I can only hear that question in the voice of the computer Joshua, from the classic film WarGames. TIL that John Wood (the actor who played Dr. Stephen Falken) also voiced Joshua, and the unusual phrasing resulted from reading the lines backwards (ie, “”game a play we shall”).
Aside from its general popularity, this movie holds a special place for a great many IT (especially InfoSec) professionals, and many career paths were affected by it. Watching it was an introduction to many concepts which are still valid, forty years later.
Rather than playing Global Thermonuclear War or Tic-Tac-Toe, however, let’s talk about another game.
The Imitation Game.
In a recent post, I considered several questions about Artificial Intelligence, AI, AGI, synthetic intelligence, or whatever else you want to call it. The question “can machines think” is what most people ask, but it’s really hard to know what that even means. The Turing test (originally called the Imitation Game) was discussed as an early attempt to address this issue.
I discovered that it’s hard to avoid Alan Turing when considering anything related to early computers, particularly in the context of AI, which led me to an interest in Turing’s original paper: “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”, originally published in 1950. The fact that the paper has a dedicated Wikipedia page gives a clue as to its importance in the history of computer technology.
Reading the paper is an odd experience. The language is somewhat dated, and the technical references are to machines which can barely be considered “computers” in the modern sense. In contrast to this, however, are ideas which are so “modern” that it’s difficult to understand how radical they were at the time.
Turing begins by specifying digital computers for his game, to specifically exclude clones (“for it is probably possible to rear a complete individual from a single cell of the skin (say) of a man”) and “men born in the usual manner”, which forces the reader to acknowledge that he had given these points extensive consideration. He then describes what he considers a “digital computer”, discusses Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine (as have I), in order to emphasize that a digital computer does not necessarily need to be electrical in nature, and draws a parallel to the human brain. Later in the paper, he addresses “Lady Lovelace’s Objection” that “The Analytical Engine has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform”.
I find it fascinating that Turing felt the need to address this concern, which he does by suggesting that, while the design of the Analytical Engine did not encourage Ada Lovelace to believe that it was possible for the machine to originate anything, that did not imply that she believed that it was not possible.
He then acknowledges the limitations of current computers, and provides an estimate:
“I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.”
Here is an excellent overview of the paper, to which I will add a few points.
To summarize, the original Imitation Game consisted of a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator (C) attempts to determine which of the players is male and which female. A’s objective is to cause C to make the wrong identification, while B’s objective is to help the interrogator. All communication is handled anonymously.
With the Imitation Game, Turing was considering the question “Can machines think?”, and realized the futility of answering the question in any meaningful way. Instead, he changes the question to “What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?” and “Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?”
I find Turing’s selection of gender as a topic for investigation in this exercise to be very interesting. One could argue that Turing himself experienced a version of the Imitation Game daily, as he concealed the fact that he was gay for many years – for good reason, as he was convicted of “gross indecency” two years later, as a result of his relationship with a man. As a condition of probation, Turing “agreed” (the alternative being jail) to “chemical castration” (ie, hormone treatments to reduce libido and sexual activity).
While my preference would be to think that this was a very long time ago, 1952 was disturbingly recent. In 2013, Queen Elizabeth II granted Turing a pardon, and in 2017 a law was passed which “retroactively pardoned men cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.”
Less than 10 years ago... Sickening.
The question of whether Turing’s conviction and “chemical castration” led to his death is an interesting one, and there appear to be a number of unanswered (and sadly, probably unanswerable) questions. The reported cause of his death was cyanide poisoning, the conclusion of the official inquest was suicide, and the speculation was that a half-eaten apple was the means.
Oddly, however, the apple was never tested for cyanide, there was no evidence which could be interpreted as preparing for suicide, and those close to Turing reported nothing to suggest that he was depressed or otherwise considering suicide.
One suggested alternative was accidental poisoning from breathing cyanide used for electroplating (which Turing had equipment for), while another was that Turing deliberately left the nature of his death ambiguous to “shield his mother from the knowledge that he had killed himself”.
Ultimately, there is little point in speculation, and it is likely impossible to find a definitive answer, especially after so long.
Still, it makes me wonder whether, if Turing had lived in a somewhat more civilized time, or if he had been better at the Imitation Game he invented, his already-extraordinary contributions might have been even greater.
Cheers!
Comments