Talk:Computing Machinery and Intelligence

message: 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)
thread_title: Needs a section describing the influence

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to sort this article out.--Dune911 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turing's answers to objections moved here from [[Turing test]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is the article still copyrighted? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another cleanup