\documentclass{beamer} \usetheme{} \title{``Computing Machinery and Intelligence'' by A.~M.~Turing} \subtitle{Home reading, 5th semester} \author{Andrew Guschin} \date{\today} \begin{document} \begin{frame} \frametitle{About author} \end{frame} \begin{frame} \frametitle{Summary of article} \end{frame} \begin{frame} - The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. \end{frame} \begin{frame} - We are the more ready to do so in view of the fact that the present interest in "thinking machines" has been aroused by a particular kind of machine, usually called an "electronic computer" or "digital computer." \end{frame} \begin{frame} - If we use the above explanation as a definition we shall be in danger of circularity of argument. \end{frame} \begin{frame} - For instance in considering the switches for a lighting system it is a convenient fiction that each switch must be definitely on or definitely off. \end{frame} \begin{frame} - The popular view that scientists proceed inexorably from well-established fact to well-established fact, never being influenced by any improved conjecture, is quite mistaken. \end{frame} \begin{frame} - It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal to two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? \end{frame} \begin{frame} - We like to believe that Man is in some subtle way superior to the rest of creation. \end{frame} \begin{frame} - The view that machines cannot give rise to surprises is due, I believe, to a fallacy to which philosophers and mathematicians are particularly subject. \end{frame} \end{document}