
Yours in distress, Alan - llambda
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/06/yours-in-distress-alan.html
======
babarock
About the whole "machines can think" debate, I love this quote by EWD:

"Alan M. Turing thought about criteria to settle the question of whether
Machines Can Think, a question of which we now know that it is about as
relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim."

([http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EW...](http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898.html))

Let's not fall prey to the temptation of thinking:

    
    
      Turing believes machines think
      Society acted terribly towards Turing
      Therefore machines do think.
    

EDIT: formatting.

~~~
Tloewald
Turing in fact dismisses the question in the famous letter. The Turing test
isn't proposed as a test of whether machines can "think" but a test of whether
they can imitate a person.

Turing considered the question of whether machines could think as being "too
meaningless to deserve discussion".

[http://books.google.com/books?id=CEMYUU_HFMAC&pg=PA317&lpg=P...](http://books.google.com/books?id=CEMYUU_HFMAC&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=turing+test+chomsky&source=bl&ots=dNkaRT24fG&sig=6I-Kx8yVpAg277E5Ayhc3-ksEQI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LIWyUb_bB6uh4APg5oH4DA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=turing%20test%20chomsky&f=false)

Also

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-
test&#x2F](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test&#x2F);

Sorry this links quote Turing, I couldn't find the original source.

~~~
pfedor
So while we're at that, how do the proponents of Turing test respond to the
lookup table argument? Say I make a giant lookup table, with keys being all
possible conversation prefixes and values being the answers. E.g., h["Hi"] =
"Hi.". h["Hi. / Hi. / How are you?"] = "I'm OK, how are you?" etc. Sure the
lookup table would be big but definitely finite, since its size is bounded by
the maximum possible length of a Turing test conversation (which is at most
the length of a human life--we would like humans to pass the test, right?)
Will we be morally obligated to grant such hash table the same rights a person
enjoys?

~~~
jerf
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf](http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf)
, section 4. I consider that to be essentially the final word on the topic; it
is an objective, mathematically, philosophically, physically meaningful
distinction drawn between a lookup table and a computing machine.

~~~
pfedor
Thanks for the link. I just read section 4 and I don't really see how it
addresses the argument. It mostly seems to argue against the opinion that
computer programs cannot be sentient. My point is much weaker: that it is
manifestly absurd to insist that all computer programs which can pass the
Turing test must be presumed sentient.

The article acknowledges that a lookup table could pass the Turing test--the
author even uses this argument for his own ends. At the same time, clearly he
doesn't think we should presume the lookup table sentient. The only passage
which might be interpreted as an "objective distinction" is this one:

 _Personally, I ﬁnd this response to Searle extremely interesting—since if
correct, it suggests that the distinction between polynomial and exponential
complexity has metaphysical signiﬁcance. According to this response, an
exponential-sized lookup table that passed the Turing Test would not be
sentient (or conscious, intelligent, self-aware, etc.), but a polynomially-
bounded program with exactly the same input /output behavior would be
sentient. Furthermore, the latter program would be sentient because it was
polynomially-bounded._

And yet in the next paragraph the author says he's reluctant to stand behind
such thesis.

Do you, unlike Scott Aaronson, want to adopt this amended postulate--i.e., do
you believe all computer programs which can pass the Turing test should be
granted personhood as long as they scale polynomially with the length of the
conversation?

~~~
jerf
Hypothesizing about the lookup table is an irrelevant question, because no
such thing can exist in the real universe. Not even in theory. Moreover, your
lookup table contains some amount of information in it; either it was
generated by a relatively small polynomial process, in which case for as large
as the lookup table appears to be, it actually isn't, and is indistinguishable
from simply using the program that was used to generate it, or it does indeed
contain exponentially large amounts of information, in which case
hypothesizing an exponentially large source of information for the mere
purpose of passing a Turing test is a bizarre philosophical step to take.
Where is this exponentially large source of information?

Recall that in information theory, being a bit sloppy but essentially accurate
with the terms, the amount of information something has can be expressed as
the smallest possible encoding of something. The entire Mandelbrot set, as
gloriously complicated as it may _look_ , actually contains virtually no
information, a mere handful of bits, because it's all the result of a very
simple equation. No matter how gloriously complicated your enormous hash table
may look, if it was generated with some humanly-feasible program and nigh-
infinite amounts of time, the information content of the entire table, no
matter how large, is nothing more than the size of the program and perhaps a
specification of how long you let it run.

Basically, the whole "big lookup table" has to have some sort of
characteristic to it. Either it was created by a program, in which case the
program itself could pass the Turing test, or it is somehow irreducible to a
program's output, in which case in your zealous effort to swat a fly you
vaporized the entire Earth; you can't agree to the possibility a machine might
pass the test (or be sentient or whatever) but you can agree to the existence
of an exponentially complicated source of information? That's only a gnat's
whisker away from asking "Well, what if I use _magic_ to create a
philosophical zombie," (I'm referencing the specific concept of a
philosophical zombie here, you can look it up if you like) "that looks like
it's passing the test but it really isn't, what then?" Well, I don't know,
when you're willing to invoke magic in your defense I'll concede I haven't got
much of a response, but you probably shouldn't call that a victory.

The lookup table argument only makes sense nonconstructively, if you merely
assert its existence but then don't allow anyone to ask any question about
where it came from, or what properties it has.

~~~
pfedor
So pretty much your argument boils down to, "such a lookup table cannot exist,
therefore any argument using it is irrelevant." Note that even Scott Aaronson
disagrees with you in the article you cited.

If we were having this debate in the XVIII-th century, you could equally as
well assert that any machine capable of playing chess should be considered a
person. The motivation is exactly the same as with the Turing test: so far
only humans can play chess, humans are sentient, QED.

Say someone said, "But what if a machine used a minimax algorithm." To which
you could respond, armed with your knowledge of XVIIIth century technology,
"Such thing cannot exist therefore it's an irrelevant question."

As for the creation of such a table, not that I consider _that_ question
particularly relevant, but here it is: Say a crazy scientist in the future
created a program that actually simulated a human brain, then ran it (on
future super-fast hardware) on every possible input (once again, the size of
the input is bounded by the maximum length of a conversation a human can
have), and stored the results on future super-large hard drives. Then he
deleted the human brain simulation program, and gave you just the lookup
table. The act of deleting the original program we may very well consider
murder. But what about the generated lookup table?

------
jgrahamc
[http://25.media.tumblr.com/7b17076580461a288bccd99b2118057c/...](http://25.media.tumblr.com/7b17076580461a288bccd99b2118057c/tumblr_mirg34g9pE1qzyty1o1_1280.png)

------
jmduke
Quoted for emphasis:

 _Turing believes machines think / Turing lies with men / Therefore machines
do not think_

Society can be sometimes wonderful, and sometimes so incredibly terrible.

~~~
cobrausn
For what it's worth, it was a fear of his that this might come to pass, and I
think anyone making an argument like that would be (rightly) dismissed as a
loon.

~~~
roguecoder
Though the same argument was used against Keynes earlier this year by Niall
Ferguson.

~~~
cobrausn
True, but he was called out for it and that viewpoint is considered loony. It
prompted an apology from him.

------
saidajigumi
Related, I highly recommend seeing a performance of _Breaking the Code_ [1] if
the opportunity presents itself. It's a play about Alan Turing, dealing with
events in his life from his involvement in WWII through his death.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Code](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Code)

------
binarycrusader
Somewhat related, the person to whom (presumably) the letter was addressed
(Norman Routledge) recently (April 27th, 2013) passed away:

[http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/news/2013/norman-
routledge.html](http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/news/2013/norman-routledge.html)

------
enlore
i'd like to think we've gotten past this kind of shit, but my senses tell me
we've yet a ways to go.

RIP AT. everthing i've read suggests he was a really nice man.

~~~
paul_f
This was 70 years ago, I think we're past it

~~~
graue
Homosexuality is no longer persecuted as a crime in the industrialized Western
world. However, if by "past it" you mean homophobia no longer exists or is not
significant enough to worry about — absolutely not. This story of horrific
treatment of gay teens in Anoka, Minnesota, near where I used to live, comes
to mind: [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-
on-g...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-
teens-20120202)

------
ctz
Interestingly the house where Turing lived and died is up for sale:

[http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-
sale/property-383496...](http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-
sale/property-38349665.html)

(source: you can see the plaque in the first picture, I attended the unveiling
at this house)

------
robomartin
Just goes to show you we were animals a little over fifty years ago. We still
are. There are many examples of this, including the treatment of women and
homosexuals in the Middle East. Humanity needs to get out of the caves before
making real leaps forward. We talk about fighting poverty and hunger yet can't
do a thing when faced with blatant in-your-face abuse. We respect the idea of
women being mutilated, killed and having to walk under tents in public, even
as immigrants in the Western World, out of respect for religion. Sad,
considering the delusionary nature of all religions.

~~~
cobrausn
You are delusional if you think we have to look to the middle east and
religion to find 'people acting like animals'. Take a look at treatment and
sentencing of criminals in the west - I think in the future they will wonder
how we managed to rationalize it for so long.

~~~
rayiner
I presume he was listing things in order of the magnitude of outrage, not
geographic distance from his person.

------
300bps
To me the biggest thing driving acceptance of gay people is the realization
that being gay is not a choice, but rather something you are born with.

In a recent poll by Pew last month, 41% of the country now believes people are
born gay. 8% believe it is the result of upbringing and 42% believe it is a
choice.

Source: [http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-
pdf/06-06-13%20LGBT...](http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-
pdf/06-06-13%20LGBT%20General%20Public%20Release.pdf)

To those that believe it's a choice, the natural question is, "When did you
choose to be straight?" For me, I knew I was attracted to the opposite sex as
early as 5 or 6. I didn't make a choice. Nobody makes a choice. You're
attracted to who you're attracted to. If anyone says that is not the case, ask
them at what age they chose their sexual orientation.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S14VRjVDPcs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S14VRjVDPcs)

~~~
obviouslygreen
I think considering the question of "is it a choice?" relevant is almost as
bad as believing homosexuality is somehow wrong either way.

 _Why should it matter?_ Was I born a programmer or did I choose to become
one? I was born physically (to satisfy the gender-sensitive) male. I was born
human. I was born with blue eyes.

Beyond the physically obvious, if you're OK with persecuting people for a
choice that _does not affect you_ (e.g. "that guy is a blue-eyed human, and
that's fine, but he CHOSE to be a PROGRAMMER, and that's just wrong!"), then
you are making things worse.

"It's not a choice" doesn't make it more or less right or wrong. It's how
people are. The failure to accept that (or at least ignore and tolerate it) is
the problem, and it will _not_ be answered by "well it's genetic."

[edit: Full disclosure: This post was made while listening to Queen, but I
didn't CHOOSE to do that, the restaurant did that to me; please judge
appropriately.]

~~~
babarock
Yes, a thousand times yes.

Whether it's a choice or not should be irrelevant. However, used as it is in
the modern political context of "gay harassment issues", I believe we're
actually doing a great disservice to the gay community by using "they didn't
have the choice" as an excuse.

Maybe it's just me, but every time someone argues that we should accept gay
people because they didn't have a choice, I can't stop myself thinking: "So if
they had a choice, would it be okay to harass them? Would it be okay to ask
them to change?". The problem is not that gay people can't _change_. The
problem is that it's f*cking wrong to ask them to change. Even if they could
_change_ (whatever people mean by that), it's absolutely nonsensical to ask
them to.

As a society, we ask murderers to change, criminals, people generally harmful
to others. But gays? Since when is it okay to criticize the choice of someone
that affects nobody but this someone?

I like pizza. If that bothers anyone, should I just say: "There's nothing I
can do about it, I was born this way?"

~~~
tommorris
Even if I could change, I wouldn't want to.

If you gave me a pill to turn straight, I wouldn't take it.

I like being gay and wouldn't change it. That's why we have fucking great big
parades and talk about 'pride' and all that. That other people are assholes
and bigots ain't my damn problem.

------
Eva_Peron
Yet another giant intellect felled by the ignorant Athenian polity.

------
chris_mahan
Sounds like Haiku.

------
guard-of-terra
I see it forward that one day Churchill will be dug up, made apologies for
Turing and be buried back upside down.

Figuratively speaking.

Geek does not forget.

------
spitx

      "Chemical castration is the administration of medication
      designed to reduce libido and sexual activity. Unlike
      surgical castration, where the testicles or ovaries are
      removed through an incision in the body, chemical
      castration does not actually castrate the person, nor is
      it a form of sterilization."
    
      "Chemical castration is generally considered reversible
      when treatment is discontinued, although permanent 
      effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in 
      the case of bone density loss increasing with length of 
      use   of Depo Provera. Chemical castration has, from 
      time to time, been used as an instrument of public 
      and/or judicial policy despite concerns over human 
      rights and possible side effects."
    
      "In the United Kingdom, computer scientist Alan Turing,
      famous for his contributions to mathematics and computer
      science, was a homosexual who chose to undergo chemical
      castration in order to avoid imprisonment in 1952. At
      the time, homosexuality was still illegal and 
      considered to be a mental illness that could be treated
      with chemical castration. Turing experienced side 
      effects such as breast enlargement and bloating of the
      physique. He died two years later, with the inquest
      returning a verdict of suicide, although recent 
      research has cast doubt on this result. In 2009, the 
      then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, issued a 
      public apology for the British government's "appalling"
      actions, after an online petition seeking the same 
      gained 30,000 signatures and international recognition."
    

Source:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#Europe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#Europe)

    
    
      "Alan Turing, the British mathematical genius and
      codebreaker born 100 years ago on 23 June, may not have
      committed suicide, as is widely believed.
    
      Turing expert Prof Jack Copeland has questioned the
      evidence that was presented at the 1954 inquest.
    
      He believes the evidence would not today be accepted as
      sufficient to establish a suicide verdict."
    

Source:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-18561092?print...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-18561092?print=true)

Edit: Added last portion.

~~~
LowKarmaAccount
Here is the HN discussion about the BBC link

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4150495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4150495)

