But in view of the universality property wesee that either of these questions is equivalent to this, ‘Let usWx our attention onone particular digital computerC. Is it true that by modifying this computer tohave an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing itwith an appropriate programme,Ccan be made to play satisfactorily the part ofA in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?’

We may hope that machines will eventually compete with men in all purelyintellectualWelds.

The reader will have anticipated that I have no very convincing arguments of apositive nature to support my views. If I had I should not have taken suchpains to point out the fallacies in contrary views.

Who can be certain that ‘original work’that he has done was not simply the growth of the seed planted in himby teaching, or the eVect of following well-known general principles.

one could set up a conditioned reXex, which would serve as abasis for ‘learning’

I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educatedopinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machinesthinking without expecting to be contradicted

If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is diYcult toescape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Canmachines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. Butthis is absurd.

Leavitt, David. The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turing and the Invention ofthe Computer. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.

The Little Seagull Handbook. 3rd ed. New York: Norton, 2017.

First-Year Seminar (FYS)

With Alan Turing as a context, weare going to examine what computer code is and why people write it.