I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines
think?' This should begin with definitions of the
meaning of the terms 'machine' and 'think.' The
definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as
possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude
is dangerous, If the meaning of the words 'machine' and
'think' are to be found by examining how they are
commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion
that the meaning and the answer to the question, 'Can
machines think?' is to be sought in a statistical
survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd.
Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace
the question by another, which is closely related to it
and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. The
new form of the problem can be described in terms of a
game which we call the 'imitation game.' It is played
with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an
interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The
interrogator stays in a room apart front the other two.
The object of the game for the interrogator is to
determine which of the other two is the man and which
is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at
the end of the game he says either 'X is A and Y is B'
or 'X is B and Y is A.' The interrogator is allowed to
put questions to A and B. We now ask the question,
'What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in
this game?' Will the interrogator decide wrongly as
often when the game is played like this as he does when
the game is played between a man and a woman? These
questions replace our original, 'Can machines think?'
cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000499 contains
OCR errors and one table has been deleted.
Human cloning. 'Random element'. Suggests digital
computers are not chaotic. Prediction for performance
in 2000.
'Obvious connection between this process and
evolution', 'hereditary material', 'mutation', 'Natural
selection' (interactive evolution, cf
unemi:1998:AFSS amongst many).
Experiments not 'considered successful'.
Mechanical 'scientific induction'.
Chess, speaking English.
'We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see
plenty there that needs to be done.'
identifier
Turing, A. M. (1950) Computing Machinery and
Intelligence. Mind 59:pp.~433-460.
%0 Journal Article
%1 oai:cogprints.soton.ac.uk:499
%A Turing, A. M.
%D 1950
%J Mind
%K Artificial Cognitive Intelligence, Language, Learning, Machine Mind, Philosophy Psychology, Robotics algorithms, genetic of programming,
%P 433--460
%T Computing Machinery and Intelligence
%U http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000499/00/turing.htm
%V 49
%X I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines
think?' This should begin with definitions of the
meaning of the terms 'machine' and 'think.' The
definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as
possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude
is dangerous, If the meaning of the words 'machine' and
'think' are to be found by examining how they are
commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion
that the meaning and the answer to the question, 'Can
machines think?' is to be sought in a statistical
survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd.
Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace
the question by another, which is closely related to it
and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. The
new form of the problem can be described in terms of a
game which we call the 'imitation game.' It is played
with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an
interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The
interrogator stays in a room apart front the other two.
The object of the game for the interrogator is to
determine which of the other two is the man and which
is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at
the end of the game he says either 'X is A and Y is B'
or 'X is B and Y is A.' The interrogator is allowed to
put questions to A and B. We now ask the question,
'What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in
this game?' Will the interrogator decide wrongly as
often when the game is played like this as he does when
the game is played between a man and a woman? These
questions replace our original, 'Can machines think?'
@article{oai:cogprints.soton.ac.uk:499,
abstract = {I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines
think?' This should begin with definitions of the
meaning of the terms 'machine' and 'think.' The
definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as
possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude
is dangerous, If the meaning of the words 'machine' and
'think' are to be found by examining how they are
commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion
that the meaning and the answer to the question, 'Can
machines think?' is to be sought in a statistical
survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd.
Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace
the question by another, which is closely related to it
and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. The
new form of the problem can be described in terms of a
game which we call the 'imitation game.' It is played
with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an
interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The
interrogator stays in a room apart front the other two.
The object of the game for the interrogator is to
determine which of the other two is the man and which
is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at
the end of the game he says either 'X is A and Y is B'
or 'X is B and Y is A.' The interrogator is allowed to
put questions to A and B. We now ask the question,
'What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in
this game?' Will the interrogator decide wrongly as
often when the game is played like this as he does when
the game is played between a man and a woman? These
questions replace our original, 'Can machines think?'},
added-at = {2008-06-19T17:35:00.000+0200},
author = {Turing, A. M.},
bibsource = {OAI-PMH server at cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2318b815a1f1554afc878daf72a76dc5e/brazovayeye},
identifier = {Turing, A. M. (1950) Computing Machinery and
Intelligence. Mind 59:pp.~433-460.},
interhash = {3f7a151a4f79fe75b4bb148b41279a9b},
intrahash = {318b815a1f1554afc878daf72a76dc5e},
journal = {Mind},
keywords = {Artificial Cognitive Intelligence, Language, Learning, Machine Mind, Philosophy Psychology, Robotics algorithms, genetic of programming,},
month = {January~01},
notes = {cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000499 contains
OCR errors and one table has been deleted.
Human cloning. 'Random element'. Suggests digital
computers are not chaotic. Prediction for performance
in 2000.
'Obvious connection between this process and
evolution', 'hereditary material', 'mutation', 'Natural
selection' (interactive evolution, cf
\cite{unemi:1998:AFSS} amongst many).
Experiments not 'considered successful'.
Mechanical 'scientific induction'.
Chess, speaking English.
'We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see
plenty there that needs to be done.'},
oai = {oai:cogprints.soton.ac.uk:499},
pages = {433--460},
timestamp = {2008-06-19T17:53:23.000+0200},
title = {Computing Machinery and Intelligence},
url = {http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000499/00/turing.htm},
volume = 49,
year = 1950
}