{"id":1647,"date":"2023-03-06T10:00:40","date_gmt":"2023-03-06T10:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1647"},"modified":"2023-03-05T08:36:15","modified_gmt":"2023-03-05T08:36:15","slug":"leave-it-to-the-machines-re-evaluating-the-kasparov-reply","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/leave-it-to-the-machines-re-evaluating-the-kasparov-reply\/","title":{"rendered":"Leave it to the Machines? Re-evaluating the Kasparov reply"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 1997, Garry Kasparov became the first world chess champion to lose a match to a computer, IBM\u2019s Deep Blue. Kasparov initially thought the IBM team cheated after the computer played what GM Yasser Seirawan described as a \u2018human like move\u2019 that \u2018sent Garry into a tizzy\u2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As Kasparov later described the match:\u00a0\u201cIt was as intelligent as your alarm clock. Although losing to a $10 million alarm clock didn\u2019t make me feel any better.\u201d<\/p>\n

Around 25+ years after the historic loss (which Newsweek then dramatized as \u201cThe Brain\u2019s Last Stand\u201d)<\/a>, Garry\u2019s failure to defeat a computer at chess is hardly a notable embarrassment \u2013 this is now normal and expected. As of 2023, the world\u2019s strongest player, Norway\u2019s Magnus Carlsen, would have no practical chance at beating (and little chance of drawing) the top open-source chess computer program Stockfish<\/a> available on his or your smartphone. (For some hypothesising about what would happen if Magnus played against the latest version of Stockfish (version 15) in a competitive match \u2013 see here<\/a> \u2013 it\u2019s not pretty).<\/p>\n

For his part, Garry \u2013 who since retired (2005) and focuses largely on political commentary and activism<\/a> \u2013 has now made a kind of \u2018reflective peace\u2019 with intelligent machines. In his book Deep Thinking: Where Artificial Intelligence Ends and Human Creativity Begins<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Kasparov emphasises what he takes to be an important \u2018upside\u2019 of machines taking over the execution of increasingly many of our cognitive tasks. The upside concerns, specifically, what this then frees us up to do.<\/em> As he puts it:<\/p>\n

\u201cLet\u2019s look at this historical process. Machines that replace manual labor, they have allowed us to focus on developing our minds. More intelligent machines, I understand that they will take over more menial aspects of cognition and will elevate our lives towards curiosity, creativity, beauty, joy, you can continue this line.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When I read Kasparov\u2019s book in 2017, I admit I found the above line of thinking \u2013 call it the \u201cKasparov Reply\u201d to the influx of intelligent machines \u2013 an attractive one. The idea seemed to be: computers are coming, but let them come <\/em>for the menial tasks, which can free us up to do the kinds of distinctly human things computers can\u2019t <\/em>do, and which are of special human value. At least that\u2019s how I interpreted it (convenient for me, you might think, as I assumed brazenly then that Philosophy was completely safe).<\/p>\n

As readers will know, it is presently (in January 2023) far from clear just how safe Philosophy is \u2013 following OpenAI\u2019s recently launched ChatGPT<\/a>. This morning I asked it to critically evaluate intellectualism about know-how. Here\u2019s the result:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

I\u2019d give the above something in the B-range? It gets a few things a bit wrong and leaves a few things out, but it\u2019s really not bad (upper-level undergraduate level?) philosophising for a programme less than 3 months old.<\/p>\n

Kasparov mentioned \u2018beauty\u2019 in his quote above (along with curiosity, creativity, joy), as an example of something humans can focus on when the machines are busy taking care of our menial tasks. Readers might be reminded of a story making the rounds in September 2022 where an AI-generated picture won an art-contest.<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

I am not an art expert, but the above looks like it gets something in the \u201cA\u201d range.<\/p>\n

At any rate, the above and other breakthroughs in recent AI (especially from OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT and DALL-E<\/a>, which generated the picture above, along with Google DeepMind<\/a>) should, I think, lead us to re-evaluate the flatfooted interpretation of the Kasparov reply I outlined above, and to consider how to better \u2018future-proof\u2019 it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

First, it\u2019s worth making explicit that the category of things that are distinctively valuable for humans to do, and the category of things computers can\u2019t<\/em> do, might have previously largely overlapped (e.g., \u201clet the machines do brute calculations and wash our clothes (i.e., the lowly stuff they\u2019re capable of), while we reason about beauty\u201d, etc.). But we should not assume these categories will continue<\/em> to overlap. A \u2018Kasparovian\u2019 attitude towards intelligent machines should accordingly be refined to avoid a certain kind of complacency <\/em>\u2013 whereby we imagine that such machines would be in a position to \u2018replace\u2019 largely only menial tasks<\/em>, as opposed to tasks that are of special value to us.<\/p>\n

Second, we should further resist the temptation to conflate <\/em>an AI\u2019s being able to do some activity type with the \u2018redundancy\u2019 of humans continuing to do that activity type.<\/p>\n

Kasparov implicitly viewed the \u2018menial\u2019 to line up with those tasks intelligent machines can<\/em> do, an identification which would lead one to think that if a task (presumed to be menial) can be done by a machine, there remains little point for a human to continue do it. But given that (as we\u2019re now seeing) such an identification is increasingly mistaken, it\u2019s likewise going to be mistaken to infer anything like the \u2018redundancy\u2019 of humans doing whatever can be outsourced to a computer.<\/p>\n

Third, the more capable <\/em>AI becomes, the more important it plausibly is that we not dedicate ourselves to whatever pursuits AI frees us up to do at the exclusion of<\/em> also developing and cultivating delegative skills<\/em> (cf. Carter 2023), skills that allow us to reliably delegate to AI in a manner that lines up with a good human life. The more achievements of human value AI continues to be able to at least closely mimic, the more challenging<\/em> it becomes to determine just what to delegate and what not to delegate even if it could be delegated.<\/em> This question \u2013 a version of which has already sparked some interest in recent virtue epistemology (e.g., Sosa 2021, Ch. 1; Carter 2023), is one I\u2019ll be thinking about over the next few years as part of my AHRC Digital Knowledge <\/em>project (2022-2025), along with project team members Jesper Kallestrup, Giada Fratantonio, Joshua Thorpe, and Edoardo Cavasin. For information on the project and to learn more about what we\u2019re up to, see: https:\/\/www.digital-knowledge.org<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Acknowledgement:<\/strong> Thanks to the AHRC Digital Knowledge <\/em>(AH\/W008424\/1) project for supporting this work.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In 1997, Garry Kasparov became the first world chess champion to lose a match to a computer, IBM\u2019s Deep Blue. Kasparov initially thought the IBM team cheated after the computer […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1653,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"@Jadamcarter \"Leave it to the Machines? Re-evaluating the Kasparov reply\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[379,380,261],"custom_author":[101],"class_list":["post-1647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-ai","tag-creativity","tag-knowledge","custom_author-carter-j-adam"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-qz","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":293,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/what-is-google-doing-to-us\/","url_meta":{"origin":1647,"position":0},"title":"What is Google Doing to Us?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 4, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"[snippet id=\"305\" label=\"Emma Gordon and Adam Carter\"] By J. Adam Carter and Emma C. Gordon Suppose you wanted to know who the first pope was after St. Peter (answer: Pope Linus, born 10 AD), or what the oldest continuously habited city in the world is (answer: Damascus, Syria, continuously inhabited\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/smartphone-2781457_1280.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/smartphone-2781457_1280.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/smartphone-2781457_1280.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/smartphone-2781457_1280.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/smartphone-2781457_1280.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":624,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/epicurus-on-losing-arguments\/","url_meta":{"origin":1647,"position":1},"title":"Epicurus on Losing Arguments","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Epicurus\u2019s Vatican Saying #74 runs: \u201cthe one who loses in a philosophical dispute gains more the more he learns.\u201d\u00a0 I remember reading that line as an undergraduate, thinking it curious and perhaps a bit perverse.\u00a0 How would Epicurus himself apply this to his own views, after critique from the likes\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1248,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-surprise-of-covid-vaccine-hesitancy-among-health-care-professionals\/","url_meta":{"origin":1647,"position":2},"title":"The Surprise of COVID Vaccine Hesitancy Among Health Care Professionals","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 26, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"The COVID vaccines were the one big hope story for the dismal year of 2020. The first shipments arrived in December to a few high-income countries and rollout started immediately amidst \u201cjoy and relief\u201d.[1] The first phase of the rollout was supposed to be the easy part. Vaccinate residents in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Goldenberg-book-cover-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Goldenberg-book-cover-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Goldenberg-book-cover-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Goldenberg-book-cover-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Goldenberg-book-cover-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Goldenberg-book-cover-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":499,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/applying-findings-from-neuroscience-to-education-in-practice-and-educational-policy-making\/","url_meta":{"origin":1647,"position":3},"title":"Applying Findings from Neuroscience to Education in Practice and Educational Policy-Making","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 10, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"In this blog post, the last post of my post series, I intend to outline, by means of concrete examples, how findings from neuroscience can contribute practically to the improvement of education. As a prior teacher in moral education in Korean secondary schools, I was interested in how to effectively\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/09\/Evstafiev-barocoa-school.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1459,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-internet-never-forgets-how-google-shapes-and-cements-our-identities\/","url_meta":{"origin":1647,"position":4},"title":"The Internet Never Forgets: How Google Shapes and Cements Our Identities","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"I remember sneaking downstairs to use the computer. I was 11, personal computers weren\u2019t really a thing yet. I couldn't use the computers at school because I was afraid a teacher would discover my search history. We had a computer at home, but it was in the hallway. That\u2019s why\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/06\/google.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/06\/google.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/06\/google.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/06\/google.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/06\/google.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/06\/google.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1323,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/choosing-a-future-for-humanity-effective-altruism-and-longtermism-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":1647,"position":5},"title":"Choosing a future for humanity: effective altruism and longtermism: Part 2","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 29, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"In discussions among the charity evaluators whom I described in the previous post, Derek Parfit is often quoted as saying that we live at \u2018the hinge of history\u2019. What he meant is that we live at a time when we have at our disposal the means to do greater good\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/03\/Kasparov.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1647"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1647\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1658,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1647\/revisions\/1658"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1647"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}