ted 演讲
2020-03-03 21:01:20 来源：范文大全收藏下载本文
I have a question.Can a computer write poetry? This is a provocative question.You think about it for a minute, and you suddenly have a bunch of other questions like: What is a computer? What is poetry?What is creativity? But these are questions that people spend their entire lifetime trying to answer, not in a single TED Talk.So we\'re going to have to try a different approach.00:41So up here, we have two poems.One of them is written by a human, and the other one\'s written by a computer.I\'m going to ask you to tell me which one\'s which.Have a go: 00:54Poem 1: Little Fly / Thy summer\'s play, / My thoughtle hand / Has brush\'d away.Am I not / A fly like thee? / Or art not thou / A man like me? 01:01Poem 2: We can feel / Activist through your life\'s / morning / Pauses to see, pope I hate the / Non all the night to start a / great otherwise (...) 01:09Alright, time\'s up.Hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human.OK, most of you.Hands up if you think Poem 2 was written by a human.Very brave of you, because the first one was written by the human poet William Blake.The second one was written by an algorithm that took all the language from my Facebook feed on one day and then regenerated it algorithmically, according to methods that I\'ll describe a little bit later on.So let\'s try another test.Again, you haven\'t got ages to read this, so just trust your gut.01:49Poem 1: A lion roars and a dog barks.It is interesting / and fascinating that a bird will fly and not / roar or bark.Enthralling stories about animals are in my dreams and I will sing them all if I / am not exhausted or weary.02:01Poem 2: Oh! kangaroos, sequins, chocolate sodas! / You are really beautiful! Pearls, / harmonicas, jujubes, aspirins! All / the stuff they\'ve always talked about (...) 02:10Alright, time\'s up.So if you think the first poem was written by a human, put your hand up.OK.And if you think the second poem was written by a human, put your hand up.We have, more or le, a 50/50 split here.It was much harder.02:28The answer is, the first poem was generated by an algorithm called Racter, that was created back in the 1970s, and the second poem was written by a guy called Frank O\'Hara, who happens to be one of my favorite human poets.02:43(Laughter) 02:47So what we\'ve just done now is a Turing test for poetry.The Turing test was first proposed by this guy, Alan Turing, in 1950, in order to answer the question, can computers think? Alan Turing believed that if a computer was able to have a to have a text-based conversation with a human, with such proficiency such that the human couldn\'t tell whether they are talking to a computer or a human, then the computer can be said to have intelligence.03:14So in 2013, my friend Benjamin Laird and I, we created a Turing test for poetry online.It\'s called bot or not, and you can go and play it for yourselves.But basically, it\'s the game we just played.You\'re presented with a poem, you don\'t know whether it was written by a human or a computer and you have to gue.So thousands and thousands of people have taken this test online, so we have results.03:36And what are the results? Well, Turing said that if a computer could fool a human 30 percent of the time that it was a human, then it paes the Turing test for intelligence.We have poems on the bot or not database that have fooled 65 percent of human readers into thinking it was written by a human.So, I think we have an answer to our question.According to the logic of the Turing test, can a computer write poetry? Well, yes, absolutely it can.But if you\'re feeling a little bit uncomfortable with this answer, that\'s OK.If you\'re having a bunch of gut reactions to it, that\'s also OK because this isn\'t the end of the story.04:17Let\'s play our third and final test.Again, you\'re going to have to read and tell me which you think is human.04:24Poem 1: Reg flags the reason for pretty flags./ And ribbons.Ribbons of flags / And wearing material / Reasons for wearing material.(...) 04:32Poem 2: A wounded deer leaps highest, / I\'ve heard the daffodil I\'ve heard the flag to-day / I\'ve heard the hunter tell; / \'Tis but the ecstasy of death, / And then the brake is almost done (...) 04:43OK, time is up.So hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human.Hands up if you think Poem 2 was written by a human.Whoa, that\'s a lot more people.So you\'d be surprised to find that Poem 1 was written by the very human poet Gertrude Stein.And Poem 2 was generated by an algorithm called RKCP.Now before we go on, let me describe very quickly and simply, how RKCP works.So RKCP is an algorithm designed by Ray Kurzweil, who\'s a director of engineering at Google and a firm believer in artificial intelligence.So, you give RKCP a source text, it analyzes the source text in order to find out how it uses language, and then it regenerates language that emulates that first text.05:37So in the poem we just saw before, Poem 2, the one that you all thought was human, it was fed a bunch of poems by a poet called Emily Dickinson it looked at the way she used language, learned the model,and then it regenerated a model according to that same structure.But the important thing to know about RKCP is that it doesn\'t know the meaning of the words it\'s using.The language is just raw material, it could be Chinese, it could be in Swedish, it could be the collected language from your Facebook feed for one day.It\'s just raw material.And neverthele, it\'s able to create a poem that seems more human than Gertrude Stein\'s poem, and Gertrude Stein is a human.06:21So what we\'ve done here is, more or le, a reverse Turing test.So Gertrude Stein, who\'s a human, is able to write a poem that fools a majority of human judges into thinking that it was written by a computer.Therefore, according to the logic of the reverse Turing test, Gertrude Stein is a computer.06:44(Laughter) 06:46Feeling confused? I think that\'s fair enough.06:50So far we\'ve had humans that write like humans, we have computers that write like computers, we have computers that write like humans, but we also have, perhaps most confusingly, humans that write like computers.07:07So what do we take from all of this? Do we take that William Blake is somehow more of a human than Gertrude Stein? Or that Gertrude Stein is more of a computer than William Blake? 07:18(Laughter) 07:19These are questions I\'ve been asking myself for around two years now, and I don\'t have any answers.But what I do have are a bunch of insights about our relationship with technology.07:31So my first insight is that, for some reason, we aociate poetry with being human.So that when we ask, \"Can a computer write poetry?\" we\'re also asking, \"What does it mean to be human and how do we put boundaries around this category? How do we say who or what can be part of this category?\" This is an eentially philosophical question, I believe, and it can\'t be answered with a yes or no test, like the Turing test.I also believe that Alan Turing understood this, and that when he devised his test back in 1950, he was doing it as a philosophical provocation.08:12So my second insight is that, when we take the Turing test for poetry, we\'re not really testing the capacity of the computers because poetry-generating algorithms, they\'re pretty simple and have existed, more or le, since the 1950s.What we are doing with the Turing test for poetry, rather, is collecting opinions about what constitutes humanne.So, what I\'ve figured out, we\'ve seen this when earlier today, we say that William Blake is more of a human than Gertrude Stein.Of course, this doesn\'t mean that William Blake was actually more human or that Gertrude Stein was more of a computer.It simply means that the category of the human is unstable.This has led me to understand that the human is not a cold, hard fact.Rather, it is something that\'s constructed with our opinions and something that changes over time.09:15So my final insight is that the computer, more or le, works like a mirror that reflects any idea of a human that we show it.We show it Emily Dickinson, it gives Emily Dickinson back to us.We show it William Blake, that\'s what it reflects back to us.We show it Gertrude Stein, what we get back is Gertrude Stein.More than any other bit of technology, the computer is a mirror that reflects any idea of the human we teach it.09:49So I\'m sure a lot of you have been hearing a lot about artificial intelligence recently.And much of the conversation is, can we build it? Can we build an intelligent computer? Can we build a creative computer? What we seem to be asking over and over is can we build a human-like computer? 10:12But what we\'ve seen just now is that the human is not a scientific fact, that it\'s an ever-shifting, concatenating idea and one that changes over time.So that when we begin to grapple with the ideas of artificial intelligence in the future, we shouldn\'t only be asking ourselves, \"Can we build it?\" But we should also be asking ourselves, \"What idea of the human do we want to have reflected back to us?\"This is an eentially philosophical idea, and it\'s one that can\'t be answered with software alone, but I think requires a moment of species-wide, existential reflection.10:50Thank you.10:51(Applause) 我有一个问题。电脑能写诗吗？这是一个具有煽动性的问题。你想一分钟，你突然有一大堆其他的问题：什么是电脑？什么是诗歌？什么是创造力？但这些都是人们花一生的时间来回答的问题，而不是在一个单一的泰德谈话中。所以我们必须尝试不同的方法。
00:41so这里，我们有两首诗。其中一个是由一个人写的，另一个是用电脑写的。我要请你告诉我哪一个。有一个去：
00:54poem 1：小苍蝇/你夏天的游戏，我的粗心的手/刷就走了。我不是一个像你这样的苍蝇吗？你是不是像我一样的男人？
01:01poem 2：我们可以感受到/活动家通过你的生活/早上/停下来看，教皇我讨厌/非所有的夜晚开始/大否则（„）
01:09alright，时间到了。如果你认为1是一个人写的，你就可以举起手来。好吧，你们中的大多数。如果你认为2是一个人写的，你就可以举起手来。你很勇敢，因为第一个是由人类诗人布莱克威廉写的。其次是，把所有的语言从我的Facebook上一天，然后再生它算法编写的算法，所采用的方法，我会描述一个点的时候。所以让我们试着另一个测试。再次，你没有年龄读这一点，所以只要相信你的直觉。
01:49poem 1：狮子吼叫，狗吠。它是有趣的/有趣的是，一只鸟会飞，而不是/咆哮或树皮。迷人的关于动物的故事在我的梦里，我会唱他们所有的如果我/我也不疲惫或厌倦。
02:01poem 2：哦！袋鼠、亮片、巧克力饮料！你真漂亮！珍珠，/口琴、枣、阿司匹林！他们总是谈论的东西（„„）
02:10alright，时间到了。所以，如果你认为第一首诗是由一个人写的，把你的手。好啊如果你认为这首诗是由一个人写的，把你的手。我们有更多或更少，50 / 50分裂。这是很难。 02:28the的回答是，第一首诗是由一个算法产生了灵感，早在上世纪70年代，第二首诗是由一个叫弗兰克奥哈拉写的，他正好是我最喜欢的一个人类的诗人。 02:43（笑声）
02:47so我们刚才做的现在是图灵测试的诗歌。这家伙，艾伦？图1950，以回答问题，第一次提出的图？艾伦·图灵认为，如果计算机能有一个有一人一个基于文本的对话，这样的能力这样的人不知道他们是在跟一个人电脑，然后电脑可以说有智慧。
03:14so 2013，我的朋友本杰明莱尔德和我，我们创造了一个图灵测试诗歌在线。这就是所谓的BOT或没有，你可以去玩吧。但基本上，这是我们刚玩的游戏。你有一首诗，你不知道它是由一个人或一台电脑，你必须猜测。因此，成千上万的人都在网上考试，所以我们有结果。
03:36and的结果是什么？好吧，说，如果一台计算机能愚弄人的百分之30的时间，那是一个人，那么它就通过了对智力的测试。我们对BOT或没有数据库，愚弄人类的读者认为它是由一个百分之65人写的诗。所以，我认为我们有一个问题的答案。根据“图”的逻辑，可以用计算机来写诗歌吗？嗯，是的，绝对可以。但是，如果你感觉有点不舒服，这是确定的。如果你有一大堆的本能反应，那也不错，因为这不是故事的结尾。
04:17let的发挥我们的第三和最后的测试。再次，你要读，告诉我，你认为是人类。 04:24poem 1：红旗漂亮标志的原因。/和丝带。带材料的旗帜/和穿的材料/理由。（„） 04:32poem 2：受伤的鹿跳得最高，/我听到我听到我听到猎人告诉国旗今天/水仙；/那不过是死亡的狂喜，然后刹车几乎完成了（„）
04:43ok，时间到了。所以，如果你认为1是一个人写的，那么就要举手。如果你认为2是一个人写的，你就可以举起手来。哇，这是一个很多人。所以你会惊讶地发现，诗1是由人类诗人格特鲁德·斯坦因写。诗2是由一种rkcp产生。现在，在我们继续之前，让我描述非常迅速和简单，如何rkcp作品。所以rkcp是一个算法由Ray Kurzweil设计，谁是谷歌的工程和人工智能中的坚定信徒的董事。所以，你给rkcp源文本，分析文本中找出如何使用语言，然后重新生成语言模拟了第一条短信。
05:37so诗中我们看到的是，前一日，诗2，一个叫狄金森艾米丽的诗人把一大堆的诗给了她，她用一种她用语言的方式，学习了这个模型，然后根据相同的结构来再生一个模型。但要知道rkcp最重要的是，它不知道意思的话，它的使用。语言只是原材料，它可以是中文，它可以在瑞典，它可以是从你的脸谱网的收集语言的一天。它只是原材料。可是，这是能够创造一首诗，似乎比格特鲁德·斯泰因的诗更人性化，和格特鲁德·斯泰因是人。
06:21so我们所做的是，或多或少，反向图灵测试。所以，格特鲁德斯泰因，谁的人，能写一首诗，愚蠢的大多数人类的法官认为这是电脑写的。因此，根据反向图灵测试的逻辑，Gertrude Stein是计算机。 06:44（笑声）
06:46feeling困惑？我认为这是公平的。
06:50so我们有人写的像人类一样，我们有电脑，写像电脑，我们有电脑，写像人类，但我们也有，也许最令人困惑的是，人类喜欢写电脑。
07:07so我们怎么从这一切？我们把威廉布莱克在某种程度上是更多的人比格特鲁德·斯泰因？或者，格特鲁德斯泰因更是一台比威廉布莱克？ 07:18（笑声）
07:19these是我一直问自己，在两年的时间里，现在的问题，我没有答案，但我确实有一堆关于我们与科技的关系的见解。
07:31so我的第一个观点是，因为某些原因，我们把诗歌与人类。所以，当我们问，“可以电脑写诗歌吗？”我们也在问，“什么意思是人类，我们如何把边界围绕这一类？我们怎么说谁或什么能成为这一类的一部分？”这是一个基本的哲学问题，我相信，它不能被回答，是或没有测试，如图。我还认为艾伦的图是理解这一点，当他在1950岁的时候，他设计了他的测试，他在做这件事作为一种哲学挑衅。
08:12so我的第二个观点是，当我们把图灵测试为诗，我们不是真的测试计算机的能力因为诗歌生成算法，很简单的存在，或多或少，自上世纪50年代以来，我们与图灵测试为诗，做相反，是收集意见什么是人性。所以，我想通了，我们已经看到了这个在今天早些时候，我们说威廉布莱克是一个人类比格特鲁德·斯泰因。当然，这并不意味着威廉布莱克实际上是更多的人，更多的是一种计算机格特鲁德·斯泰因。这仅仅意味着人类的范畴是不稳定的。这让我明白，人不是一个冷酷的、难以理解的事实，而是一种与我们的意见和一些变化随着时间的推移而改变的东西。
09:15so我最后的观点是，电脑，或多或少，作品像一面镜子，反映了任何一个人类，我们看到的是。我们展示了它狄金森艾米丽，它给狄金森艾米丽回到我们。我们展示了它的布莱克威廉，这是它反映了我们。我们看到的是格特鲁德斯泰因，我们回去是格特鲁德·斯泰因。比任何其他的技术，电脑是一个镜子，反映了任何人的想法，我们教它。
09:49so我相信很多你已经听到了很多关于人工智能最近。和大部分的谈话是，我们可以建立它吗？我们可以建造一台智能电脑吗？我们可以造一台电脑吗？我们似乎要问的是，我们可以建立一个类似于人类的计算机吗？
10:12but我们所看到的只是现在，人是不是一个科学的事实，它是一个不断变化，连接和一个随时间变化的。所以，当我们开始学习在未来人工智能的思想，我们不应该只会问自己，“我们可以建立吗？”但是我们也应该问自己：“我们想让我们的人有什么样的想法？”这是一个基本的哲学思想，它是不能用软件来单独回答的，但是我认为需要一个物种广泛的，存在的反射的时刻。
相关推荐
人人范文网 m.inrrp.com.cn 手机版