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has been replaced by a master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.