I suggest you pause and have two discussion with yourself on the topic,

Can Machines Think?

and review why it is important to come to your own evaluation of what machines can and cannot do in your future. Consider the following list of observations:

1. Just because computers have not yet been programmed to think does not mean they cannot think; it may mean programmers are stupid!

2. Just because you want to believe that machines can think does not mean they can; it may only be wishful thinking!

3. Art Samuel's checker program "learned" from experience so machines can apparently learn from experience.

4. The new proof in the isosceles triangle theorem showed "originality"—perhaps as much as you have ever done!

5. Try to imagine the shortest, or close to the shortest, program you believe could think. No subpiece could think by definition.

6. Remember "logical" and "psychological" novelty.

7. Whatever your opinion is, what evidence would you accept you are wrong?

8. Thinking may be a matter of degree and not a yes/no thing.

9.Consider thinking may be the way something is done rather than what is done which determines whether it occurs or not. AI has traditionally stuck to the "what is done" and seldom considered the "how it is done".

You could begin your discussion begins with my observation which ever position you adopt there is the other side, and I do not care what you believe so long as you have good reasons and can explain them clearly. That is my task, to make you think on this awkward topic, and not to give any answers.

Year after year such discussions are generally quite hostile to machines, though it is getting less so every year. They often start with remarks such as, "I would not want to have my life depend on a machine." to which the reply is, "You are opposed to using pacemakers to keep people alive?" Modern pilots cannot control their airplanes but must depend on machines to stabilize them. In the emergency ward of modern hospitals you are automatically connected to a computer which monitors your vital signs and under many circumstances will call a nurse long before any human could note and do anything. The plain fact is your life is often controlled by machines and sometimes they are essential to your life—you just do not like to be reminded of it.

"I do not want machines to control my life."—you do not want stop and go lights at intersections! See above for some other answers. Often humans can cooperate with a machine far better than with other humans!

"Machines can never do things humans can do". I observe in return machines can do things no human can do. And in any case, how sure are you for any clearly prespecified thing machines (programs) apparently cannot now do and in time still could not do it better than humans can? (Perhaps "clearly specified" means you can write a program!) And in any case how relevant are these supposed differences to your career?

The people are generally sure they are more than a machine, but usually can give no real argument as to why there is a difference, unless they appeal to their religion, and with foreign students of very different faiths around they are reluctant to do so—though obviously most (though not all) religions share the belief man is different, in one way or another, from the rest of life on Earth.

Another level of objections to the use of computers is in the area of experts. People are sure the machine can never compete, ignoring all the advantages the machines have (see end of Chapter 1). These are: economics, speed, accuracy, reliability, rapidity of control, freedom from boredom, bandwidth in and out, ease of retraining, hostile environments, and personnel problems. They always seem to cling to their supposed superiority rather than try to find places where machines can improve matters! It is difficult to get people to look at machines as a good thing to use whenever they will work; they keep their feelings people are somehow superior in some area—and of course there are such areas, but at present they are seldom where you first think they are. It is the combination of man-machine which is important, and not the supposed conflict which arises from their all too human egos.

A second useful discussion is on the topic:

Future applications of computers to their area of expertise.

All too often people report on past and present applications, which is good, but not on the topic whose purpose is to sensitize you to future possibilities you might exploit. It is hard to get people to aggressively think about how things in their own area might be done differently. I have some times wondered whether it might be better if I asked people to apply computers to other areas of application than their own narrow speciality; perhaps they would be less inhibited there!

Since the purpose, as stated above, is to get the reader to think more carefully on the awkward topics of machines "thinking" and their vision of their personal future, you the reader should take your own opinions and try first to express them clearly, and then examine them with counter arguments, back and forth, until you are fairly clear as to what you believe and why you believe it. It is none of the author's business in this matter what you believe, but it is the author's business to get you to think and articulate your position clearly. For readers of the book I suggest instead of reading the next pages you stop and discuss with yourself, or possibly friends, these nasty problems; the surer you are of one side the more you should probably argue the other side!