4 ms·
It might be a cliche one to pick, but I really really really enjoy Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence"[1]. This paper straddles the line betwee
by chadash 9y ago
It might be a cliche one to pick, but I really really really enjoy Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence"[1]. This paper straddles the line between CS and philosophy, but I think it's an important read for anyone in either field. And a bonus is that it's very well-written and readable.
[1] https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf
- AndrewOMartin 9y agoThanks for picking that one, that means I don't have to choose between it and my joint favourite, the snappily titled "Why Heideggerian AI Failed and how Fixing it would Require making it more Heideggerian". Where Turing's paper put us on the journey towards AI, 57 years later Dreyfus points out how the direction chosen is not only wrong, but hopelessly misguided. [quote] As I studied the RAND papers and memos, I found to my surprise that, far from replacing philosophy, the pioneers in CS and AI had learned a lot, directly and indirectly from the philosophers. They had taken over Hobbes’ claim that reasoning was calculating, Descartes' mental representations, Leibniz's idea of a "universal characteristic" - a set of primitives in which all knowledge could be expressed, -- Kant’s claim that concepts were rules, Frege's formalization of such rules, and Wittgenstein's postulation of logical atoms in his Tractatus. In short, without realizing it, AI researchers were hard at work turning rationalist philosophy into a research program. [endquote] http://leidlmair.at/doc/WhyHeideggerianAIFailed.pdf http://leidlmair.at/doc/WhyHeideggerianAIFailed.pdf
- icc97 9y agoGiven the far reaching importance of the Turing test, it's amazing how readable and understandable the paper is.
- Retra 9y agoI really don't see how anyone would take that as a given.