I have a question. Can a computer write poetry? This is a provocative question. You think about it for a minute, and you suddenly have a bunch of other questions like: What is a computer? What is poetry? What is creativity? But these are questions that people spend their entire lifetime trying to answer, not in a single TED Talk. So we're going to have to try a different approach.
Imam jedno pitanje. Može li kompjuter da piše poeziju? Ovo je provokativno pitanje. Razmislite na trenutak o tome i iznenada imate gomilu drugih pitanja, poput: šta je kompjuter? Šta je poezija? Šta je kreativnost? Međutim, ovo su pitanja o čijim odgovorima ljudi provedu čitav život razmišljajući, a ne jedan TED govor. Pa ćemo morati da isprobamo drugačiji pristup.
So up here, we have two poems. One of them is written by a human, and the other one's written by a computer. I'm going to ask you to tell me which one's which. Have a go:
Dakle, ovde gore imamo dve pesme. Jednu je napisalo ljudsko biće, a drugu je napisao kompjuter. Zamoliću vas da mi kažete koja je koja. Pokušajte:
Poem 1: Little Fly / Thy summer's play, / My thoughtless hand / Has brush'd away. Am I not / A fly like thee? / Or art not thou / A man like me?
Prva pesma: Muvo mala, / Letnju igru ti / Moja nemarna / Ruka prekrati Zar ja nisam / Muva kao ti? / A zar ti nisi / Čovek kao ja?
Poem 2: We can feel / Activist through your life's / morning / Pauses to see, pope I hate the / Non all the night to start a / great otherwise (...)
Druga pesma: Možemo da osećamo / Aktivista kroz tvog života / jutra Zastane da vidi, mrzim papu tog / Nije noć sva za početak / sjajna inače (...)
Alright, time's up. Hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human. OK, most of you. Hands up if you think Poem 2 was written by a human. Very brave of you, because the first one was written by the human poet William Blake. The second one was written by an algorithm that took all the language from my Facebook feed on one day and then regenerated it algorithmically, according to methods that I'll describe a little bit later on. So let's try another test. Again, you haven't got ages to read this, so just trust your gut.
U redu vreme je isteklo. Podignite ruke, ako mislite da je prvu pesmu napisao čovek. U redu, većina misli. Podignite ruke, ako mislite da je drugu pesmu napisao čovek. Veoma hrabro od vas jer je prvu napisao ljudski pesnik Vilijam Blejk. Drugu je napisao algoritam koji je iskoristio sav jezik iz jednog dana na mom kanalu na Fejsbuku i potom ga je preradio algoritamski, služeći se metodama koje ću da objasnim nešto kasnije. Pa, isprobajmo još jedan test. Opet, nemate večnost da ovo pročitate, prosto verujte osećaju.
Poem 1: A lion roars and a dog barks. It is interesting / and fascinating that a bird will fly and not / roar or bark. Enthralling stories about animals are in my dreams and I will sing them all if I / am not exhausted or weary.
Prva pesma: Lav riče, a pas laje zanimljivo je to / i očaravajuće da ptica će da leti ili ne / rika ili lavež. Opčinjavajuće priče o životinjama su mi u snovima i ja ispevaću ih sve / nisam li odveć umoran il' iscrpljen.
Poem 2: Oh! kangaroos, sequins, chocolate sodas! / You are really beautiful! Pearls, / harmonicas, jujubes, aspirins! All / the stuff they've always talked about (...)
Druga pesma: Ah! kenguri, cekini, čokoladne sode vode! / Uistinu ste krasni! Biseri, / harmonike, žižule, aspirini! Sve / stvari te o kojima oduvek govore....
Alright, time's up. So if you think the first poem was written by a human, put your hand up. OK. And if you think the second poem was written by a human, put your hand up. We have, more or less, a 50/50 split here. It was much harder.
Uredu, vreme je isteklo. Dakle, ako mislite da je prvu pesmu napisalo ljudsko biće, podignite ruke. U redu. A ako mislite da je drugu pesmu napisalo ljudsko biće, podignite ruke. Ovde imamo, manje-više, podelu 50-50. Bilo je značajno teže.
The answer is, the first poem was generated by an algorithm called Racter, that was created back in the 1970s, and the second poem was written by a guy called Frank O'Hara, who happens to be one of my favorite human poets.
Odgovor je: prvu pesmu je sastavio algoritam koji se zove Racter, napravljen davnih 1970-ih, a drugu pesmu je napisao čovek po imenu Frenk Ohara, koji je slučajno jedan od mojih omiljenih ljudskih pesnika.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
So what we've just done now is a Turing test for poetry. The Turing test was first proposed by this guy, Alan Turing, in 1950, in order to answer the question, can computers think? Alan Turing believed that if a computer was able to have a to have a text-based conversation with a human, with such proficiency such that the human couldn't tell whether they are talking to a computer or a human, then the computer can be said to have intelligence.
Dakle, upravo ste odradili Tjuringov test za poeziju. Tjuringov test je predložio ovaj lik, Alan Tjuring, 1950, kako bi odgovorio na pitanje: mogu li kompjuteri da misle? Alan Tjuring je verovao da ukoliko je kompjuter u stanju da vodi razgovor s čovekom, utemeljen na tekstu, toliko vično da čovek ne može da odredi da li razgovara s kompjuterom ili čovekom, onda se za kompjuter može reći da ima inteligenciju.
So in 2013, my friend Benjamin Laird and I, we created a Turing test for poetry online. It's called bot or not, and you can go and play it for yourselves. But basically, it's the game we just played. You're presented with a poem, you don't know whether it was written by a human or a computer and you have to guess. So thousands and thousands of people have taken this test online, so we have results.
Pa smo 2013, moj prijatelj Bendžamin Lerd i ja napravili Tjuringov test za poeziju na internetu. Zove se "Bot or not", i možete da ga posetite i da se poigrate. U suštini, radi se o igri koju smo upravo igrali. Ponuđena vam je pesma, ne znate da li ju je napisao čovek ili kompjuter i morate da pogađate. Dakle, na hiljade ljudi je učestvovalo u ovom testu na internetu i imamo rezultate.
And what are the results? Well, Turing said that if a computer could fool a human 30 percent of the time that it was a human, then it passes the Turing test for intelligence. We have poems on the bot or not database that have fooled 65 percent of human readers into thinking it was written by a human. So, I think we have an answer to our question. According to the logic of the Turing test, can a computer write poetry? Well, yes, absolutely it can. But if you're feeling a little bit uncomfortable with this answer, that's OK. If you're having a bunch of gut reactions to it, that's also OK because this isn't the end of the story.
A koji su rezultati? Pa, Tjuring je rekao da ako kompjuter može da obmanjuje čoveka 30 posto vremena da je čovek, onda je prošao Tjuringov test za inteligenciju. Imamo pesme u "Bot or not" bazi podataka koje su obmanule 65 procenata ljudskih čitalaca da veruju da su ih napisali ljudi. Dakle, mislim da imamo odgovor na naše pitanje. Prema logici Tjuringovog testa: može li kompjuter da piše poeziju? Pa, da, apsolutno može. Međutim ako se osećate malčice nelagodno zbog ovog odgovora, to je u redu. Ako imate gomilu instinktivnih reakcija na ovo, to je takođe u redu jer ovo nije kraj priče.
Let's play our third and final test. Again, you're going to have to read and tell me which you think is human.
Hajde da pustimo treći i poslednji test. Opet, moraćete da pročitate i da mi kažete šta je napisao čovek.
Poem 1: Red flags the reason for pretty flags. / And ribbons. Ribbons of flags / And wearing material / Reasons for wearing material. (...)
Prva pesma: Crvene zastave su razlog za lepe zastave. / I trake. Trake od zastava / I nosive tkanine / Razlozi da se nose tkanine. (...)
Poem 2: A wounded deer leaps highest, / I've heard the daffodil I've heard the flag to-day / I've heard the hunter tell; / 'Tis but the ecstasy of death, / And then the brake is almost done (...)
2. Pesma: Povređeni jelen skače najviše / Slušala sam narcise Slušala sam zastave danas / Slušala sam priču lovca; / Ovo je sami ushit smrti, / A onda predahu se bliži kraj (..)
OK, time is up. So hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human. Hands up if you think Poem 2 was written by a human. Whoa, that's a lot more people. So you'd be surprised to find that Poem 1 was written by the very human poet Gertrude Stein. And Poem 2 was generated by an algorithm called RKCP. Now before we go on, let me describe very quickly and simply, how RKCP works. So RKCP is an algorithm designed by Ray Kurzweil, who's a director of engineering at Google and a firm believer in artificial intelligence. So, you give RKCP a source text, it analyzes the source text in order to find out how it uses language, and then it regenerates language that emulates that first text.
U redu, vreme je isteklo. Podignite ruke, ako mislite da je prvu pesmu napisalo ljudsko biće. Podignite ruke, ako mislite da je drugu pesmu napisao čovek. Opa, to je mnogo više ljudi. Dakle, iznenadiće vas da je prvu pesmu napisala baš ljudska pesnikinja Gertruda Štajn. A drugu pesmu je sastavio algoritam, naslovljen RKCP. Sad, pre nego što nastavimo dozvolite da vam brzo i jednostavno objasnim kako RKCP radi. Dakle, RKCP je algoritam koga je dizajnirao Rej Kurcvel, direktor inženjeringa u Guglu i istinski pobornik veštačke inteligencije. Dakle, date RKCP-u izvorni tekst, on analizira izvorni tekst da bi otkrio kako je korišćen jezik u njemu, a onda ponovo stvara jezik koji podražava taj prvobitni tekst.
So in the poem we just saw before, Poem 2, the one that you all thought was human, it was fed a bunch of poems by a poet called Emily Dickinson it looked at the way she used language, learned the model, and then it regenerated a model according to that same structure. But the important thing to know about RKCP is that it doesn't know the meaning of the words it's using. The language is just raw material, it could be Chinese, it could be in Swedish, it could be the collected language from your Facebook feed for one day. It's just raw material. And nevertheless, it's able to create a poem that seems more human than Gertrude Stein's poem, and Gertrude Stein is a human.
U pesmi koju smo upravo videli, drugoj pesmi, za koju ste svi verovali da je ljudska, u algoritam je pohranjena gomila pesama pesnikinje Emili Dikinson. Razmatrao je kako je ona koristila jezik, savladao je obrazac, a potom je nanovo stvorio obrazac prema toj istoj strukturi. Međutim, važno je da znate za RKCP da on ne zna značenje reči koje koristi. Jezik je prosto sirovina, mogao bi biti kineski, mogao bi biti švedski, mogao bi to biti izabrani jezik jednog dana s vašeg Fejsbuk kanala. To je prosto sirovina. A ipak je u stanju da sastavi pesmu koja zvuči ljudskije od poezije Gertrude Štajn, a Gertruda Štajn je ljudsko biće.
So what we've done here is, more or less, a reverse Turing test. So Gertrude Stein, who's a human, is able to write a poem that fools a majority of human judges into thinking that it was written by a computer. Therefore, according to the logic of the reverse Turing test, Gertrude Stein is a computer.
Ovde smo obavili, manje-više, obrnuti Tjuringov test. Dakle, Gertruda Štajn, koja je čovek, može da napiše pesmu koja obmanjuje većinu ljudskih sudija da veruju da ju je napisao kompjuter. Stoga, prema logici obrnutog Tjurinovog testa, Gertruda Štajn je kompjuter.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Feeling confused? I think that's fair enough.
Zbunjeni ste? Mislim da je to pošteno.
So far we've had humans that write like humans, we have computers that write like computers, we have computers that write like humans, but we also have, perhaps most confusingly, humans that write like computers.
Dosad smo imali ljude koji pišu kao ljudi, imamo kompjutere koji pišu kao kompjuteri, imamo kompjutere koji pišu kao ljudi, ali takođe imamo, verovatno najkonfuznije, ljude koji pišu kao kompjuteri.
So what do we take from all of this? Do we take that William Blake is somehow more of a human than Gertrude Stein? Or that Gertrude Stein is more of a computer than William Blake?
Dakle, šta da zaključimo iz ovoga? Da li da zaključimo da je Vilijam Blejk nekako ljudskiji od Gertrude Štajn? Ili da je Gertruda Štajn više kompjuter od Vilijama Blejka?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
These are questions I've been asking myself for around two years now, and I don't have any answers. But what I do have are a bunch of insights about our relationship with technology.
Ova pitanja sam sebi postavljao evo već dve godine i nemam nikakve odgovore. Ali imam gomilu zapažanja o našem odnosu prema tehnologiji.
So my first insight is that, for some reason, we associate poetry with being human. So that when we ask, "Can a computer write poetry?" we're also asking, "What does it mean to be human and how do we put boundaries around this category? How do we say who or what can be part of this category?" This is an essentially philosophical question, I believe, and it can't be answered with a yes or no test, like the Turing test. I also believe that Alan Turing understood this, and that when he devised his test back in 1950, he was doing it as a philosophical provocation.
Moje prvo zapažanje je da iz nekog razloga povezujemo poeziju s ljudskošću. Pa, kada pitamo: "Može li kompjuter da piše poeziju?" takođe pitamo: "Šta znači biti čovek i kako ograničavamo ovu kategoriju? Kako određujemo ko ili šta može da bude deo ove kategorije?" Ovo je, verujem, u suštini filozofsko pitanje i test sa da ili ne ne može da odgovori na njega, poput Tjuringovog testa. Takođe verujem da je Alan Tjuring razumeo ovo i da kada je osmislio svoj test te 1950, on ga je napravio kao filozofsku provokaciju.
So my second insight is that, when we take the Turing test for poetry, we're not really testing the capacity of the computers because poetry-generating algorithms, they're pretty simple and have existed, more or less, since the 1950s. What we are doing with the Turing test for poetry, rather, is collecting opinions about what constitutes humanness. So, what I've figured out, we've seen this when earlier today, we say that William Blake is more of a human than Gertrude Stein. Of course, this doesn't mean that William Blake was actually more human or that Gertrude Stein was more of a computer. It simply means that the category of the human is unstable. This has led me to understand that the human is not a cold, hard fact. Rather, it is something that's constructed with our opinions and something that changes over time.
Pa je moj sledeće zapažanje da, kada uradimo Tjuringov test za poeziju, mi zaista ne testiramo sposobnosti kompjutera jer su algoritmi za sastavljanje poezije prilično prosti i postoje, manje-više, od 1950-ih. Tjuringovim testom za poeziju, mi sakupljamo mišljenja o tome iz čega se sastoji ljudskost. Dakle, ono što sam shvatio, videli smo to nešto ranije, kažemo da je Vilijam Blejk više ljudsko biće od Gertrude Štajn. Naravno da ovo ne znači da je Vilijam Blejk uistinu bio više ljudsko biće ili da je Gertruda Štajn više bila kompjuter. To prosto znači da je kategorija ljudskosti nestabilna. Zbog ovoga sam shvatio da ljudskost nije hladna, čvrsta činjenica. Već da je to nešto što je sačinjeno od naših shvatanja i nešto što se vremenom menja.
So my final insight is that the computer, more or less, works like a mirror that reflects any idea of a human that we show it. We show it Emily Dickinson, it gives Emily Dickinson back to us. We show it William Blake, that's what it reflects back to us. We show it Gertrude Stein, what we get back is Gertrude Stein. More than any other bit of technology, the computer is a mirror that reflects any idea of the human we teach it.
Pa je moje poslednje zapažanje da kompjuter, manje-više, funkcioniše poput ogledala koje odražava bilo koju ideju ljudskosti koju mu pokažemo. Pokažemo mu Emili Dikinson, on nam vrati Emili Dikinson. Pokažemo mu Vilijama Blejka, to je ono što će da bude u odrazu. Pokažemo mu Gertrudu Štajn, dobićemo opet Gertrudu Štajn. Više od bilo kog parčeta tehnologije, kompjuter je ogledalo koje odražava bilo koju ideju ljudskosti koju nauči.
So I'm sure a lot of you have been hearing a lot about artificial intelligence recently. And much of the conversation is, can we build it? Can we build an intelligent computer? Can we build a creative computer? What we seem to be asking over and over is can we build a human-like computer?
Siguran sam da je većina vas slušala mnogo o veštačkoj inteligenciji, u skorije vreme. A većina razgovora je o tome možemo li je napraviti? Možemo li da napravimo inteligentan kompjuter? Možemo li da napravimo kreativan kompjuter? Čini mi se da iznova i iznova pitamo: možemo li da napravimo čovekoliki kompjuter?
But what we've seen just now is that the human is not a scientific fact, that it's an ever-shifting, concatenating idea and one that changes over time. So that when we begin to grapple with the ideas of artificial intelligence in the future, we shouldn't only be asking ourselves, "Can we build it?" But we should also be asking ourselves, "What idea of the human do we want to have reflected back to us?" This is an essentially philosophical idea, and it's one that can't be answered with software alone, but I think requires a moment of species-wide, existential reflection.
Međutim, upravo smo videli da ljudskost nije naučna činjenica, da je to ideja koja se stalno menja, nadograđuje i menja tokom vremena. Pa, kad se uhvatimo u koštac sa zamislima o veštačkoj inteligenciji u budućnosti, ne bi trebalo da se samo pitamo: "Možemo li je napraviti?" Već bi trebalo i da se pitamo: "Koju ideju ljudskosti želimo da nađemo u njenom odrazu?" Ovo je suštinski filozofska zamisao, i to takva da na nju ne može da odgvori samo softver, već mislim da zahteva trenutak
Thank you.
egzistencijalnog razmatranja od strane celokupne vrste.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)