
Computing machinery and intelligence (1950) - drikerf
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html
======
firasd
Interesting passage:

 _“The fact that Babbage’s Analytical Engine was to be entirely mechanical
will help us to rid ourselves of a superstition. Importance is often attached
to the fact that modern digital computers are electrical, and that the nervous
system also is electrical. Since Babbage’s machine was not electrical, and
since all digital computers are in a sense equivalent, we see that this use of
electricity cannot be of theoretical importance. Of course electricity usually
comes in where fast signalling is concerned, so that it is not surprising that
we find it in both these connections. In the nervous system chemical phenomena
are at least as important as electrical. In certain computers the storage
system is mainly acoustic. The feature of using electricity is thus seen to be
only a very superficial similarity. If we wish to find such similarities we
should took rather for mathematical analogies of function.”_

It's easy to look at some technology (like machine learning today?) and think:
this is how the brain works. But Turing reminds us: not so fast.

~~~
Cybiote
It more looks to me that Turing was saying that the essence of the brain is
not from its using electricity. Nor is it valid to say that computers and
brains are alike because they both operate with electricity; instead, their
essential similarity is that they are both expressible in terms of what he
called a _Universal Machine_.

~~~
dilemma
>they are both expressible in terms of what he called a Universal Machine.

Prove it.

~~~
zingermc
We are still waiting on a proof of the Church-Turing Thesis, so maybe that is
next on the agenda.

------
AndrewOMartin
Here are a few points of note for anyone who wants to seriously get to grips
with this historically significant article.

1 - Notice that the first paragraph is dedicated to the rejection of the
question "Can machines think" later described as "too meaningless to deserve
discussion", the proposed experiment is not presented as a way to answer that
question, but as a "closely related" replacement.

2 - It's a matter of continuing debate whether Turing actually expected the
experiment to be performed, or to remain a thought experiment. Some evidence
for the former is that in a less popular paper "Intelligent Machinery"
(Turing, 1948) he describes an idealised form of an experiment he did actually
perform, where a person plays chess against an opponent that may be either a
human player or a human following an algorithm, and attempts to determine the
nature of his opponent. Evidence for the latter is that Turing explains the
experiment isn't about existent machines, but "imaginable computers which
would do well".

3 - The precise experiment is not clear, when "a machine takes the part of
[the hidden man]", is the interrogator told he's questioning a man and a
woman, or a machine and a woman? Is it significant that the machine takes the
male's place, and takes the place of the deceiver? Can questions be directed
to one hidden player, or are they always seen by both? Note that to "pass" is
not to merely pass as a human, but to be as good as a human at this game of
bluff and deception. Note also that the woman's aim is to be correctly
identified as such. Also later in the paper Turing mentions "five minutes of
questioning", if that includes the time to type the questions to each
individual and receive responses, that doesn't leave much time for proper
interrogation.

4 - Turing notes that a machine might be doing something that "ought to be
described as thinking" and still fail to pass the test, but that should a
machine pass we needn't concern ourself with this possibility.

~~~
marcosdumay
About #2 (or, maybe really about #4), it's interesting how computers are
better than people on chess, but still recognizably non-human.

------
femto
If you're interested in how Turing developed the ideas in this paper, I can
fully recommend the Turing biography by Andrew Hodges. I'm halfway though it
now. It's an interesting read, as apart from Turning's life, it tries to
reconstruct the relationships that he had with fellow researchers, the
environment in which he was working and the development of his thinking.

~~~
drikerf
I'll def check that out :). I'm just in the beginning of my first AI course
and got this article recommended by the prof. Really enjoyed it.

~~~
AndrewOMartin
Haha, this is arguably _the_ article in AI.

Other landmark events in the field include the Dartmouth Conference, when John
McCarthy named the field "Artificial Intelligence", defined the goals, and set
out to achieve them, unfortunately it's not easy to point to a single paper on
the subject, though do read the conference proposal, posted on HN recently
[[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12080269](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12080269)
]; then you have the Lighthill report where the UK Government essentially lost
interest in the project, the conclusions are debatable, but clearly and
entertainingly argued, a video of the presentation of the report, with
McCarthy present and responding, is available online also
[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yReDbeY7ZMU&list=PLhThm05V6b...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yReDbeY7ZMU&list=PLhThm05V6bZPbfpbAyzFEU-
qVT-OkpwLA)].

Finally I'd cite the 1970s era book What Computers Can't Do, and its 90s
reprint, What Computers Still Can't Do as all you need to know about the
current state of AI, its ultimate aims and the fatal flaws in its fundamental
assumptions. The fact that it was written in the 70s and applies to today's
discussions on AI should be enough to indicate its prescience.

Modern AI ignores or is unaware of many of the critiques that have gone
before, only time will tell if they will soon hit the same historical
obstacles.

The points I've mentioned here don't really cover the history and development
of Neural Networks, but they went through a similar process of discovery,
critique, near-dormant research, and finally a return to popularity, but with
neglect of the critiques rather than addressing them.

Welcome to the field!

------
pbsd

      We can demonstrate more forcibly that any such statement would be unjustified.
      For suppose we could be sure of finding such laws if they existed. Then given
      a discrete-state machine it should certainly be possible to discover by
      observation sufficient about it to predict its future behaviour, and this
      within a reasonable time, say a thousand years. But this does not seem to be
      the case. I have set up on the Manchester computer a small programme using
      only 1,000 units of storage, whereby the machine supplied with one sixteen-
      figure number replies with another within two seconds. I would defy anyone to
      learn from these replies sufficient about the programme to be able to predict
      any replies to untried values.
    

This is possibly one of the first examples of a pseudorandom function as we
understand the term today. I would love to know what Turing's function was,
and how breakable it would be with today's techniques.

------
fauria
I really enjoyed the 2014 film about Alan Turing, "The Imitation Game"
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/),
named after this article: _" The new form of the problem can be described in
terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game.'"_

