このページはフレーム対応ブラウザ用に作成されています。下のリンクは非フレーム使用ページですのでそちらをご覧ください。
この記事をプリントする
人間対機械の戦い
ニューヨークで開かれたチェスの世界チャンピオン、ガルリ・カスパロフ氏とIBMのコンピューター「ディープブルー」との戦いは、5月11日、2勝1敗3引き分けでコンピューターの勝利に終わった。現役の世界チャンピオンにコンピューターが勝利したのは初めてで、機械が人間の知能を超えたかのように報道された。だが、筆者は…。
Man vs. Machine
By SCOTT T. HARDS
When IBM's chess computer known as Deep Blue beat the longtime world champion Garry Kasparov a few weeks ago, newspapers and magazines all over the world were filled with editorials and columns commenting on how, in some ways, this showed that machines were now better than man. Even in Japan, there was talk that it would only be a matter of time before a shogi or igo program would be beating the best human players. That's probably true, but statements suggesting this is some kind of revolution in machines cause me to chuckle, because they are really just stating the obvious.
Of course machines are better than people at the jobs they are designed to do! That's why we build them in the first place! We use calculators because they do math faster than we can. We use cranes because they can lift heavier things than we can. If machines were not better, we wouldn't bother with them! After all, nobody is writing a column about how sad it is that a steam shovel can dig a hole faster than a person with a spade.
Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue generated conversation because it made it seem as if a machine could think better than a man. But it actually only proved that chess is a giant math problem that can be solved through calculations. Think about it: all through the match we heard time and again about how powerful Deep Blue was, how it could evaluate 200 million positions every second
I suppose some people may consider that powerful, but inefficient is another way to interpret it. After all, Garry Kasparov certainly cannot study 200 million positions a second; he probably only studies a handful every minute, but he still plays chess just as well as Deep Blue. Why?
Because Deep Blue is stupid. It has no intuition that tells it if a particular approach is completely worthless or not, so it simply evaluates every possible one and finds the best. It's just as if you were trying to decide with what to build your house and actively considered using water, string or chocolate before settling on wood. This isn't intelligence, it's just a process of elimination.
True intelligence involves learning from one's mistakes, and Deep Blue cannot even do that. Given a certain position, Deep Blue will make the same move every time, even if it leads to checkmate. Intelligence also involves creativity. When they come up with computer programs that can write novels that are more interesting than those that people write, then I'll start to worry!
When IBM's chess computer known as Deep Blue beat the longtime world champion Garry Kasparov a few weeks ago, newspapers and magazines all over the world were filled with editorials and columns commenting on how, in some ways, this showed that machines were now better than man. Even in Japan, there was talk that it would only be a matter of time before a shogi or igo program would be beating the best human players. That's probably true, but statements suggesting this is some kind of revolution in machines cause me to chuckle, because they are really just stating the obvious.
Of course machines are better than people at the jobs they are designed to do! That's why we build them in the first place! We use calculators because they do math faster than we can. We use cranes because they can lift heavier things than we can. If machines were not better, we wouldn't bother with them! After all, nobody is writing a column about how sad it is that a steam shovel can dig a hole faster than a person with a spade.
Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue generated conversation because it made it seem as if a machine could think better than a man. But it actually only proved that chess is a giant math problem that can be solved through calculations. Think about it: all through the match we heard time and again about how powerful Deep Blue was, how it could evaluate 200 million positions every second
I suppose some people may consider that powerful, but inefficient is another way to interpret it. After all, Garry Kasparov certainly cannot study 200 million positions a second; he probably only studies a handful every minute, but he still plays chess just as well as Deep Blue. Why?
Because Deep Blue is stupid. It has no intuition that tells it if a particular approach is completely worthless or not, so it simply evaluates every possible one and finds the best. It's just as if you were trying to decide with what to build your house and actively considered using water, string or chocolate before settling on wood. This isn't intelligence, it's just a process of elimination.
True intelligence involves learning from one's mistakes, and Deep Blue cannot even do that. Given a certain position, Deep Blue will make the same move every time, even if it leads to checkmate. Intelligence also involves creativity. When they come up with computer programs that can write novels that are more interesting than those that people write, then I'll start to worry!
Shukan ST: June 6, 1997
(C) All rights reserved
- Deep Blue
- IBM製チェス用コンピューター「ディープブルー」。スーパーコンピューターにチェス専用計算ボードを取り付けた機械
- beat
- 負かした
- longtime
- 長年の
- Garry Kasparov
- チェスの世界チャンピオン、ガルリ・カスパロフ氏(34)。1985年、22歳の若さでチャンピオンの座につき、1989年にディープブルーの前身「ディープソート」と戦って以来、何度か機械を相手にチェスをしてきた
- editorials
- 社説
- columns
- 寄稿記事
- it would only be a matter of time before 〜
- 〜 するのは時間の問題だろう
- statements suggesting 〜
- 〜 をほのめかす発言
- revolution
- 革命
- cause me to chuckle
- くすくす笑わせる
- (are)stating the obvious
- 明らかなことを述べている
- at the jobs they are designed to do
- 使用目的である作業に関しては
- in the first place
- もともと
- calculators
- 計算機
- cranes
- クレーン
- wouldn't bother with them
- 使わないだろう
- After all
- 実際
- steam shovel
- 蒸気力による掘削機
- spade
- くわ
- generated conversation
- 話題を呼んだ
- it made it seem as if 〜
- あたかも 〜 のように見せた
- proved
- 証明した
- all through the match
- 試合の間ずっと
- time and again
- 何度も
- evaluate
- 検討する
- positions
- こまの配置
- every second
- 毎秒
- consider that 〜
- それを 〜 だと考える
- inefficient
- 効率が悪い
- 〜 is another way to interpret it
- それを 〜 と解釈することもできる
- handful
- 少し
- stupid
- ばかな
- has no intuition that tells it if 〜
- 〜 かどうかを見きわめる直観力はない
- particular approach
- ある特定の手
- worthless
- 役に立たない
- every possible one
- 可能な手すべて
- with what to build your house
- どういう材料を使って家を建てるか
- actively considered using 〜
- 〜 を使うかどうか積極的に検討する
- string
- ひも
- before settling on 〜
- 〜 に落ち着く前に
- intelligence
- 知性
- process of elimination
- 消去法
- involves 〜
- 〜 を含む
- learning from one's mistakes
- 自分の失敗から学ぶこと
- Given a certain position
- 特定のこまの配置を与えられると
- will make the same move every time
- 毎回、同じ手を使うだろう
- leads to checkmate
- チェックメイトにつながる
- creativity
- 創造性
- come up with 〜
- 〜 を開発する
- novels
- 小説