Richard Hamming: Chapter 8. Artificial Intelligence-III

“The goal of this course is to prepare you for your technical future.”

Hi, Habr. Remember the awesome article "You and your work" (+219, 2365 bookmarks, 360k readings)?

So Hamming (yes, yes, self-checking and self-correcting Hamming codes ) has a whole book based on his lectures. Let's translate it, because the man is talking.

This book is not just about IT, it is a book about the thinking style of incredibly cool people. “This is not just a charge of positive thinking; it describes the conditions that increase the chances of doing a great job. ”
')
We have already translated 11 (out of 30) chapters.
For the translation, thanks to urticazoku , who responded to my call in the "previous chapter." Who wants to help with the translation - write in a personal or mail magisterludi2016@yandex.ru (By the way, we also started the translation of another cool book - "The Dream Machine: The History of Computer Revolution" )

Artificial Intelligence - III

I suggest to pause and discuss the following question:

Can cars think?

and why it is important to come to your own conclusions about what cars can and cannot do in the future. Consider the following list of statements:

1. Just because computers are not programmed to think does not mean that they are not capable of it; Maybe this programmers are stupid!
2. Just because you want cars to think doesn’t mean they can; perhaps it is only your desire.
3. The program for the game of checkers Arthur Samuel "learned" from their own experience, so the machine, apparently, can be trained.
4. The new proof of the isosceles triangle theorem is “original” - perhaps better than anyone else did. (comment of the translator: speech about the proof of the theorem by a special program for proving theorems of Euclidean geometry. The computer created a completely new proof, turning the triangles 180 degrees and declaring them congruent. To which one famous mathematician said: “If any of my students did this, I would call his budding genius. ”[ Source ])
5. Imagine the shortest program that can think. Not a single part of it can think by definition.
6. Think of a "logical" and "psychological" novelty.
7. Whatever your opinion, what could prove its fallacy?
8. Thinking is probably a qualitative, not a quantitative question.
9. Think, thinking can be a way to do something, not what has been done, determining whether a thing will appear or not. AI has traditionally adhered to “what has been done” and rarely considered the “how” method.

You can start your discussion with these questions; I don't care what position you take - there is always an opposite point of view, the main thing is that you can explain it. My task is to make you think about this strange topic, and not to give answers.

Such discussions, as a rule, are very hostile to cars, although every year less and less. They often start with comments like “I wouldn’t want my life to be dependent on a car.” To which they respond: "Are you against the use of pacemakers?" Modern pilots can not fully control the aircraft, and must rely on computers to stabilize them. In the emergency room in modern hospitals, you automatically connect to a computer that monitors your vital signs and in many cases calls the nurse long before anyone can do it and do something. The simple fact is that your life is often driven by machines, and sometimes they are needed to save it - you just don’t like to remember it once again.

"I do not want cars to control my life" - well, you do not want to turn off traffic lights at intersections? See the answers above. Yes, more often people get along with the machine much better than with other people!

"Machines can never do the same thing as humans." I think cars do what no man can. And in any case, how much are you sure that a machine (program), which now cannot do anything better than a person, will not do it tomorrow? (Perhaps you will write such a program!). And how important are these perceived differences to your career?

People are sure that they are something more than a car, but they often cannot bring any evidence until they remember religion. Foreign students of different denominations do this reluctantly - although for many (but not all) religions it is obvious that a person is different from all other types on Earth.

Another prejudice against computers is with the experts. They are sure that the car will never be able to compete with the person (see part 1), forgetting about the advantages of the machines. And these are: economy, speed, accuracy, reliability, speed of management, freedom from boredom, throughput and ease of retraining, aggressive environment and personnel problems. It seems they always cling to their perceived superiority, not trying to find places where cars can improve the situation! It is difficult to make people look at cars as a useful thing, wherever they work - they continue to think so; people are superior to computers in certain areas, and of course there are such areas, but now there are fewer of them than you think. It is the interaction of man and machine that is important, not the conflict that flows from the human ego.

The second useful topic for discussion:

The future use of computers in expert knowledge.

Too often, people report the past and present use of computers, which is good, but not for those whose goal is to draw attention to future opportunities. It is difficult to get people to think aggressively about how something in their field of study can be done differently. I wondered several times what might be better if I asked them to use computers in other areas than their own narrow specialty; perhaps they will be less suppressed!

Since my goal, as stated above, is to make the reader think about the strange topic of “thinking” of machines and the vision of his personal future, you, the reader, should form your own opinion and try to express it clearly, and then examine it with the help of counter- arguments, until it becomes clear to you what you believe and why . The author doesn’t matter what you believe, his job is to make you think and articulate your position clearly. For readers of the book, I suggest instead of reading the following pages, stop and discuss these unpleasant questions with myself or, possibly, with friends; the more confident you are, the more you have to argue with others!

To be continued...

Who wants to help with the translation - write in a personal or mail magisterludi2016@yandex.ru

By the way, we also launched another translation of the coolest book - “The Dream Machine: The History of Computer Revolution” )