We laughed too long at cybernetics
While working in a library with historical materials on the topic of discussions about artificial intelligence in the Soviet Union, I came across this note, I decided that someone might also be interested in reading it, so I am publishing it here.
I don’t think it’s a big deal
I am very concerned about the problems of cybernetics and as a physics, and as a lyricist, and, most importantly, as a person living in the 20th century.
In 1953 I started working as an engineer. At that time, children were still frightened by cybernetics in our country, and I had not heard about it at the institute, although I studied at the radio faculty. And at work, the young mathematician ardently tried to prove that someday a “thinking” machine would be built that could improve itself, without the participation of its designer. I remember how I defended my (it seemed to me then, “materialistic”) point of view. My arguments boiled down to the infamous formula: “This cannot be, because this can never be!”
Now I would not have become so ardently and so groundlessly arguing with my comrade! Not because I have become older and more cautious, but because, together with all people, I have learned to think differently – bolder – besides, the achievements of cybernetics itself make me respect the prospects of this amazing science.
We laughed at cybernetics for an unacceptably long time. Now we have to catch up. We catch up quickly. If we turn to the history of technology, we will encounter such a paradox: there was not a single major discovery that did not overturn some age-old concepts and laws, and at the same time, without these age-old concepts and laws, it would not be possible to come to the discovery of a new one. Each discovery is a piece of land reclaimed by man from nature. It seems to us very simple to increase the muscular energy of a person millions of times with the help of mechanisms. We are not very surprised that in an hour and a half you can fly around the world, although relatively recently all this seemed fabulous.
The area of feelings and thinking is a more complex area, it has been studied less so far. Therefore, the invasion of this area seems to some almost charlatanism. But exclamations – “Ah, the machine” can not feel! sound a little sentimental. (I would even say, if I weren’t a woman, “like a lady”.) Cybernetics is now only beginning to reproduce the “individual movements” of the human brain, but it does it successfully.
The logic of electronic machines, memory and computing abilities can no longer be questioned. This could be confirmed by the work on the decoding of the Mayan writings. In my opinion, there should be no doubt that the machine will learn to “think”, that its “thinking” in certain aspects of it will proceed even with a greater efficiency than that of a man. Thus, such a machine will be useful to humans.
Now a little about the “machine rebellion”.
Let’s go back to the history of technology. All major inventions and discoveries, from the wheel to rocket technology, have so far been used by mankind always in two opposite directions: for creation and for destruction, for life to for death. Cybernetics is at the same crossroads. It can be taught to serve man and it can be taught to enslave man. But this problem is not inherent in the science of cybernetics itself and not in electronic technology, but in the social sphere. In the end, with a certain “social order” and an electric iron can be designed so that it heats up to 2000C and crawl on its owner, but since we are confident in the philanthropy of the iron designers, we calmly plug the plug into the outlet.
Probably in 50 years there will be rows of machine guns on the streets. Maybe even among them there will be automatic hairdressers. Of course, women at first will laugh at machine guns and not trust them. But there will definitely be Eva. Her friend will like her hair, an epidemic will begin … But can you imagine that one of the clients is accidentally or deliberately bitten off by a machine gun head, and the administration helplessly shrug their hands: “What can be claims – cybernetics” …
Only a man with the help of a machine can enslave a person, I am deeply convinced of this. But this does not mean that the machine is generally the enemy of man!
I do not believe in the help of the machine to artists or poets in such a way as it seems to Academician Petrov. I absolutely do not need an editor who will say that I broke the rules in time or rhythm. If I do it unconsciously, then I am not a poet, but if I do it consciously, it means that I need it so much, I prove something of my own, and the old rules do not always suit me. But I will be the first to run to sign up for training with an electronic machine if it gives me some information on the history of literature, introduces me to the theory of poetics. And such machines already now can exist.
I look forward to articles on cybernetics, although sometimes it seems to me that the arguing parties do not hear each other, and the benefit of the dispute can only be in cases where the opponents respect the subject of the dispute, try to understand each other.
I would like to wish that the dispute went in the direction of mutual understanding, and not a split between “physicists” and “lyricists”, because we are all doing the same thing.
A. Stroilo, engineer
Moscow
Literary newspaper, N 77, June 30, 1962
