Computing Machinery and Intelligence: Fundamentals and Applications

By Fouad Sabry

What Is Computing Machinery and Intelligence

The key work that Alan Turing contributed to the field of artificial intelligence is titled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (or simply "Computing and Intelligence"). His concept of what is now commonly known as the Turing test was presented to the general public for the first time in a paper that was published in 1950 in the journal Mind.

How You Will Benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Computing Machinery and Intelligence

Chapter 2: Artificial intelligence

Chapter 3: Turing test

Chapter 4: Artificial general intelligence

Chapter 5: Philosophy of artificial intelligence

Chapter 6: Computational theory of mind

Chapter 7: Symbolic artificial intelligence

Chapter 8: History of artificial intelligence

Chapter 9: Chinese room

Chapter 10: Physical symbol system

(II) Answering the public top questions about computing machinery and intelligence.

(III) Real world examples for the usage of computing machinery and intelligence in many fields.

(IV) 17 appendices to explain, briefly, 266 emerging technologies in each industry to have 360-degree full understanding of computing machinery and intelligence' technologies.

Who This Book Is For

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of computing machinery and intelligence.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jul 3, 2023

Book preview

Chapter 1: Computing Machinery and Intelligence

The fundamental work that Alan Turing contributed to the field of artificial intelligence is titled Computing Machinery and Intelligence, and it was published in 1950. The study, which was initially published in 1950 in the journal Mind, was the first time that his idea of what is now often referred to as the Turing test was presented to the general public.

The study written by Turing investigates the topic, Can machines think? Since the terms thought and machine cannot be defined in a precise manner, Turing suggests that we replace the issue with another, which is closely connected to it and is articulated in pretty straightforward language. To accomplish this, he must first come up with an idea that is straightforward and unambiguous to use in place of the word think. Next, he must detail precisely which machines he is thinking about, and finally, once he has all of these tools at his disposal, he must come up with a new question that is connected to the first one and that he believes he can answer positively.

Turing advises that we should inquire whether a computer can win a game that is termed the Imitation Game rather than attempting to ascertain if a machine is thinking by seeing if the machine can win the Imitation Game. The original version of Imitation, which was described by Turing, is a straightforward party game that consists of three participants. Player A is a male participant, Player B is a female participant, and Player C, who is playing the role of the interrogator, might be either male or female. Player C in the Imitation Game is unable to see either Player A or Player B (and refers to them only as X and Y), and the only way they can interact with each other is via the use of written notes or any other form that does not reveal any information about the players' genders. Player C is attempting to discover which of the two people is the guy and which is the lady by interrogating players A and B. Player C will ask questions to both of them. Player A's mission is to mislead the interrogator into making the incorrect choice, while Player B's objective is to provide the interrogator with the information they need to make the appropriate choice.

Turing suggests an alternative version of this game in which the computer is involved: What will occur if a computer decides to play the role of A in this game? Will the interrogator be just as likely to make a mistake with his decision when the game is played in this manner as he is when it is played between a man and a woman? Our initial inquiry, Can robots think?, has been replaced by these questions. Therefore, the game is altered to become one in which there are three players, all of whom are sequestered in separate rooms: a computer (which is being evaluated), a human, and a judge who is also human. By typing into a terminal, the human judge may have a conversation with both the human and the computer at the same time. Both the human and the machine make an effort to trick the judge into believing that they are the human. If the judge is unable to distinguish between the two consistently, then the game is awarded to the computer. from the manner in which a thinker behaves. This inquiry sidesteps the challenging philosophical issue of pre-defining the verb to think, and instead focuses on the performance capabilities that being able to think makes feasible, as well as the ways in which a causal system might create such capabilities.

Some people have interpreted Turing's query as meaning, Can a computer mislead a person into thinking it is human if it is interacting with them through teleprinter?

Turing also points out that we need to choose the machines we want to think about in this context. He makes the point that even though it would be the product of human ingenuity, a human clone would not make for a very compelling illustration. Turing proposed that we focus our attention on the capabilities of digital machinery, which he defined as machines that handle the binary digits 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory by following a few simple principles. He explained both of them.

To begin, there is no basis for engaging in conjecture on the possibility of their existence. They already had by the year 1950.

Second, digital equipment is considered universal. The study that Alan Turing conducted into the fundamentals of computing had shown that a digital computer may, in principle, imitate the behavior of any other digital machine, provided that it is given the memory and time to do so. (The Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine both contribute to our understanding of this concept, but it is the central idea.) Consequently, if one digital computer can act as if it is thinking, then all digital machines that are sufficiently strong should be able to. In one of his papers, Alan Turing states that all digital computers are in a sense equal. What is more essential is to think about the potential improvements that may be made in the current state of our machines, and this should be done regardless of whether or not we have the resources available to build one.

After he had clarified the question, Turing moved on to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all of the major arguments against artificial intelligence that have been raised in the years since his paper was first published. he concluded that there was no evidence to support any of these objections.

According to this, thinking is a function of man's eternal soul, and because machines do not have souls, they cannot think. This raises a religious objection. In attempting to construct such machines, wrote Turing, we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather, we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates. [Citation needed] We are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.

Burying our Heads in the Sand The objection is: If robots were capable of thinking, the repercussions would be disastrous. Let us put our faith in the fact that they are unable to carry out our request. This kind of thinking is common among people who have high levels of intelligence because these individuals feel that supremacy results from greater levels of intelligence and that the chance of being overtaken is a danger (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This argument is based on a flawed appeal to consequences, which conflates what ought not to be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56).

The criticism that relies on mathematical theorems is known as the mathematical objection, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to demonstrate that there are limits to the kind of inquiries that a computer program that is based on logic can answer.

Turing argues that humans are too frequently incorrect themselves and are happy when a computer makes a mistake.

(The philosopher John Lucas and the physicist Roger Penrose would bring up this issue once again in the years 1961 and 1989, respectively.)

Argument From Consciousness: This line of reasoning, which was proposed by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration, states that not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain. Jefferson's argument was presented in the context of the Lister Oration.

Arguments from different disability. All of these arguments may be summarized as a computer will never be able to achieve X. Turing provides a variety of options:

Learn from your mistakes, fall in love, enjoy strawberries and cream, make someone fall in love with it, learn from experience, use words properly, be the subject of its own thought, have as much behavioral variety as a man, and try something completely new. Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, a sense of humor, tell right from wrong, make mistakes; tell right from wrong; make mistakes; tell right from wrong; make mistakes; fall in love; enjoy strawberries and cream; make someone fall in love with it.

Turing points out that no justification is generally supplied for these claims, and that they rely on naïve assumptions about how versatile computers may be in the future. Alternatively, he argues that these statements are disguised variants of the argument from consciousness. He picks and selects which ones to respond to:

Machines cannot make errors. He points out that it is quite simple to program a computer to give the impression that it has made an error.

A machine is not capable of having its own thoughts (or being self-aware) since it cannot be the subject of its own thoughts. It is possible to write a program that, in the most basic meaning of the term, can report on the states and processes that occur inside itself. This kind of software is known as a debugger. According to Turing, a computer may unquestionably be its own subject matter.

It is impossible for a machine to have a diverse set of behaviors. He makes the observation that if a computer has an enough amount of storage space, it is able to act in an infinite number of distinct ways.

One of the most well-known arguments is called the Lady Lovelace Objection, and it contends that computers are unable to generate novel ideas. Ada Lovelace postulated that robots were incapable of engaging in self-directed learning, which is the primary reason for this.

The Analytical Engine makes no claims to be the genesis of anything and has no intention of doing so. It is capable of carrying out any task that we are able to instruct it to do. It is able to follow analysis, but it cannot anticipate any analytical relations or facts and so cannot lead analysis.

Lovelace's objection, according to Turing, can be reduced to the assertion that computers can never take us by surprise. Turing, on the other hand, argues that computers could still surprise humans, particularly in situations in which the consequences of different facts are not immediately recognizable. Lovelace's objection, according to Turing, can be reduced to this assertion. Turing further contends that Lady Lovelace's writing was hindered by the environment in which it was written, and that if Lady Lovelace had been exposed to more modern scientific information, it would have been obvious that the store capacity of the brain is pretty comparable to that of a computer.

The modern study of the nervous system has demonstrated that there is no break in the continuity of the nervous system. This lends credence to the argument that the brain is not digital. Despite the fact that neurons fire in a pulse that is either all or nothing, the precise time of the pulse as well as the chance of the pulse happening all have analog components. Turing is aware of this fact, but he maintains that, with sufficient computer power, it is possible to imitate any analog system to a degree of precision that is acceptable. (In 1972, philosopher Hubert Dreyfus would present this line of reasoning in opposition to what he called the biological presupposition.)

Argument based on the informality of behavior: According to this line of reasoning, any system that is guided by rules will be predictable, and as a result, it will not be genuinely intelligent. Turing retorts by arguing that this conflates the laws of behavior with general principles of conduct, and that if applied on a large enough scale (as it is in man), the behavior of machines would become progressively impossible to anticipate. Turing's argument is based on