[Quest:] Cockiness isn't a human trait purely after all we believe. Google's DeepMind computer hasn't even finished its five game "Go" tournament against Lee Se-dol, but its programmers are speculating about the next game they'll use to humiliate us humans. It's "StarCraft." It's a computer game that pits humans against two hostile alien races. This is the next one. Now unlike Go or chess where players can see the whole board. It StarCraft players have their opponent's strategy largely secret, and that makes it more difficult for a computer to play as well. But the mere fact that the DeepMind computer was able to play this game, how significant is it? Joining me now is the human and futurist, Michio Kaku, and we are absolutely delighted that the professor is with us. He a professor at the City University of New York and host at "Sci Fi Science" on the Science Channel. Professor, we always are so pleased when you help us understand these things. Look, it won. It won convincingly and it appeared to learn from previous mistakes. In other words, it was thinking. You don't agree, do you?
[Michio Kaku, Host, "sci Fi Science," The Science Channel:] Well, this is a milestone because there are more possible moves in the game of "go" than all the atoms in the known universe. So this was a milestone in the history of artificial intelligence. But you have to remember that it's an adding machine. A very sophisticated adding machine that adds so fast it gives the illusion that it's self-aware and that it's innovative. However, you cannot go to DeepMind and slap on his back and congratulate it for winning, because DeepMind does not even know that it's a machine. It does not have any self-awareness whatsoever.
[Quest:] Why do you put such importance on this concept of self-awareness? I understand it's relevant if we are talking about humanity and attributable human values. But if you're talking about a machine taking over, once it starts, it just keeps going.
[Kaku:] Well I'm a fan of the "Terminator" series, however, we are decades away from creating a robot that is aware of itself, that is innovative, that learns from this experience, that has human interactions and has common sense. For example, ask DeepMind a simple question. Can strings push as well as pull? You see be we know that strings can pull but not push, but robots don't. Because they have no experience with common sense. And this is one advantage that we humans have. We learn. We learn from bumping into thinks, but there's no line of mathematics that says that strings can pull but not push.
[Quest:] What do you see as being the benefits of something like DeepMind playing "go"?
[Kaku:] In the next coming years, we're going to have expert systems like robo doc, robo lawyer and robo accountant. You'll talk to an image in your intelligent wall screen and you'll talk about your symptoms and robo doc will scan the internet and give you the best medical advice known to science almost for free. This is going to revolutionize medicine, revolutionize the legal profession, but it won't replace doctors and lawyers. Paralegals might be replaced. But we still need the human experience. We still need the wisdom of humanity.
[Quest:] Professor, finally, how long have I got in this job before DeepMind decides it can do a better job than me?
[Kaku:] Just realize that you are among the winners. Because of the fact that you have innovation, leadership, talent, analysis, experience, of which robots have none of the above. So people that are involved with intellectual capital are going to be the winners of the future. That means of course most of humanity.
[Quest:] Thank you very much, professor, good to talk to you. Thanks for putting it into perspective, I feel reassured on a Friday that I might actually have a future, thank you, sir.
[Kaku:] Thank you.
[Quest:] We will continue this evening. Whilst you how very appropriate after talking about DeepMind and "go" let us think, let us have "MAKE, CREATE, INNOVATE."