PAUL HOFFMAN ON MAN VERSUS MACHINE
February 16, 1996
NewsHour essayist and editor-in-chief of Discover magazine, Paul Hoffman, looks at artificial intelligence and its relationship to our lives. The forum was inspired by the battle of chess titans, Garry Kasparov, World Champion chess master and Deep Blue, a supercomputer developed by IBM. If Kasparov loses will this mean that computers are in some ways superior?
Click to see a Forum Menu.
PAUL HOFFMAN ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS:
A question from Bruno Giussani of Lusanne, Switzerland:
The man against machine is one thing, but what about the man with machine? What
about the complete transparent interface, when we'll wear "intelligent" clothes, e-mail
through wristwatch-connectivity, and so on? What is the viability of this technology and its impact on the user?
Paul Hoffman responds:
There is work being done at MIT, and other places, on "wearable" computers. For example, you could wear a "smart" fabric that responds to temperature. It becomes thicker, and insulates you more when its cold, and when its hot, it becomes thinner and airier. Its hard to judge when this will be available for the marketplace, but its not science fiction because it does exists in labs.
Regarding "wristwatch-connectivity," Dick Tracy-like personal communication devices that we strap to our wrists are just around the corner. I don't think it will change our psyche anymore than the telephone did.
A question from Alan Freed Jr. of Helena, Montana:
It isn't really a question of "artificial" intelligence versus the human variety, since without the human programmers behind Deep Blue, it would just be another heap of nuts, bolts, copper, plastic, glue and silicon. The computer or machine intelligence is only as "smart" as the individuals programming it. As our understanding of
computer science grows, perhaps someday we will learn to design and build computers
that can truly "think" for themselves, but that day is still a good long way away. I don't
think it is the machines we should be worried about, but rather, what the computer scientists are designing them for. People in general, and Americans in particular, are building a new mythology around computers and in doing this, they are ascribing human characteristics to them. This is a mistake.
Technology, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. It is we human beings who will
ultimately determine whether we give our creations the power to pose genuine threats to ourselves.
Paul Hoffman responds:
That's true, but I don't think you can ascribe an evil motive to people who program
machines to play chess.
A question from Jim Spiegel of New Providence, New Jersey:
The computer will eventually beat a human every time in chess. Let me say it this way,
there are a finite number of chess games given a limited number of moves, lets say
about 50 moves a piece. The computer can have in its memory, all these possibilities.
When the computer decides what move to make next, it just picks from a list which it has to sift through. The only way humans can hold out is to try to make the game as long as possible.
Paul Hoffman responds:
Computers have already taken over our lives, but not in bad way. They are involved in
everything in a behind-the-scenes way. Who among us goes to a teller anymore? We all go to cash machine. The car you drive was made by a computer controlled by an automated factory. And the car itself has computer chips that govern injection and anti-lock brakes, among other things. If you wear pacemaker, you have computer chip inside you. Whenever you make a phone call, its routed by a computer, so they've already taken over... but it doesn't feel that bad to me!
A comment from Daren Stotler of Plainsboro, New Jersey:
I'll be worried about computers being superior to humans the day the computer can wheel itself into the room, find the chess board, and physically move the pieces.
Paul Hoffman responds:
That day will come, but not during the lifetime of any of the NewsHour's viewers.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT
Christoph Lameter of Temple City, California
Computers are or will be superior in any game that has a
limited number of moves. Chess is such a game although the
number of possible scenarios is quite big.
It is to be expected if not now then at some point in the
future that a computer will be able to handle these moves
better or equally well than a human.
Computers are superior in their number crunching abilities.
But computers will never be able to handle information in a
human way - meaning intuitively learning the proper context
and meaning of a word for example. There are attempts to
accomplish intuitive learning made with neural nets. But these
nets are still designed by humans and therefore are limited
by human creativity.
Computers can never be completely superior in all aspects
of a human being since we are not even ourselves capable
of understanding how we work both physically as well as
mentally and spiritually.
Click to see a Forum Menu. | 
