Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a type of expert system (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive capabilities across a large variety of cognitive tasks. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, drapia.org refers to AGI that considerably exceeds human cognitive capabilities. AGI is thought about one of the meanings of strong AI.

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

The timeline for achieving AGI stays a subject of ongoing debate amongst scientists and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others keep it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it may never ever be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed concerns about the rapid progress towards AGI, suggesting it could be accomplished faster than many expect. [7]

There is argument on the precise definition of AGI and relating to whether contemporary big language designs (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early types of AGI. [8] AGI is a common subject in sci-fi and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many experts on AI have specified that mitigating the danger of human termination posed by AGI needs to be a worldwide concern. [14] [15] Others discover the advancement of AGI to be too remote to provide such a risk. [16] [17]

Terminology

AGI is also referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or general smart action. [21]

Some academic sources reserve the term ”strong AI” for computer system programs that experience life or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one particular problem however lacks general 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 exact same sense as people. [a]

Related ideas consist of synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a theoretical kind of AGI that is a lot more typically smart than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI associates with AI having a large effect on society, for instance, comparable to the agricultural or commercial transformation. [24]

A structure for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define 5 levels of AGI: emerging, skilled, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a qualified AGI is specified as an AI that exceeds 50% of knowledgeable grownups in a wide variety of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly specified but with a threshold of 100%. They think about big language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

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

Intelligence traits

Researchers generally hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]

factor, usage technique, solve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent knowledge, consisting of common sense knowledge
strategy
learn
– communicate in natural language
– if essential, integrate these abilities in completion of any offered objective

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) think about additional characteristics such as imagination (the ability to form unique psychological images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that show a lot of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, choice assistance system, robot, evolutionary computation, smart agent). There is debate about whether contemporary AI systems have them to an appropriate degree.

Physical traits

Other capabilities are considered preferable in intelligent systems, as they might affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These consist of: [30]

– the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
– the ability to act (e.g. move and control objects, change area to check out, etc).

This consists of the capability to spot and users.atw.hu react to danger. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. move and manipulate things, modification place to check out, etc) can be desirable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language models (LLMs) might currently be or end up being AGI. Even from a less positive perspective on LLMs, there is no company requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in location of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has actually never ever been proscribed a particular physical personification and thus does not require a capability for mobility or conventional ”eyes and ears”. [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests implied to verify human-level AGI have been considered, including: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the maker needs to try and pretend to be a male, by answering concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is fairly persuading. A considerable portion of a jury, who must not be professional about devices, should be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues

A problem is informally called ”AI-complete” or ”AI-hard” if it is thought that in order to resolve it, one would require to carry out AGI, due to the fact that the solution is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are lots of problems that have actually been conjectured to require general intelligence to fix along with people. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unforeseen scenarios while fixing any real-world issue. [48] Even a specific task like translation needs a maker to check out and write in both languages, follow the author’s argument (factor), comprehend the context (understanding), and consistently replicate the author’s initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be solved at the same time in order to reach human-level machine efficiency.

However, a lot of these tasks can now be carried out by modern-day big language designs. According to Stanford University’s 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level performance on many criteria for checking out comprehension and visual reasoning. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study started in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI scientists were persuaded that synthetic basic intelligence was possible which it would exist in simply a few years. [51] AI pioneer 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 motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI scientists believed they might produce by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as practical as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He said in 1967, ”Within a generation … the problem of creating ’synthetic intelligence’ will substantially be solved”. [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being apparent that scientists had actually grossly ignored the problem of the job. Funding companies ended up being hesitant of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce beneficial ”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 goals like ”continue a casual discussion”. [58] In response to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and federal government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI spectacularly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never satisfied. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI scientists who forecasted the impending accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a reputation for making vain pledges. They became hesitant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided reference of ”human level” synthetic intelligence for fear of being labeled ”wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained commercial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and business applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These ”applied AI” systems are now used thoroughly throughout the technology market, and research in this vein is greatly funded in both academia and market. Since 2018 [update], advancement in this field was thought about an emerging trend, and a mature stage was expected to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the millenium, many traditional AI scientists [65] hoped that strong AI might be established by integrating programs that fix various sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up path to synthetic intelligence will one day meet the traditional top-down route over half method, ready to provide the real-world competence and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in reasoning programs. Fully smart machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the 2 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 mentioning:

The expectation has actually typically been voiced that ”top-down” (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill ”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 just one feasible route from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this path (or vice versa) – nor is it clear why we ought to even try to reach such a level, considering that it appears getting there would simply total up to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (consequently simply reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research

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

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

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 learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of enabling AI to continuously discover and innovate like people do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the development and potential accomplishment of AGI stays a topic of intense dispute within the AI neighborhood. While standard consensus held that AGI was a distant objective, recent improvements have actually led some researchers and industry figures to declare that early kinds of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that ”makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do”. This forecast stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century since it would require ”unforeseeable and essentially unpredictable breakthroughs” and a ”scientifically deep understanding of cognition”. [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level expert system is as wide as the gulf in between present area flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more difficulty is the absence of clarity in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it show the capability to set goals as well as pursue them? Is it purely 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 clearly duplicating the brain and its particular professors? Does it require feelings? [81]

Most AI researchers think strong AI can be attained in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of attaining strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who think human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of development is such that a date can not accurately be forecasted. [84] AI specialists’ views on the feasibility of AGI wax and subside. Four polls performed in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the typical quote among professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% answered with ”never” when asked the exact same concern but with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further present AGI development factors to consider can be found above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered 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 prediction was made”. They evaluated 95 forecasts made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists released an in-depth examination of GPT-4. They concluded: ”Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4’s abilities, our company believe that it could fairly be deemed an early (yet still incomplete) variation of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.” [88] Another study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 exceeds 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a substantial level of general intelligence has already been accomplished with frontier models. They composed that reluctance to this view originates from four main factors: a ”healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI”, an ”ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or methods”, a ”commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism”, or a ”issue about the financial implications of AGI”. [91]

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

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

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had attained AGI, stating, ”In my opinion, we have actually currently achieved AGI and it’s a lot more clear with O1.” Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet ”better than any human at any job”, it is ”better than many people at a lot of tasks.” He also addressed criticisms that big language models (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the scientific approach of observing, hypothesizing, and confirming. These declarations have sparked argument, as they count on a broad and non-traditional meaning of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI’s designs show amazing flexibility, they might not fully meet this requirement. Notably, Kazemi’s remarks came quickly after OpenAI got rid of ”AGI” from the terms of its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business’s tactical intents. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually historically gone through periods of rapid progress separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software application or both to develop space for more progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware readily available in the twentieth century was not enough to execute deep knowing, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that price quotes of the time needed before a really flexible AGI is constructed differ from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research study neighborhood appeared to be that the timeline talked about by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually provided a wide range of opinions on whether development will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a bias towards forecasting that the onset of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern-day and historic predictions alike. That paper has been criticized for how it categorized viewpoints as specialist 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 traditional method utilized a weighted amount of ratings from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the existing deep knowing wave. [105]

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu carried out intelligence tests on openly offered 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 around to a six-year-old child in very first grade. A grownup comes to about 100 on average. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ score reaching a maximum worth of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI developed GPT-3, a language model capable of carrying out many diverse tasks without specific training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat post, while there is consensus 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 same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and provided a chatbot-developing platform called ”Project December”. OpenAI asked for changes to the chatbot to adhere to their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a ”general-purpose” system efficient in performing more than 600 various tasks. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early version of OpenAI’s GPT-4, contending that it displayed more basic intelligence than previous AI models and demonstrated human-level performance in jobs spanning multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research sparked a debate on whether GPT-4 might be thought about an early, incomplete variation of synthetic general intelligence, highlighting the need for additional exploration and examination of such systems. [111]

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

The idea that this stuff might really get smarter than people – a few people believed that, […] But many people thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise stated that ”The progress in the last few years has actually been quite amazing”, and that he sees no reason why it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a decade or perhaps a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within five years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least in addition to humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous 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 serve as an alternative method. With entire brain simulation, a brain design is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and then copying and replicating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design need to be adequately faithful to the original, so that it acts in practically the very same way 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 functions. It has actually been talked about in artificial intelligence research study [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that could deliver the required comprehensive understanding are improving rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] predicts that a map of enough quality will appear on a similar timescale to the computing power needed to replicate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a really powerful cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be required, offered the huge quantity 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 neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number decreases with age, supporting by the adult years. Estimates differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] An estimate of the brain’s processing power, based upon an easy switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at numerous quotes for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 calculations per second (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a ”computation” was comparable to one ”floating-point operation” – a procedure utilized to rate current supercomputers – then 1016 ”calculations” would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to forecast the needed hardware would be available at some point between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential growth in computer power at the time of writing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has established a particularly comprehensive and publicly 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 techniques

The synthetic neuron design assumed by Kurzweil and used in many current synthetic neural network implementations is easy compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to record the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, presently understood just in broad summary. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (particularly on a molecular scale) would require computational powers several orders of magnitude bigger than Kurzweil’s quote. In addition, the price quotes do not account for glial cells, which are understood to play a function in cognitive procedures. [125]

A basic criticism of the simulated brain technique obtains from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a vital element of human intelligence and is required to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is proper, any totally practical brain model will require to encompass more than just the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, but it is unidentified whether this would be sufficient.

Philosophical point of view

”Strong AI” as defined in approach

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

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

The first one he called ”strong” due to the fact that it makes a stronger statement: it presumes something special has taken place to the machine that goes beyond those capabilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a ”weak AI” machine would be precisely similar to a ”strong AI” maker, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This usage is likewise common in scholastic AI research and books. [129]

In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term ”strong AI” to mean ”human level synthetic general intelligence”. [102] This is not the very same as Searle’s strong AI, unless it is presumed that consciousness is required for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most artificial intelligence scientists the concern 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 don’t care if you call it genuine 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 other way to tell. For AI research study, Searle’s ”weak AI hypothesis” is equivalent to the statement ”artificial general intelligence is possible”. Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, ”most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for given, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis.” [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, ”Strong AI” and ”AGI” are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous significances, and some elements play significant functions in sci-fi and the principles of synthetic intelligence:

Sentience (or ”phenomenal consciousness”): The ability to ”feel” understandings or feelings subjectively, rather than the capability to reason about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, use the term ”consciousness” to refer specifically to sensational awareness, which is roughly equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is called the hard issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it ”feels like” something to be conscious. If we are not conscious, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel utilizes 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 feel like to be a toaster?” Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has awareness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the company’s AI chatbot, LaMDA, had attained life, though this claim was widely disputed by other professionals. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different individual, specifically to be knowingly conscious of one’s own thoughts. This is opposed to merely being the ”subject of one’s thought”-an os or debugger has the ability to be ”aware of itself” (that is, to represent itself in the very same method it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people typically suggest when they utilize the term ”self-awareness”. [g]
These characteristics have a moral dimension. AI sentience would offer rise to concerns of well-being and legal protection, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness related to cognitive abilities are also appropriate to the concept of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to incorporate innovative AI with existing legal and social structures is an emergent concern. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might help reduce various problems on the planet such as appetite, poverty and health issue. [139]

AGI could enhance efficiency and efficiency in most jobs. For instance, in public health, AGI could speed up medical research, especially versus cancer. [140] It might take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to rapid, premium medical diagnostics. It could use fun, low-cost and individualized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist might end up being obsolete if the wealth produced is properly redistributed. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the location of people in a radically automated society.

AGI might likewise help to make rational choices, and to expect and avoid disasters. It could also assist to profit of potentially catastrophic technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated threats. [143] If an AGI’s primary objective is to avoid existential catastrophes such as human termination (which might be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being true), [144] it could take measures to significantly reduce the threats [143] while reducing the impact of these steps on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI might represent multiple kinds of existential threat, which are risks that threaten ”the early extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the long-term and extreme damage of its potential for desirable future advancement”. [145] The risk of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of many disputes, however there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would lead to a permanently flawed future. Notably, it could be used to spread and protect the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has moral blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, preventing moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might facilitate mass security and indoctrination, which might be utilized to create a steady repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is also a risk for the makers themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthy of moral factor to consider are mass created in the future, participating in a civilizational path that indefinitely disregards their well-being and interests could be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI might improve mankind’s future and help in reducing other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential risks ”an argument for continuing with due care”, not for ”abandoning AI”. [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI presents an existential risk for human beings, and that this danger requires more attention, is controversial but has actually been endorsed in 2023 by numerous 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 criticized extensive indifference:

So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and dangers, the specialists are surely doing everything possible to ensure the very best outcome, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message stating, ’We’ll show up in a couple of decades,’ would we just respond, ’OK, call us when you get here-we’ll leave the lights on?’ Probably not-but this is basically what is happening with AI. [153]

The possible fate of humankind has in some cases been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that greater intelligence permitted humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they might not have actually anticipated. As an outcome, the gorilla has become a threatened species, not out of malice, however merely as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humanity and that we need to beware not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for humans. He stated that individuals will not be ”smart enough to design super-intelligent devices, yet unbelievably stupid to the point of giving it moronic goals without any safeguards”. [155] On the other side, the idea of crucial merging recommends that almost whatever their goals, smart representatives will have reasons to try to make it through and get more power as intermediary steps to achieving these objectives. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential threat supporter for more research study into solving the ”control problem” to address the question: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers carry out to maximise the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, instead of harmful, way 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 security precautions in order to launch products before competitors), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can pose existential threat also has critics. Skeptics typically state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that concerns about AGI distract from other problems related to present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for many individuals outside of the innovation industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently perceived as though they were AGI, causing additional misconception and fear. [162]

Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an illogical belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some scientists think that the communication projects on AI existential threat by certain 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, along with other industry leaders and researchers, provided a joint declaration asserting that ”Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI should be a global top priority alongside other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war.” [152]

Mass joblessness

Researchers from OpenAI estimated that ”80% of the U.S. labor force could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of employees might see a minimum of 50% of their tasks impacted”. [166] [167] They think about office workers to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI could have a much better autonomy, capability to make choices, to interface with other computer system tools, however also to manage robotized bodies.

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

Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up badly bad if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern seems to be toward the 2nd alternative, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See also

Artificial brain – Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI result
AI safety – Research location on making AI safe and helpful
AI alignment – AI conformance to the desired objective
A.I. Rising – 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated artificial intelligence – Process of automating the application of maker knowing
BRAIN Initiative – Collaborative public-private research effort announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute – Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General video game playing – Ability of expert system to play various games
Generative synthetic intelligence – AI system capable of producing material in action to prompts
Human Brain Project – Scientific research study project
Intelligence amplification – Use of info technology to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles – Moral behaviours of manufactured makers.
Moravec’s paradox.
Multi-task learning – Solving several machine finding out jobs at the same time.
Neural scaling law – Statistical law in device knowing.
Outline of artificial intelligence – Overview of and topical guide to artificial intelligence.
Transhumanism – Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence – Alternate term for or kind of expert system.
Transfer knowing – Machine knowing method.
Loebner Prize – Annual AI competition.
Hardware for synthetic intelligence – Hardware specially developed and optimized for synthetic intelligence.
Weak expert system – Form of artificial intelligence.

Notes

^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term ”strong AI”, and see the academic definition of ”strong AI” and weak AI in the article Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy writes: ”we can not yet define in basic what type of computational procedures we want to call smart. ” [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence used by expert system scientists, see philosophy of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly criticized AI’s ”grand goals” and led the dismantling of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being determined to fund just ”mission-oriented direct research study, rather than basic undirected research”. [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes ”it would be a terrific relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the inventors of brand-new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more guarded kind than has actually sometimes been the case.” [61] ^ In ”Mind Children” [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would approximately represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not ”cps”, which is a non-standard term Kurzweil introduced.
^ As defined in a standard AI textbook: ”The assertion that makers might perhaps act wisely (or, maybe better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the ’weak AI’ hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that devices that do so are in fact thinking (instead of replicating 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 created to carry out a single task.
^ ”OpenAI Charter”. OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to ensure that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of mankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). ”Mark Zuckerberg’s brand-new goal is developing synthetic basic intelligence”. The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey 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 determined as being active in 2020.
^ a b c ”AI timelines: What do specialists in synthetic intelligence anticipate 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 cautions 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 explores GPT-4”. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 reveals 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 Artificial Intelligence”. The New York Times. The genuine risk is not AI itself but the way we deploy it.
^ ”Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is coming next, and it has ’existential’ threats”. ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI could posture existential threats to humanity.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last creation that mankind requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). ”A.I. Poses ’Risk of Extinction,’ Industry Leaders Warn”. The New York Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI should be a worldwide concern.
^ ”Statement on AI Risk”. Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals caution 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 machines that can outthink us in general ways.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). ”AGI does not provide an existential threat”. Medium. There is no reason to fear AI as an existential risk.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), ”Long Live AI”, Forbes, archived from the initial 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 utilize for ”human-level” intelligence in the physical sign system hypothesis.
^ ”The Open University on Strong and Weak AI”. Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ ”What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget”. Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ ”Artificial intelligence is changing our world – it is on all of us to make certain 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 initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent traits is based on the topics covered by significant 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 forms the way we believe: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). ”Motivation reevaluated: The concept of competence”. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). ”Motivation reconsidered: The principle of proficiency”. 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 original 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 takes place 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 real young boy – the Turing Test states so”. The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ ”Scientists challenge 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 exams both AI versions have actually passed”. Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). ”6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Take Advantage Of 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 undependable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the answer”. Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). ”DeepMind’s co-founder recommended evaluating 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 ). ”Artificial Intelligence” (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York City: 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 Specifying Feature of AI-Completeness” (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 ). ”Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization – Our Fate Made in Machines”. Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced estimate 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 ), priced estimate 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 ). ”Reply to Lighthill”. Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). ”Behind Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People”. The New York Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software application engineers avoided the term expert system for fear of being considered as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ ”Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle”. Gartner Reports. Archived from the initial 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 Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science 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., via Life 3.0: ’The term ”AGI” was promoted by … Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel’
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ ”First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summertime school: larsaluarna.se June 22 – July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: visualchemy.gallery July 6-9, 2009″. Archived from the initial 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 original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ ”Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 – зимен триместър” [Elective courses 2010/2011 – winter season 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.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). ”The limits of device intelligence: Despite progress in machine intelligence, synthetic basic intelligence is still a significant obstacle”. 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 experiments with 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. ”Artificial intelligence will not turn into a Frankenstein’s monster”. The Guardian. Archived from the initial 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 expert system will not be understood”. 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 utopia or destruction?”. The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in expert system: A study of skilled opinion. In Fundamental problems of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. ”How We’re Predicting AI-or Failing To.” In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, edited 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 originality of makers: 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 Brand-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 general 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 initial 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 function 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 two times as smart as Siri – but a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the original on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). ”We’re entering 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 just recently announced GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. … So is GPT-3 the first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, however the consensus is that it is not AGI. … If nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a middle ground between narrow and general AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. ”A designer developed an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that helped a man speak 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, wolvesbaneuo.com from playing games to managing robots”, TechCrunch, archived from the original on 16 June 2022, recovered 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 try outs 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 City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ Bove, Tristan. ”A.I. could rival human intelligence in ’just a few years,’ says CEO of Google’s primary A.I. research study laboratory”. Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). ”Nvidia CEO says AI might 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 Huge 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). ” research study job maps the human brain”. euractiv.
^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). ”Glia-the other brain cells”. Discover. Archived from the original on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A vast array of views in current research study, all of which require grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). ”How uploading our minds to a computer may become 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 estimate in” Encyclopedia.com”),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (quoted 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 artificial intelligence for interest 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 company’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 Artificial Intelligence 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 cost surpass advantages?”. 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ ”How we can Gain 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: paths, threats, strategies (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York City, New York City, 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 people will damage ourselves”. Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). ”Climate change an ’existential security danger’ to Australia, Senate questions says”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023.
^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York City, 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 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 takes a look at the implications of synthetic intelligence – however are we taking AI seriously enough?'”. The Independent (UK). Archived from the initial on 25 September 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
^ Herger, Mario. ”The Gorilla Problem – Enterprise Garage”. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ ”The fascinating Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI”. The remarkable Facebook dispute between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ ”Will Expert System Doom The Human Race Within The Next 100 Years?”. HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). ”Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: 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 threats spiralling out of control, report alerts”. Financial Times. Archived from the initial on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). ”Experts disagree over hazard presented but synthetic intelligence 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 completion 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 stoking worries over AI, warn scientists”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). ”Google Brain creator states huge tech is lying about AI extinction danger”. Australian Financial Review. Archived from the initial on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). ”GPTs are GPTs: An early take a look at the labor market impact potential of big language designs”. OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). ”OpenAI says 80% of workers could see their jobs affected by AI. These are the jobs most impacted”. euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). ”Elon Musk says we require universal basic earnings due to the fact that ’in the future, physical work will be a choice'”. Business Insider. Archived from the initial 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 original on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), ”Expert system 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 Look 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 original (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”, Expert system, 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, retrieved 1 April 2009.
Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), ”Nanotechnology and International Security”, Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, obtained 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Viewpoint, archived from the original on 17 August 2007, recovered 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 symposium, Science Research Council.
Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Expert System: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem Solving (fifth ed.), The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., p. 720, ISBN 978-0-8053-4780-7.
McCarthy, John (2007b). What is Artificial Intelligence?. Stanford University. The supreme effort is to make computer system programs that can fix problems and achieve goals on the planet along with human beings.
Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press
Moravec, Hans (1998 ), ”When will hardware match the human brain?”, Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the initial on 15 June 2006, obtained 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 initial on 16 October 2011, retrieved 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 original on 12 January 2008, recovered 29 September 2007
Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Sensible Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, recovered 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, recovered 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 significance 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 original 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 original 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 original on 23 July 2014, obtained 31 August 2012
Cukier, Kenneth, ”Ready for Robots? How to Consider the Future of AI”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4 (July/August 2019), pp. 192-98. George Dyson, historian of computing, writes (in what might be called ”Dyson’s Law”) that ”Any system simple sufficient to be reasonable will not be made complex enough to behave smartly, while any system made complex enough to behave intelligently will be too complicated to comprehend.” (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, retrieved 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, ”The Fate of Free Choice” (review of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Choice, 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 identifies us from devices. For biological creatures, reason and purpose come from acting worldwide and experiencing the repercussions. Artificial intelligences – disembodied, complete strangers to blood, sweat, and tears – have no occasion for that.” (p. 30.).
Halal, William E. ”TechCast Article Series: The Automation of Thought” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on 6 June 2013.
– Halpern, Sue, ”The Coming Tech Autocracy” (evaluation 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 City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. ”’ We can’t reasonably anticipate that those who want to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,’ … writes [Gary Marcus] ’We can’t count on federal governments driven by project financing contributions [from tech companies] to press back.’ … Marcus information the needs that residents should make of their federal governments and the tech companies. They consist of openness on how AI systems work; settlement for individuals if their data [are] used to train LLMs (large language design) s and the right to approval to this use; and the capability to hold tech business liable for the harms they trigger by removing Section 230, imposing cash penalites, and passing stricter item liability laws … Marcus also suggests … that a brand-new, AI-specific federal company, similar to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may offer the most robust oversight … [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma … recommends … establish [ing] an expert licensing regime for engineers that would operate in a similar way to medical licenses, malpractice matches, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. ’What if, like physicians,’ she asks …, ’AI engineers also vowed 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 stumped humans for years, exposes the restrictions of natural-language-processing algorithms”, Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. ”This murder secret competitors has actually exposed that although NLP (natural-language processing) designs can extraordinary tasks, their abilities are quite restricted by the quantity of context they get. This […] could trigger [difficulties] for scientists who wish to utilize them to do things such as analyze ancient languages. Sometimes, there are couple of historical records on long-gone civilizations to act as training data for such a function.” (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, ”Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to generate phony videos indistinguishable from genuine ones. Just how much does it matter?”, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. ”If by ’deepfakes’ we mean reasonable videos produced using synthetic intelligence that actually deceive individuals, then they hardly exist. The fakes aren’t deep, and the deeps aren’t phony. […] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, operating in our media as counterfeited evidence. Their function much better resembles that of cartoons, especially smutty ones.” (p. 59.).
– Leffer, Lauren, ”The Risks of Trusting AI: We need to avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in scientific research”, Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, ”The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a machine a conversation?”, The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16.
Marcus, Gary, ”Artificial Confidence: Even the latest, buzziest systems of artificial general intelligence are stymmied by the exact same old problems”, 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 original on 3 March 2016, retrieved 29 September 2007.
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963 ), ”GPS: online-learning-initiative.org 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, presented and dispersed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California.
Press, Eyal, ”In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead police to ignore contradictory evidence?”, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, ”AI’s IQ: ChatGPT aced a [standard 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 require genuine humanlike reasoning or annunciogratis.net an understanding of the physical and social world … ChatGPT appeared unable to reason realistically and attempted to count on its vast database of … facts originated 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 but undependable. Rules-based systems can not handle scenarios their developers did not anticipate. Learning systems are limited by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already caused disaster. Advanced autopilot features in cars and trucks, although they perform well in some circumstances, have driven cars and trucks without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked vehicles. In the wrong circumstance, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an opponent is attempting to manipulate and hack an AI system, the risks are even greater.” (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 enabled by new innovations however depend on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise.” (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.