
What the Deep Blue match tells us about AI - steven
https://backchannel.com/what-deep-blue-tells-us-about-ai-in-2017-3284f92b2a93
======
strebler
It does strike me that neither Kasparov nor Lee Sedol insisted to see any play
history of their AI opponents.

Not that it would have changed anything, but it's kind of silly to go into any
situation one side has the other's entire history, while the other side has
nothing. Not exactly fair.

~~~
datagram
Sounded to me like Kasparov did ask to see match history:

 _Going into the match, Kasparov was frustrated that IBM had not shared
printouts of Deep Blue’s practice games. He felt at a disadvantage because in
a contest with any human, he would have a long history of match performance
and would be able to tailor a strategy against that person’s tendencies and
weaknesses._

~~~
LanceH
When he lost was during that time when there was a split between FIDE and PCA.
I've always wondered if there was some leverage there that IBM could have just
gone to the PCA champ for the match instead. As reigning champ, he should have
been able to dictate terms to IBM, not the other way around. PCA would have
jumped at the idea of having IBM spending a ton of money claiming theirs was
the true champion.

My personal view is that computers should have to play candidate matches as
well to get to a championship match. Well, should have, it's a moot point now
that the desktop can beat the GM's.

Last I looked, computers didn't evaluate their own opening book. They are
basically programmed not to play certain things. Computers should only be
allowed opening books built by computers. I'm really curious if novelties
would develop.

~~~
gmiller123456
"My personal view is that computers should have to play candidate matches as
well to get to a championship match"

Important point is that this was not a championship match, it was just a
regular exhibition match. The world champions play a lot of players in such
tournaments and matches outside of the championship circuit. I doubt a
computer will ever be allowed in the championship circuit .

------
BoiledCabbage
It is a fascinating reminder of the power of AI. Not working independently,
but in conjunction in people and their motivations.

Our most common 'AI concern' is the power that AI on its own 'will take over
humanity' in some form. Ie the risk of it 'getting loose' and not being
programmed to consider the well-being of humans.

The risk that we never seem to discuss is the human component, and the flaws
of humanity. AI can also become a trained attack dog that will be used to
further and amplify all of the flaws of humanity.

We complain about dark patterns in programming, what happens when you have
deep-blue style AI that someone can turn on and target someone working full
time to manipulate? All of the abusive relationships, gaslighting harassment -
what happens when when it's all being done on someone's behalf by an AI? 100x
better than any person could do it.

The article discusses how IBM essentially used psychological warfare to get
Kasparov to doubt himself. We won't be able to out think an AI - what's is
look like when one is doing this to us non stop.

There are already a growing concerns that human minds didn't evolve to handle
a lot of the impacts of things like social media (Twitter, Instagram,
Facebook) and the impact it's had on anxiety, depression and social well
being. What's next when instead of scripters DDOSing a target, they launch a
few bots to subtly yet effectively drive them insane?

What's your phobia? Spiders? How about a spider a day on every electronic
screen you view? How about micro-targeted ads containing spiders just for you?

You're in high school 15+ years from now - you don't really fit in, you're
having a rough day. How about a drone the size of a fly that a bully's AI has
programmed to follow you around and anonymously broadcasts every crappy thing
that happens to you. It taps on your window and night while you're sleeping
just to wake you up. Multiple times a day it whispers to you to commit
suicide.

We in technology are always overly optimistic in thinking simply create the
new technology and the world will be better. Unfortunately it is often people
with less noble motivations who quickly realize the potential impact of new
tech and use it as a power multiplier.

The times society is most at risk is when technology outstrips our ability to
understand its implications and abuses. There has been a lot of discussion of
consequences of tech w.r.t. this recent US election.

Re-read the article. In something as simple as board game, look how much
psychology played into Kasparov's defeat. Even in his own words he never got
over game two. But what's more, is that so much of human competition and
interaction boils down to theory of mind of your opponent. Kasparov's problem
wasn't really the move itself in game two, it's that he had no idea what he
was up against anymore. It brought him to paranoia, demanding source code
printouts, and suspicious of Russian body guards.

It can play possum, it can drag discomfort on, it suffers no fatigue, and you
don't need general AI for any of this. It would be unwise to try to avoid tech
and AI progress - it has the potential for great good. But I think we're still
misreading the risks out there. I seriously think the larger threat is putting
the equivalent power of a nuke in everyone's hand. It's inevitable, but we're
not ready for the fallout.

~~~
huon
Yup. And we won't be. The porn industry already uses such systems to keep porn
addicts on the site the whole day just clicking away like trained chimps.

