Note: this post turned out to be controversial, if you read it be sure to read the comments too, particularly this one. This comment on reddit is interesting too.
Here’s an annoying thing. Alan Turing was a great thinker and forefather of computation, and certainly deserves an apology for the inhumane way he was treated. The Loebner Prize, known as the “Turing test” is a competition supposedly based on predictions Turing included in a paper on machine intelligence.
The annoying thing is that the Loebner prize completely misrepresents Turing’s paper. Embossed in the prize medal shown is the question “Can machines think?” Also, the introductory text on their website states:
In 1950, in the article Computing Machinery and Intelligence … Alan Turing asked the question “Can a Machine Think?” He answered in the affirmative …
Did he? Ok, so lets look at the first sentence of Turing’s paper:
I propose to consider the question, “Can machines think?”
Note that he is considering the question, not asking it. In that same first paragraph, he goes on to consider trying to define the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’, and concludes:
… 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.
So, Turing felt that the question “Can machines think?” was absurd.
Whoever wrote the Loebner text has perhaps read the first sentence of this paper they describe, but not got to the end of the first paragraph. Based on the resulting misunderstanding they have stamped the question that annoyed Turing so much right there next to his face. This amounts to posthumous intellectual torture, and disrespectful to the work of a fine man.
A comment thread removed after it went nowhere and turned into childish name calling. Jeepers.
So… what question DID he ask? Please complete the post!
Well I linked to the paper. Among other things, he asked whether a computer could be mistaken for a human in an interrogation game as often as a man could be mistaken for a woman.
This is what people have later called the Turing test, but he made clear that this was not a test of whether the machine was thinking.
Turing did not consider the question absurd or he would not have written a whole paper about it. He considered the question IMPRECISE and therefore he endeavored to ask a similar, more precise question. Right in the title of the paper are the words “computing machinery” (i.e. computer) and “intelligence” (i.e. capacity to think)
Read further:
“We may now consider the ground to have been cleared and we are ready to proceed to the debate on our question, “Can machines think?” “
Turing says that “Can machines think?” is OUR QUESTION.
“I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. I believe further that no useful purpose is served by concealing these beliefs”
(in answer to paul)
“Turing says that “Can machines think?” is OUR QUESTION.”
Yes, as in the question we are considering. He makes it clear that it is the question he is considering, not answering.
Your second quote is so ridiculously selective I can hardly believe you’ve done it. The preceding sentence is:
“The original question, “Can machines think?” I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion.”
So, here you go.
“I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.”
the point he is making, is that people have a very biased interpretation of the words “machine” and “think”.
he tries to ask the question in a more descriptive, and actually worthwhile manner.
its kind of like the battle between “is a human brain a machine?” because most people consider it “life”, while others consider it “a flesh made machine”. its a weird line and he needs to draw boundries in order to ask the real questions and get the real answers
An apology? Here’s the procedure: find out who was responsible, check they are still alive and then ask them to make that apology. An apology is an expression of regret by the person who has something to regret. All else is a cheap misuse of the word.
You can be responsible for your children but are you responsible for your ancestors? Hardly! Let’s quit this apology nonsense.
Let’s follow the procedure then:
1/ Who was responsible: British government.
2/ Are they still alive: yes, the entity still exists.
3/ Ask them to make an apology: exactly what is happening.
Alex, I’m sorry to say this but you have *completely* misinterpreted the first paragraph of Turing’s paper. It doesn’t help that the text seems to have a typo – a comma that should be a period, between the words “dangerous” and “If”. But that’s beside the point.
You must consider the context of this paper, and the year in which it was written. In 1950, computers were still very new technology, and mysterious. Turing clearly states that if one takes the “normal use of the words” — in other words — if one evaluates the question in the context of everyday technology up to the year 1950, then the only mechanical means to answer the question would be purely statistical, by Gallup poll. Unlike 2009, in 1950, computers were not everyday items. Relatively few people understood them, much less got to work with them directly.
In this opening paragraph, Turing posits that in light of new technology (namely computers), the question must now be rephrased. He doesn’t say the question itself is absurd. In fact just the opposite. He says *previously* the question was absurd, due to the substandard level of technology. NOW, suddenly, in 1950, with the advent of computing technology, it certainly is NOT absurd to ask the question, because it just might be possible.
He then goes on to state that, in light of new technology, the question must be rephrased. It’s the same exact question — he merely states it more precisely. He states it in terms of 1950′s technology.
Again: There is not a single instance where he states the question itself is absurd. What is absurd, is trying to answer this question when the only technology available up to that point was statistical tools.
Meanwhile, your statement that this amounts to “posthumous intellectual torture” is utterly ridiculous and ultimately comical. Who are you to say what it amounts to? I might add that it’s quite presumptuous of you, or anyone for that matter, to say what Turing would want engraved next to his name. Do not try to speak on behalf of the dead, Alex; do not put words into Turing’s mouth. And DEFINITELY do not try to speak on behalf of a dead man you never knew.
(And no, putting the question next to his image does not constitute speaking for the man. “Can Machines Think” is the exact question that Turing addressed in this paper.)
First off “no”, I have to agree with your points about that overblown phrase, and my representation of Turing. You’re right I can’t speak on Turing’s behalf and shouldn’t have done so.
As I said earlier: “I admit that he doesn’t directly say the question is absurd, but he does say the question is meaningless, and so there is the strong implication.”
Also bringing historical nuance into this is important and thanks for doing so.
But still, it seems to me that he is approaching the debate of “can machines think” by highlighting that the central question is too poorly defined to merit discussion, and instead providing a different one.
The point of disagreement I think is whether the new question is
1/ a more precise version of the old one (a rephrasing of it where nothing is lost)
2/ one aspect or one interpretation of it (precisely defining one interpretation of the question while acknowledging other interpretations exist which are not represented)
3/ a completely different question
I think your position is 1, and I find that extreme. I wrote the blog entry with 3 in mind, but during this discussion however I have oscillated between 2 and 3. However I still maintain that Turing is quite unequivocal in saying that the question “Can machines think?” is meaningless, and attributing the question to him in this manner is taking his words out of context.