Computers Are Supposed To Do The Boring Stuff

I’m only a human, and therefore quite stupid, but I have one comment on the debate over whether computers are smarter than people.

Of course computers are smarter than people. What’s the use of inventing something dumber than we are?

This is why I wear a calculator watch at all times. I wear it because this calculator, this minicomputer with the brain the size of a penny, is infinitely smarter than I am when it comes to calculating a 15 percent tip.

Now, I ask myself: Do I feel diminished as a human being because my watch can calculate a tip faster?

No, I don’t. Actually, I feel quite brilliant, because I have the intelligence to keep my calculator watch within reach at all times.

Which is why I am baffled (as a human, I’m baffled a lot) over this chess-playing computer controversy. So what if Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov in chess? Who cares? My computer at home can beat me at Scrabble practically every day of the week. Does that make me feel, and I’m quoting Newsweek here, as if we been “eclipsed” as a species?

No, it makes me feel like next time I’ll be smart enough to make my computer play at the “second-grade” level. At that level, I can whip Mr. Computer but good. Who’s smarter now, Mr. Computer? Mr. Computer whose idea of a big-time Scrabble word is “red” (a measly three points with no double word score)?

So I don’t understand this invented uproar over Deep Blue’s victory. For one thing, Deep Blue would be one pathetic computer if it couldn’t beat some guy who’s not even allowed to bring a calculator watch to the table with him. For another thing, who ever said chess was the ultimate test of human intelligence?

Oh, absolutely, I always judge people’s intelligence by whether they spend a lot of time hunched over a table moving a little doodad shaped like a horsie around on a glorified checkers board. Yes, as a human achievement, the ability to make your little horsie do that zig-zag move and pounce on top of the other guy’s little castle doohickey is right up there with composing Beethoven’s Ninth or designing Chartres Cathedral. (The preceding words are those of a bitter man who is routinely trounced in chess by small children).

Frankly, I think chess is something a computer should be able to do better than a human. Computers are supposed to be good at mind-numbingly dull calculations that the average human being would just as soon fob off on some helpless machine.

Sometimes I fantasize about the thought processes of a computer (if a computer can be truly said to “think”) as compared to the thought processes of a human such as myself (if I can be truly be said to “think”). This is how I imagine it would go, at, for instance, a chess match:

Computer: “I am sorting through billions of possible combinations for the best possible move.”

Human Such As Myself: “I am wondering if the no-host bar will be open after the match.”

Computer: “I am sorting through billions of possible combinations for the best possible move.”

Human Such As Myself: “I am wondering whether we get a bathroom break or whether I’m going to create an embarrassing scene.”

Computer: “I am sorting through billions of possible combinations for the best possible move.”

Human Such As Myself: “What direction does this little horsie go?”

Chess is one of many things that computers ought to do better than humans. Others include: Calculating loan amortization, keeping track of expenditures as opposed to revenues, and finding the word “marigolds” wherever it occurs in Shakespeare.

However, there are things that computers can’t do better than humans, such as coming up with the verse, “Her eyes, like marigolds, had sheathed their light, and canopied in darkness, sweetly lay.”

I found that Shakespearean line through a computer database search, of course.

Anyway, the point is, why should we be overwrought about Deep Blue winning at chess? It doesn’t mean we’re stupid, or at least any stupider than before. And anyway, Kasparov can demand a re-match. This time, he can select the “second-grade” level for Deep Blue. Kasparov will have it for lunch.

, DataTimes MEMO: To leave a message on Jim Kershner’s voice-mail, call 459-5493. Or send e-mail to jimk@spokesman.com, or regular mail to Spokesman-Review, P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210.

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Jim Kershner The Spokesman-Review