Keeping up with developments in the world of AI is challenging. Once ChatGPT released, I read every article I could find. But the sheer volume did me in. So I’ve curated a few articles I found especially elucidating and provided links for you. (Scroll down for the links.)
But I did want to summarize a book that wrestles with the bigger concept of humans vs. machines and how to coexist. Ultimately, even though it was published way back in 2018, it gave voice to so much of what we’re experiencing with generative AI. Entitled Deep Thinking: Where Machine Intelligence Ends and Human Creativity Begins, the book is written from the perspective of Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion who became the first chessmaster to be beaten by a computer, Big Blue. In it, Garry recounts what it was like to play chess with computers and the conclusions he came to about just how threatened should we be by machines that can “think.”
Why agree to play when you know you’ll lose?
Garry knew from the day he first played against a clunky, wheezy computer that eventually a machine would beat him. He accepted the inevitable because he envisioned that the inept, slow, and clumsy challenger would one day become a sleek machine. It would never think like a human, but it would become such a massive and speedy data cruncher that it would be akin to a tennis player with a 250 mph serve. It wouldn’t matter that the tennis player had a weak backhand; the game would never depend on his backhand.
The public (and other chess grandmasters) wondered why Kasparov kept agreeing to matches with machines. According to Kasparov, he knew some world champion would be beat, why not him? Meanwhile, he could probe the machines “sitting” opposite him and come to understand what they could do that he could not–play with never needing to sleep; never becoming emotionally involved or mentally manipulated by the opponent; never worrying about whether its opponent was cheating; just play with no concern about the outcome, for it had nothing to gain or lose.
“Mastering” the human
All these forces worked against Garry during the tournament in which he lost. The IBM team that oversaw the running of Big Blue mastered Kasparov on the emotional and physical fronts, making him wait for hours at a time while they did some sort of “reconfiguring” of the computer (searching for options on which moves would lead to a win?).
Despite agreeing to report after each game what adjustments they made to the computer, they never did so. And once Big Blue won, it was dismantled, which left experts no opportunity to explore its programming. (IBM stood to make a great deal of money in stocks once Big Blue won. The motivation to win was zilch for the machine but exceptionally high for the team.)
As one reads Kasparov’s recounting of the match, it becomes clear the IBM team won via their manipulations of the very human side of Garry. Sure, the computer chose the moves, but so much more was at play.
Is it smart to outsource our brains?
Ultimately, Garry points out, computers in general and AI in particular, amount to humans outsourcing certain processes we used to ask our brains to do. Kasparov points out to the reader: “Following in the grand tradition of nearly every new technology, nobody started to panic about the potential downsides of cognitive outsourcing until kids started doing it, and doing it in ways that their parents didn’t understand. They type with their thumbs in ugly slang and funny symbols. They have short attention spans. They can’t remember their own phone numbers…”
Kasparov quotes David Brooks, a New York Times columnist, who reacted to the idea that he was giving in to outsourcing his brain through technological developments this way: “I had thought that the magic of the information age was that it allowed us to know more, but then I realized the magic of the information age is that it allows us to know less….You may wonder if in the process of outsourcing my thinking I am losing my individuality. Not so…it’s merely my autonomy that I’m losing.”
In other words, yes, we rely on our machines. But how much value, in this world of AI, should we put on knowing our phone numbers? We live in an age in which we can know less yet do more. And we can free our creativity and thinking to do more human kinds of work. Work that machines are not good at. (Remember the tennis player with the 250 mph serve and the weak backhand.)
The choice we each face
Kasparov ends his book by saying, “I have argued that our technology can make us more human by freeing us to be creative, but there is more to being human than creativity. We have other qualities the machines cannot match. They have instructions while we have purpose. Machines cannot dream, not even in sleep mode. Humans can, and we will need our intelligent machines in order to turn our grandest dreams into reality. If we stop dreaming big dreams, if we stop looking for a greater purpose, then we may as well be machines ourselves.”
I don’t think this means we stop asking the hard questions. What do we want machines to do for us? What are we giving up when we stop doing certain tasks because the machines do them better? Nor do I think it’s right for developers of AI to pirate intellectual property to train their machines. And then the developers make money off the sale of what AI regurgitates. We still have much to decide about how humans and machines will interact with each in this world of AI.
What concerns you about AI? What tasks would you like to hand over to it?
Ever-changing World of AI article links
“How One Author Pushed the Limits of AI Copyright” https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-copyright-office-loosens-up-a-little-on-ai/
“Amazon Is Taking Spammers’ Money to Serve Ads for AI-Generated Books on Kindle Lock Screens” https://futurism.com/amazon-kindle-ai-ads
“Book Business AI Showcase: Hypnovels and Maven” https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/94981-book-business-ai-showcase-hypnovels-and-maven.html
Image by Wilfried Pohnke from Pixabay
Five Tips to Becoming a Better Writer
It’s AI this and AI that,
but in these days I’ve learned
that it has no room to swing a cat
as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve read some stuff it generated,
them dropped it from my hand,
for my heart was not penetrated
because it was so bland,
like a cardboard milkshake
or recycled fries.
More than that it’s gonna take
to give me a surprise,
and no, before you think to ask,
no cats were swung upon this task.
Creative writing is not a strong skill for AI, by any means. But, as Kasparov so clearly stated in his book, humans generally sniff and put their noses in the air with disdain when any type of technological innovation pops up. Yes, it will be clunky and amateurish. But here’s the part of AI that many underestimate–how fast it can churn through data. And that means that it learns exceedingly fast. What it can do today, it will outdo tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that. That’s the wonder and the worry about AI.
It may learn fast, but what is it learning?
Chess is a fundamentally algorithmic process, but here I am reminded of a quote by T.E. Lawrence:
Nine-tenths of tactics are certain, and taught in books: but the irrational tenth is like the kingfisher flashing across the pool, and that is the test of generals.
AI will never appreciate the kingfisher, for that is the domain of the soul.
Thank you, Janet, for sharing these thoughts. I now work part-time in a high school. As the students type, Google helpfully suggests their next words. Thus, everyone’s written work starts to look the same. It fixes their grammar and punctuation, yes, but at the cost of their creativity. I miss their quirky word choices. And personally, I’m annoyed when it tries to finish my emails for me, providing a list of choices for my answer. Catching my spelling errors — great. Setting the tone for my response to my supervisor — I’m not a fan. As a writer, I worry about a generation learning to put their thoughts into words. There’s something to be said for pen and paper, without the help of AI.
Shirlee, thanks for your perspective as a teacher, seeing what students are producing. I so agree with you! It’s easy to let a computer do the writing for us, but we’re letting it steal a part of our brain we shouldn’t give away–the creative side. One of the dangers of AI is the flattening of writing and graphics. Everything can end up looking and sounding the same, and it’s a mediocre sameness. It’s one thing to let a computer remember my phone number; it’s another to let it create for me.
Thanks for this important summary, Janet. I pray that the use of stolen copyrighted material, used to feed AI, will be found illegal and financial restoration will be legally required.
I’d like to hand over to AI my cleaning and cooking, so I have more time to think deeply and create.
Deb, dang, I don’t think AI is any more gifted at cleaning and cooking than you are!
So fascinating to see how he was manipulated. Crazy! Well, I would love for AI to dust my home, wash my dishes, and do my laundry. Maybe even weed the flower beds I inherited from my grandmother as I’m not a garden person. However, if I was, I wouldn’t hand that over. I’m a words person. I want story for myself and those I love!