelligent; although judging by the output (of playing chess) – it was." The functionalist test of intelligence is the output, which is also the essence of the Turing's test, so under this view, Deep Blue was intelligent in the game of chess.

  16. Very inspiring. Thank you M. Kasparov.
    Btw, congrats for your 1st win on Deep Blue, I just didn't know!!!
    Alexandre from Québec, Canada

  17. I aint trippin. Just as long as they get it right. Some of it like all things in life though can be used for good, or evil. And sadly, there's a lot of evil technology out here nowadays

  18. Kasparov may say "Don't fear intelligent machines. Work with them!" Um… Yea but the thing about that Garry is if you pretty much dedicated your life to be the greatest chess player in history… You may have been successful and it would be hard for me to find an argument for another to have that claim (Fischer or Carlsen or Morphy perhaps… However Garry is very much up there!)

    My Cellphone can beat Kasparov at chess. Machines are taking peoples jobs day after day. His argument is basically "If you can't beat them. Join them."

  19. AI works with predictive programming so do the 'karma police'. Winning isn't possible but makes life entertaining by make believe 'hope'.

  20. Interesting perspective from a Chess GM about AI / Intelligent Machine . This is a killer line of this debate – 'You won't send your kid to a self driving school even with 99% accuracy'

  21. Very impressive and sincere speech from man who can state such things based on his human superiority and unique but sad experience in that human-machine struggle.

  22. It's not really intelligence that I'm worried about, it's sentience. It's really hard to predict what can happen when we create a super advanced sentient AI. It would then probably turn into slavery since we created a sentient being.

  23. Plot twist is that now machines can dream with GANs. So, Mr. Kasparov, maybe we need to redefine our humanity (not on the basis of dreams), or machines will take over.

  24. I love chess. Very sad to hear the great chess champion talk like this. As if he has lost his intelligence. Or maybe he has.

  25. We humans created machines to do the task we CAN'T do. Isn't that the whole point of creating them? I mean won't you lose if you have a weightlifting match against an excavator?

  26. I don't understand because there are no Indonesian subtitles.
    sad because I can't get information because of language limitations. 🙁

  27. There are two chessplayers, I like.
    Not of their WM, but staying faithfull as nice and empathic humans all their life:
    Garry and Magnus.

  28. Kasparov, "the last brain stand" surrendeted to machines. Or, at least, he became their best poetry in translation…

  29. Before Kasparov lost against Deep Blue, I already lost chess matches against computers. It's unfair I'm not recognized for that.

  30. sorry, but I will trip an intelligent machine if I see it walking down the street. I have no interest in conforming to the corporate worlds efforts to replace me. F u buddy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *