Conference DEFCON 25. Garry Kasparov. "The Last Battle of the Brain." Part 2
Conference DEFCON 25. Garry Kasparov. "The Last Battle of the Brain." Part 1
I think that the problem is not that the machines replace a person in his workplace, including in the intellectual sphere of activity, and not that computers supposedly were up in arms against people with higher education and Twitter account. The introduction of AI does not happen very quickly, but rather, too slowly. Why? Because this is a normal cycle of human development, and we simply do not realize that the destruction we see means the introduction of a new technology, which, before creating new jobs, destroys the old ones.
')
Technology destroys outdated industries and creates new ones, this is the process of creation, this is the cycle of development. If you try to tighten the agony by inserting old technologies into the process or creating some advantages for obsolete technologies, you simply slow down the process and make it more painful. It will happen anyway, but the problem is that we are engaged in the "regulation" of the process, creating rules that consciously slow it down. I think this is more of a problem than those that we realize more clearly. This is more of a psychological problem when people ask themselves: “How can you feel safe being in an unmanned vehicle?”
I looked into history and found out that a hundred years ago one of the most powerful trade unions in New York was the lifters union, which united 17 thousand workers. By the way, at that time there was already technology when it was possible to simply press a button - and it was ready, but people did not trust it! It's just awful to push the button yourself to call the elevator! Do you know why this union "died" and the people themselves began to use the buttons? Because once the lifters decided to go on strike. They staged a strike, and then people who had to climb to the top of the Empire State Building, ventured to push the buttons with their own hands.
Recall that 20-30 years ago they were talking about children or grandchildren when they got behind the wheel of a car: “It's terrible, you just look at the statistics, because cars are one of the main causes of human mortality, how can they risk their lives?”
So, all this is pure psychology. We almost do not pay attention to how many people die in car accidents, but if one person dies from an unmanned vehicle, this event swells to the skies. Any glitch, any mistake of artificial intelligence technologies is immediately highlighted on the front pages of newspapers. But look at the statistics, look at the number of incidents, and you will see how tiny a percentage of the total number of accidents is. Therefore, the human community will win only if it can move forward without being paralyzed by such fears.
Another question arises when we talk about fake news or cyber security, these are very politicized topics, and I receive a lot of calls asking how I deal with AI haters. For example, I have a regular blog, and in my new article, which will be published in a couple of days, it is about hate and the fact that salvation from hate is knowledge, learning. We just need to understand that this problem existed long before all these things were invented, just now its importance has increased thanks to the Internet, which covers millions and billions of people.
I think it’s the other way round when someone tries to stop progress, trying to outlaw AI, and you know that it will not work, because we have Putin and other bad guys, wherever they are, who use against us are our own technologies created in the free world. So I think that we should just take it for granted.
The essence of the problem lies only in us, and the answers to the questions are contained within us, in our own strength and our own confidence. I argue that intelligent machines are not capable of making us "obsolete." However, it must be remembered that there are certain restrictions regarding the cooperation of man and computer, and to a large extent these are just rumors that existed before. As always, these are just new opportunities that destroy the old world and create a new one, and the further we move forward, the better we will be.
Now this is most reminiscent of the movement into the world of science fiction. The paradox is that if we turn around 50-60 years ago, we will see that in those times science fiction was absolutely positive, it was a solid utopia. However, then a gradual transition from utopia to anti-utopia took place, in such a way that we no longer want to hear anything about the future of humanity.
It did not happen overnight. There was a time when people decided that space exploration was too risky. This is really a big risk, but imagine that in 1969, when the Americans landed on the moon, the entire NASA computing power was less than the power of any modern computer device that fits in your pocket. This device is a thousand times more powerful than a supercomputer that existed 40 years ago. Just imagine how much computing power you carry in your pocket! True, I'm not sure that the Apple iPhone 7 has the same computing power as Apollo 7 had, that is, it can produce the same effect.
However, the machines have provided us with many great achievements in the field of space exploration or the world's oceans, and we need to understand that computers provide us with the opportunity to take great risks.
I would like to end my speech on a positive note. Isn’t this picture showing positive pictures? The photo in the lower right corner is not “photoshop”, I really met the Terminator in 2003.
He also loves chess since childhood, but he didn’t deal with them specifically, so he lost very quickly. So I was very surprised when, 6 months later, he ran for the post of governor of California and won!
Why do I call these pictures positive? Because although in all series except the first, old Arnold always stands on the side of the winners and never get tired of fighting against new cars, it is in the first series that we see the combination that I mentioned is when a person plus an old car plus a perfect interface defeats the newest the car.
You can say: “yes, cars are stronger than people, because they can calculate absolutely everything!”. However, the point is not that they can calculate everything. For example, in chess it is technically possible to speak of the mathematical infinity of the number of possible moves, equal to 1045, which are not difficult to calculate with any modern computer. However, the game is not important calculations, but the fact that the computer is ahead of the person, because it is always guided by the rules. And you know the effect of these rules and you know why the computer chooses the best move from a huge variety of possible moves.
But if you turn to real life, then I'm not sure that the computer can always be useful. Let's consider the most typical situation - you have a computer that monitors the budget, you are in the store and are going to buy an expensive gift. The computer evaluates the purchase and says: “No, you cannot afford this thing, because you exceed the budget.” The car counted everything, but there is a small nuance - your child is standing nearby, and this gift is meant for him for his birthday. Do you see how much this changes the conditions of the problem? It changes everything because the child is waiting for this gift.
I can start adding these little things that change everything, but I do not think that they can be included in the conditions of the problem and get the right solution. We have a lot of rules, but we still have to ask questions, because the situation is changing. This is what can be called a common situation, but if you look at these films, you can say that the situation shown here is more dramatic and extraordinary. In this slide, you see a frame from episode V of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.
Han Solo directs the ship right through the asteroid field, and C-3PO panics, saying that the chance to survive in this field is 1: 3122. Han Solo tells him: "Never tell me what our chances are!" Here the question arises, who is more right in this situation?
Technique in the face of C-3PO is absolutely right, because the chance to survive tends to zero. It is possible that from the point of view of a robot, being captured by imperial troops is a better choice that a person does not even consider than killing in an asteroid field. But if the computer decides that surrendering to the empire is the best option, then we can assume that the person has no options at all. It is very important that in both cases, ordinary and extraordinary, we have the opportunity to make the final decision, and to make such a decision, human leadership is still required.
Sometimes this means that you have to oppose the recommendations of the computer. The meaning of human leadership is not to know the chances, but to ask really meaningful questions, not only today or tomorrow, but in the distant future. This process can be called "human guidelines" or "human intervention", exposure without the help of intelligent machines. This is what our course should be in this century.
People sometimes wonder at my optimism about intelligent machines, given my experience with them, but I'm really optimistic. And I am sure that all of you are equally optimistic about the future of AI. But we must remember that our technologies are agnostic. This is neither good nor bad, but it can be used both for good deeds and for evil ones. Machines should become smarter and more capable. And we, people, should do what only people can do - to dream, to dream to the fullest, and then we will be able to extract everything useful that these amazing new tools carry.
As planned, we still have 10 minutes to answer questions.
Question: Do you think it is possible to create a machine learning system that could determine which moves are more appropriate to the human style of the game?
Kasparov: first of all, we do not expect from the computer that he will tell us the first move and the remaining 17505 moves. I think we should count on the car as the source for obtaining the best recommendations for unique moves. By the way, top class players use computers as a guide, helping them to take the most appropriate position in the game. I repeat once again - in 9 cases out of 10, the assessment of the situation by a computer far exceeds the assessment that a person is capable of making.
Question: Do you agree that true intelligence requires freedom of choice, freedom in making decisions that only a person can take? After all, the software Deep Blue and other computer programs are written by people, and when you lose Deep Blue, you lose not the computer, but the programmers who wrote this program. My question is: is there any danger from any kind of machine intelligence as long as computers have the freedom to choose?
Kasparov: here I must move from science to philosophy. With regard to Deep Blue, everything is clear - this is the result of a great human work. In most cases, even in the case of Demis Hassabis's AlphaGo, these are all the fruits of human intelligence. I don’t know if cars can have freedom of choice, but I believe that everything we do, if we know how to do it, cars will do better. However, doing most of the things, we do not know how to do them in the best way, so we often cannot understand what happens with us. Simply put, we have a goal, but we do not know what it is, and the role of the machine is to help us realize this goal. Therefore, if we talk about the free choice of computers, it should help to connect us with this goal. I think for computers this is a very remote perspective.
Question: What do you think about such human characteristics as courage and morality, and about the decisions that artificial intelligence can make on their basis? For example, what should an unmanned vehicle do — hit a child or get away from a collision with it, crashing into a rock and killing its passenger?
Kasparov: this is what people call “feelings”, they are not quantifiable, because they are a whole bunch of different human characteristics. If we are talking about courage, then this characteristic is always at odds with the chances of choosing the best option. Courage, like other human feelings, is by definition contrary to exact counting.
Question: Mr. Kasparov, my question does not concern computers: what is in your flask and can I try it?
Kasparov: what do you mean?
Host: he asks what is in your pocket!
Kasparov: in my pocket? "Capital"! This is not an advertisement, if you notice, I threw it away.
The question is: who do you think will be the next world chess champion and does the young Chinese chess player Wei I have a chance to overthrow Karelsen from the throne of the king of chess?
Kasparov: Karelsen is number 1 player, he is not a world champion, but simply the best chess player in the world according to the rating. This year he will turn 27, so he is still young, but by modern standards he is not very young. I think, Wei And now 18 or 19 years old. Magnus outstripped such young players as the Americans Wesley So and Fabiano Kerouana, and potentially, Wei Yi can act as his opponent. However, in order to become a world champion, talent is necessary, it is not necessary to be young and energetic, it is enough to have a little luck. So, answering the question, I can say - yes, he has chances to defeat Magnus Carelsen.
Question: when you talked about deterministic algorithms and machine learning, you mentioned the possibility of using machines as tools to complement our intelligence. What can you say about the possibility of maximizing the resources to create a powerful AI, or even about “investing” the human brain in a computer?
Kasparov: I am not ashamed to admit my ignorance when I am not sure that I am not able to answer the question correctly. I try my best to understand what the human brain is, if we consider it separately from the human body, what functions it performs. Because it is difficult to imagine how the brain will behave separately from the body. Perhaps in the future, such an experiment can be carried out, but I am sure that the combination of the human brain, human feelings and emotions with a computer will form a “mind” that will be much more effective than the extracted and frozen brain used as a device filled with neurons.
Question: Is there a universal basic approach to the problem of replacing workplaces with computers?
Kasparov: I think this is a very important question, because it is clear that we are approaching the moment when many people may be left without work. This is a paradox of technological progress: on the one hand, we have the latest technologies, which provide tremendous competitive advantages to the young generation that deals with these devices and technologies. On the other hand, we have progress in medicine and healthy nutrition, which prolongs human life and gives a person the ability to work for many years. In this sense, the generation of the 50s, 60s, or even the 40s cannot compete with today's youth. We must find a solution to this paradoxical situation, when the gap between generations is so great. Historical experience says that such a gap always leads to a big bang. I mean the gap between the existing social infrastructure of society and technological progress.
This is the problem that politicians prefer to postpone until the next election. No one wants to talk about it, because it is a painful question. It is very easy to print money, hoping that someone will pay for it sometime in the future. So in this area there are many paradoxes, for example, the accumulation of debts for providing social guarantees to the older generation in the hope that the burden of paying for these debts will fall on the shoulders of the younger generation. There are many questions to which I have no answers, and many questions that I could ask, I hope that the AI ​​will help me with this.
It’s too bad that for decades politicians have been trying to ignore the problems that we have now discussed. They are always ready for statements, they always have plans, but they do not want to understand the counterproductiveness of silencing the problem of the conflict between technology and society. Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for staying with us. Do you like our articles? Want to see more interesting materials? Support us by placing an order or recommending to friends, 30% discount for Habr's users on a unique analogue of the entry-level servers that we invented for you: The whole truth about VPS (KVM) E5-2650 v4 (6 Cores) 10GB DDR4 240GB SSD 1Gbps from $ 20 or how to share the server? (Options are available with RAID1 and RAID10, up to 24 cores and up to 40GB DDR4).
Dell R730xd 2 times cheaper? Only we have 2 x Intel TetraDeca-Core Xeon 2x E5-2697v3 2.6GHz 14C 64GB DDR4 4x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100 TV from $ 199 in the Netherlands! Dell R420 - 2x E5-2430 2.2Ghz 6C 128GB DDR3 2x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100TB - from $ 99! Read about How to build an infrastructure building. class c using servers Dell R730xd E5-2650 v4 worth 9000 euros for a penny?
I think that the problem is not that the machines replace a person in his workplace, including in the intellectual sphere of activity, and not that computers supposedly were up in arms against people with higher education and Twitter account. The introduction of AI does not happen very quickly, but rather, too slowly. Why? Because this is a normal cycle of human development, and we simply do not realize that the destruction we see means the introduction of a new technology, which, before creating new jobs, destroys the old ones.
')
Technology destroys outdated industries and creates new ones, this is the process of creation, this is the cycle of development. If you try to tighten the agony by inserting old technologies into the process or creating some advantages for obsolete technologies, you simply slow down the process and make it more painful. It will happen anyway, but the problem is that we are engaged in the "regulation" of the process, creating rules that consciously slow it down. I think this is more of a problem than those that we realize more clearly. This is more of a psychological problem when people ask themselves: “How can you feel safe being in an unmanned vehicle?”
I looked into history and found out that a hundred years ago one of the most powerful trade unions in New York was the lifters union, which united 17 thousand workers. By the way, at that time there was already technology when it was possible to simply press a button - and it was ready, but people did not trust it! It's just awful to push the button yourself to call the elevator! Do you know why this union "died" and the people themselves began to use the buttons? Because once the lifters decided to go on strike. They staged a strike, and then people who had to climb to the top of the Empire State Building, ventured to push the buttons with their own hands.
Recall that 20-30 years ago they were talking about children or grandchildren when they got behind the wheel of a car: “It's terrible, you just look at the statistics, because cars are one of the main causes of human mortality, how can they risk their lives?”
So, all this is pure psychology. We almost do not pay attention to how many people die in car accidents, but if one person dies from an unmanned vehicle, this event swells to the skies. Any glitch, any mistake of artificial intelligence technologies is immediately highlighted on the front pages of newspapers. But look at the statistics, look at the number of incidents, and you will see how tiny a percentage of the total number of accidents is. Therefore, the human community will win only if it can move forward without being paralyzed by such fears.
Another question arises when we talk about fake news or cyber security, these are very politicized topics, and I receive a lot of calls asking how I deal with AI haters. For example, I have a regular blog, and in my new article, which will be published in a couple of days, it is about hate and the fact that salvation from hate is knowledge, learning. We just need to understand that this problem existed long before all these things were invented, just now its importance has increased thanks to the Internet, which covers millions and billions of people.
I think it’s the other way round when someone tries to stop progress, trying to outlaw AI, and you know that it will not work, because we have Putin and other bad guys, wherever they are, who use against us are our own technologies created in the free world. So I think that we should just take it for granted.
The essence of the problem lies only in us, and the answers to the questions are contained within us, in our own strength and our own confidence. I argue that intelligent machines are not capable of making us "obsolete." However, it must be remembered that there are certain restrictions regarding the cooperation of man and computer, and to a large extent these are just rumors that existed before. As always, these are just new opportunities that destroy the old world and create a new one, and the further we move forward, the better we will be.
Now this is most reminiscent of the movement into the world of science fiction. The paradox is that if we turn around 50-60 years ago, we will see that in those times science fiction was absolutely positive, it was a solid utopia. However, then a gradual transition from utopia to anti-utopia took place, in such a way that we no longer want to hear anything about the future of humanity.
It did not happen overnight. There was a time when people decided that space exploration was too risky. This is really a big risk, but imagine that in 1969, when the Americans landed on the moon, the entire NASA computing power was less than the power of any modern computer device that fits in your pocket. This device is a thousand times more powerful than a supercomputer that existed 40 years ago. Just imagine how much computing power you carry in your pocket! True, I'm not sure that the Apple iPhone 7 has the same computing power as Apollo 7 had, that is, it can produce the same effect.
However, the machines have provided us with many great achievements in the field of space exploration or the world's oceans, and we need to understand that computers provide us with the opportunity to take great risks.
I would like to end my speech on a positive note. Isn’t this picture showing positive pictures? The photo in the lower right corner is not “photoshop”, I really met the Terminator in 2003.
He also loves chess since childhood, but he didn’t deal with them specifically, so he lost very quickly. So I was very surprised when, 6 months later, he ran for the post of governor of California and won!
Why do I call these pictures positive? Because although in all series except the first, old Arnold always stands on the side of the winners and never get tired of fighting against new cars, it is in the first series that we see the combination that I mentioned is when a person plus an old car plus a perfect interface defeats the newest the car.
You can say: “yes, cars are stronger than people, because they can calculate absolutely everything!”. However, the point is not that they can calculate everything. For example, in chess it is technically possible to speak of the mathematical infinity of the number of possible moves, equal to 1045, which are not difficult to calculate with any modern computer. However, the game is not important calculations, but the fact that the computer is ahead of the person, because it is always guided by the rules. And you know the effect of these rules and you know why the computer chooses the best move from a huge variety of possible moves.
But if you turn to real life, then I'm not sure that the computer can always be useful. Let's consider the most typical situation - you have a computer that monitors the budget, you are in the store and are going to buy an expensive gift. The computer evaluates the purchase and says: “No, you cannot afford this thing, because you exceed the budget.” The car counted everything, but there is a small nuance - your child is standing nearby, and this gift is meant for him for his birthday. Do you see how much this changes the conditions of the problem? It changes everything because the child is waiting for this gift.
I can start adding these little things that change everything, but I do not think that they can be included in the conditions of the problem and get the right solution. We have a lot of rules, but we still have to ask questions, because the situation is changing. This is what can be called a common situation, but if you look at these films, you can say that the situation shown here is more dramatic and extraordinary. In this slide, you see a frame from episode V of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.
Han Solo directs the ship right through the asteroid field, and C-3PO panics, saying that the chance to survive in this field is 1: 3122. Han Solo tells him: "Never tell me what our chances are!" Here the question arises, who is more right in this situation?
Technique in the face of C-3PO is absolutely right, because the chance to survive tends to zero. It is possible that from the point of view of a robot, being captured by imperial troops is a better choice that a person does not even consider than killing in an asteroid field. But if the computer decides that surrendering to the empire is the best option, then we can assume that the person has no options at all. It is very important that in both cases, ordinary and extraordinary, we have the opportunity to make the final decision, and to make such a decision, human leadership is still required.
Sometimes this means that you have to oppose the recommendations of the computer. The meaning of human leadership is not to know the chances, but to ask really meaningful questions, not only today or tomorrow, but in the distant future. This process can be called "human guidelines" or "human intervention", exposure without the help of intelligent machines. This is what our course should be in this century.
People sometimes wonder at my optimism about intelligent machines, given my experience with them, but I'm really optimistic. And I am sure that all of you are equally optimistic about the future of AI. But we must remember that our technologies are agnostic. This is neither good nor bad, but it can be used both for good deeds and for evil ones. Machines should become smarter and more capable. And we, people, should do what only people can do - to dream, to dream to the fullest, and then we will be able to extract everything useful that these amazing new tools carry.
As planned, we still have 10 minutes to answer questions.
Question: Do you think it is possible to create a machine learning system that could determine which moves are more appropriate to the human style of the game?
Kasparov: first of all, we do not expect from the computer that he will tell us the first move and the remaining 17505 moves. I think we should count on the car as the source for obtaining the best recommendations for unique moves. By the way, top class players use computers as a guide, helping them to take the most appropriate position in the game. I repeat once again - in 9 cases out of 10, the assessment of the situation by a computer far exceeds the assessment that a person is capable of making.
Question: Do you agree that true intelligence requires freedom of choice, freedom in making decisions that only a person can take? After all, the software Deep Blue and other computer programs are written by people, and when you lose Deep Blue, you lose not the computer, but the programmers who wrote this program. My question is: is there any danger from any kind of machine intelligence as long as computers have the freedom to choose?
Kasparov: here I must move from science to philosophy. With regard to Deep Blue, everything is clear - this is the result of a great human work. In most cases, even in the case of Demis Hassabis's AlphaGo, these are all the fruits of human intelligence. I don’t know if cars can have freedom of choice, but I believe that everything we do, if we know how to do it, cars will do better. However, doing most of the things, we do not know how to do them in the best way, so we often cannot understand what happens with us. Simply put, we have a goal, but we do not know what it is, and the role of the machine is to help us realize this goal. Therefore, if we talk about the free choice of computers, it should help to connect us with this goal. I think for computers this is a very remote perspective.
Question: What do you think about such human characteristics as courage and morality, and about the decisions that artificial intelligence can make on their basis? For example, what should an unmanned vehicle do — hit a child or get away from a collision with it, crashing into a rock and killing its passenger?
Kasparov: this is what people call “feelings”, they are not quantifiable, because they are a whole bunch of different human characteristics. If we are talking about courage, then this characteristic is always at odds with the chances of choosing the best option. Courage, like other human feelings, is by definition contrary to exact counting.
Question: Mr. Kasparov, my question does not concern computers: what is in your flask and can I try it?
Kasparov: what do you mean?
Host: he asks what is in your pocket!
Kasparov: in my pocket? "Capital"! This is not an advertisement, if you notice, I threw it away.
The question is: who do you think will be the next world chess champion and does the young Chinese chess player Wei I have a chance to overthrow Karelsen from the throne of the king of chess?
Kasparov: Karelsen is number 1 player, he is not a world champion, but simply the best chess player in the world according to the rating. This year he will turn 27, so he is still young, but by modern standards he is not very young. I think, Wei And now 18 or 19 years old. Magnus outstripped such young players as the Americans Wesley So and Fabiano Kerouana, and potentially, Wei Yi can act as his opponent. However, in order to become a world champion, talent is necessary, it is not necessary to be young and energetic, it is enough to have a little luck. So, answering the question, I can say - yes, he has chances to defeat Magnus Carelsen.
Question: when you talked about deterministic algorithms and machine learning, you mentioned the possibility of using machines as tools to complement our intelligence. What can you say about the possibility of maximizing the resources to create a powerful AI, or even about “investing” the human brain in a computer?
Kasparov: I am not ashamed to admit my ignorance when I am not sure that I am not able to answer the question correctly. I try my best to understand what the human brain is, if we consider it separately from the human body, what functions it performs. Because it is difficult to imagine how the brain will behave separately from the body. Perhaps in the future, such an experiment can be carried out, but I am sure that the combination of the human brain, human feelings and emotions with a computer will form a “mind” that will be much more effective than the extracted and frozen brain used as a device filled with neurons.
Question: Is there a universal basic approach to the problem of replacing workplaces with computers?
Kasparov: I think this is a very important question, because it is clear that we are approaching the moment when many people may be left without work. This is a paradox of technological progress: on the one hand, we have the latest technologies, which provide tremendous competitive advantages to the young generation that deals with these devices and technologies. On the other hand, we have progress in medicine and healthy nutrition, which prolongs human life and gives a person the ability to work for many years. In this sense, the generation of the 50s, 60s, or even the 40s cannot compete with today's youth. We must find a solution to this paradoxical situation, when the gap between generations is so great. Historical experience says that such a gap always leads to a big bang. I mean the gap between the existing social infrastructure of society and technological progress.
This is the problem that politicians prefer to postpone until the next election. No one wants to talk about it, because it is a painful question. It is very easy to print money, hoping that someone will pay for it sometime in the future. So in this area there are many paradoxes, for example, the accumulation of debts for providing social guarantees to the older generation in the hope that the burden of paying for these debts will fall on the shoulders of the younger generation. There are many questions to which I have no answers, and many questions that I could ask, I hope that the AI ​​will help me with this.
It’s too bad that for decades politicians have been trying to ignore the problems that we have now discussed. They are always ready for statements, they always have plans, but they do not want to understand the counterproductiveness of silencing the problem of the conflict between technology and society. Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for staying with us. Do you like our articles? Want to see more interesting materials? Support us by placing an order or recommending to friends, 30% discount for Habr's users on a unique analogue of the entry-level servers that we invented for you: The whole truth about VPS (KVM) E5-2650 v4 (6 Cores) 10GB DDR4 240GB SSD 1Gbps from $ 20 or how to share the server? (Options are available with RAID1 and RAID10, up to 24 cores and up to 40GB DDR4).
Dell R730xd 2 times cheaper? Only we have 2 x Intel TetraDeca-Core Xeon 2x E5-2697v3 2.6GHz 14C 64GB DDR4 4x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100 TV from $ 199 in the Netherlands! Dell R420 - 2x E5-2430 2.2Ghz 6C 128GB DDR3 2x960GB SSD 1Gbps 100TB - from $ 99! Read about How to build an infrastructure building. class c using servers Dell R730xd E5-2650 v4 worth 9000 euros for a penny?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/457290/
All Articles