He would be given away at once by slowness and inaccuracy in arithmetic. If the man were to try and pretend to be the machine he would clearly make a very poor showing. The game may perhaps be criticised on the ground that the odds are weighted too heavily against the machine. The ‘witnesses’ can brag, if they consider it advisable, as much as they please about their charms, strength or heroism, but the interrogator cannot demand practical demonstrations. The conditions of our game make these disabilities irrelevant.
We do not wish to penalise the machine for its inability to shine in beauty competitions, nor to penalise a man for losing in a race against an aeroplane.
![another word for being in charge of computers at work another word for being in charge of computers at work](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0351/8198/5837/articles/School_children_with_iPads_keeleys_cause_1200x1200.jpg)
The question and answer method seems to be suitable for introducing almost any one of the fields of human endeavour that we wish to include. (Pause about 30 seconds and then give as answer) 105621. Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.Ĭount me out on this one.
![another word for being in charge of computers at work another word for being in charge of computers at work](https://cdn.statically.io/img/gadgetstouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Chrome-Remote-Desktop.jpg)
Some other advantages of the proposed criterion may be shown up by specimen questions and answers. The form in which we have set the problem reflects this fact in the condition which prevents the interrogator from seeing or touching the other competitors, or hearing their voices. It is possible that at some time this might be done, but even supposing this invention available we should feel there was little point in trying to make a ‘thinking machine’ more human by dressing it up in such artificial flesh. No engineer or chemist claims to be able to produce a material which is indistinguishable from the human skin. The new problem has the advantage of drawing a fairly sharp line between the physical and the intellectual capacities of a man. Critique of the New ProblemĪs well as asking, ‘What is the answer to this new form of the question’, one may ask, ‘Is this new question a worthy one to investigate?’ This latter question we investigate without further ado, thereby cutting short an infinite regress. 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?’ 2. She can add such things as ‘I am the woman, don’t listen to him!’ to her answers, but it will avail nothing as the man can make similar remarks. The best strategy for her is probably to give truthful answers. The object of the game for the third player (B) is to help the interrogator. Alternatively the question and answers can be repeated by an intermediary. The ideal arrangement is to have a teleprinter communicating between the two rooms. In order that tones of voice may not help the interrogator the answers should be written, or better still, typewritten. ‘My hair is shingled, and the longest strands are about nine inches long.’ It is A's object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification. The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B thus:Ĭ: Will X please tell me the length of his or her hair? Now suppose X is actually A, then A must answer.
![another word for being in charge of computers at work another word for being in charge of computers at work](https://ic-cdn.flipboard.com/tech.co/000188c1c8d23422174d32aeab0d3f7199e847e0/_medium.jpeg)
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 object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ‘imitation game’. 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. 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. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous. I propose to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’ This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms ‘machine’ and ‘think’.