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.
Priča počinje 1985., kada sam sa 22 godine, postao svjetski prvak u šahu nakon što sam pobijedio Anatolya Karpova. Ranije te godine, igrao sam nešto što se zove simultanka protiv 32 najbolja stroja na svijetu koji igraju šah u Hamburgu, Njemačkoj. Pobijedio sam, i tada to nije bilo neko iznenađenje da sam uspio pobijediti 32 računala u isto vrijeme. Za mene, to je bilo zlatno doba.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Machines were weak, and my hair was strong.
Strojevi su bili slabi, a moja kosa bila je jaka.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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.
Samo 12 godina kasnije, borio sam se za život protiv samo jednog računala u partiji koje prema naslovnici "Newsweeka" bila "Posljednje uporište mozga." Bez pritiska.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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.
Od mitologije do znanstvene fantastike, borba čovjeka protiv stroja prikazivana je kao stvar života i smrti. John Henry, čovjek poznat kao tjerač čelika u 19. stoljeću Afro Američka narodna legenda, stavljen je u utrku protiv čekića pogonjenog parnim strojem probijajući tunel kroz planinsku stijenu. Legenda Johna Henrya je dio dugog povijesnog narativa koji stavlja čovječanstvo protiv strojeva. I ta natjecateljska retorika je sada standardna. U utrci smo protiv strojeva, u borbi ili čak i ratu. Poslovi nestaju. Ljude zamjenjuju kao da su nestali s lica Zemlje. Dovoljno je pomisliti na to da filmovi poput "Terminatora" ili "Matrixa" nisu fikcija.
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 --
Postoji samo nekoliko područja u areni gdje se ljudski tijelo i um mogu natjecati pod istim uvjetima sa računalom ili robotom. Zapravo, volio bih da ih ima više. Umjesto toga, moj blagoslov i prokletstvo bilo je postati čovjekom u natjecanju između čovjeka i stroja o kojem svi još uvijek pričaju. U najslavnijem srazu čovjeka i stroja od doba Johna Henrya, odigrao sam dvije partije protiv IBM superračunala, Deep Blue. Ali ne sjećate se da sam prvi put pobijedio --
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
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.
U Philadelphiji, prije nego sam izgubio revanš sljedeće godine u New Yorku. Ali mislim da je to pošteno. Ne postoji dan u povijesti, poseban unos na kalendaru za sve ljude koji se nisu uspeli na Mt. Everest prije nego su Sir Edmund Hillary i Tenzing Norgay došli do vrha. A 1997., ja sam i dalje bio svjetski prvak kada su računala za šah sazrijela. Bio sam Mt. Everest, i Deep Blue je došao do vrha. Trebao bih naravno reći, ne da je Deep Blue to postigao, već njegovi ljudski tvorci -- Anantharaman, Campbell, Hoane, Hsu. Skidam im kapu. Kao i uvijek, uspjeh stroja bio je ljudski uspjeh, nešto što često zaboravljamo kada ljude prestignu vlastite kreacije.
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.
Deep Blue je pobijedio, ali da li je bio inteligentan? Ne, nije, bar ne onako kako su Alan Turing i osnivači znanosti o računalima se nadali. Ispalo je da se šah može računati silom, jednom kada je hardware postao dovoljno brz i algoritmi dovoljno pametni. Iako po definiciji rezultata, velemajstorska razina šaha, Deep Blue bio je inteligentan. Ali čak i pri nevjerojatnoj brzini, od 200 milijuna pozicija u sekundi, metoda Deep Bluea davala je malo željenog uvida u misterije ljudske inteligencije.
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.
Uskoro, strojevi će voziti taksije i biti liječnici i profesori, ali hoće li biti "inteligentni?" Rađe bih ostavio ove definicije filozofima i riječniku. Ono što je zaista važno je kako se mi ljudi osjećamo vezano uz rad i život s tim strojevima.
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.
Kada sam upoznao Deep Blue 1996. u veljači, bio sam svjetski prvak više od 10 godina, i odigrao sam 182 partije za svjetsko prvenstvo i stotine partija protiv vrhunskih igrača u drugim natjecanjima. I znao sam što očekivati od protivnika i od sebe. Navikao sam mjeriti njihove poteze i pratiti njihovo emocionalno stanje gledajući govor tijela i gledajući ih u oči.
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.
Tada sam sjeo za šahovsku ploču prekoputa Deep Bluea. Odmah sam osjetio nešto novo, nešto uznemirujuće. Možda ste iskusili sličan osjećaj prvi puta kada ste sjedili u autu bez vozača ili prvi put kad vam vaš računalni nadzornik izda zadatke na poslu Ali kada sam sjeo za tu prvu partiju, nisam bio siguran što je ta stvar sposobna učiniti. Tehnologija može napredovati skokovito, i IBM je puno investirao. Izgubio sam tu partiju. I nisam se mogao ne zapitati da li je možda nepobjediv? Je li moja ljubljena igra šaha gotova? Ovo su bile ljudske sumnje, ljudski strahovi, i jedino što sam zasigurno znao je da moj protivnik, Deep Blue nema takve brige.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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.
Uzvratio sam mu nakon ovog razarajućeg udarca da pobijedim prvu partiju, ali rezultat je bio zapisan. Na kraju sam izgubio od stroja ali nisam doživio istu sudbinu kao John Henry koji je pobijedio ali umro s čekićem u rukama. Ispalo je da svijet šaha i dalje želi imati ljudskog prvaka. I čak i danas, kada je besplatna aplikacija za šah na najnovijem mobitelu jača od Deep Bluea, ljudi i dalje igraju šah, čak i više nego ikad prije. Proricatelji kraja predvidjeli su da nitko neće dirnuti igru koju može svladati stroj, i bili su u krivu, dokazano je da su u krivu, ali proricanje kraja je uvijek bila popularna razbibriga kada je riječ o tehnologiji.
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?
Ono što sam naučio iz vlastita iskustva je da se moramo suočiti sa strahovima ako želimo izvući najviše iz naše tehnologije, i moramo svladati te strahove ako želimo izvući najbolje iz naše čovječnosti. Dok sam si vidao rane, dobio sam puno inspiracije za svoje borbe protiv Deep Bluea. Stara ruska izreka kaže ako ne možeš pobijediti, pridruži im se. Onda sam pomislio, što ako mogu igrati s računalom -- zajedno s računalom na mojoj strani, udružujući naše snage, ljudsku intuiciju i računalne kalkulacije, ljudsku strategiju, računalnu taktiku, ljudsko iskustvo, pamćenje računala. Bi li to bila savršeno odigrana igra?
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.
Moja ideja je zaživjela 1988. pod imenom Napredni Šah kad sam igrao čovjek-plus-stroj natjecanje protiv još jednog elitnog igrača. Ali u prvom eksperimentu, nismo uspjeli učinkovito spojiti ljudske i strojne vještine. Napredni Šah našao je svoj dom na Internetu, i 2005. šah turnir odigran slobodnim stilom doveo je do otkrića. Tim velemajstora i vrhunskih strojeva sudjelovao je ali pobjednici nisu bili velemajstori, niti superračunalo. Pobjednik je bio par američkih amatera sa tri obična računala koja su radila u isto vrijeme. Njihove vještine u treniranju svojih strojeva učinkovito je poništila napredno znanje šaha velemajstorskih protivnika i puno veću računalnu snagu drugih. I došao sam do ovog zaključka. Slab ljudski igrač i stroj sa boljim procesom je superiorniji od samostalnog moćnog stroja, ali još upečatljivije, superiorniji je od jakog ljudskog igrača i stroja i lošijeg procesa. Ovo me uvjerilo da trebamo bolja sučelja kojima bismo trenirali naše strojeve prema korisnijoj inteligenciji.
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.
Čovjek i stroj nisu budućnost, to je sadašnjost. Svi koji koriste online prijevode kako bi dobili srž članka iz stranih novina, znaju da je daleko od savršenog. Onda koristimo naše ljudsko iskustvo da bismo to razumjeli, i onda stroj uči iz naših ispravaka. Ovaj model se širi i ulaže u medicinske dijagnoze, sigurnosne analie. Stroj obrađuje podatke, računa vjerojatnost, dođe na 80 posto puta, 90 posto, omogućujući lakšu analizu i donošenje odluke od strane ljudi. Ali nećete poslati djecu u školu sa autom bez vozača sa 90 postotnom točnošću, čak ni sa 99 postotnom. Tako da moramo skočiti naprijed da bismo dodali nekoliko ključnih decimalnih mjesta.
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.
Dvadeset godina nakon moje partije s Deep Blueom, druga partija, senzacionalni naslov "Posljednje uporište mozga" postao je uobičajen dok inteligentni strojevi napreduju u svakom sektoru, čini se svakog dana. Ali nasuprot prošlosti kada su strojevi zamjenjivali životinje, manualni rad, sada dolaze po ljude s fakultetskim obrazovanjem i političkim utjecajem. Kao netko tko se borio protiv strojeva i izgubio, tu sam da vam kažem kako su to izvrsne vijesti. U jednom trenutku svaka profesija će morati osjetiti ove pritiske ili će to značiti da je čovječanstvo prestalo napredovati. Mi ne možemo birati kada i kako staje tehnološki napredak. Ne možemo ga usporiti. Zapravo, moramo ubrzati. Naša tehnologija izvrsna je u uklanjanju poteškoća i nesigurnosti iz našeg života tako da moramo tražiti uvijek teže, uvijek nesigurnije izazove. Strojevi imaju kalkulacije. Mi imamo shvaćanje. Strojevi imaju upute. Mi imamo svrhu. Strojevi imaju objektivnost. Mi imamo strast. Ne bi se trebali brinuti o tome što strojevi mogu napraviti danas. Trebali bismo se brinuti o onome što još ne mogu napraviti danas, jer ćemo trebati pomoć novih, inteligentnihstrojeva da naše najveće snove pretvorimo u stvarnost. i ako ne uspijemo, ako ne uspijemo, nije to zato što u naši strojevi previše ili nedovoljno inteligentni. Ako ne uspijemo, to je zato što smo postali nemarni i ograničili naše ambicije. Naša čovječnost nije definirana vještinom kao što je zamah čekića ili čak igranje šaha.
There's one thing only a human can do. That's dream. So let us dream big.
Postoji samo jedna stvar koju samo ljudi mogu činiti. A to je sanjati. Zato sanjajmo velike snove.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)