Bob Schwartz

Tag: science fiction

Thinking Machines or Artificial Intelligence?

Science-Fiction Thinking Machines, edited by Groff Conklin (1955)

I unearthed the above book, Science-Fiction Thinking Machines (1955), this weekend. The twelve stories are written by sci-fi greats including Isaac Asimov, Clifford Simak, Theodore Sturgeon and Poul Anderson.


Robots…Androids…Electronic Brains

The mechanical men are waiting, biding their time. Imitation flesh and blood—soulless but not mindless—they were invented by man to do the world’s hard work—but how long will they let us be masters?

Read the twelve superb stories in this book, and see what the best Science Fiction writers of our time think might happen…or what might be happening now!


Naturally, I turned to a “thinking machine” to discuss the distinctions between the two terms. Here is the transcript of my conversation with Claude.


Bob:

What is the history of the term “thinking machines” to describe what is currently referred to as “artificial intelligence”?

Claude:

The term “thinking machines” has a fascinating history that predates and overlaps with “artificial intelligence.”

Early Usage (1940s-1950s)

The phrase “thinking machines” emerged in the 1940s as computers were being developed. It was popularized by figures like Edmund Berkeley, who wrote “Giant Brains, or Machines That Think” (1949), describing early computers in accessible terms for the public. The term reflected both excitement and anxiety about machines that could perform logical operations previously requiring human thought.

Alan Turing’s landmark 1950 paper opened with the question “Can machines think?” and proposed what became the Turing Test. This paper, titled “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” helped establish “thinking machines” as a serious subject of scientific inquiry rather than just science fiction.

The Birth of “Artificial Intelligence” (1956)

The term “artificial intelligence” was coined at the 1956 Dartmouth Conference by John McCarthy and colleagues. They chose it deliberately for their research proposal, partly because it sounded more scientific and precise than alternatives like “thinking machines” or “automata studies.” The new term helped establish AI as a distinct academic field.

Divergence in Usage

After 1956, “artificial intelligence” became the dominant academic and technical term, while “thinking machines” continued in popular discourse and remained common in:

  • Popular science writing and journalism
  • Philosophical discussions about machine consciousness
  • Science fiction
  • Public debates about technology’s implications

Modern Context

Today, “thinking machines” is used more informally or rhetorically, often carrying philosophical overtones about whether machines truly “think” versus merely process information. “Artificial intelligence” remains the standard technical term, though debates continue about whether current AI systems genuinely think or simply simulate thinking through pattern matching and statistical processing.

Bob:

Do you think using the term “thinking machines” would change attitudes toward artificial intelligence?

Claude:

That’s a thought-provoking question. I think the terminology could influence attitudes in several ways:

Potential Effects of “Thinking Machines”

The term might make AI feel more tangible and relatable. “Thinking” is something everyone understands from direct experience, whereas “artificial intelligence” sounds more abstract and technical. This familiarity could cut both ways – making AI seem either more trustworthy (it thinks like we do) or more threatening (it’s a rival thinker, not just a tool).

“Thinking machines” also foregrounds the philosophical question that “artificial intelligence” somewhat obscures: Do these systems actually think? Using “thinking machines” might provoke more public debate about machine consciousness, understanding, and the nature of thought itself. This could be healthy, forcing us to grapple with what we’re actually creating.

On the other hand, “thinking machines” might anthropomorphize AI systems in unhelpful ways. It could lead people to overestimate current AI capabilities or project human-like qualities onto systems that work very differently from human cognition. “Artificial intelligence” at least signals that this is something constructed and distinct from natural intelligence.

Why Terminology Matters Less Than You Might Expect

However, I’m somewhat skeptical that terminology alone would dramatically shift attitudes. People’s views on AI seem driven more by their experiences with it, media narratives, economic concerns, and deeper values than by whether we call it “AI” or “thinking machines.” The rise of “generative AI” and “large language models” as terms hasn’t fundamentally changed the underlying debates – people still argue about the same questions of capability, safety, and impact.

What do you think? Do you sense that “thinking machines” would change how you or others relate to this technology?


Notes

1. My asking Claude “Do you think using the term…” can be called meta, or ironic, or weird, or fitting, since the topic is “thinking machines.” .

    2. Claude saying “That’s a thought-provoking question.” reflects a well-reported tendency for AI platforms to be more or less affirmative, encouraging and engaging.

    3. Claude closing by asking “What do you think?” is a typical probing, almost Socratic, question, a way of keeping the conversation going and digging deeper.

    Philip K. Dick, Now More Than Ever

    Philip K. Dick color

    Pretty much every day now, my head spins, just a little. My head does not usually and chronically spin, but it does these days. I find myself not so much trying to make sense of some things, but trying to determine whether there is or will appear some appropriate and constructive response. So far, nothing.

    Today, however, I did think about Philip K. Dick. I wrote a little about Dick a while ago. To say he was just a science fiction writer is not nearly enough. Some of his many books and stories have been turned into a number of successful movies (Blade Runner, Total Recall, etc.) and now into an excellent TV series (Man in the High Castle).

    The reason for his books being so adaptable, and for his loyal and committed readers, is that Dick was a visionary, some might say a prophet. He was also psychologically and cognitively different. The two parts often go together.

    The reason I’m thinking about Dick is the possibility that those of us who are confused about what is going on are being far too rational and far too narrow about all of it. Maybe what we need is a much bigger and stranger vision. Maybe to understand madness, we all have to try to be a little mad ourselves, or pretend to be. Just a thought.

    Anyway, Dick suffered through some mental illness and/or religious experience late in his life. Some would say Dick was a bit of a madman. Or a visionary or a prophet. In any case, if we want to know what the future might look like—or for that matter what the present looks like—we can do no better than look at it through Dick’s eyes.

    Writer Jonathan Lethem has written some fine appreciations of Dick. This is from Lethem’s Introduction to Selected Stories of Philip K. Dick:

    Dick’s great accomplishment, on view in the twenty-one stories collected here, was to turn the materials of American pulp-style science fiction into a vocabulary for a remarkably personal vision of paranoia and dislocation. It’s a vision as yearning and anxious as Kafka’s, if considerably more homely. It’s also as funny. Dick is a kitchen-sink surrealist, gaining energy and invention from a mad piling of pulp SF tropes—and clichés—into his fiction: time travel, extrasensory powers, tentacled aliens, ray guns, androids, and robots. He loves fakes and simulacra as much as he fears them: illusory worlds, bogus religions, placebo drugs, impersonated police, cyborgs. Tyrannical world governments and ruined dystopian cities are default settings here. Not only have Orwell and Huxley been taken as givens in Dick’s worlds, so have Old Masters of genre SF like Clifford Simak, Robert Heinlein, and A. E. Van Vogt. American SF by the mid-1950s was a kind of jazz, stories built by riffing on stories. The conversation they formed might be forbiddingly hermetic, if it hadn’t quickly been incorporated by Rod Serling and Marvel Comics and Steven Spielberg (among many others) to become one of the prime vocabularies of our age….

    If Dick, as a bearded, drug-taking Cal-i-fornian, might have seemed a candidate for Beatdom (and in fact did hang out with the San Francisco poets), his persistent engagement with the main materials of his culture kept him from floating off into reveries of escape. It links him instead to writers like Richard Yates, John Cheever, and Arthur Miller (the British satirist John Sladek’s bull’s-eye Dick parody was titled “Solar Shoe Salesman”). Dick’s treatment of his “realist” material can seem oddly cursory, as though the pressing agenda of his paranoiac fantasizing, which would require him to rip the facade off, drop the atomic bomb onto, or otherwise renovate ordinary reality, made that reality’s actual depiction unimportant. But no matter how many times Dick unmasks or destroys the Black Iron Prison of American suburban life, he always returns to it. Unlike the characters in William S. Burroughs, Richard Brautigan, or Thomas Pynchon, Dick’s characters, in novels and stories written well into the 1970s, go on working for grumbling bosses, carrying briefcases, sending interoffice memos, tinkering with cars in driveways, sweating alimony payments, and dreaming of getting away from it all—even when they’ve already emigrated to Mars….

    Whether or not he was ready for the world, or the world ready for him, he longed for a respectable recognition, and sought it variously and unsuccessfully throughout his life. In fact, he wrote eight novels in a somber realist mode during the 1950s and early 1960s, a shadow career known mainly to the agents who failed to place the books with various New York publishers. It’s stirring to wonder what Dick might have done with a wider professional opportunity, but there’s little doubt that his SF grew more interesting for being fed by the frustrated energies of his “mainstream” ambition. Possibly, too, a restless streak in Dick’s personality better suited him for the outsider-artist status he tasted during his lifetime….Here, from an introduction written for Golden Man, a collection of stories assembled in 1980, Dick reminisces:

    But I think you should know this—specifically, in case you are, say, in your twenties and rather poor and perhaps becoming filled with despair, whether you are an SF writer or not, whatever you want to make of your life. There can be a lot of fear, and often it is a justified fear. People do starve in America. I have seen uneducated street girls survive horrors that beggar description. I have seen the faces of men whose brains have been burned-out by drugs, men who could still think enough to be able to realize what had happened to them; I watched their clumsy attempt to weather that which cannot be weathered. . . . Kabir, the sixteenth-century Sufi poet, wrote, “If you have not lived through something, it is not true.” So live through it; I mean, go all the way to the end. Only then can it be understood, not along the way.

    Philip K. Dick’s Birthday

    Philip K. Dick color
    Yesterday was the birthday of writer Philip K. Dick (1928-1982).

    If we measure creative success by the dollars generated through adaptation and exploitation, PKD was a monumental success, though he didn’t live to see most of it. His work was the source material for Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report and other films.

    If the measure of creativity is being creative, PKD is more than just the most adventurous science fiction/speculative fiction writer of his generation. Maybe no other writer of his century, or even now, has so masterfully taken readers to the edge, and then taken them a little further. In their view of the world, many of those readers never quite come back.

    PKD lived, at least in his mind, beyond that edge. His mental instability is a matter of record, though there is still and will be questions about exactly what the clinical profile was.

    In 1974 PKD had what can be called a religious experience. The comic artist R. Crumb illustrated some of that experience, as related by PKD. You can view the entire comic here.

    PKD Crumb 1

    “There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick