Garry Kasparov on AI, Chess, and the Future of Creativity (Ep. 22)
I’m here with Garry Kasparov.
我和加里·卡斯帕罗夫在一起。
Garry, of course, is the world’s greatest chess player ever.
当然，加里是世界上最伟大的国际象棋棋手。
More importantly, I think of him as a man who has never, ever shied away from a challenge.
更重要的是，我认为他是一个从不回避挑战的人。
He is one of the least complacent people I know, truly brave and courageous.
他是我认识的最不自满的人之一，真正勇敢无畏。
He has a new book out.
他出了一本新书。
The title is Deep Thinking.
标题是《深度思考》。
Garry himself is an extremely deep thinker in virtually all areas.
加里本人在几乎所有领域都是一位极其深刻的思想家。
The subtitle is Where Machine Intelligence Ends and Human Creativity Begins.
副标题是机器智能的终结和人类创造力的开始。
Whereas in Garry’s previous book, Winter Is Coming, this time around it’s a little more cheery and, at least in some regards, finally, spring has arrived.
而在加里的上一本书《冬天即将来临》中，这一次的情况更加令人愉快，至少在某些方面，春天终于来了。
Garry, thank you for coming on the podcast.
加里，感谢您参加播客。
Thanks for inviting me.
谢谢你邀请我。
And you’re right, yeah.
你是对的，是的。
This book is more cheery than the previous one.
这本书比上一本更加欢快。
I thought it would be a good idea to keep a balance.
我认为保持平衡是个好主意。
In both cases, I went against the dominant trend at the moment.
在这两种情况下，我都违背了当时的主导趋势。
When Winter Is Coming was written and published, many people here in this country or in the free world, they had doubts about my strong statements about Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.
当《凛冬将至》撰写和出版时，这个国家或自由世界的许多人对我对俄罗斯独裁者弗拉基米尔·普京的强烈言论表示怀疑。
Now, regarding this book, Deep Thinking, when I was writing the book, many people tended to believe Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and other pessimists, who predicted a doomsday scenario, when artificial intelligence would inevitably take over our world.
现在，关于《深度思考》这本书，当我写这本书时，很多人倾向于相信埃隆·马斯克、史蒂芬·霍金和其他悲观主义者，他们预测了世界末日的场景，人工智能将不可避免地接管我们的世界。
This time, I took the opposite side, the optimistic side, and this book was an attempt to write a real story of artificial intelligence and its connection to the game of chess: Why the founding fathers of computer science, like Alan Turing and Claude Shannon, had such an affection for the game of chess, and why they believed that solving the game of chess or, more likely, making machines capable of beating strongest players, could help them to solve the problems of artificial intelligence, and why, by the way, they were wrong.
这次，我站在了相反的一边，乐观的一边，这本书试图写一个关于人工智能及其与国际象棋游戏的联系的真实故事：为什么像阿兰·图灵和克劳德·香农这样的计算机科学之父对国际象棋游戏如此热爱，为什么他们相信解决国际象棋游戏，或者更可能的是，制造能够击败最强玩家的机器，可以帮助他们解决人工智能的问题，顺便说一句，为什么他们错了。
On what AI teaches us about ourselves
人工智能教会我们如何认识自己
Let me ask you some of my questions.
让我问你一些问题。
We’ll start with topics related to your book.
我们将从与您的书相关的主题开始。
If we think of computer chess as a kind of project, along with AlphaGo, as somewhat of a referendum on human intelligence, that is, for decades, even centuries, humans have been trying to solve chess and Go and play it better, and understand how the games work.
如果我们将计算机象棋视为一种项目，与 AlphaGo 一起，某种程度上可以看作是对人类智力的公投，也就是说，几十年来，甚至几个世纪以来，人类一直在尝试解决国际象棋和围棋并更好地下棋，并了解游戏是如何运作的。
Then, artificial intelligence comes along, computer chess, and they teach us how far off we were.
然后，人工智能出现了，计算机国际象棋出现了，它们告诉我们我们离目标还有多远。
If you think of artificial intelligence as teaching us something about humans, what kind of mistakes we make, how smart we are, or how stupid we are, how would you judge the results of these referenda?
如果你认为人工智能教会我们一些关于人类的事情，我们会犯什么样的错误，我们有多聪明，或者我们有多愚蠢，你会如何判断这些公投的结果？
I don’t think the founding fathers of computer science had the same affection to Go or Shogi because they are not familiar or had very little knowledge of these games that were played in other parts of the world.
我不认为计算机科学的创始人对围棋或将棋有同样的喜爱，因为他们对这些在世界其他地方玩的游戏不熟悉或知之甚少。
Chess was a game that for centuries had an ultimate sign, a mark of unique intelligence.
几个世纪以来，国际象棋一直有一个终极标志，即独特智力的标志。
It was quite natural for them to look at the game of chess as the milestone for breaking up this mystery of human intelligence.
他们很自然地将国际象棋视为破解人类智力之谜的里程碑。
Sure.
当然。
What we discovered in 1997, when Deep Blue was successful in the match against a current world champion — and I was world champion at that time — that chess could be crunched by brute force once hardware got fast enough, databases got big enough, algorithms got smart enough.
1997 年，当深蓝在与现任世界冠军的比赛中取得成功时，我们发现，一旦硬件足够快、数据库足够大、算法足够智能，国际象棋就可以通过蛮力来解决。
But even while Deep Blue was victorious, it was anything but intelligent.
但即使深蓝取得了胜利，它也绝不是智能的。
Of course, you can start arguing about the definition of intelligence because, by the definition of its output, the grandmaster-level chess, Deep Blue was intelligent, at this incredible speed.
当然，你可以开始争论智能的定义，因为根据其输出的定义，大师级的国际象棋，深蓝是智能的，而且速度惊人。
At certain points, Deep Blue could reach a phenomenal speed — even today it’s phenomenal, but 20 years ago it was mind-boggling — of 200 million positions per second.
在某些时候，深蓝可以达到惊人的速度 ——即使在今天它也是惊人的，但在 20 年前它是令人难以置信的——每秒 2 亿个位置。
It offered us very little dream of insight into the mysteries of human intelligence.
它为我们提供了很少的梦想来洞察人类智能的奥秘。
You think humans are smarter than we might have thought?
你认为人类比我们想象的更聪明吗？
No, it’s just different.
不，只是不同而已。
Any game, whether it’s chess, or we can move on with Go or Shogi, still offers us a very limited area of human intelligence because at the end of the day, the way we’re trying to understand who is better in a respective game, it will be resolved, win or loss.
任何游戏，无论是国际象棋，还是围棋或将棋，仍然为我们提供了非常有限的人类智能领域，因为归根结底，我们试图了解谁在各自的游戏中表现更好的方式，无论输赢，都会得到解决。
Machines have a decisive advantage because, you may call, they have steady hand.
机器具有决定性的优势，因为，你可能会说，它们的手很稳定。
Humans are vulnerable because we cannot keep the similar vigilance required to play with the machines, even if we understand chess as well as machines do, even if we can survive the brute force of calculation.
人类很脆弱，因为我们无法保持与机器下棋所需的类似警惕性，即使我们像机器一样了解国际象棋，即使我们能够在强力计算中生存下来。
At the end of the day, the pressure on the human player facing the machine is simply unbearable.
归根结底，人类玩家面对机器所承受的压力简直难以承受。
On human biases in chess
论国际象棋中的人类偏见
When humans are playing chess, and here I mean professional chess players, what do you think is the major human systematic bias during the game?
当人类在下棋时，这里我指的是职业棋手，您认为在比赛过程中人类主要的系统偏差是什么？
Is it that they’re not patient enough, or they take too many chances?
是他们不够耐心，还是他们冒险太多？
They don’t take enough chances?
他们没有抓住足够的机会吗？
What’s the bias in us, as human beings, across the board?
作为人类，我们普遍存在什么偏见？
I don’t think humans, at the highest level, are playing the machines anymore.
我认为人类在最高水平上已经不再玩机器了。
It’s useless because you know the outcome.
没有用，因为你知道结果。
Sure, but Caruana sits down against Nakamura.
当然可以，但卡鲁阿纳会与中村对战。
What biases do they exhibit in their play, psychological biases?
他们在游戏中表现出哪些偏见，心理偏见？
Are we talking about two humans?
我们在谈论两个人吗？
Two humans.
两个人。
No, that’s another story because, if you have two humans, then you have two individuals, and most likely they know each other.
不，那是另一个故事了，因为如果你有两个人，那么你就有两个人，而且他们很可能互相认识。
I played, I guess, 182 games in the world championship matches, and many more games, hundreds of games, against other top players in different competitions.
我猜，我在世界冠军赛中打了 182 场比赛，还有更多的比赛，数百场比赛，在不同的比赛中与其他顶级选手比赛。
I knew almost all my opponents.
我几乎认识我所有的对手。
I knew what to expect from them.
我知道对他们有什么期望。
I knew what to expect from myself.
我知道对自己有什么期望。
Human chess is a form of psychological warfare.
人棋是心理战的一种形式。
It includes a psychological element because you should know how to play a game against a very specific opponent.
它包含心理因素，因为您应该知道如何与非常特定的对手进行游戏。
Not very often, but sometimes, you may look for certain moves that may not be the best, purely from chess point of view, but they could create situation at chessboard that might push your opponent off balance.
不经常，但有时，纯粹从国际象棋的角度来看，您可能会寻找某些可能不是最好的动作，但它们可能会在棋盘上创造出可能使对手失去平衡的情况。
With machine, it’s totally different.
有了机器，情况就完全不同了。
The humans are facing an opponent that is not vulnerable to any psychological pressure and, moreover, an opponent that doesn’t care about what’s happened one move ago.
人类面对的是一个不易受到任何心理压力的对手，而且是一个不在乎上一招的对手。
In any human-to-human game, you always have — not necessarily blunders or mistakes — but inaccuracies because if we are reaching a winning position, the complacency is hard to avoid.
在任何人与人之间的游戏中，你总是会遇到“——不一定是失误或错误”——而是不准确，因为如果我们达到了胜利的位置，就很难避免自满。
You think complacency is the main human bias you see in top chess games?
您认为自满是您在顶级国际象棋比赛中看到的主要人类偏见吗？
It’s complacency if you are the winning side, but it could be also the desperation if you are the losing side.
如果你是胜利的一方，那就是自满，但如果你是失败的一方，这也可能是绝望。
One of the greatest problems against any machine is how to deliver the final blow to win the game.
对抗任何机器的最大问题之一是如何发出最后一击以赢得比赛。
Even if you lucky and you get a very good position, then again, you have to play with precision that is not required in human chess.
即使你很幸运并且获得了很好的位置，但话又说回来，你必须以人类国际象棋中不需要的精确度进行游戏。
So, everything that you learn throughout your professional career, it suddenly is working against you.
所以，你在职业生涯中学到的一切，突然对你不利。
My experience — and I’m talking about best games played by top players — tells me that inaccuracies are inevitable.
我的经验 ——我谈论的是顶级玩家玩的最好的游戏 ——告诉我，不准确是不可避免的。
Any inaccuracy against the machine, even if you’ve made, already, 45 good moves and 4 great moves, but the 50th move that is simply inaccurate may deny you victory that you think you deserve by playing brilliantly.
任何对机器的不准确，即使你已经做出了 45 个好棋和 4 个伟大的棋步，但第 50 个棋步完全不准确，可能会让你无法获得你认为自己应该通过出色的表现而获得的胜利。
You don’t have to lose, necessarily, if your position’s really good.
如果你的位置真的很好，你就不一定会输。
But let me emphasize, playing against the machine requires precision and concentration.
但我要强调的是，与机器对战需要精准和专注。
I don’t think it can be achieved by humans in a regular game of chess, or another game like Go or Shogi.
我认为人类无法在常规国际象棋游戏或围棋或将棋等其他游戏中实现这一目标。
If we want to continue this experiment, or to put it in an extreme form, I would say that if we have Magnus Carlsen, the current world champion, offered an opportunity to play against the computer, say 10 games match, on the conditions that he wins the match if he wins one game, which means he can play all the games without thinking about losing the game by making a mistake.
如果我们想继续这个实验，或者用极端的方式来说，如果我们现在的世界冠军马格努斯·卡尔森提供了一个和电脑对战的机会，比如说10场比赛，条件是他赢了一场就赢了比赛，这意味着他可以打所有的比赛，而不必考虑因为犯错而输掉比赛。
He can play without this terrible psychological pressure, maybe there’s still a chance.
他可以在没有这种可怕的心理压力的情况下打球，也许还有机会。
I would bet on the computer, though.
不过，我会赌电脑。
Would you?
你愿意吗？
No, he has to win only one game.
不，他只需要赢一场比赛。
I know, but to win a game against Rybka is very difficult.
我知道，但是要赢得对阵雷布卡的比赛是非常困难的。
If it were draw one game, I might bet on Magnus.
如果是平局，我可能会押注马格努斯。
No, no, no, no. If you’re talking about drawing, and Magnus plays white, for instance, let’s take Magnus, I think it’s still 50/50 chance.
不，不，不，不。例如，如果你谈论绘画，而马格努斯玩白棋，那么让我们以马格努斯为例，我认为这仍然是 50/50 的机会。
Magnus is pretty good.
马格努斯还是很不错的
I’m talking about winning.
我说的是胜利。
Drawing, you’ll make a few draws, that’s for sure.
画画，你会画一些画，这是肯定的。
I’ve no doubt about it.
我对此毫不怀疑。
Winning — if you give him this big handicap that he doesn’t have to think about losing the games — it’s all about concentrating and looking for the best moves.
获胜 ——如果你给他一个很大的障碍，他就不必考虑输掉比赛了—— 这一切都在于集中精力并寻找最好的行动。
I think he has a chance.
我认为他有机会。
I wouldn’t bet my bottom dollar, I still think it’s below 50 percent, but he has a chance.
我不会用我的底价打赌，我仍然认为它低于 50%，但他有机会。
There’s a decent chance — it’s not slim to none — that the best player may win.
最好的玩家有很大的机会获胜——“这不是微乎其微”。
Again, we’re talking about a handicap event.
再次，我们谈论的是让分赛事。
The matches I played with Deep Blue, and following matches that I played with Deep Junior and Deep Fritz, and the matches that Kramnik played with Deep Fritz, they ended the story of human-machine competition on equal terms.
我和深蓝的比赛，以及我和Deep Junior和Deep Fritz的比赛，以及克拉姆尼克和Deep Fritz的比赛，他们以平等的方式结束了人机竞争的故事。
They closed this chapter of the search of the mysteries of human intelligence in the realm of chess.
他们结束了在国际象棋领域探索人类智能之谜的这一章。
On the tech panic cycle
关于科技恐慌周期
A lot of humans don’t play chess, but we’re looking at a future where AI will make decisions about who gets a monetary loan, who is diagnosed as being schizophrenic or bipolar.
很多人不会下棋，但我们正在展望未来，人工智能将决定谁获得货币贷款、谁被诊断为精神分裂症或躁郁症。
How cars drive on the road increasingly is controlled by software.
汽车在道路上的行驶方式越来越多地由软件控制。
The fact that the decisions of the software are not so transparent — and you see this also in computer chess — how will ordinary human beings respond to the fact that more and more of their lives will be “controlled” by these nontransparent processes that are too smart for them to understand?
事实上，软件的决策并不那么透明——你在计算机国际象棋中也看到了这一点——普通人将如何应对这样一个事实：他们越来越多的生活将被这些过于聪明而无法理解的不透明过程“控制”？
Because in your book, you have emotional conflict with Deep Blue, right?
因为在你的书中，你和深蓝有情感冲突，对吧？
Exactly.
确切地。
I’m telling you that it’s inevitable.
我告诉你，这是不可避免的。
There are certain things that are happening, and it’s called progress.
有些事情正在发生，这就是进步。
This is the history of human civilization.
这就是人类文明史。
The whole history is a steady process of replacing all forms of labor by machines.
整个历史就是一个机器取代一切形式劳动的稳步过程。
It started with machines replacing farm animals and then manual laborers, and it kept growing and growing and growing.
它开始于机器取代农场动物，然后是体力劳动者，并且它不断增长、增长、增长。
There was a time I mentioned in the book, people didn’t trust elevators without operators.
曾经我在书中提到，人们不信任没有操作员的电梯。
They thought it would be too dangerous.
他们认为这太危险了。
It took a major strike in the city of New York that was equal a major disaster.
纽约市发生了一场相当于一场重大灾难的大罢工。
You had to climb the Empire State Building with paralyzed elevators.
你必须用瘫痪的电梯爬上帝国大厦。
I understand that today, people are concerned about self-driving cars, absolutely.
我知道今天人们绝对关心自动驾驶汽车。
But now let us imagine that there was a time, I’m sure, people were really concerned, they were scared stiff of autopilots.
但现在让我们想象一下，我确信，曾经有一段时间，人们真的很担心，他们对自动驾驶仪感到非常害怕。
Now, I think if you tell them that autopilot’s not working in the plane, they will not fly because they understand that, in the big numbers, these decisions are still more qualitative.
现在，我认为如果你告诉他们自动驾驶仪在飞机上不起作用，他们就不会飞行，因为他们明白，从大的数字来看，这些决定仍然更加定性。
While I understand also the fear of people who might be losing jobs, and they could see that machines are threatening their traditional livelihood, but at the same time, even these people whose jobs are on chopping block of automation, they also depend on the new wave of technology to generate economic growth and to create sustainable new jobs.
虽然我也理解那些可能失业的人的恐惧，他们可以看到机器正在威胁他们的传统生计，但与此同时，即使这些人的工作受到自动化的影响，他们也依赖新技术浪潮来促进经济增长并创造可持续的新就业机会。
This is a cycle.
这是一个循环。
The only difference with what we have been seeing throughout human history is that now, machines are coming after people with college degrees, political influence, and Twitter accounts.
与我们在人类历史上所看到的唯一不同的是，现在机器正在追随拥有大学学位、政治影响力和推特账户的人。