Up to a point, it is better to just let the snags [bugs] be there than to spend such time in design that there are none.

Programming is a skill best acquired by practice and example rather than from books.

I am not very impressed with theological arguments whatever they may be used to support. Such arguments have often been found unsatisfactory in the past. In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, 'And the sun stood still... and hasted not to go down about a whole day' (Joshua x. 13) and 'He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time' (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.

If a machine is expected to be infallible, it cannot also be intelligent.

A computer would deserve to be called intelligent if it could deceive a human into believing that it was human.

We may hope that machines will eventually compete with men in all purely intellectual fields. But which are the best ones to start with? Many people think that a very abstract activity, like the playing of chess, would be best. It can also be maintained that it is best to provide the machine with the best sense organs that money can buy, and then teach it to understand and speak English.

We are not interested in the fact that the brain has the consistency of cold porridge.