Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive abilities throughout a broad variety of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that greatly surpasses human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered one of the definitions of strong AI.


Creating AGI is a primary goal of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study determined 72 active AGI research and development projects across 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for attaining AGI stays a topic of continuous dispute amongst scientists and professionals. As of 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or years; others preserve it may take a century or longer; a minority think it might never ever be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has actually expressed issues about the rapid development towards AGI, suggesting it might be achieved earlier than numerous anticipate. [7]

There is debate on the precise definition of AGI and concerning whether modern-day big language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a common topic in sci-fi and futures studies. [9] [10]

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

Terminology


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

Some academic sources schedule the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] On the other hand, qoocle.com weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to fix one specific problem however does not have general cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the exact same sense as human beings. [a]

Related ideas include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is much more usually smart than people, [23] while the idea of AI associates with AI having a big effect on society, for instance, similar to the agricultural or commercial revolution. [24]

A framework for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify 5 levels of AGI: forum.pinoo.com.tr emerging, competent, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a qualified AGI is defined as an AI that exceeds 50% of skilled adults in a vast array of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. a synthetic superintelligence) is similarly defined but with a threshold of 100%. They think about large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics


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

Intelligence traits


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

factor, use technique, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent knowledge, including typical sense knowledge
plan
learn
- interact in natural language
- if necessary, incorporate these skills in completion of any offered objective


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

Computer-based systems that exhibit a number of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, decision support group, robotic, evolutionary calculation, smart agent). There is dispute about whether modern-day AI systems possess them to an appropriate degree.


Physical traits


Other abilities are thought about desirable in smart systems, as they may affect intelligence or help in its expression. These include: [30]

- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
- the capability to act (e.g. move and manipulate items, change area to explore, etc).


This includes the capability to spot and respond to danger. [31]

Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate things, modification place to explore, etc) can be preferable for some smart systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language designs (LLMs) may currently be or end up being AGI. Even from a less optimistic perspective on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system is adequate, 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 never been proscribed a specific physical personification and thus does not require a capability for mobility or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI


Several tests implied to confirm human-level AGI have actually been considered, consisting of: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the device has to try and pretend to be a guy, by answering questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is fairly convincing. A considerable part of a jury, who should not be professional about machines, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues


An issue is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to fix it, one would need to execute AGI, since the option is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are many issues that have been conjectured to need general intelligence to resolve in addition to humans. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unexpected situations while solving any real-world issue. [48] Even a specific task like translation needs a maker to read and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), comprehend the context (knowledge), and consistently reproduce the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems need to be solved simultaneously in order to reach human-level device performance.


However, many of these tasks can now be carried out by contemporary large language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level efficiency on numerous criteria for checking out comprehension and visual thinking. [49]

History


Classical AI


Modern AI research started in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI scientists were encouraged that artificial basic intelligence was possible and that it would exist in simply a couple of decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do." [52]

Their predictions were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI scientists thought they might produce by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a specialist [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of developing 'synthetic intelligence' will considerably be fixed". [54]

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


However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that researchers had actually grossly ignored the problem of the project. Funding firms became hesitant of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce helpful "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 goals like "carry on a casual conversation". [58] In reaction to this and the success of expert systems, both market and federal government pumped cash into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI spectacularly collapsed in the late 1980s, and demo.qkseo.in the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never satisfied. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI scientists who anticipated the impending achievement of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI scientists had a credibility for making vain promises. They became reluctant to make predictions at all [d] and avoided reference of "human level" synthetic intelligence for fear of being identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research


In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved industrial success and academic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable outcomes and industrial applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used extensively throughout the technology industry, and research in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academic community and industry. 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 10 years. [64]

At the millenium, numerous mainstream 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 positive that this bottom-up route to artificial intelligence will one day satisfy the standard top-down route over half way, all set to offer the real-world skills and the commonsense understanding that has been so frustratingly elusive in thinking programs. Fully smart machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven uniting the two efforts. [65]

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


The expectation has actually often been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way satisfy "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really only one practical route from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer will never ever be reached by this path (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we need to even attempt to reach such a level, since it looks as if getting there would simply amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (therefore simply reducing ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]

Modern artificial basic intelligence research


The term "synthetic general intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the implications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI representative increases "the capability to please objectives in a wide variety of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the ability to increase a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than show human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal artificial intelligence. [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 very first summertime 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 presented a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring 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, significantly more researchers have an interest in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of enabling AI to constantly find out and innovate like people do.


Feasibility


As of 2023, the advancement and potential achievement of AGI stays a subject of extreme dispute within the AI community. While standard agreement held that AGI was a remote objective, recent improvements have led some researchers and industry figures to declare that early forms of AGI may already exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". This prediction stopped working to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is unlikely in the 21st century since it would need "unforeseeable and essentially unforeseeable breakthroughs" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern computing and human-level expert system is as wide as the gulf between current area flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more difficulty is the lack of clearness in defining what intelligence involves. Does it need consciousness? Must it display the ability to set objectives along with pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as preparation, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require clearly reproducing the brain and its particular professors? Does it need emotions? [81]

Most AI scientists think strong AI can be achieved in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, reject the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is amongst those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, however that today level of development is such that a date can not precisely be predicted. [84] AI professionals' views on the expediency of AGI wax and wane. Four surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the mean price quote amongst experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% responded to with "never" when asked the same concern but with a 90% confidence instead. [85] [86] Further current 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 discovered that "over [a] 60-year amount of time there is a strong bias towards predicting the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They analyzed 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft researchers released a comprehensive examination of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's capabilities, our company believe that it could reasonably be considered as an early (yet still incomplete) version of a synthetic basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of humans on the Torrance tests of creative thinking. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig wrote in 2023 that a considerable level of basic intelligence has currently been achieved with frontier models. They wrote that reluctance to this view comes from 4 primary reasons: a "healthy apprehension about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or techniques", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the economic implications of AGI". [91]

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

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of designs that "spend more time believing before they respond". According to Mira Murati, this capability to think before reacting represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It improves design outputs by spending more computing power when creating the response, whereas the model scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the model size, training data and training compute power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI worker, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the business had actually attained AGI, stating, "In my opinion, we have actually already accomplished AGI and it's much more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any job", it is "much better than most people at a lot of jobs." He likewise addressed criticisms that big language models (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the scientific approach of observing, assuming, and confirming. These declarations have sparked dispute, as they rely on a broad and unconventional meaning of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models demonstrate impressive versatility, they might not totally meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came quickly after OpenAI removed "AGI" from the terms of its collaboration with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business's tactical intentions. [95]

Timescales


Progress in artificial intelligence has historically gone through periods of fast progress separated by periods when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software or both to produce area for further development. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware offered in the twentieth century was not sufficient to carry out deep knowing, which requires big numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that estimates of the time required before a really flexible AGI is developed differ from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the consensus in the AGI research study community seemed 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 plausible. [103] Mainstream AI scientists have actually given a vast array of viewpoints on whether development will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such viewpoints discovered a bias towards forecasting that the onset of AGI would take place within 16-26 years for modern and historical predictions alike. That paper has been criticized for how it classified 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 competition with a top-5 test mistake rate of 15.3%, substantially much better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the traditional approach utilized a weighted sum of scores from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the current deep learning wave. [105]

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

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model efficient in performing numerous varied jobs without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat article, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and provided a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI requested changes to the chatbot to adhere to their security guidelines; Rohrer disconnected Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out more than 600 different jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research released a study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it showed more basic intelligence than previous AI models and showed human-level efficiency in jobs spanning multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered a dispute on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, incomplete variation of synthetic basic intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for further exploration and evaluation of such systems. [111]

In 2023, the AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton mentioned that: [112]

The idea that this stuff might in fact get smarter than people - a few individuals believed that, [...] But many people believed it was way off. And I thought it was method 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 said that "The progress in the last couple of years has actually been pretty extraordinary", which he sees no reason it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a years or perhaps a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least along with people. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI worker, approximated 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 course to AGI, [116] [117] whole brain emulation can function as an alternative approach. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in information, and after that copying and mimicing it on a computer system or another computational gadget. The simulation model must be adequately devoted to the original, so that it acts in virtually the exact same way as the original brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has actually been talked about in expert system research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that could deliver the needed in-depth understanding are enhancing rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] anticipates that a map of enough quality will end up being offered on a similar timescale to the computing power required to replicate it.


Early estimates


For low-level brain simulation, a very powerful cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be needed, provided the massive 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 neurons. The brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by the adult years. Estimates vary for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] An estimate of the brain's processing power, based on a simple switch model for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at numerous estimates for the hardware required to equate to the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "calculation" was comparable to one "floating-point operation" - a measure utilized to rate existing supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He used this figure to anticipate the essential hardware would be offered at some point in between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer system power at the time of composing continued.


Current research study


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


Criticisms of simulation-based methods


The synthetic nerve cell design assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many present synthetic neural network applications is easy compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological neurons, presently understood only in broad outline. The overhead introduced by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (specifically on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's estimate. In addition, the price quotes do not account for glial cells, which are known to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]

A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain method originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human personification is a vital element of human intelligence and is needed to ground meaning. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any totally functional brain design will require to include more than simply the nerve cells (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an option, however it is unidentified whether this would be adequate.


Philosophical viewpoint


"Strong AI" as defined in philosophy


In 1980, philosopher John Searle created the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a distinction in between two hypotheses about artificial intelligence: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "consciousness".
Weak AI hypothesis: An expert system 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 more powerful declaration: it assumes something unique has actually happened to the machine that surpasses those capabilities that we can check. The behaviour of a "weak AI" maker would be exactly identical to a "strong AI" maker, but the latter would likewise have subjective mindful experience. This usage is likewise typical in academic AI research study and books. [129]

In contrast to Searle and mainstream AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to imply "human level artificial basic intelligence". [102] This is not the very same as Searle's strong AI, unless it is assumed that consciousness is required for human-level AGI. Academic philosophers such as Searle do not think that holds true, and to most artificial intelligence researchers the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most interested in 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 act as if it has a mind, then there is no need to understand if it really has mind - undoubtedly, there would be no other way to tell. For AI research, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is comparable to the declaration "synthetic basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI scientists take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for scholastic AI research, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 different things.


Consciousness


Consciousness can have various meanings, and some aspects play significant roles in science fiction and the principles of expert system:


Sentience (or "phenomenal awareness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or emotions subjectively, instead of the ability to reason about perceptions. Some philosophers, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "consciousness" to refer solely to phenomenal awareness, which is approximately equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is called the difficult problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel explained in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be mindful. If we are not mindful, then it does not seem like anything. Nagel uses the example of a bat: we can sensibly 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) however 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 challenged by other experts. [135]

Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different person, especially to be purposely knowledgeable about one's own thoughts. This is opposed to merely being the "topic of one's believed"-an operating system or debugger is able to be "familiar with itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same method it represents everything else)-but this is not what people generally imply when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These characteristics have an ethical dimension. AI life would generate concerns of welfare and legal defense, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness related to cognitive capabilities are also appropriate to the idea of AI rights. [137] Determining how to incorporate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social structures is an emergent problem. [138]

Benefits


AGI might have a variety of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might assist reduce numerous problems worldwide such as appetite, poverty and illness. [139]

AGI might improve performance and effectiveness in many jobs. For instance, in public health, AGI might speed up medical research study, notably against cancer. [140] It could take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to quick, high-quality medical diagnostics. It might offer fun, cheap and customized education. [141] The need to work to subsist could become outdated if the wealth produced is correctly rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the location of people in a drastically automated society.


AGI might also assist to make rational choices, and to expect and prevent disasters. It might likewise help to profit of potentially disastrous innovations such as nanotechnology or environment engineering, while preventing the associated risks. [143] If an AGI's main goal is to prevent existential catastrophes such as human extinction (which might be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it might take steps to drastically reduce the dangers [143] while reducing the effect of these procedures on our lifestyle.


Risks


Existential risks


AGI might represent numerous kinds of existential danger, which are risks that threaten "the premature extinction of Earth-originating smart life or the permanent and drastic damage of its potential for desirable future development". [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has actually been the topic of many disputes, but there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a permanently problematic future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread and protect the set of worths of whoever develops it. If humankind still has moral blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could help with mass surveillance and brainwashing, which could be utilized to develop a steady repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is also a threat for the machines themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of moral factor to consider are mass created in the future, engaging in a civilizational course that indefinitely disregards their well-being and interests could be an existential catastrophe. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI might improve humanity's future and help in reducing other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for proceeding with due caution", not for "abandoning AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction


The thesis that AI positions an existential threat for people, which this threat requires more attention, is questionable but has actually been backed in 2023 by numerous public figures, AI researchers 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 slammed extensive indifference:


So, facing possible futures of enormous advantages and threats, the experts are undoubtedly doing everything possible to make sure the very best result, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few decades,' would we simply respond, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is more or less what is occurring with AI. [153]

The potential fate of humankind has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast mentions that higher intelligence allowed humanity to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in ways that they could not have actually expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has become a threatened species, not out of malice, but merely as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to control humanity which we ought to take care not to anthropomorphize them and interpret their intents as we would for people. He stated that individuals won't be "clever enough to design super-intelligent devices, yet extremely silly to the point of providing it moronic objectives without any safeguards". [155] On the other side, the idea of instrumental merging suggests that almost whatever their goals, smart agents will have factors to try to make it through and get more power as intermediary actions to achieving these goals. Which this does not need having emotions. [156]

Many scholars who are concerned about existential danger supporter for more research into solving the "control issue" to address the question: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers carry out to increase the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, rather than harmful, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is made complex by the AI arms race (which might result in a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to release items before rivals), [159] and using AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can posture existential threat likewise has critics. Skeptics typically state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other issues connected to existing AI. [161] Former Google scams czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people beyond the innovation market, existing chatbots and LLMs are already viewed as though they were AGI, causing further misconception and worry. [162]

Skeptics often charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an unreasonable belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some scientists think that the interaction projects on AI existential threat by certain AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at effort at regulatory 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 scientists, issued a joint statement asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI should be an international concern alongside other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass unemployment


Researchers from OpenAI approximated that "80% of the U.S. workforce might have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their tasks affected". [166] [167] They think about office workers to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI might have a better autonomy, ability to make choices, to interface with other computer tools, however likewise to control robotized bodies.


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

Everyone can take pleasure in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or a lot of individuals can wind up badly poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby versus wealth redistribution. Up until now, the pattern seems to be toward the second option, 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 capabilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI result
AI security - Research location on making AI safe and useful
AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study effort announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre
General game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play different games
Generative artificial intelligence - AI system efficient in creating material in response to triggers
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study project
Intelligence amplification - Use of details technology to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of manufactured makers.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task knowing - Solving numerous maker learning jobs at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in maker learning.
Outline of artificial intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or type of expert system.
Transfer knowing - Artificial intelligence method.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically created and enhanced for expert system.
Weak expert system - Form of artificial intelligence.


Notes


^ a b See listed below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese room.
^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet identify in general what type of computational treatments we wish to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some meanings of intelligence utilized by expert system researchers, see viewpoint of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report particularly slammed AI's "grand goals" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became identified to money just "mission-oriented direct research study, instead of standard undirected research study". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be a terrific relief to the remainder of the workers in AI if the innovators of new basic formalisms would express their hopes in a more protected type than has sometimes held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As defined in a standard AI textbook: "The assertion that machines might potentially act intelligently (or, perhaps better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by theorists, and the assertion that devices that do so are in fact believing (instead of simulating 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 job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to guarantee that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is producing artificial general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct AI that is much 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 jobs were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do specialists in expert system expect for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and warns of risk ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can avoid the bad stars 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 alter. 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 however the way we release it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts say AGI is coming next, and it has 'existential' risks". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might posture existential risks to mankind.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last invention that mankind requires to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the risk of termination from AI ought to be an international concern.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI experts caution of danger of extinction 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 methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential danger". 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 explains strong AI as "maker intelligence with the complete variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Expert System: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the initial on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Artificial intelligence is transforming our world - it is on everyone to make sure 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 initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of smart qualities is based on the topics covered by major AI books, 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 principle of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the 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 real boy - the Turing Test says so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists contest whether computer system '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 distinguish 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 examination to AP Biology. Here's a list of difficult examinations both AI variations have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is unreliable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested testing an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine 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: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the 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 quoted 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 ). "Respond to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer researchers and software engineers avoided the term artificial intelligence 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 original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Technology an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., through 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: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the initial on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter season 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 machine intelligence: Despite development in device intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a significant difficulty". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not develop into a Frankenstein's monster". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071.
^ a b c Clocksin 2003.
^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why basic synthetic intelligence will not be 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 synthetic intelligence bring us paradise or destruction?". The New Yorker. Archived from the initial on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future development in artificial intelligence: A study of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental concerns 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, modified by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The creativity of devices: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the original 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 role of GPU computing and deep knowing in drug discovery". Nature Machine Intelligence. 4 (3 ): 211-221. doi:10.1038/ s42256-022-00463-x. ISSN 2522-5839. S2CID 252081559.
^ Goertzel & Pennachin 2006.
^ a b c (Kurzweil 2005, p. 260).
^ a b c Goertzel 2007.
^ Grace, Katja (2016 ). "Error in Armstrong and Sotala 2012". AI Impacts (blog site). Archived from the initial 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 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 getting in the AI golden zone between narrow and basic AI". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 4 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020. Certainly, too, there are those who declare we are currently seeing an early example of an AGI system in the recently announced GPT-3 natural language processing (NLP) neural network. ... So is GPT-3 the first example of an AGI system? This is arguable, but the consensus is that it is not AGI. ... If absolutely nothing else, GPT-3 tells us there is a middle ground between narrow and basic AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. "A designer built an AI chatbot using GPT-3 that assisted a man speak once again to his late fiancée. OpenAI shut it down". The Register. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
^ Wiggers, Kyle (13 May 2022), "DeepMind's brand-new AI can carry out over 600 jobs, from playing video games to controlling robots", TechCrunch, archived from the original on 16 June 2022, obtained 12 June 2022.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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 Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ Bove, Tristan. "A.I. might measure up to human intelligence in 'simply a couple of years,' says CEO of Google's main A.I. research lab". Fortune. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
^ Nellis, Stephen (2 March 2024). "Nvidia CEO states AI could pass human tests in 5 years". Reuters. ^ Aschenbrenner, Leopold. "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, The Decade Ahead".
^ Sullivan, Mark (18 October 2023). "Why everybody appears to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence". Fast Company.
^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). "The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence". Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
^ Hickey, Alex. "Whole Brain Emulation: A Giant Step for Neuroscience". Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023.
^ Sandberg & Boström 2008.
^ Drachman 2005.
^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003.
^ Moravec 1988, p. 61.
^ Moravec 1998.
^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). "Decade-long European research job maps the human brain". euractiv.
^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). "Glia-the other brain cells". Discover. Archived from the initial on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A vast array of views in existing research, all of which need grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). "How submitting our minds to a computer system may become possible". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 November 2023.
^ Searle 1980
^ For example: Russell & Norvig 2003,
Oxford University Press Dictionary of Psychology Archived 3 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine (estimated in" Encyclopedia.com"),.
MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Archived 19 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine (priced quote 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 expert system for interest 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 believes the business'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 surpass advantages?". 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ "How we can Take advantage of 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 Look Like When Artificial Intelligence Is Everywhere?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). "Answers to Stephen Hawking's AMA are Here!". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). " § Preferred order of arrival". Superintelligence: courses, threats, techniques (Reprinted with corrections 2017 ed.). Oxford, UK; New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2.
^ Piper, Kelsey (19 November 2018). "How technological development is making it likelier than ever that humans will damage ourselves". Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). "Climate alter an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate questions states". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 July 2023.
^ MacAskill, William (2022 ). What we owe the future. New York 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 City Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ a b "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. 30 May 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ "Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence takes a look at the ramifications of synthetic intelligence - but 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 remarkable Facebook argument in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI". The fascinating Facebook dispute in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the dangers 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 disastrous AGI risk: 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 warns". 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 presented however expert system can not be overlooked". 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, alert scientists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). "Google Brain founder says big tech is lying about AI termination 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 look at the labor market effect potential of large language designs". OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). "OpenAI states 80% of employees could see their tasks affected by AI. These are the tasks most affected". euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). "Elon Musk states we require universal fundamental earnings because 'in the future, physical work will be an option'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
Sources


UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the initial on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), "Artificial intelligence and the future", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Look For Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-02997-3.
Darrach, Brad (20 November 1970), "Meet Shakey, the First Electronic Person", Life Magazine, pp. 58-68.
Drachman, D. (2005 ), "Do we have brain to spare?", Neurology, 64 (12 ): 2004-2005, doi:10.1212/ 01. WNL.0000166914.38327. BB, PMID 15985565, S2CID 38482114.
Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983 ), The Fifth Generation: Expert System and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, Michael Joseph, ISBN 978-0-7181-2401-4.
Goertzel, Ben; Pennachin, Cassio, eds. (2006 ), Artificial General Intelligence (PDF), Springer, ISBN 978-3-5402-3733-4, archived from the initial (PDF) on 20 March 2013.
Goertzel, Ben (December 2007), "Human-level artificial general intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity: a reaction to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, and McDermott's review 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, recovered 1 April 2009.
Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), "Nanotechnology and International Security", Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the initial on 29 May 2011, recovered 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Expert System at Edinburgh University: a Perspective, archived from the initial on 17 August 2007, obtained 30 August 2007.
Johnson, Mark (1987 ), The body in the mind, Chicago, ISBN 978-0-2264-0317-5.
Kurzweil, Ray (2005 ), The Singularity is Near, Viking Press.
Lighthill, Professor Sir James (1973 ), "Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey", Expert System: a paper symposium, Science Research Council.
Luger, George; Stubblefield, William (2004 ), Artificial Intelligence: 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 resolve issues and achieve goals on the planet in addition to humans.
Moravec, Hans (1988 ), Mind Children, Harvard University Press
Moravec, Hans (1998 ), "When will computer hardware match the human brain?", Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 1, archived from the original on 15 June 2006, retrieved 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 Expert System", Funding a Transformation: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, archived from the original on 12 January 2008, retrieved 29 September 2007
Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Rational Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, archived from the original on 25 July 2009, obtained 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, 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, 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 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 initial on 18 February 2021. Retrieved 13 December 2020 - through ResearchGate.


Further reading


Aleksander, Igor (1996 ), Impossible Minds, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-8609-4036-1
Azevedo FA, Carvalho LR, Grinberg LT, Farfel J, et al. (April 2009), "Equal 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 original on 18 February 2021, retrieved 4 September 2013 - through ResearchGate
Berglas, Anthony (January 2012) [2008], Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren (Singularity), archived from the initial on 23 July 2014, recovered 31 August 2012
Cukier, Kenneth, "Ready for Robots? How to Think about 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 simple enough to be reasonable will not be made complex enough to act wisely, while any system made complex enough to behave wisely will be too complicated to comprehend." (p. 197.) Computer researcher Alex Pentland writes: "Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead simple foolish. They work, however they work by strength." (p. 198.).
Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the original on 26 July 2010, obtained 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, "The Fate of Free Will" (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free 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 machines. For biological animals, reason and purpose come from acting in the world and experiencing the repercussions. Expert systems - disembodied, 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" (review of Verity Harding, AI Needs You: How We Can Change AI's Future and Save Our Own, Princeton University Press, 274 pp.; Gary Marcus, Taming Silicon Valley: How We Can Ensure That AI Works for Us, MIT Press, 235 pp.; Daniela Rus and Gregory Mone, The Mind's Mirror: Risk and Reward in the Age of AI, Norton, 280 pp.; Madhumita Murgia, Code Dependent: Living in the Shadow of AI, Henry Holt, 311 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. "' We can't realistically expect that those who wish to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest of us close at heart,' ... composes [Gary Marcus] 'We can't rely on federal governments driven by campaign finance contributions [from tech business] to press back.' ... Marcus information the needs that residents must make of their governments and the tech business. They include openness on how AI systems work; payment for people if their information [are] utilized to train LLMs (big language design) s and the right to approval to this use; and the ability to hold tech companies liable for the harms they cause by getting rid of Section 230, enforcing cash penalites, suvenir51.ru and passing stricter item liability laws ... Marcus also recommends ... that a new, AI-specific federal company, comparable to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may supply the most robust oversight ... [T] he Fordham law teacher Chinmayi Sharma ... recommends ... develop [ing] a professional licensing program for engineers that would work in a comparable way to medical licenses, malpractice fits, and the Hippocratic oath in medicine. 'What if, like medical professionals,' she asks ..., 'AI engineers likewise swore to do no harm?'" (p. 46.).
Holte, R. C.; Choueiry, B. Y. (2003 ), "Abstraction and reformulation in synthetic 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 baffled human beings for years, reveals the limitations of natural-language-processing algorithms", Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. "This murder secret competitors has exposed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models can incredible tasks, their capabilities are quite restricted by the amount of context they receive. This [...] could trigger [problems] for scientists who hope to utilize them to do things such as examine ancient languages. In some cases, there are couple of historic records on long-gone civilizations to act as training information for such a purpose." (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, "Your Lying Eyes: People now use A.I. to create fake videos identical from real ones. Just how much does it matter?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. "If by 'deepfakes' we mean realistic videos produced using expert system that really deceive individuals, then they barely exist. The phonies aren't deep, and the deeps aren't fake. [...] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, running in our media as counterfeited proof. Their role better looks like that of cartoons, especially smutty ones." (p. 59.).
- Leffer, Lauren, "The Risks of Trusting AI: We must avoid humanizing machine-learning designs utilized 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 newest, buzziest systems of artificial general intelligence are stymmied by the usual 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, recovered 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: McGraw-Hill.
Omohundro, Steve (2008 ), The Nature of Self-Improving Expert system, presented and distributed at the 2007 Singularity Summit, San Francisco, California.
Press, Eyal, "In Front of Their Faces: Does facial-recognition technology lead police to neglect contradictory evidence?", The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, "AI's IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test however revealed 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 tasks that require 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 huge database of ... truths stemmed 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 effective however undependable. Rules-based systems can not deal with scenarios their programmers did not prepare for. Learning systems are restricted by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already resulted in disaster. Advanced auto-pilot features in cars and trucks, although they carry out well in some scenarios, have driven cars without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked vehicles. In the incorrect situation, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an immediate. When an enemy is attempting to control 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 made possible by new innovations but depend on the timelelss human tendency to anthropomorphise." (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.