Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • I have a question.

    譯者: 易帆 余 審譯者: Tim Lan

  • Can a computer write poetry?

    我有一個問題,

  • This is a provocative question.

    電腦可以寫詩嗎?

  • You think about it for a minute,

    這是個有爭議的問題。

  • and you suddenly have a bunch of other questions like:

    你稍微想一下,

  • What is a computer?

    腦海裡突然就會浮現出 很多其他的問題:

  • What is poetry?

    例如,甚麼是電腦?

  • What is creativity?

    甚麼是詩?

  • But these are questions

    甚麼是創造力?

  • that people spend their entire lifetime trying to answer,

    但這些問題,

  • not in a single TED Talk.

    很多人窮盡一生才能試著給出答案,

  • So we're going to have to try a different approach.

    單單一場TED演說並不能回答。

  • So up here, we have two poems.

    所以,我們必須用不一樣的方法,

  • One of them is written by a human,

    上面這裡有兩首詩,

  • and the other one's written by a computer.

    其中一首是人類寫的,

  • I'm going to ask you to tell me which one's which.

    另一首是電腦寫的。

  • Have a go:

    我會讓各位來分辨哪首是誰寫的,

  • Poem 1: Little Fly / Thy summer's play, / My thoughtless hand / Has brush'd away.

    我們開始吧:

  • Am I not / A fly like thee? / Or art not thou / A man like me?

    1號詩:小蒼蠅,夏天的嘻戲, 我輕率的手,已揮走。

  • Poem 2: We can feel / Activist through your life's / morning /

    難道我,不是像你一樣的蒼蠅, 抑或妳,是像我一樣的人?

  • Pauses to see, pope I hate the / Non all the night to start a / great otherwise (...)

    2號詩:我們可以感受到, 激進派在妳每日生活的清晨出沒

  • Alright, time's up.

    暫且停下感受,那我憎惡的教皇 並非每晚都能開始,一個偉大的其他可能...

  • Hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human.

    好的,時間到。

  • OK, most of you.

    認為1號詩是人寫的請舉手,

  • Hands up if you think Poem 2 was written by a human.

    好的,你們大部分都是。

  • Very brave of you,

    認為2號詩是人寫的請舉手,

  • because the first one was written by the human poet William Blake.

    你們很勇敢,

  • The second one was written by an algorithm

    因為第一首詩是由詩人William Blake所寫,

  • that took all the language from my Facebook feed on one day

    第二首詩是由一個演算法所寫出來的,

  • and then regenerated it algorithmically,

    這裡所有的文法是從我 臉書裡一天灌進去的,

  • according to methods that I'll describe a little bit later on.

    然後,用演算法重新製作出來的,

  • So let's try another test.

    關於方法我稍後會提到一些。

  • Again, you haven't got ages to read this,

    我們來做另一個測驗,

  • so just trust your gut.

    我再次說明, 你不用花太多時間去讀它,

  • Poem 1: A lion roars and a dog barks. It is interesting / and fascinating

    所以,相信你的直覺。

  • that a bird will fly and not / roar or bark. Enthralling stories about animals

    1號詩:獅吼,狗吠, 鳥飛,卻不吼也不吠,這真迷人且有趣吶

  • are in my dreams and I will sing them all if I / am not exhausted or weary.

    我夢裡有著關於動物的迷人故事

  • Poem 2: Oh! kangaroos, sequins, chocolate sodas! / You are really beautiful!

    如果我不筋疲力盡或疲憊不堪 我會為他們歌頌。

  • Pearls, / harmonicas, jujubes, aspirins! All / the stuff they've always talked about (...)

    2號詩:喔!袋鼠、亮片、 巧克力蘇打!你們真漂亮!

  • Alright, time's up.

    珍珠、口琴、棗子、阿斯匹林! 全是他們一直提到的東西(...)

  • So if you think the first poem was written by a human,

    好的,時間到。

  • put your hand up.

    如果你認為第一首詩是人寫的,

  • OK.

    請舉手。

  • And if you think the second poem was written by a human,

    好的。

  • put your hand up.

    如果你認為第二首詩是人寫的,

  • We have, more or less, a 50/50 split here.

    請舉手。

  • It was much harder.

    我們這裡大約是50/50比例,

  • The answer is,

    這題比較難一點。

  • the first poem was generated by an algorithm called Racter,

    答案是,

  • that was created back in the 1970s,

    第一首詩是一個名叫Racter的 電腦演算法

  • and the second poem was written by a guy called Frank O'Hara,

    在1970年所創造的,

  • who happens to be one of my favorite human poets.

    第二首詩是一位叫 Frank O'Hara的傢伙寫的,

  • (Laughter)

    他意外地成為我最喜歡 的“ 人類詩人”其中之一,

  • So what we've just done now is a Turing test for poetry.

    (笑聲)

  • The Turing test was first proposed by this guy, Alan Turing, in 1950,

    所以,我們為這首詩 做了「圖靈測試」。

  • in order to answer the question,

    「圖靈測試」在1950年, 由Alan Turing做第一次發表,

  • can computers think?

    是為了回答一個問題:

  • Alan Turing believed that if a computer was able

    「電腦會思考嗎?」

  • to have a to have a text-based conversation with a human,

    Alan Turing相信,如果電腦能夠

  • with such proficiency such that the human couldn't tell

    和人類進行一場流暢的以文字交流,

  • whether they are talking to a computer or a human,

    結果讓人無法分辨

  • then the computer can be said to have intelligence.

    對方是人還是一台電腦,

  • So in 2013, my friend Benjamin Laird and I,

    那麼這台電腦可以被稱呼為 擁有人工智慧。

  • we created a Turing test for poetry online.

    所以在2013年,我的朋友 Benjamin Laird和我,

  • It's called bot or not,

    我們創造了一個 詩的線上圖靈測試程式,

  • and you can go and play it for yourselves.

    叫做「bot or not」(是不是機器人),

  • But basically, it's the game we just played.

    你可以上線自己玩玩看。

  • You're presented with a poem,

    但基本上,它就是我們剛剛玩的遊戲,

  • you don't know whether it was written by a human or a computer

    你會看到一首詩,

  • and you have to guess.

    你不知道它是人寫的還是電腦寫的,

  • So thousands and thousands of people have taken this test online,

    然後你必須猜一猜。

  • so we have results.

    好幾千人已經在線上做測驗,

  • And what are the results?

    所以,我們有一個結論,

  • Well, Turing said that if a computer could fool a human

    那結論是甚麼呢?

  • 30 percent of the time that it was a human,

    Turing說如果電腦可以騙過30%的人,

  • then it passes the Turing test for intelligence.

    那它就可以被當作人,

  • We have poems on the bot or not database

    它就通過了圖靈測試。

  • that have fooled 65 percent of human readers into thinking

    我們在 bot or not 資料庫裡的詩集

  • it was written by a human.

    已經騙過65% 的人,

  • So, I think we have an answer to our question.

    認為裡面的詩是人寫的。

  • According to the logic of the Turing test,

    所以,我認為我們的問題有答案了,

  • can a computer write poetry?

    根據圖靈測試的邏輯,

  • Well, yes, absolutely it can.

    電腦可以寫詩嗎?

  • But if you're feeling a little bit uncomfortable

    是的,它絕對可以。

  • with this answer, that's OK.

    但,如果你覺得對這答案 有點讓你不太舒服,

  • If you're having a bunch of gut reactions to it,

    也沒關係,

  • that's also OK because this isn't the end of the story.

    如果你花了很多時間與它互動,

  • Let's play our third and final test.

    這也沒關係,因為這還沒完。

  • Again, you're going to have to read

    我們來玩第三個 最後一個測驗,

  • and tell me which you think is human.

    我再說明一下,你們要讀完後,

  • Poem 1: Red flags the reason for pretty flags. / And ribbons.

    告訴我哪一個是人寫的。

  • Ribbons of flags / And wearing material / Reasons for wearing material. (...)

    1號詩:紅旗之所以漂亮 除了紅色,還有緞帶

  • Poem 2: A wounded deer leaps highest, / I've heard the daffodil

    旗上的緞帶及耐磨的材質 耐磨材料之所以(...)

  • I've heard the flag to-day / I've heard the hunter tell; /

    2號詩:受傷的鹿跳最高, 我聽見水仙在訴說,

  • 'Tis but the ecstasy of death, / And then the brake is almost done (...)

    我今天聽旗子說、 我聽到獵人說;

  • OK, time is up.

    這是對死亡的狂喜, 而傷害幾乎已經造成(...)

  • So hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human.

    好的,時間到。

  • Hands up if you think Poem 2 was written by a human.

    認為1號詩是人寫的請舉手,

  • Whoa, that's a lot more people.

    認為2號詩是人寫的請舉手,

  • So you'd be surprised to find that Poem 1

    哇!多很多人!

  • was written by the very human poet Gertrude Stein.

    你會很驚訝地發現,

  • And Poem 2 was generated by an algorithm called RKCP.

    1號詩由一位純正的人類詩人Gertrude Stein所寫的,

  • Now before we go on, let me describe very quickly and simply,

    而2號詩是一個叫 RKCP演算法所創造的,

  • how RKCP works.

    在我們要繼續以前, 讓我簡單快速描述一下

  • So RKCP is an algorithm designed by Ray Kurzweil,

    RKCP是如何運作的。

  • who's a director of engineering at Google

    RKCP是Ray Kurzweil 所設計的演算法,

  • and a firm believer in artificial intelligence.

    他是一位谷歌的工程師主管,

  • So, you give RKCP a source text,

    也是一位人工智慧的堅定支持者。

  • it analyzes the source text in order to find out how it uses language,

    那麼,你給 RKCP一個來源文字,

  • and then it regenerates language

    為了找出要如何使用這個語言, 它會分析來源文字,

  • that emulates that first text.

    然後,它會重新創造一段話來模仿源文字。

  • So in the poem we just saw before,

    所以,我們剛剛看到的詩,

  • Poem 2, the one that you all thought was human,

    你們認為是人類寫的2號詩,

  • it was fed a bunch of poems

    它被灌入了很多一位名叫 Emily Dickinson詩人的詩,

  • by a poet called Emily Dickinson

    它取用了這位詩人的語言,

  • it looked at the way she used language,

    學習她的模式,

  • learned the model,

    然後它依據同樣的結構 重製一首詩出來。

  • and then it regenerated a model according to that same structure.

    但我們對RKCP最需要了解的是,

  • But the important thing to know about RKCP

    它不明白它自己用的文字意義,

  • is that it doesn't know the meaning of the words it's using.

    語言只是它的原料,

  • The language is just raw material,

    它可以是中文,瑞典文,

  • it could be Chinese, it could be in Swedish,

    它可以是你臉書上一天的文字。

  • it could be the collected language from your Facebook feed for one day.

    它就只是個原料而已。

  • It's just raw material.

    除此之外,它還有辦法寫一首

  • And nevertheless, it's able to create a poem

    比Gertrude Stein寫的還要更有人味的詩,

  • that seems more human than Gertrude Stein's poem,

    但Gertrude Stein才是人啊...

  • and Gertrude Stein is a human.

    所以,我們剛剛做的 差不多就是,反向圖靈測試。

  • So what we've done here is, more or less, a reverse Turing test.

    所以Gertrude Stein這位人類,

  • So Gertrude Stein, who's a human, is able to write a poem

    可以寫出讓大部分人 誤認為是電腦寫出來的詩。

  • that fools a majority of human judges into thinking

    所以,根據圖靈測試的邏輯,

  • that it was written by a computer.

    Gertrude Stein這人是個電腦...(笑聲)

  • Therefore, according to the logic of the reverse Turing test,

    感覺很困惑嗎?

  • Gertrude Stein is a computer.

    我認為這情有可原。

  • (Laughter)

    目前為止,我們有人可以寫出 像是人寫出的詩、

  • Feeling confused?

    我們有電腦可以寫出 像是電腦寫出的詩、

  • I think that's fair enough.

    我們有電腦可以寫出 像是人寫出的詩,

  • So far we've had humans that write like humans,

    但我們同時也有會讓我們搞混 寫詩像電腦的人。

  • we have computers that write like computers,

    所以,我們從這裏面了解到甚麼呢?

  • we have computers that write like humans,

    我們會認為William Blake

  • but we also have, perhaps most confusingly,

    比Gertrude Stein更像是個人嗎?

  • humans that write like computers.

    或者Gertrude Stein比 William Blake更像是個電腦?

  • So what do we take from all of this?

    (笑聲)

  • Do we take that William Blake is somehow more of a human

    這兩年來,

  • than Gertrude Stein?

    我一直在問我自己,

  • Or that Gertrude Stein is more of a computer than William Blake?

    但我沒有任何答案,

  • (Laughter)

    但我真的有領悟到很多有關於

  • These are questions I've been asking myself

    我們與科技的關係。

  • for around two years now,

    所以,我的第一個領悟是,

  • and I don't have any answers.

    為了一些原因,我們把 人與詩結合一起,

  • But what I do have are a bunch of insights

    所以,當我們問,"電腦會寫詩嗎?"

  • about our relationship with technology.

    我們也在問,

  • So my first insight is that, for some reason,

    人的定義是什麼?

  • we associate poetry with being human.

    我們要如何界定、分類呢?

  • So that when we ask, "Can a computer write poetry?"

    我們要如何分辨誰或是東西 是歸於哪一類?"

  • we're also asking,

    我相信,本質上這是一道哲學的問題,

  • "What does it mean to be human

    而且,這不是像圖靈測試是個

  • and how do we put boundaries around this category?

    對或錯的測試,

  • How do we say who or what can be part of this category?"

    我也相信,

  • This is an essentially philosophical question, I believe,

    Alan Turing在1950年發明這個理論時, 也了解這一點,

  • and it can't be answered with a yes or no test,

    他當時引發了一個哲學上的爭議。

  • like the Turing test.

    我的第二個領悟是, 當我們在為詩做圖靈測試時,

  • I also believe that Alan Turing understood this,

    我們並不是真的在測試電腦的能力,

  • and that when he devised his test back in 1950,

    因為用演算法作詩相當簡單,

  • he was doing it as a philosophical provocation.

    而且它們大約在1950年代 早就已經存在了。

  • So my second insight is that, when we take the Turing test for poetry,

    我們現在為詩做的圖靈測試,

  • we're not really testing the capacity of the computers

    反而,比較像是在收集 甚麼是構成人性的條件。

  • because poetry-generating algorithms,

    所以,我發現,

  • they're pretty simple and have existed, more or less, since the 1950s.

    稍早我們今天看到的,

  • What we are doing with the Turing test for poetry, rather,

    我們說William Blake

  • is collecting opinions about what constitutes humanness.

    比Gertrude Stein更像個人,

  • So, what I've figured out,

    當然,這不代表

  • we've seen this when earlier today,

    William Blake比較有人性

  • we say that William Blake is more of a human

    或者Gertrude Stein比較像電腦。

  • than Gertrude Stein.

    這只能單純的說明, 對人類的界定是不穩定的。

  • Of course, this doesn't mean that William Blake

    這讓我明白了一件事,

  • was actually more human

    就是人性不是冷的、死板的事實,

  • or that Gertrude Stein was more of a computer.

    反倒是一種由我們 的意見所構成的東西,

  • It simply means that the category of the human is unstable.

    而這個東西會隨著時間而改變。

  • This has led me to understand

    所以我最後的領悟是,

  • that the human is not a cold, hard fact.

    電腦,或多或少只是

  • Rather, it is something that's constructed with our opinions

    一面反映我們輸入進去的人類思想的鏡子。

  • and something that changes over time.

    我們向它展示Emily Dickinson,

  • So my final insight is that the computer, more or less,

    它僅是模仿Emily Dickinson給我們,

  • works like a mirror that reflects any idea of a human

    我們向它展示William Blake,

  • that we show it.

    它就回應William Blake給我們的,

  • We show it Emily Dickinson,

    我們向它展示Gertrude Stein,

  • it gives Emily Dickinson back to us.

    我們得到的回應僅是Gertrude Stein。

  • We show it William Blake,

    還有其他更多的科技也是,

  • that's what it reflects back to us.

    電腦只是我們教它甚麼 它就反應甚麼的一面鏡子。

  • We show it Gertrude Stein,

    所以,我確定你們大部分人都曾聽過

  • what we get back is Gertrude Stein.

    很多有關人工智慧的事情。

  • More than any other bit of technology,

    而大部分的對話就類似:

  • the computer is a mirror that reflects any idea of the human we teach it.

    「我們該建造它嗎?」

  • So I'm sure a lot of you have been hearing

    「我們可以建立一個智慧型電腦嗎?」

  • a lot about artificial intelligence recently.

    「我們可以建立一個創造型電腦嗎?」

  • And much of the conversation is,

    我們一次又一次的被問到,

  • can we build it?

    我們可以建立一個 類似人類的電腦嗎?

  • Can we build an intelligent computer?

    但就我們剛剛看到的,

  • Can we build a creative computer?

    人類不是一個科學事實,

  • What we seem to be asking over and over

    人類是一個會不斷地變化、串聯想法、

  • is can we build a human-like computer?

    隨時間改變的物種。

  • But what we've seen just now

    所以,當我們開始要努力克服

  • is that the human is not a scientific fact,

    未來人工智慧的這個想法時,

  • that it's an ever-shifting, concatenating idea

    我們不應該只問我們自己,

  • and one that changes over time.

    「我們可以建造它嗎?」

  • So that when we begin to grapple with the ideas

    我們還得問我們自己,

  • of artificial intelligence in the future,

    「我們希望可以得到甚麼樣的人性回應?」

  • we shouldn't only be asking ourselves,

    這絕對是個哲學想法,

  • "Can we build it?"

    而且不是單靠軟體就可以回答出來的,

  • But we should also be asking ourselves,

    但我認為,這需要一個各類物種 共存的反應時刻,

  • "What idea of the human do we want to have reflected back to us?"

    謝謝各位。

  • This is an essentially philosophical idea,

    (掌聲)

  • and it's one that can't be answered with software alone,

  • but I think requires a moment of species-wide, existential reflection.

  • Thank you.

  • (Applause)

I have a question.

譯者: 易帆 余 審譯者: Tim Lan

字幕與單字

影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

B1 中級 中文 美國腔 TED 電腦 圖靈 測試 寫出 演算法

【TED】奧斯卡-施瓦茨。電腦能寫詩嗎?(電腦能寫詩嗎?|Oscar Schwartz) (【TED】Oscar Schwartz: Can a computer write poetry? (Can a computer write poetry? | Oscar Schwartz))

  • 24 5
    Zenn 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字