Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of expert system (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive abilities across a vast array of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to particular jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that greatly surpasses human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered one of the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main goal of AI research and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study recognized 72 active AGI research and advancement jobs across 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for attaining AGI stays a subject of ongoing dispute among scientists and specialists. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or years; others preserve it may take a century or longer; a minority think it may never ever be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has expressed concerns about the quick development towards AGI, recommending it could be accomplished earlier than lots of anticipate. [7]

There is dispute on the specific definition of AGI and regarding whether modern large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical topic in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have specified that alleviating the threat of human termination postured by AGI ought to be a worldwide priority. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to present such a danger. [16] [17]

Terminology

AGI is likewise referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or basic intelligent action. [21]

Some scholastic sources schedule the term “strong AI” for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one particular issue but does not have basic cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources utilize “weak AI” to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the very same sense as human beings. [a]

Related principles include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical type of AGI that is far more typically smart than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI connects to AI having a big effect on society, for instance, similar to the farming or commercial transformation. [24]

A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify five levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a proficient AGI is defined as an AI that outperforms 50% of competent adults in a large range of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise specified however with a limit of 100%. They consider big language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

Various popular definitions of intelligence have been proposed. Among the leading propositions is the Turing test. However, there are other well-known definitions, and some researchers disagree with the more popular approaches. [b]

Intelligence qualities

Researchers usually hold that intelligence is needed to do all of the following: [27]

reason, usage method, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent understanding, including sound judgment understanding
plan
learn
– communicate in natural language
– if needed, incorporate these skills in completion of any given objective

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) consider extra characteristics such as creativity (the capability to form novel mental images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that display a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated thinking, choice support group, suvenir51.ru robotic, evolutionary calculation, intelligent representative). There is dispute about whether modern-day AI systems possess them to an appropriate degree.

Physical characteristics

Other capabilities are thought about preferable in smart systems, as they might impact intelligence or help in its expression. These consist of: [30]

– the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
– the ability to act (e.g. relocation and control things, modification place to check out, etc).

This consists of the capability to identify and react to hazard. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and control things, modification place to check out, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) might already be or become AGI. Even from a less positive point of view on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system is sufficient, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This analysis lines up with the understanding that AGI has never ever been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and thus does not demand a capability for locomotion or traditional “eyes and ears”. [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests suggested to verify human-level AGI have been thought about, including: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the maker has to try and pretend to be a man, by addressing questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A significant portion of a jury, who ought to not be professional about devices, must be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete problems

A problem is informally called “AI-complete” or “AI-hard” if it is believed that in order to solve it, one would require to implement AGI, due to the fact that the service is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are many issues that have been conjectured to require general intelligence to solve as well as people. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unexpected scenarios while solving any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a device to check out and write in both languages, follow the author’s argument (factor), understand the context (understanding), and faithfully replicate the author’s original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be solved concurrently in order to reach human-level maker efficiency.

However, many of these jobs can now be carried out by contemporary large language models. According to Stanford University’s 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on lots of standards for reading comprehension and visual thinking. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study began in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI researchers were convinced that synthetic basic intelligence was possible and that it would exist in simply a few years. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: “makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do.” [52]

Their forecasts were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they could create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the agreement forecasts of the time. He said in 1967, “Within a generation … the issue of developing ‘artificial intelligence’ will considerably be fixed”. [54]

Several classical AI projects, such as Doug Lenat’s Cyc task (that began in 1984), and Allen Newell’s Soar project, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being obvious that researchers had actually grossly underestimated the trouble of the project. Funding companies became doubtful of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce useful “applied AI“. [c] In the early 1980s, Japan’s Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI objectives like “continue a casual discussion”. [58] In response to this and the success of expert systems, both industry and government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI spectacularly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never fulfilled. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI scientists who forecasted the impending accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a reputation for making vain pledges. They ended up being reluctant to make forecasts at all [d] and prevented mention of “human level” expert system for worry of being identified “wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved business success and scholastic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce proven outcomes and commercial applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These “applied AI” systems are now used thoroughly throughout the innovation industry, and research study in this vein is heavily funded in both academic community and market. Since 2018 [upgrade], development in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a fully grown stage was expected to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the millenium, numerous mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI might be established by combining programs that solve different sub-problems. Hans Moravec wrote in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day satisfy the conventional top-down route majority way, ready to provide the real-world competence and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in reasoning programs. Fully smart devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the two efforts. [65]

However, even at the time, this was contested. For instance, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the symbol grounding hypothesis by stating:

The expectation has actually typically been voiced that “top-down” (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow satisfy “bottom-up” (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly only one viable path from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this route (or vice versa) – nor is it clear why we need to even try to reach such a level, given that it looks as if arriving would just amount to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic significances (thereby simply decreasing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern synthetic general intelligence research study

The term “synthetic general intelligence” was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the implications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent increases “the capability to please goals in a large range of environments”. [68] This type of AGI, defined by the ability to increase a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of display human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal synthetic intelligence. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as “producing publications and initial outcomes”. The first summer school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university’s Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was provided in 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, organized by Lex Fridman and including a number of visitor speakers.

As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer researchers are active in AGI research study, and lots of add to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more scientists are interested in open-ended knowing, [76] [77] which is the concept of enabling AI to constantly discover and innovate like humans do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the advancement and potential achievement of AGI remains a topic of intense dispute within the AI community. While conventional consensus held that AGI was a remote goal, recent improvements have actually led some scientists and industry figures to claim that early types of AGI may already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that “machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do”. This prediction stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century due to the fact that it would require “unforeseeable and fundamentally unforeseeable breakthroughs” and a “scientifically deep understanding of cognition”. [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf between modern computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as wide as the gulf between present area flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more challenge is the lack of clearness in defining what intelligence involves. Does it require consciousness? Must it display the capability to set goals in addition to pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as preparation, reasoning, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence require explicitly duplicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it require feelings? [81]

Most AI scientists think strong AI can be attained in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who think human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of progress is such that a date can not accurately be anticipated. [84] AI experts’ views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four polls performed in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the mean estimate amongst professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% answered with “never ever” when asked the exact same concern however with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress factors to consider can be discovered above Tests for validating human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute found that “over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong bias towards forecasting the arrival of human-level AI as in between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made”. They examined 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists released a detailed evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: “Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4’s capabilities, our company believe that it could fairly be seen as an early (yet still insufficient) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.” [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outperforms 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a substantial level of general intelligence has actually currently been attained with frontier designs. They wrote that unwillingness to this view comes from 4 main factors: a “healthy uncertainty about metrics for AGI”, an “ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques”, a “dedication to human (or biological) exceptionalism”, or a “issue about the financial implications of AGI”. [91]

2023 also marked the emergence of large multimodal designs (big language models efficient in processing or producing multiple modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that “invest more time thinking before they respond”. According to Mira Murati, this ability to think before responding represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It enhances design outputs by investing more computing power when creating the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm improves outputs by increasing the design size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the business had actually achieved AGI, stating, “In my opinion, we have currently accomplished AGI and it’s a lot more clear with O1.” Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet “much better than any human at any job”, it is “better than most humans at a lot of tasks.” He also addressed criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the clinical approach of observing, assuming, and validating. These declarations have actually triggered dispute, as they depend on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI’s designs show remarkable adaptability, they may not totally fulfill this standard. Notably, Kazemi’s remarks came quickly after OpenAI removed “AGI” from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business’s tactical intentions. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually traditionally gone through periods of fast progress separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were fundamental advances in hardware, software application or both to create space for further development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware available in the twentieth century was not enough to carry out deep knowing, which needs great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time required before a really flexible AGI is built vary from ten years to over a century. Since 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research community appeared to be that the timeline talked about by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have offered a large variety of viewpoints on whether development will be this rapid. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints found a bias towards predicting that the beginning of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern-day and historical predictions alike. That paper has actually been slammed for how it classified viewpoints as expert or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton developed a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, considerably much better than the second-best entry’s rate of 26.3% (the conventional approach used a weighted amount of ratings from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the current deep knowing wave. [105]

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on openly readily available and freely available weak AI such as Google AI, Apple’s Siri, and others. At the maximum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds roughly to a six-year-old child in first grade. A grownup pertains to about 100 usually. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum worth of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language design efficient in carrying out many varied jobs without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat article, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is considered by some to be too advanced to be categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the very same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and provided a chatbot-developing platform called “Project December”. OpenAI requested for changes to the chatbot to adhere to their safety standards; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a “general-purpose” system efficient in carrying out more than 600 different tasks. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a research study on an early variation of OpenAI’s GPT-4, competing that it displayed more general intelligence than previous AI models and demonstrated human-level efficiency in tasks covering multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered an argument on whether GPT-4 might be considered an early, insufficient version of artificial basic intelligence, stressing the requirement for additional exploration and assessment of such systems. [111]

In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton specified that: [112]

The concept that this things could actually get smarter than individuals – a few people believed that, […] But the majority of people believed it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that “The progress in the last few years has actually been pretty incredible”, which he sees no reason that it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a years and even a couple of years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, stated his expectation that within five years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least along with human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI staff member, estimated AGI by 2027 to be “noticeably plausible”. [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising path to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can work as an alternative technique. With whole brain simulation, a brain model is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation design need to be adequately devoted to the initial, so that it behaves in virtually the very same method as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is talked about in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has been discussed in synthetic intelligence research [103] as a technique to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that could deliver the needed detailed understanding are improving rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of enough quality will appear on a comparable timescale to the computing power required to imitate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computers or GPUs would be needed, offered the massive amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, supporting by their adult years. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain’s processing power, based on a simple switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at different quotes for the hardware required to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 calculations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a “computation” was comparable to one “floating-point operation” – a step used to rate current supercomputers – then 1016 “calculations” would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to predict the required hardware would be available at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer system power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has actually developed a particularly in-depth and openly available atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based methods

The synthetic neuron model presumed by Kurzweil and used in lots of existing synthetic neural network implementations is simple compared to biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the detailed cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently comprehended only in broad overview. The overhead presented by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil’s price quote. In addition, the price quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive procedures. [125]

A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain approach stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is a vital element of human intelligence and is required to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is proper, any completely practical brain model will require to include more than just the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, however it is unidentified whether this would be adequate.

Philosophical perspective

“Strong AI” as specified in philosophy

In 1980, thinker John Searle coined the term “strong AI” as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference in between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can have “a mind” and “consciousness”.
Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (only) imitate it believes and has a mind and awareness.

The very first one he called “strong” because it makes a more powerful declaration: it presumes something unique has actually taken place to the maker that goes beyond those capabilities that we can test. The behaviour of a “weak AI” machine would be exactly similar to a “strong AI” device, but the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This use is likewise typical in academic AI research and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term “strong AI” to imply “human level artificial general intelligence”. [102] This is not the exact same as Searle’s strong AI, unless it is assumed that awareness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic theorists such as Searle do not think that holds true, and to most expert system researchers the question is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, “as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation.” [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to understand if it in fact has mind – indeed, there would be no method to tell. For AI research, Searle’s “weak AI hypothesis” is comparable to the declaration “artificial basic intelligence is possible”. Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, “most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and don’t care about the strong AI hypothesis.” [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research study, “Strong AI” and “AGI” are two different things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have various meanings, and some elements play substantial roles in science fiction and the ethics of expert system:

Sentience (or “phenomenal consciousness”): The capability to “feel” perceptions or emotions subjectively, instead of the ability to factor about understandings. Some philosophers, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term “consciousness” to refer exclusively to remarkable consciousness, which is roughly equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience develops is called the tough issue of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it “seems like” something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it doesn’t seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can smartly ask “what does it seem like to be a bat?” However, we are unlikely to ask “what does it seem like to be a toaster?” Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the business’s AI chatbot, LaMDA, had achieved sentience, though this claim was commonly contested by other experts. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different person, especially to be purposely knowledgeable about one’s own thoughts. This is opposed to simply being the “topic of one’s believed”-an operating system or debugger is able to be “knowledgeable about itself” (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents whatever else)-however this is not what people generally indicate when they use the term “self-awareness”. [g]
These traits have an ethical dimension. AI life would trigger concerns of well-being and legal protection, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness associated to cognitive abilities are also appropriate to the idea of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to incorporate advanced AI with existing legal and social frameworks is an emergent concern. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a variety of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist mitigate different problems in the world such as cravings, hardship and health problems. [139]

AGI might enhance performance and efficiency in a lot of jobs. For example, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research study, notably versus cancer. [140] It might look after the elderly, [141] and equalize access to fast, top quality medical diagnostics. It could use fun, inexpensive and customized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could become obsolete if the wealth produced is effectively rearranged. [141] [142] This also raises the concern of the place of humans in a drastically automated society.

AGI could likewise help to make logical decisions, and to prepare for and prevent catastrophes. It could also assist to reap the benefits of potentially disastrous innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated threats. [143] If an AGI’s main objective is to avoid existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which might be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it might take procedures to drastically minimize the risks [143] while reducing the impact of these measures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential risks

AGI might represent several types of existential threat, which are dangers that threaten “the early termination of Earth-originating intelligent life or the long-term and extreme damage of its potential for preferable future advancement”. [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has been the subject of lots of disputes, but there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would lead to a permanently problematic future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread and preserve the set of values of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has moral blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, avoiding ethical progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might facilitate mass surveillance and indoctrination, which could be used to create a stable repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is likewise a danger for the devices themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of ethical consideration are mass produced in the future, engaging in a civilizational path that forever ignores their well-being and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might improve humankind’s future and assistance decrease other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential threats “an argument for continuing with due caution”, not for “abandoning AI“. [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI postures an existential threat for human beings, and that this risk requires more attention, is questionable but has actually been backed in 2023 by many public figures, AI researchers and CEOs of AI companies such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed extensive indifference:

So, facing possible futures of enormous benefits and threats, the specialists are undoubtedly doing whatever possible to ensure the best result, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message saying, ‘We’ll show up in a couple of years,’ would we just respond, ‘OK, call us when you get here-we’ll leave the lights on?’ Probably not-but this is more or less what is occurring with AI. [153]

The possible fate of humankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that higher intelligence allowed humankind to control gorillas, which are now vulnerable in ways that they could not have actually anticipated. As an outcome, the gorilla has become a threatened species, not out of malice, however merely as a security damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to control humanity and that we should beware not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for human beings. He stated that people will not be “wise sufficient to design super-intelligent makers, yet extremely stupid to the point of giving it moronic objectives without any safeguards”. [155] On the other side, the concept of important convergence suggests that practically whatever their objectives, intelligent agents will have reasons to attempt to endure and acquire more power as intermediary steps to attaining these goals. Which this does not require having emotions. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential risk supporter for more research study into fixing the “control problem” to answer the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers implement to increase the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of harmful, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is complicated by the AI arms race (which could cause a race to the bottom of safety precautions in order to launch products before rivals), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can pose existential threat also has detractors. Skeptics usually state that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other concerns related to existing AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for many individuals outside of the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently viewed as though they were AGI, resulting in further misunderstanding and fear. [162]

Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an irrational belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists think that the communication campaigns on AI existential risk by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at effort at regulative capture and to inflate interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other industry leaders and researchers, provided a joint declaration asserting that “Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI need to be a global concern along with other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.” [152]

Mass unemployment

Researchers from OpenAI estimated that “80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of employees may see a minimum of 50% of their jobs impacted”. [166] [167] They consider office employees to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI could have a better autonomy, ability to make choices, to user interface with other computer system tools, however likewise to manage robotized bodies.

According to Stephen Hawking, the outcome of automation on the lifestyle will depend on how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]

Everyone can enjoy a life of elegant leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many people can wind up badly poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend appears to be toward the 2nd option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk thinks about that the automation of society will need governments to adopt a universal basic income. [168]

See also

Artificial brain – Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI safety – Research location on making AI safe and helpful
AI alignment – AI conformance to the designated objective
A.I. Rising – 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated maker learning – Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative – Collaborative public-private research study initiative announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute – Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre
General video game playing – Ability of expert system to play various video games
Generative synthetic intelligence – AI system capable of creating material in action to prompts
Human Brain Project – Scientific research job
Intelligence amplification – Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine ethics – Moral behaviours of man-made machines.
Moravec’s paradox.
Multi-task learning – Solving multiple maker learning tasks at the same time.
Neural scaling law – Statistical law in machine knowing.
Outline of artificial intelligence – Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism – Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence – Alternate term for or kind of expert system.
Transfer knowing – Artificial intelligence strategy.
Loebner Prize – Annual AI competition.
Hardware for synthetic intelligence – Hardware specifically created and enhanced for expert system.
Weak expert system – Form of synthetic intelligence.

Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term “strong AI“, and see the scholastic definition of “strong AI” and weak AI in the short article Chinese space.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: “we can not yet identify in basic what type of computational procedures we wish to call intelligent. ” [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence utilized by synthetic intelligence researchers, see philosophy of synthetic intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI‘s “grandiose objectives” and led the dismantling of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to fund just “mission-oriented direct research study, rather than fundamental undirected research study”. [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes “it would be an excellent relief to the rest of the workers in AI if the developers of brand-new basic formalisms would express their hopes in a more secured type than has actually often held true.” [61] ^ In “Mind Children” [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not “cps”, which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As specified in a basic AI textbook: “The assertion that makers might possibly act smartly (or, perhaps better, act as if they were smart) is called the ‘weak AI‘ hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that makers that do so are actually thinking (rather than mimicing thinking) is called the ‘strong AI‘ hypothesis.” [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). “What is synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?”. VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is designed to carry out a single job.
^ “OpenAI Charter”. OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to guarantee that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). “Mark Zuckerberg’s new goal is creating synthetic general intelligence”. The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop AI that is much better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Study of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D tasks were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c “AI timelines: What do experts in artificial intelligence expect for the future?”. Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). “Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles”. The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ “AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton stops Google and alerts of threat ahead”. The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is tough to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4”. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows sparks of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change modifications you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). “The True Threat of Expert System”. The New York City Times. The real risk is not AI itself but the way we deploy it.
^ “Impressed by expert system? Experts say AGI is following, and it has ‘existential’ threats”. ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might pose existential threats to humanity.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last invention that mankind requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). “A.I. Poses ‘Risk of Extinction,’ Warn”. The New York Times. Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI ought to be a worldwide concern.
^ “Statement on AI Risk”. Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists alert of risk of extinction from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). “Are AI‘s Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?”. The New York City Times. We are far from creating devices that can outthink us in general ways.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). “AGI does not provide an existential danger”. Medium. There is no reason to fear AI as an existential danger.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), “Long Live AI“, Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as “device intelligence with the complete series of human intelligence.”.
^ “The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013”. Archived from the original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use for “human-level” intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis.
^ “The Open University on Strong and Weak AI“. Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ “What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget”. Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ “Artificial intelligence is transforming our world – it is on everybody to ensure that it works out”. Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). “Here is how far we are to attaining AGI, according to DeepMind”. VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). “Basic Questions”. Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent characteristics is based upon the topics covered by major AI textbooks, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we think: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). “Motivation reassessed: The principle of competence”. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). “Motivation reevaluated: The principle of skills”. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). “What is AGI?”. Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ “What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence”. Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). “AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for ‘intelligence’. What happens when it does?”. The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ “Eugene Goostman is a genuine kid – the Turing Test states so”. The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ “Scientists contest whether computer ‘Eugene Goostman’ passed Turing test”. BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). “People can not differentiate GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test”. arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). “AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar test to AP Biology. Here’s a list of challenging tests both AI variations have actually passed”. Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). “6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It”. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). “The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a ‘Turing Olympics'”. Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). “Turing Test is unreliable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the answer”. Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). “DeepMind’s co-founder suggested testing an AI chatbot’s ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to measure human-like intelligence”. Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). “Mustafa Suleyman: My brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million”. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). “Expert System” (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on “AI-Complete Tasks”.).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). “Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness” (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 May 2013.
^ “AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts”. Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). “Expert System, Business and Civilization – Our Fate Made in Machines”. Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 estimated in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ “Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky”. Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, “Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment”.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see also Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). “Respond to Lighthill”. Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). “Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People”. The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system scientists and software engineers avoided the term synthetic intelligence for worry of being deemed wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ “Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle”. Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). “The Symbol Grounding Problem”. Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD … 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ “Who coined the term “AGI”?”. goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., by means of Life 3.0: ‘The term “AGI” was popularized by … Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel’
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ “First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summer school: June 22 – July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009”. Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ “Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 – пролетен триместър” [Elective courses 2009/2010 – spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ “Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 – зимен триместър” [Elective courses 2010/2011 – winter trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). “The limits of maker intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a significant difficulty”. EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4”. arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ “Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing “Sparks” of AGI”. Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). “The Singularity Isn’t Near”. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. “Expert system will not develop into a Frankenstein’s beast”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Deane, George (2022 ). “Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence”. Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071.
^ a b c Clocksin 2003.
^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). “Why basic synthetic intelligence will not be recognized”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). “The Doomsday Invention: Will expert system bring us paradise or damage?”. The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in expert system: A survey of professional viewpoint. In Fundamental issues of expert system (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. “How We’re Predicting AI-or Failing To.” In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ “Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows ‘Sparks’ of General Intelligence”. 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). “AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test”. Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). “The creativity of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test”. Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). “Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here”. Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). “Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024”. Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ “Introducing OpenAI o1-preview”. OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. “OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step”. Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ “OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved”. Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ “AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts”. hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ “Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta’s Leap Towards Reasoning Machines”. Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). “The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development”. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng; Deng, Ning; Wu, Si; Wang, Yu; Wu, Yujie (2019 ). “Towards artificial basic intelligence with hybrid Tianjic chip architecture”. Nature. 572 (7767 ): 106-111. Bibcode:2019 Natur.572..106 P. doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1424-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 31367028. S2CID 199056116. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). “The transformational role of GPU computing and deep knowing in drug discovery”. Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559.
^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006.
^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260).
^ a b c Goertzel 2007.
^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). “Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012”. AI Impacts (blog). Archived from the original on 4 December 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
^ a b Butz, Martin V. (1 March 2021). “Towards Strong AI“. KI – Künstliche Intelligenz. 35 (1 ): 91-101. doi:10.1007/ s13218-021-00705-x. ISSN 1610-1987. S2CID 256065190.
^ Liu, Feng; Shi, Yong; Liu, Ying (2017 ). “Intelligence Quotient and Intelligence Grade of Expert System”. Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130.
^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). “Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri” [Google AI is twice as wise as Siri – but a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the initial on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). “We’re going into the AI golden zone between narrow and general AI“. VentureBeat. Archived from the initial on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim we are currently seeing an early example of an AGI system in the recently announced GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. … So is GPT-3 the very first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, but the consensus is that it is not AGI. … If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium in between narrow and general AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. “A designer constructed an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that assisted a guy speak once again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down”. The Register. Archived from the initial on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), “DeepMind’s brand-new AI can perform over 600 tasks, from playing video games to managing robotics”, TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, obtained 12 June 2022.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4”. arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ Metz, Cade (1 May 2023). “‘ The Godfather of A.I.’ Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ Bove, Tristan. “A.I. could measure up to human intelligence in ‘simply a couple of years,’ says CEO of Google’s main A.I. research study lab”. Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). “Nvidia CEO says AI could pass human tests in five years”. Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. “SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead”.
^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). “Why everyone appears to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence”. Fast Company.
^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). “The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence”. Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
^ Hickey, Alex. “Whole Brain Emulation: A Giant Step for Neuroscience”. Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023.
^ Sandberg & Boström 2008.
^ Drachman 2005.
^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003.
^ Moravec 1988, p. 61.
^ Moravec 1998.
^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). “Decade-long European research project maps the human brain”. euractiv.
^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). “Glia-the other brain cells”. Discover. Archived from the initial on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A large range of views in existing research study, all of which require grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). “How publishing our minds to a computer system might end up being possible”. The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023.
^ Searle 1980
^ For instance: Russell & Norvig 2003,
Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (priced quote in” Encyclopedia.com”),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced estimate in “AITopics”),.
Will Biological Computers Enable Artificially Intelligent Machines to Become Persons? Archived 13 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Anthony Tongen.

^ a b c Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 947.
^ though see Explainable synthetic intelligence for curiosity by the field about why a program behaves the method it does.
^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). “Could a Big Language Model Be Conscious?”. Boston Review.
^ Seth, Anil. “Consciousness”. New Scientist. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nagel 1974.
^ “The Google engineer who believes the business’s AI has come to life”. The Washington Post. 11 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). “AI Should Be Terrified of Humans”. TIME. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Nosta, John (18 December 2023). “Should Expert System Have Rights?”. Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). “Should Robots With Artificial Intelligence Have Moral or Legal Rights?”. The Wall Street Journal.
^ “Artificial General Intelligence – Do [es] the expense surpass benefits?”. 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ “How we can Benefit from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – Unite.AI“. www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. “What Will Our Society Appear Like When Expert System Is Everywhere?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). “Answers to Stephen Hawking’s AMA are Here!”. Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). ” § Preferred order of arrival”. Superintelligence: courses, dangers, strategies (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2.
^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). “How technological development is making it likelier than ever that humans will damage ourselves”. Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). “Climate alter an ‘existential security risk’ to Australia, Senate questions states”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023.
^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6.
^ a b Ord, Toby (2020 ). “Chapter 5: Future Risks, Unaligned Artificial Intelligence”. The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9.
^ Al-Sibai, Noor (13 February 2022). “OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious”. Futurism. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Samuelsson, Paul Conrad (2019 ). “Artificial Consciousness: Our Greatest Ethical Challenge”. Philosophy Now. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Kateman, Brian (24 July 2023). “AI Should Be Terrified of Humans”. TIME. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). “A.I. Poses ‘Risk of Extinction,’ Industry Leaders Warn”. The New York City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ a b “Statement on AI Risk”. Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ “Stephen Hawking: ‘Transcendence looks at the implications of expert system – however are we taking AI seriously enough?'”. The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
^ Herger, Mario. “The Gorilla Problem – Enterprise Garage”. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ “The interesting Facebook dispute between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI“. The fascinating Facebook argument in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ “Will Expert System Doom The Mankind Within The Next 100 Years?”. HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). “Responses to devastating AGI threat: a study”. Physica Scripta. 90 (1 ): 018001. doi:10.1088/ 0031-8949/90/ 1/018001. ISSN 0031-8949.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (First ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2.
^ Chow, Andrew R.; Perrigo, Billy (16 February 2023). “The AI Arms Race Is On. Start Worrying”. TIME. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Tetlow, Gemma (12 January 2017). “AI arms race risks spiralling out of control, report alerts”. Financial Times. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). “Experts disagree over hazard postured however expert system can not be neglected”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ “Humanity, Security & AI, Oh My! (with Ian Bremmer & Shuman Ghosemajumder)”. CAFE. 20 July 2023. Retrieved 15 September 2023.
^ Hamblin, James (9 May 2014). “But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?”. The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). “Big Tech is stiring fears over AI, alert researchers”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). “Google Brain creator says big tech is lying about AI termination threat”. Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). “GPTs are GPTs: An early look at the labor market impact capacity of big language designs”. OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). “OpenAI states 80% of employees might see their tasks affected by AI. These are the tasks most impacted”. euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). “Elon Musk states we require universal fundamental earnings because ‘in the future, manual labor will be a choice'”. Business Insider. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), “Artificial intelligence and the future”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Artificial Intelligence. New York City, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3.
Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), “Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person”, Life Magazine, pp. 58-68.
Drachman, D. (2005 ), “Do we have brain to spare?”, Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114.
Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Expert System and Japan’s Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4.
Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the initial (PDF) on 20 March 2013.
Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), “Human-level synthetic basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott’s critique of Kurzweil”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 171, no. 18, Special Review Issue, pp. 1161-1173, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.011, archived from the original on 7 January 2016, recovered 1 April 2009.
Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), “Nanotechnology and International Security”, Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the initial on 29 May 2011, recovered 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, obtained 30 August 2007.
Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5.
Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press.
Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), “Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey”, Expert System: a paper seminar, Science Research Council.
Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (5th ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7.
McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Expert system?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer programs that can fix problems and achieve goals worldwide along with humans.
Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press
Moravec, Hans (1998 ), “When will computer system hardware match the human brain?”, Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the original on 15 June 2006, recovered 23 June 2006
Nagel (1974 ), “What Is it Like to Be a Bat” (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the original on 16 October 2011, obtained 7 November 2009
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1976 ). “Computer Technology as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search”. Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022.
Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, ISBN 978-1-5586-0467-4
NRC (1999 ), “Developments in Artificial Intelligence”, Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the initial on 12 January 2008, obtained 29 September 2007
Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, obtained 6 December 2007
Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Expert System: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-790395-2
Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008 ), Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF), Technical Report # 2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2020, retrieved 5 April 2009
Searle, John (1980 ), “Minds, Brains and Programs” (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3 ): 417-457, doi:10.1017/ S0140525X00005756, S2CID 55303721, archived (PDF) from the initial on 17 March 2019, obtained 3 September 2020
Simon, H. A. (1965 ), The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York City: Harper & Row
Turing, Alan (October 1950). “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”. Mind. 59 (236 ): 433-460. doi:10.1093/ mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.

de Vega, Manuel; Glenberg, Arthur; Graesser, Arthur, eds. (2008 ), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-1992-1727-4
Wang, Pei; Goertzel, Ben (2007 ). “Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence”. Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. IOS Press. pp. 1-16. ISBN 978-1-5860-3758-1. Archived from the initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 – through ResearchGate.

Further reading

Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1
Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), “Equal numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain”, The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the initial on 18 February 2021, obtained 4 September 2013 – via ResearchGate
Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, recovered 31 August 2012
Cukier, Kenneth, “Ready for Robots? How to Think of the Future of AI“, Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, composes (in what may be called “Dyson’s Law”) that “Any system basic sufficient to be reasonable will not be made complex enough to act intelligently, while any system made complex enough to act wisely will be too complicated to understand.” (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland composes: “Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead basic foolish. They work, however they work by brute force.” (p. 198.).
Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the initial on 26 July 2010, obtained 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, “The Fate of Free Will” (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. “Agency is what distinguishes us from makers. For biological creatures, factor and purpose come from acting worldwide and experiencing the consequences. Expert systems – disembodied, complete strangers to blood, sweat, and tears – have no celebration for that.” (p. 30.).
Halal, William E. “TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 June 2013.
– Halpern, Sue, “The Coming Tech Autocracy” (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI‘s Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind’s Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. “‘ We can’t reasonably expect that those who intend to get abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,’ … composes [Gary Marcus] ‘We can’t depend on governments driven by campaign finance contributions [from tech companies] to push back.’ … Marcus information the needs that people should make of their federal governments and the tech business. They consist of openness on how AI systems work; settlement for individuals if their information [are] utilized to train LLMs (large language model) s and the right to consent to this usage; and the capability to hold tech business accountable for the damages they bring on by eliminating Section 230, enforcing cash penalites, and passing more stringent item liability laws … Marcus likewise suggests … that a new, AI-specific federal agency, similar to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might provide the most robust oversight … [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma … recommends … develop [ing] a professional licensing program for engineers that would operate in a similar method to medical licenses, malpractice suits, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. ‘What if, like doctors,’ she asks …, ‘AI engineers likewise promised to do no damage?'” (p. 46.).
Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), “Abstraction and reformulation in expert system”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 358, no. 1435, pp. 1197-1204, doi:10.1098/ rstb.2003.1317, PMC 1693218, PMID 12903653.
Hughes-Castleberry, Kenna, “A Murder Mystery Puzzle: The literary puzzle Cain’s Jawbone, which has actually stymied humans for decades, reveals the restrictions of natural-language-processing algorithms”, Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. “This murder secret competition has actually revealed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models can extraordinary accomplishments, their abilities are quite limited by the quantity of context they receive. This […] could trigger [troubles] for scientists who hope to use them to do things such as evaluate ancient languages. In some cases, there are couple of historic records on long-gone civilizations to function as training information for such a function.” (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, “Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to generate fake videos equivalent from genuine ones. How much does it matter?”, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. “If by ‘deepfakes’ we mean realistic videos produced using artificial intelligence that really trick people, then they barely exist. The phonies aren’t deep, and the deeps aren’t fake. […] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, operating in our media as counterfeited proof. Their role much better resembles that of animations, particularly smutty ones.” (p. 59.).
– Leffer, Lauren, “The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to avoid humanizing machine-learning models used in scientific research”, Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, “The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a maker a discussion?”, The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16.
Marcus, Gary, “Artificial Confidence: Even the newest, buzziest systems of artificial basic intelligence are stymmied by the very same old issues”, Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45.
McCarthy, John (October 2007), “From here to human-level AI“, Artificial Intelligence, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009.
McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (2nd ed.), Natick, Massachusetts: A. K. Peters, ISBN 1-5688-1205-1.
Moravec, Hans (1976 ), The Role of Raw Power in Intelligence, archived from the initial on 3 March 2016, obtained 29 September 2007.
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), “GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought”, in Feigenbaum, E. A.; Feldman, J. (eds.), Computers and Thought, New York City: McGraw-Hill.
Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, provided and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California.
Press, Eyal, “In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition innovation lead police to neglect inconsistent evidence?”, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, “AI‘s IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test but showed that intelligence can not be determined by IQ alone”, Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 1 (July/August 2023), p. 7. “Despite its high IQ, ChatGPT stops working at jobs that need real humanlike thinking or an understanding of the physical and social world … ChatGPT appeared unable to factor logically and attempted to depend on its huge database of … truths obtained from online texts. ”
– Scharre, Paul, “Killer Apps: The Real Dangers of an AI Arms Race”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 3 (May/June 2019), pp. 135-44. “Today’s AI technologies are powerful however undependable. Rules-based systems can not handle situations their developers did not anticipate. Learning systems are restricted by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually currently caused disaster. Advanced auto-pilot functions in vehicles, although they perform well in some situations, have driven automobiles without warning into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked vehicles. In the incorrect scenario, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an enemy is trying to manipulate and hack an AI system, the risks are even higher.” (p. 140.).
Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), “Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression”, International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267.
– Vincent, James, “Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots”, London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32.” [AI chatbot] programs are made possible by new innovations but rely on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise.” (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.