Critique of the New Problem
As 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 ques- tion we investigate without further ado, thereby cutting short an infinite regress.
The new problem has the advantage of drawing a fairly sharp line be- tween the physical and the intellectual capacities of a man. No engineer or chemist claims to be able to produce a material which is indistinguish- able from the human skin. 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. 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. Some other advantages of the proposed criterion may be shown up by specimen questions and answers. Thus:
Q: Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.
A: Count me out on this one. I never could write poetry.
Q: Add 34957 to 70764.
A: (Pause about 30 seconds and then give as answer) 105621.
Q: Do you play chess?
A: Yes.
Q: I have K at my K1, and no other pieces. You have only K at K6 and R at R1. It is your move. What do you play?
A: (After a pause of 15 seconds) R–R8 mate.
The question and answer method seems to be suitable for introducing al- most any one of the fields of human endeavor that we wish to include. We do not wish to penalize the machine for its inability to shine in beauty com- petitions, nor to penalize a man for losing in a race against an airplane. The conditions of our game make these disabilities irrelevant. 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 game may perhaps be criticized on the ground that the odds are weighted too heavily against the machine. If the man were to try and pre- tend to be the machine, he would clearly make a very poor showing. He would be given away at once by slowness and inaccuracy in arithmetic. May not machines carry out something which ought to be described as thinking but which is very different from what a man does? This objection is a very strong one, but at least we can say that if, nevertheless, a machine can be constructed to play the imitation game satisfactorily, we need not be troubled by this objection.
