Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a kind of expert system (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive abilities throughout a large range of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is restricted to specific tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, wiki.die-karte-bitte.de describes AGI that significantly goes beyond human cognitive capabilities. AGI is thought about 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 survey identified 72 active AGI research and advancement tasks across 37 countries. [4]

The timeline for accomplishing AGI stays a topic of ongoing debate among scientists and specialists. As of 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or decades; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority think it may never be achieved; and another minority declares that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the fast development towards AGI, suggesting it could be accomplished quicker than numerous expect. [7]

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

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

Terminology

AGI is also known as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level smart AI, or general intelligent action. [21]

Some scholastic sources reserve the term ”strong AI” for computer system programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one particular issue but lacks general cognitive capabilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources utilize ”weak AI” to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the same sense as humans. [a]

Related principles consist of synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is far more usually smart than humans, [23] while the concept of transformative AI relates to AI having a big effect on society, for instance, similar to the agricultural or industrial transformation. [24]

A framework for categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify five levels of AGI: emerging, skilled, expert, gdprhub.eu virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a proficient AGI is specified 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 defined however with a limit of 100%. They consider big language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

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

Intelligence traits

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

factor, usage strategy, fix puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent understanding, consisting of good sense knowledge
plan
discover
– communicate in natural language
– if essential, incorporate these abilities in conclusion of any offered goal

Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and choice making) think about extra qualities such as imagination (the capability to form unique mental images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that display a lot of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, decision assistance system, robotic, evolutionary calculation, smart representative). There is debate about whether modern AI systems have them to an adequate degree.

Physical characteristics

Other abilities are considered preferable in smart systems, as they may impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]

– the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on), and
– the ability to act (e.g. move and control items, modification location to explore, and so on).

This consists of the ability to discover and react to risk. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate things, change place to check out, etc) can be desirable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly required for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language models (LLMs) may currently be or become AGI. Even from a less optimistic point of view on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like form; being a silicon-based computational system suffices, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has never been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and thus does not demand a capacity for locomotion or traditional ”eyes and ears”. [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

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

The concept of the test is that the device has to attempt and pretend to be a guy, by answering concerns put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A considerable portion of a jury, who need to not be skilled about machines, should be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues

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

There are numerous problems that have actually been conjectured to require basic intelligence to resolve as well as people. Examples consist of computer system vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unforeseen scenarios while resolving any real-world issue. [48] Even a particular task like translation requires a machine to read and wiki.dulovic.tech write in both languages, follow the author’s argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), and consistently recreate the author’s original intent (social intelligence). All of these issues need to be resolved simultaneously in order to reach human-level maker performance.

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

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study started in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI scientists were encouraged that artificial basic intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a couple of years. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: ”devices 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 scientists believed they could create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the task of making HAL 9000 as reasonable as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He said in 1967, ”Within a generation … the issue of developing ’synthetic intelligence’ will substantially be solved”. [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being apparent that researchers had grossly underestimated the difficulty of the project. Funding agencies ended up being doubtful of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce beneficial ”used 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 reaction to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who anticipated the impending achievement of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a reputation for making vain promises. They became reluctant to make forecasts at all [d] and avoided mention of ”human level” synthetic intelligence for worry of being labeled ”wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved commercial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and industrial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and recommendation algorithms. [63] These ”applied AI” systems are now utilized thoroughly throughout the technology industry, and research in this vein is greatly funded in both academic community and market. As of 2018 [upgrade], advancement in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a fully grown stage was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

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

I am confident that this bottom-up path to synthetic intelligence will one day satisfy the standard top-down route majority way, all set to supply the real-world competence and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in reasoning programs. Fully intelligent devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the 2 efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has typically been voiced that ”top-down” (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow meet ”bottom-up” (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper are legitimate, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually just one practical path from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software level of a computer system will never be reached by this path (or vice versa) – nor is it clear why we ought to even attempt to reach such a level, given that it looks as if getting there would simply total up to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic meanings (thus simply minimizing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research study

The term ”synthetic general intelligence” was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the implications of completely automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative increases ”the ability to satisfy objectives in a large range of environments”. [68] This type of AGI, characterized by the ability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence rather than exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was also 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 season school in AGI was arranged in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university’s Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The very first university course was given 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 featuring a number of guest lecturers.

As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer system researchers are active in AGI research, and lots of contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more scientists are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of allowing AI to constantly find out and innovate like humans do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the advancement and possible accomplishment of AGI stays a topic of intense argument within the AI community. While traditional consensus held that AGI was a remote goal, recent improvements have actually led some scientists and market figures to declare that early types of AGI may currently exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that ”machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do”. This forecast stopped working to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century because it would need ”unforeseeable and essentially unpredictable advancements” and a ”clinically deep understanding of cognition”. [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield claimed the gulf between modern computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as large as the gulf in between current space flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more challenge is the lack of clearness in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it require consciousness? Must it show 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 planning, reasoning, and causal understanding needed? Does intelligence require clearly duplicating the brain and its specific professors? Does it need emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be attained in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, however that today level of progress is such that a date can not accurately be anticipated. [84] AI experts’ views on the feasibility of AGI wax and wane. Four polls carried out in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the median price quote among experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending on the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% addressed with ”never ever” when asked the same concern but with a 90% self-confidence instead. [85] [86] Further existing AGI development considerations can be discovered above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

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

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

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a considerable level of basic intelligence has actually currently been attained with frontier models. They composed that reluctance to this view originates from 4 primary reasons: a ”healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI”, an ”ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or strategies”, a ”commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism”, or a ”concern about the financial implications of AGI”. [91]

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

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the very first of a series of designs that ”spend more time believing before they respond”. According to Mira Murati, this ability to think before reacting represents a new, extra paradigm. It enhances model outputs by investing more computing power when creating the response, whereas the model scaling paradigm enhances 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 actually accomplished AGI, mentioning, ”In my opinion, we have already 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 task”, it is ”much better than the majority of people at a lot of jobs.” He likewise resolved criticisms that big language models (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their learning procedure to the clinical technique of observing, assuming, and validating. These statements have sparked dispute, as they rely on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI’s models show amazing adaptability, they might not completely satisfy this requirement. Notably, Kazemi’s remarks came quickly after OpenAI got rid of ”AGI” from the regards to its collaboration with Microsoft, triggering speculation about the business’s strategic objectives. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has actually historically gone through periods of fast development separated by durations when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software application or both to create area for more progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware available in the twentieth century was not enough to carry out deep learning, which requires large numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that quotes of the time needed before a really versatile AGI is built differ from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the consensus in the AGI research study neighborhood appeared to be that the timeline discussed by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have actually provided a vast array of opinions on whether development will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a predisposition towards predicting that the onset of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for contemporary and historical forecasts alike. That paper has been criticized for how it categorized opinions as professional or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established 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 used a weighted amount of ratings from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was regarded as the preliminary ground-breaker of the existing deep learning wave. [105]

In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu conducted intelligence tests on openly available and easily accessible 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 first grade. An adult concerns about 100 usually. Similar tests were carried out in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model efficient in performing lots of diverse tasks without particular 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 classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the very same year, Jason Rohrer used his GPT-3 account to establish a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called ”Project December”. OpenAI requested for modifications to the chatbot to abide by their security standards; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

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

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early variation of OpenAI’s GPT-4, competing that it displayed more basic intelligence than previous AI designs and showed human-level performance in jobs spanning several domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered a debate on whether GPT-4 could be thought about an early, incomplete variation of synthetic general intelligence, highlighting the requirement for more exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]

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

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

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that ”The development in the last few years has been quite amazing”, which he sees no factor why it would slow down, expecting AGI within a decade or perhaps a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within 5 years, AI would can passing any test at least in addition to people. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI staff member, approximated AGI by 2027 to be ”strikingly plausible”. [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the development of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is considered the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can serve as an alternative technique. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation design should be sufficiently devoted to the original, so that it behaves in virtually the very same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study functions. It has been discussed in artificial intelligence research study [103] as a technique to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might provide the essential in-depth understanding are enhancing quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of enough quality will end up being offered on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to emulate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, given the huge quantity of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on typical 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other nerve cells. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by their adult years. Estimates vary for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain’s processing power, based on a basic switch design for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at different price quotes for the hardware needed to equate to the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 computations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a ”calculation” was comparable to one ”floating-point operation” – a measure used to rate existing supercomputers – then 1016 ”calculations” would be comparable to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was achieved in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the necessary hardware would be available sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the exponential development in computer system power at the time of writing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has actually developed a particularly comprehensive and openly accessible atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, researchers from Duke University performed a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based methods

The artificial nerve cell design assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many existing artificial neural network executions is simple compared to biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently understood just in broad summary. The overhead introduced by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical details of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil’s estimate. In addition, the quotes do not represent glial cells, which are understood to play a function in cognitive processes. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain technique derives from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a necessary aspect of human intelligence and is essential to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is right, any totally functional brain model will need to incorporate more than simply the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual embodiment (like in metaverses like Second Life) as a choice, but it is unidentified whether this would suffice.

Philosophical point of view

”Strong AI” as specified in philosophy

In 1980, philosopher John Searle coined the term ”strong AI” as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a difference between two hypotheses about synthetic intelligence: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have ”a mind” and ”awareness”.
Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system system can (just) imitate it thinks and has a mind and consciousness.

The first one he called ”strong” due to the fact that it makes a stronger declaration: it assumes something special has happened to the machine that exceeds those abilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a ”weak AI” machine would be specifically similar to a ”strong AI” maker, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is also common in academic AI research and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil utilize the term ”strong AI” to indicate ”human level artificial basic intelligence”. [102] This is not the very same as Searle’s strong AI, unless it is assumed that awareness is required for human-level AGI. Academic theorists such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most expert system scientists 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 don’t 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 need to know if it actually has mind – certainly, there would be no other way to tell. For AI research study, Searle’s ”weak AI hypothesis” is equivalent to the declaration ”synthetic general 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, ”Strong AI” and ”AGI” are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have different meanings, and some aspects play considerable roles in sci-fi and the principles of expert system:

Sentience (or ”extraordinary consciousness”): The capability to ”feel” understandings or emotions subjectively, as opposed to the ability to factor about understandings. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term ”consciousness” to refer solely to incredible awareness, which is roughly comparable to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience arises is called the difficult issue of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it ”seems like” something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it does not feel like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can smartly ask ”what does it feel 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 conscious (i.e., has awareness) but a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer claimed that the business’s AI chatbot, LaMDA, had accomplished life, though this claim was extensively disputed by other professionals. [135]
Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different individual, specifically to be purposely mindful of one’s own thoughts. This is opposed to simply being the ”topic of one’s believed”-an os or debugger is able to be ”knowledgeable about itself” (that is, to represent itself in the same method it represents everything else)-but this is not what individuals normally imply when they use the term ”self-awareness”. [g]
These qualities have a moral measurement. AI sentience would generate issues of well-being and legal protection, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness associated to cognitive abilities are also relevant to the principle of AI rights. [137] Finding out how to incorporate innovative AI with existing legal and social structures is an emergent concern. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a wide array of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI might assist reduce numerous problems on the planet such as hunger, hardship and health issues. [139]

AGI might improve performance and effectiveness in many jobs. For instance, in public health, AGI might speed up medical research, significantly against cancer. [140] It could take care of the elderly, [141] and equalize access to rapid, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might use fun, cheap and individualized education. [141] The requirement to work to subsist could become outdated if the wealth produced is properly rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the place of human beings in a significantly automated society.

AGI might likewise assist to make rational decisions, and to expect and avoid catastrophes. It might also help to profit of possibly disastrous innovations such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while preventing the associated threats. [143] If an AGI’s primary goal is to avoid existential disasters such as human termination (which could be tough if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be true), [144] it might take measures to dramatically decrease the threats [143] while decreasing the effect of these steps on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential threats

AGI might represent numerous types of existential danger, which are dangers that threaten ”the early extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the long-term and drastic damage of its potential for preferable future development”. [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of lots of arguments, however there is likewise the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a permanently flawed future. Notably, it could be used to spread and protect the set of worths of whoever develops it. If humankind still has moral blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI may irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could help with mass monitoring and indoctrination, which might be utilized to create a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is likewise a danger for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise worthy of ethical consideration are mass created in the future, engaging in a civilizational course that indefinitely overlooks their well-being and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI might improve humanity’s future and help in reducing other existential threats, Toby Ord calls these existential threats ”an argument for continuing with due care”, not for ”abandoning AI”. [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI positions an existential danger for people, and that this danger needs more attention, is controversial but has been endorsed in 2023 by numerous public figures, AI scientists and CEOs of AI business such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking criticized prevalent indifference:

So, facing possible futures of enormous benefits and threats, the experts are undoubtedly doing whatever possible to make sure the finest result, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, ’We’ll arrive in a few years,’ would we simply reply, ’OK, call us when you get here-we’ll leave the lights on?’ Probably not-but this is basically what is occurring with AI. [153]

The potential fate of humanity has in some cases been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast specifies that higher intelligence enabled humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in methods that they might not have actually expected. As a result, the gorilla has become an endangered species, not out of malice, but merely as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to control mankind and that we ought to take care not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for people. He stated that people won’t be ”clever adequate to create super-intelligent machines, yet extremely dumb to the point of offering it moronic objectives without any safeguards”. [155] On the other side, the principle of instrumental merging recommends that practically whatever their goals, intelligent agents will have factors to attempt to endure and obtain more power as intermediary actions to achieving these goals. And that this does not require having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential danger supporter for more research into solving the ”control problem” to respond to the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers execute to increase the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than damaging, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which might result in a race to the bottom of safety preventative measures in order to launch items before rivals), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can present existential danger also has detractors. Skeptics usually state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other concerns associated with present AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people beyond the technology market, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently perceived as though they were AGI, causing additional misunderstanding and worry. [162]

Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an illogical belief in a supreme God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication campaigns on AI existential danger by particular AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their items. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, along with other market leaders and scientists, issued a joint statement asserting that ”Mitigating the danger of termination from AI must be a worldwide priority together with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war.” [152]

Mass joblessness

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

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

Everyone can delight in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can end up badly poor if the machine-owners effectively lobby versus wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern appears to be towards the 2nd alternative, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk considers that the automation of society will need governments to adopt a universal basic earnings. [168]

See also

Artificial brain – Software and hardware with cognitive capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI security – Research location on making AI safe and beneficial
AI positioning – AI conformance to the intended goal
A.I. Rising – 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated machine learning – Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative – Collaborative public-private research study effort revealed 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 different games
Generative expert system – AI system capable of producing material in response to triggers
Human Brain Project – Scientific research study task
Intelligence amplification – Use of info technology to augment human intelligence (IA).
Machine ethics – Moral behaviours of manufactured machines.
Moravec’s paradox.
Multi-task knowing – Solving several device finding out jobs at the same time.
Neural scaling law – Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of synthetic intelligence – Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence.
Transhumanism – Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence – Alternate term for or form of expert system.
Transfer knowing – Artificial intelligence method.
Loebner Prize – Annual AI competition.
Hardware for expert system – Hardware specifically developed and optimized for artificial intelligence.
Weak artificial intelligence – Form of artificial intelligence.

Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term ”strong AI”, and see the scholastic meaning of ”strong AI” and weak AI in the short article Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: ”we can not yet define in general what sort of computational treatments we desire to call intelligent. ” [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence utilized by synthetic intelligence scientists, see philosophy of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically slammed AI’s ”grandiose goals” and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being figured out to fund only ”mission-oriented direct research, instead of basic undirected research study”. [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy composes ”it would be a terrific relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the innovators of brand-new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more protected kind than has in some cases held true.” [61] ^ In ”Mind Children” [122] 1015 cps is used. More 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 specified in a standard AI textbook: ”The assertion that devices might possibly act intelligently (or, maybe much better, act as if they were smart) is called the ’weak AI’ hypothesis by thinkers, and the assertion that makers that do so are in fact thinking (as opposed to 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 synthetic basic intelligence benefits all of humanity.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). ”Mark Zuckerberg’s brand-new goal is developing 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 determined as being active in 2020.
^ a b c ”AI timelines: What do experts in expert system 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 alerts of risk 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 utilizing it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). ”Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs 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 alter changes 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 City Times. The real risk is not AI itself however the method we deploy it.
^ ”Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is coming next, and users.atw.hu it has ’existential’ risks”. ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might position existential risks 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 needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). ”A.I. Poses ’Risk of Extinction,’ Industry Leaders Warn”. The New York City Times. Mitigating the danger of termination from AI must be a worldwide concern.
^ ”Statement on AI Risk”. Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals caution of risk of termination from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). ”Are AI’s Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?”. The New York Times. We are far from producing devices that can outthink us in basic 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 original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil describes strong AI as ”maker intelligence with the full series of human intelligence.”.
^ ”The Age of Expert System: 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 synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget”. Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ ”Artificial intelligence is transforming our world – it is on everyone to ensure that it goes well”. 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 smart traits is based upon the subjects covered by major AI textbooks, consisting of: 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 method we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). ”Motivation reconsidered: The principle of skills”. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). ”Motivation reconsidered: The idea 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 initial 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 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 boy – the Turing Test states so”. The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ ”Scientists dispute 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 identify 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 tough exams both AI variations have 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 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 checking 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 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 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 Defining 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 Expert System. 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 original 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 initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), quoted 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 likewise 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 Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer scientists and software engineers avoided the term expert system for worry of being seen 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 Upon 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 created 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 promoted 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 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 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 device intelligence: Despite development in machine intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a major challenge”. 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 become 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 synthetic intelligence 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 progress in expert system: A study of expert opinion. In Fundamental concerns of synthetic 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 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 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 synthetic 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 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 Artificial Intelligence”. 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 original on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). ”We’re entering the AI golden zone in between narrow and general AI”. VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who claim we are already seeing an early example of an AGI system in the just recently revealed GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. … So is GPT-3 the very first example of an AGI system? This is debatable, however the consensus is that it is not AGI. … If nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a happy medium in between narrow and general AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. ”A developer developed an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that assisted a male 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 new AI can perform over 600 tasks, from playing games to controlling robotics”, TechCrunch, archived from the original on 16 June 2022, retrieved 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 explores 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. might equal human intelligence in ’simply a few years,’ states CEO of Google’s primary A.I. research study lab”. Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). ”Nvidia CEO states AI could pass human tests in five years”. Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. ”SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead”.
^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). ”Why everybody seems to disagree on how to define 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 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 large range of views in present research study, all of which require grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). ”How publishing our minds to a computer system may 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 (quoted in” Encyclopedia.com”),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (estimated 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 curiosity by the field about why a program acts 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 thinks the company’s AI has actually 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 Expert System Have Moral or Legal Rights?”. The Wall Street Journal.
^ ”Artificial General Intelligence – Do [es] the cost exceed advantages?”. 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: paths, risks, strategies (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York, 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 ruin ourselves”. Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). ”Climate change an ’existential security risk’ to Australia, Senate inquiry says”. 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 Expert System”. 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 looks at the implications of synthetic intelligence – 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 remarkable Facebook debate in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI”. The fascinating Facebook debate in 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 Mankind Within The Next 100 Years?”. HuffPost. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sotala, Kaj; Yampolskiy, Roman V. (19 December 2014). ”Responses to disastrous AGI danger: a survey”. 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 dangers 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 risk posed 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 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 stoking worries over AI, warn scientists”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). ”Google Brain founder states big tech is lying about AI termination risk”. 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 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 might see their tasks impacted by AI. These are the tasks most affected”. euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). ”Elon Musk says we need universal standard income because ’in the future, manual labor will be an option'”. 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 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 original (PDF) on 20 March 2013.
Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), ”Human-level artificial basic intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a response to Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott’s review 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 initial on 7 January 2016, obtained 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, retrieved 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, archived from the initial on 17 August 2007, retrieved 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 ), ”Expert System: 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 ultimate effort is to make computer programs that can fix issues and achieve goals in the world in addition to humans.
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 Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search”. Communications of the ACM. 19 (3 ): 113-126. doi:10.1145/ 360018.360022.
Nilsson, Nils (1998 ), Expert System: 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, recovered 29 September 2007
Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, recovered 6 December 2007
Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Expert System: A Modern Approach (second 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 initial 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 original on 17 March 2019, recovered 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 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 varieties 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 – by means of ResearchGate
Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Expert System 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, writes (in what may be called ”Dyson’s Law”) that ”Any system easy sufficient to be easy to understand will not be complicated enough to behave intelligently, while any system complicated enough to act wisely will be too complicated to comprehend.” (p. 197.) Computer scientist Alex Pentland writes: ”Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, engel-und-waisen.de 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, recovered 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, ”The Fate of Free Will” (evaluation 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 distinguishes us from makers. For biological animals, reason and function come from acting worldwide and experiencing the consequences. 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 original (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 Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. ”’ We can’t reasonably anticipate that those who intend to get abundant from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,’ … writes [Gary Marcus] ’We can’t rely on federal governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech companies] to press back.’ … Marcus information the needs that people need to make of their federal governments and the tech business. They consist of openness on how AI systems work; compensation for people if their data [are] used to train LLMs (large language model) s and the right to approval to this use; and the ability to hold tech business liable for the harms they bring on by removing Section 230, imposing money penalites, and passing stricter product liability laws … Marcus likewise recommends … that a new, AI-specific federal firm, akin to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, might supply the most robust oversight … [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma … suggests … develop [ing] an expert licensing program for engineers that would function in a comparable method to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. ’What if, like medical professionals,’ she asks …, ’AI engineers likewise swore to do no damage?'” (p. 46.).
Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), ”Abstraction and reformulation in artificial intelligence”, 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 stumped human beings for years, exposes the limitations of natural-language-processing algorithms”, Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. ”This murder mystery competitors has actually exposed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models are capable of incredible feats, their capabilities are really much limited by the amount 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 few historic records on long-gone civilizations to act as training data for such a purpose.” (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, ”Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to create phony videos equivalent from genuine ones. How much does it matter?”, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. ”If by ’deepfakes’ we indicate realistic videos produced using expert system that in fact deceive individuals, then they barely exist. The fakes aren’t deep, and the deeps aren’t phony. […] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, running in our media as counterfeited proof. Their function much better resembles that of cartoons, particularly smutty ones.” (p. 59.).
– Leffer, Lauren, ”The Risks of Trusting AI: We must avoid humanizing machine-learning designs used in scientific research study”, Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, ”The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a device a conversation?”, The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16.
Marcus, Gary, ”Artificial Confidence: Even the most recent, buzziest systems of synthetic basic intelligence are stymmied by the very 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 (second 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 technology lead police to overlook inconsistent proof?”, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, ”AI’s IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test however showed that intelligence can not be measured 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 genuine humanlike thinking or an understanding of the physical and social world … ChatGPT seemed not able to factor rationally and attempted to count on its large database of … realities 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 innovations are powerful but undependable. Rules-based systems can not handle situations their programmers did not anticipate. Learning systems are limited by the information on which they were trained. AI failures have currently caused tragedy. Advanced autopilot features in cars and trucks, although they carry out well in some circumstances, have actually driven automobiles without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the wrong scenario, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an opponent is attempting to control and hack an AI system, the threats 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 enabled by brand-new technologies however count on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise.” (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.