Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 17, 1997)
The Battalion yjiesday • June 17, 1997 hall • we • play • game? merica experiences changed perception concerning computer technology Columnist Stephen Luno Senior history major to lyin laid «aspresented as a duel be et ra present and future, any Kasparov, reigning Uchess champion, faced a leagainst IBM’s experimen- miputer Deep Blue. It was tnted as a contest fit for Ro- igladiators. It was present- 5ihe classic bat tle of wits Keen man and machine, liter Kasparov’s subse- :ntdefeat on May 11, the id dropped its collective jaw. A hu- achess grandmaster couldn’t pos- I'lose to a computer. It seems im- somehow. Unfortunately this contest of man and iputerhas been tainted. Now that a thine has challenged and beaten a aaninan all-too human game, there [pervasive feeling among people that nebit of human superiority was some- rtaalong with the match. Mimes that play chess are not new. helate 18th century, a machine known |as “The Turk” dumbfounded audi- tesbydefeating player after human set.The device was a cabinet, behind isat a mechanical man with a tur- helApseudo-prosthetic arm moved tesaround the chess board. It contin- I'won game after game, and lost very The machine’s list of playing partners itided Maria Theresa, Empress of Aus- iNapoleon Bonaparte, and Catherine Great of Russia. But not one of these ijtrsknew that the secret to the Turk’s xesswas the human chess grandmas- in the cabinet. The use of illu- ts-much like the ones David Cop- rsld uses today — always kept the man concealed from view. Jiowthat machines make up a major itofour daily lives, the perception of lesfor mere amusement has d. Now society relies on ma- iestowork for us, entertain us and metimes watch over us. taedcan film and television have saaltered perception. Ever since the k\kgames, the computer has been pad as wanting to take over, having ®nse power and control over life (litany sense of higher moral re- roibility. The 1950s view of the com puter as a bulky robot such as from Lost in Space shouting, “Danger Will Robinson, Danger!” has been replaced by a master computer named Skynet, con trolling an army of unstoppable robots that have the grim visage of death himself. Hollywood has taken a spin on the outlook of chess as well. The romanticized ideal of the chess- master as a genius, more in touch with himself than others, has been perpetrated time and time again. Many a time in film, the deluded murder ing psychopath leaves police the clue of a single chess piece or notation for a move in a game. Chess is one of those games seen as being out of the range of average individuals. In movies such as Searching for Bobby Fischer, chess is depicted as spanning many generations, linked only by a love or special talent for the game. From child prodigy to the elderly, sea soned chessmaster, age, color and sex do not bind them together — intelligence does. Through these perceptions, chess has the singular power to strip away all the superficial ties that separate us. This ultimate ideal should never be dominat ed by anything but a human. But in all these movies, the machines eventually lose. Overcome by the human qualities of intuition, imagination, virtue and heroic action, the cold, logical ma chine is deficient. No wonder there was shock when Kasparov lost — rhetorically, the image of invulnerability with regard to machines has pervaded the deepest recesses of human thought. This man versus machine conflict could be purified. It could be seen as a concrete manifestation of a literary ideal. The conflict is man versus himself, only shrouded in a different form. It could not find a better performance space. Human intuition and emotion versus a cold, cal culating, purely logical machine. Finally, the logical and emotional realms of hu man thought have been separated to go head to head over humanity’s perfect game. Just like the Turk of yesteryear, the man is still hiding in the cabinet — he is just reduced to a purely logical ideal of a few logarithms and diodes. Man will always be against himself— be it literary or electronic. But each rise of computer achievement must be taken with a solid dose of reality. A recent television commercial pits Deep Blue versus NBA superstar David Robinson. The one-on-one basketball game ends quickly, and Robinson muses, “I don’t see what the big deal is.” Obvious ly, the machine will do what its program mers designed and built it to do. IBM is designing a machine to assist with weath er forecasting, air traffic control and mod eling molecular structures. This is simply a test of the machine’s ability to perform. Deep Blue is as much as people make of it. On the surface, it is simply an IBM model RS/6000 SP parallel processor. Humans created it and humans can turn it off. It is merely a tool, incapable of even the simplest human feeling. Imagination, something Deep Blue will never have, has catapulted this machine beyond one of our worst fears — confronting ourselves. ' ' ✓—• ' "•» »••• , < „ ik ■ iHI g Ignorant viewpoints persist, overpower culture today Sports Editor Kristina Buffin Senior journalism major T here is an ongoing debate in intellectual circles about whether there are gaps between and third-world countries or the rich and ihepoor. But there is one debate some people either don't think about or don’t care to discuss: the smart versus the stupid people. i may be modest, but 1 consider myself one of the smart ones and often find myself thinking about the stupid people in this world. am not trying to be rude, but take alook around and see all those people are just as dumb as a box of ham- toers and wonder how they survive in this world. These people seem to have nothing upstairs, and if common sense came up and bit them, they still Wouldn’t recognize it. There are several types of stupid People to identify: The purely ignorant. Examples of these people include Adolf Hitler, Ku Klux Klan members, homophobes and anyone else who is not tolerant. It is the 1990s, and these people contin ue to go around espousing ha tred and not giving other people a chance just because they have a different lifestyle or different beliefs. These people are the reason hate exists, and that only makes the world more ignorant. Perhaps one of my biggest pet peeves is homophobia. I have a friend who is so homophobic it is scary that he is allowed to live in this world. No matter how much I argue with him, he will not see the light. Once I asked him if he would still be friends with me if I was gay, and he had to think about it. He would not even give me a chance to show him what a great, loving and funny individ ual I am. Imagine what the world would be like without these people (those who thrive on open-minded people like myself). It would be peaceful, loving and God forbid, more tolerant. What we need to do with these stu pid people is turn the tables and make them feel the hatred they dump onto others. Take all the bigots, homo phobes and any other hate group and throw them in a room to attack them the way they attack others. Then we’ll see how stupid and ignorant they feel. • People who don’t have a clue. These are people who wander around saying, “Uh, what?” Unfortunately, there are a lot of these people at Texas A&M. These people don’t understand an idea unless it involves pick-up trucks, chewing tobacco or livestock. I am not making fun of these people, but the fact that they believe their way of life is “the only way” makes them stupid. This goes back to the first category, unless you are tolerant and not ignorant about other ways to live, you are in the category of stupid. People who don’t have a clue also includes individuals who have a one way brain. They must have a sign in their head that says, “One Way Only.” People who cannot think on more than one track need to experience a little more of life and become one of the enlightened ones. • People who shouldn’t be allowed to breed. It takes a test to get a driver’s li cense and even a hunting license, but any yahoo can have children. This is il lustrated by all the bad parents out there in the world, and there are a lot of them out there. There are the Susan Smiths, the Su san Mowbrays and recently the woman from Granbury, Texas, who knew her boyfriend raped and killed her daughter, but did nothing about it. These people don’t understand that having a child is a gift and a privilege, not an inherent right. Another problem with stupid peo ple having children is the opportunity for them to pass on their ignorance. We all have seen talk shows with Grand Dragons in the KKK talking about how proud they are to be raising hate-filled children. This is a vicious cycle which can only be stopped by some kind of law that says you cannot conceive unless you sign a contract that you will not pass on your hate. I might seem ignorant and stupid for writing this column, but consider it a public service announcement. Unless we do something to prevent stupid people from closing the gap and taking over the world, we will be left with intolerant people without a clue who will kill each other until nothing is left. The first solution for people who are stupid is to realize they are stupid. Don’t feel ashamed, everyone is stupid at one point. It is just a matter of doing something about it. Own up to it; everyone will have more respect for you if you try to change. Leave the dark side and join the alliance. May the force be with you. ife liKltNlcti snjfflR. ITS NOT SIPATIN©/ ITS A SCREENSAVER,'.. Mail Call ‘Herstory’ category segregates history In response to Mandy Cater’s June 16th column: While offering some valid ob servations, Mandy Cater’s col umn dramatically overstates her case regarding women in history. While it is true that women have often been ignored by histo rians, recent scholarship has given them their rightful place in the historical picture. In the history classes and texts used at Texas A&M, the ac complishments of women in the past are detailed and studied, whether in politics, culture or society. Much of Cater’s criticism in this respect seems more rele vant to academic conditions a generation ago than to historical teachings today. What bothers me most, how ever, is Cater’s solution to the overall problem. While I agree that the experi ence of women in history de serves study, her advocacy of a discovery for a “collective past” for women and the development ofWomen’s Studies programs threatens to segregate the study of women from the broader study of history as a whole. History should concentrate on incorporating the story of women into the larger account of our past, rather than separating them off into a sub-field. To concentrate the develop ment of “herstory” into a specific program is to implicitly relieve scholars and students in broader academic fields from incorporat ing the neglected pasts of women into today’s teachings and writings. This action would do more to set back the cause of acknowl edging the role of women in his tory than to advance it further. Mark Klobas Graduate Student The Battalion encourages letters to the ed itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in clude the author’s name, class, and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111. Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu For more details on letter policy, please call 845-3313 and direct your question to the opinion editor.
