Talk:Computing Machinery and Intelligence

Needs a section describing the influence

It would be nice to have links to examples of work in the field that build upon issues raised first in Turing's paper. Maybe a link to Terry Winograd would be a good start. JWSchmidt 15:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I deleted:

His closing remark in the text was:

We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.

At this time, semantic in linguistic was not a theme to be discussed. After this article, however, things change dramatically. It was the idea of cognition as computation that reanimates the science of semantic.

It was found confusing since August 2006. I don't really get it, and it seems a bit of a non sequitur. Perhaps the author means semantics became a popular topic in computational linguistics? Semantics doesn't mention Turing. Regardless, it's a bit obscure, and could use a reference. Kaicarver 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Turing's answers to objections moved here from Turing test

I've pulled the "objections" section in line with Turing's paper (by fixing some content, adding the missing ones, and putting them in the same order Turing presented them in.) I removed these two, since they appear to be original research, and don't appear in Turing's paper.

• Mechanical Objections: A sufficiently fast machine with sufficiently large memory could be programmed with a large enough number of human questions and human responses to deliver a human answer to almost every question, and a vague random answer to the few questions not in its memory. This would simulate human response in a purely mechanical way. Psychologists have observed that most humans have a limited number of verbal responses.
• Data Processing Objection: Machines process data bit by bit. Humans process data holistically. In this view, even if a machine appears human in every way, to treat it as human is to indulge in anthropomorphic thinking. (Recent advances in parallel computing and fuzzy logic based systems raise interesting questions regarding this specific objection .)

I also added some information on more recent versions of Turing's objections. ---- CharlesGillingham 06:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to sort this article out.--Dune911 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the first objection here is someone's rediscovery of Ned Block's Blockhead argument, and the second is what Turing called "the Argument from the Informality of Behavior". ---- CharlesGillingham 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One last thought: I suggested above that this section should be moved to Computing machinery and intelligence. Any objections? Until I do, I'm going to leave some duplicate references. ---- CharlesGillingham 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the article still copyrighted?

If it's no longer copyrighted, we may upload the PDF file and/or the document's content to Wikisource. Galzigler (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am hosting the paper, just to let you know that the hostname changed and it is now [here]. OriumX (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Add an animation

The "standard interpretation" of the Turing Test, in which the interrogator is tasked with trying to determine which player is a computer and which is a human

What do you think, Is this animation better than existing image? Holly Bellman (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The previous image wasn't great, but this doesn't seem like an improvement - the reader has to watch for ten seconds to understand what's going on, and anybody reading a print copy of the article will just see an unenlightening static frame. I've reverted it to the previous image, which is still the image of choice at Turing test. --McGeddon (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Another cleanup

I deleted the last line from the Digital Machines subsection. The line:

It has become a straightforward question of software engineering.

This in a way aimed to summarize the section; but I think that is in a sense misleading since the term software engineering refers to a very broad topic and deviates from what Turing said himself. Turing always refers to the problem as how we can programme a machine to play this game. Would it not be most appropriate to either mention that as the concluding point or nothing at all?

MSheshera (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

English Spellings

I'm just wondering, should we change the English spellings (such as behaviour) to American ones? There seems to be some ambiguity whether English or American spellings should be used in the English Wikipedia, since many pages are American and English-spelled words show up marked as unknown words in the text editor.47.16.142.4 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH says that articles can use any type of English, but that only 1 type should be used (so not a mixture of American and British English). As far as I can see, the whole article is written in British English, so there's no need to change to American English.

My general view is that British things should have British English, and American things have American English; as this is about Turing's paper, and he's British, I think British English is best. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WHY IS TURING's PAPER called "Computer Machinery and Intelligence" in 56.5 million documents across the net, and "Computing Machinery etc..." in 217,000 documents?

just doing a boolean google search with those words (both phrases/titles mentioned in quotes.

A lot of people are worng. Wikipedia is clearly in the minute minority ... which to me doesn't mean anything. But how to find the objective truth? 50.4.43.52 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but here is a citation to the paper. Follow the link and you can see the title of the paper, which is the same as the title of this article. That's the objective truth.

• Turing, Alan (October 1950), "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (PDF), Mind, LIX (236): 433–460, doi:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)