Artificial General Intelligence

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of synthetic intelligence (AI) that matches or surpasses human cognitive capabilities across a wide variety of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to specific jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, describes AGI that considerably exceeds human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered among the definitions of strong AI.

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

The timeline for attaining AGI stays a subject of continuous dispute among researchers and experts. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or years; others preserve it might take a century or longer; a minority believe it might never be attained; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton has revealed concerns about the quick progress towards AGI, recommending it could be accomplished faster than many expect. [7]

There is dispute on the exact definition of AGI and regarding whether modern large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a common subject in sci-fi and futures research studies. [9] [10]

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

Terminology

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

Some scholastic sources book the term “strong AI” for computer system programs that experience life or awareness. [a] On the other hand, weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one specific problem but lacks general cognitive capabilities. [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 very same sense as humans. [a]

Related principles consist of synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is far more normally smart than humans, [23] while the idea of transformative AI connects to AI having a large influence on society, for example, comparable to the farming or industrial revolution. [24]

A structure for systemcheck-wiki.de categorizing AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind scientists. They specify five levels of AGI: emerging, proficient, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a proficient AGI is specified as an AI that surpasses 50% of experienced adults in a large range of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise defined however with a limit of 100%. They consider large language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

Various popular definitions of intelligence have been proposed. One of the leading proposals is the Turing test. However, there are other widely known meanings, and some scientists disagree with the more popular methods. [b]

Intelligence qualities

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

reason, use strategy, resolve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
represent understanding, including good sense knowledge
strategy
learn
– interact in natural language
– if essential, integrate these skills in completion of any provided objective

Many interdisciplinary methods (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider additional qualities such as creativity (the capability to form novel mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that exhibit a lot of these capabilities exist (e.g. see computational creativity, automated reasoning, choice support group, robot, evolutionary computation, smart representative). There is dispute about whether modern AI systems possess them to a sufficient degree.

Physical traits

Other capabilities are considered preferable in smart systems, as they may impact intelligence or annunciogratis.net help in its expression. These include: [30]

– the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
– the capability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate objects, modification place to check out, etc).

This includes the capability to spot and react to threat. [31]

Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and control objects, change area to explore, etc) can be preferable for some intelligent systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) might already be or end up being AGI. Even from a less positive point of view on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like type; being a silicon-based computational system is enough, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This analysis aligns with the understanding that AGI has actually never been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and therefore does not require a capacity for locomotion or conventional “eyes and ears”. [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

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

The idea of the test is that the machine has to attempt and pretend to be a guy, by addressing concerns put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A significant part of a jury, who must not be skilled about makers, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete problems

A problem is informally called “AI-complete” or “AI-hard” if it is thought that in order to fix it, one would require to implement AGI, since the option is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are lots of problems that have actually been conjectured to require general intelligence to solve along with human beings. Examples include computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected scenarios while solving any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific task like translation requires a device to check out and write in both languages, follow the author’s argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), and faithfully reproduce the author’s initial intent (social intelligence). All of these problems need to be solved all at once in order to reach human-level maker performance.

However, a lot of these tasks can now be carried out by contemporary large language designs. According to Stanford University’s 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level performance on numerous standards for checking out understanding and visual reasoning. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study began in the mid-1950s. [50] The very first generation of AI researchers were encouraged that synthetic general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a couple of years. [51] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: “machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do.” [52]

Their predictions were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they could produce by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the project 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 ‘expert system’ will considerably be fixed”. [54]

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

However, in the early 1970s, it became obvious that researchers had actually grossly ignored the trouble of the task. Funding companies ended up being skeptical of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce beneficial “applied AI“. [c] In the early 1980s, Japan’s Fifth Generation Computer Project revived interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like “carry on a casual discussion”. [58] In reaction to this and the success of specialist systems, both industry and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI amazingly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI researchers who anticipated the imminent accomplishment of AGI had been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a reputation for making vain pledges. They became unwilling to make predictions at all [d] and prevented mention of “human level” expert system for fear of being identified “wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI attained commercial success and scholastic respectability by focusing on particular sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable results and industrial applications, such as speech acknowledgment and suggestion algorithms. [63] These “applied AI” systems are now utilized extensively throughout the innovation market, and research in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academia and market. As of 2018 [update], development in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a mature stage was expected to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

At the millenium, many traditional AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI could be established by combining programs that resolve various sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am positive that this bottom-up path to expert system will one day meet the traditional top-down path over half way, all set to offer the real-world proficiency and the commonsense knowledge that has been so frustratingly elusive in reasoning programs. Fully intelligent machines will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the 2 efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has often been voiced that “top-down” (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way fulfill “bottom-up” (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding considerations in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is truly only one feasible route from sense to signs: 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, because it looks as if getting there would just total up to uprooting our symbols from their intrinsic meanings (thus merely lowering ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]

Modern artificial basic intelligence research

The term “artificial general intelligence” was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications of completely automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent maximises “the ability to please objectives in a vast array of environments”. [68] This kind of AGI, characterized by the ability to maximise a mathematical definition of intelligence instead of exhibit human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal artificial 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 results”. The very 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 variety of visitor lecturers.

As of 2023 [update], a small number of computer researchers are active in AGI research, and lots of contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, significantly more scientists have an interest in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of permitting AI to continually discover and innovate like humans do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the development and possible accomplishment of AGI stays a topic of extreme dispute within the AI neighborhood. While conventional consensus held that AGI was a far-off goal, recent improvements have led some scientists and market figures to declare that early kinds of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that “devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do”. This prediction failed to come true. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century since it would need “unforeseeable and essentially unpredictable developments” and a “scientifically deep understanding of cognition”. [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf between modern computing and human-level synthetic intelligence is as wide as the gulf in between existing space flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

An additional difficulty is the lack of clearness in defining what intelligence requires. Does it need consciousness? Must it show the capability to set objectives as well as pursue them? Is it simply a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase adequately, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as preparation, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence need explicitly replicating the brain and its particular faculties? Does it require emotions? [81]

Most AI researchers think strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be accomplished, however that the present level of progress is such that a date can not accurately be forecasted. [84] AI professionals’ views on the feasibility of AGI wax and subside. Four surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the median price quote amongst experts for when they would be 50% confident AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% answered with “never ever” when asked the exact same concern but with a 90% self-confidence rather. [85] [86] Further present AGI progress considerations can be found above Tests for validating human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute found that “over [a] 60-year timespan there is a strong predisposition towards predicting 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 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 fairly be deemed an early (yet still insufficient) variation of a synthetic basic intelligence (AGI) system.” [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outshines 99% of human beings on the Torrance tests of imaginative thinking. [89] [90]

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

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

In 2024, OpenAI launched o1-preview, the very first of a series of models that “invest more time believing before they react”. According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before reacting represents a new, additional paradigm. It improves design outputs by spending more computing power when generating the response, whereas the design scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the design size, training information and training compute power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI employee, Vahid Kazemi, declared in 2024 that the company had achieved AGI, specifying, “In my viewpoint, we have already accomplished AGI and it’s much more clear with O1.” Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet “better than any human at any task”, it is “better than most people at many jobs.” He likewise dealt with criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) simply follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, and validating. These statements have stimulated debate, as they depend on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally comprehended as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI’s models demonstrate exceptional versatility, they may not completely fulfill this standard. Notably, Kazemi’s comments came shortly after OpenAI eliminated “AGI” from the regards to its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the business’s tactical intentions. [95]

Timescales

Progress in artificial intelligence has actually traditionally gone through periods of quick progress separated by periods when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software application or both to develop area for further progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the hardware available in the twentieth century was not sufficient to execute deep knowing, which requires large numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel says that price quotes of the time needed before a genuinely versatile AGI is developed differ from 10 years to over a century. As of 2007 [update], the agreement in the AGI research neighborhood seemed 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 scientists have given a vast array of viewpoints on whether progress will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a bias towards anticipating that the start of AGI would happen within 16-26 years for modern and historic predictions alike. That paper has actually been slammed for how it categorized opinions as expert 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%, considerably better than the second-best entry’s rate of 26.3% (the traditional approach used a weighted amount of ratings from different pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was related to as the initial ground-breaker of the present deep knowing wave. [105]

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

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

In the same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and offered a chatbot-developing platform called “Project December”. OpenAI requested for changes to the chatbot to abide by their security guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a “general-purpose” system capable of performing more than 600 different jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early version of OpenAI’s GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more general intelligence than previous AI models and demonstrated human-level efficiency in tasks covering numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered a debate on whether GPT-4 might be thought about an early, insufficient version of artificial general intelligence, emphasizing the requirement for more expedition and evaluation of such systems. [111]

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

The concept that this stuff could actually get smarter than individuals – a couple of individuals thought that, […] But many people thought it was method off. And I thought it was way off. I believed 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 progress in the last couple of years has actually been pretty amazing”, which he sees no reason that it would slow down, anticipating AGI within a decade or even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within five years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least as well as humans. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former 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 act as an alternative method. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is built by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and then copying and imitating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model must be sufficiently faithful to the initial, so that it acts in virtually the same method 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 artificial intelligence research [103] as an approach to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might deliver the required comprehensive understanding are improving quickly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of sufficient quality will appear on a similar timescale to the computing power needed to imitate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, a very effective cluster of computer systems or GPUs would be required, 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 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 differ for an adult, varying from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A quote of the brain’s processing power, based upon a simple switch design for nerve cell activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at numerous quotes for the hardware required to equal the human brain and adopted a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a “calculation” was equivalent to one “floating-point operation” – a step used to rate present supercomputers – then 1016 “computations” would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, achieved in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He used this figure to forecast the essential hardware would be offered sometime between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid development in computer power at the time of writing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has actually established a particularly detailed and openly available atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University performed 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 artificial neural network applications is basic compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely have to capture the in-depth cellular behaviour of biological nerve cells, currently comprehended only in broad outline. The overhead introduced by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil’s estimate. In addition, the price quotes do not represent glial cells, which are known to play a role in cognitive processes. [125]

A fundamental criticism of the simulated brain technique originates from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a necessary aspect of human intelligence and is needed to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is right, any completely functional brain design will require to incorporate more than simply the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, however it is unknown whether this would suffice.

Philosophical viewpoint

“Strong AI” as specified in philosophy

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

Strong AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can have “a mind” and “awareness”.
Weak AI hypothesis: A synthetic intelligence system can (only) imitate it thinks and has a mind and consciousness.

The very first one he called “strong” due to the fact that it makes a more powerful declaration: it assumes something unique has actually occurred to the machine that exceeds those capabilities that we can check. The behaviour of a “weak AI” machine would be exactly similar to a “strong AI” machine, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This usage is also typical in scholastic 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 synthetic general intelligence”. [102] This is not the same as Searle’s strong AI, unless it is assumed that awareness is essential for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not think that is the case, and to most synthetic intelligence scientists the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, “as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it genuine or a simulation.” [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to know if it in fact has mind – certainly, there would be no other way to inform. For AI research study, Searle’s “weak AI hypothesis” is equivalent to the declaration “artificial basic intelligence is possible”. Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, “most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for approved, 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 elements play significant functions in sci-fi and the principles of artificial intelligence:

Sentience (or “remarkable awareness”): The ability to “feel” perceptions or emotions subjectively, as opposed to the ability to reason about understandings. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term “consciousness” to refer specifically to extraordinary awareness, which is approximately equivalent to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is understood as the difficult issue of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel described in 1974 that it “seems like” something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it doesn’t feel like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can smartly ask “what does it seem like to be a bat?” However, we are not likely 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 actually achieved sentience, though this claim was commonly disputed by other professionals. [135]
Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different individual, particularly to be consciously mindful of one’s own thoughts. This is opposed to merely being the “topic of one’s believed”-an os or debugger has the ability to be “familiar with itself” (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what people typically mean when they use the term “self-awareness”. [g]
These characteristics have an ethical measurement. AI life would offer increase to issues of welfare and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other elements of awareness associated to cognitive abilities are also pertinent to the idea of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate advanced AI with existing legal and social structures is an emergent issue. [138]

Benefits

AGI might have a variety of applications. If oriented towards such objectives, AGI might assist mitigate different problems in the world such as appetite, poverty and health issue. [139]

AGI could improve performance and effectiveness in a lot of tasks. For instance, in public health, AGI might accelerate medical research study, significantly versus cancer. [140] It could take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to fast, top quality medical diagnostics. It might provide enjoyable, cheap and individualized education. [141] The need to work to subsist might become outdated if the wealth produced is effectively redistributed. [141] [142] This likewise raises the concern of the location of people in a radically automated society.

AGI might also help to make reasonable decisions, and to expect and prevent catastrophes. It could likewise help to profit of potentially catastrophic innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated dangers. [143] If an AGI’s main goal is to avoid existential disasters such as human termination (which might be difficult if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis ends up being real), [144] it could take procedures to drastically minimize the risks [143] while lessening the effect of these steps on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI may represent numerous types of existential threat, which are dangers that threaten “the early termination of Earth-originating smart life or the long-term and drastic damage of its potential for desirable future advancement”. [145] The risk of human extinction from AGI has been the topic of lots of debates, however there is likewise the possibility that the advancement of AGI would lead to a completely problematic future. Notably, it might be used to spread and maintain the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has ethical blind areas similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, avoiding moral progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI might help with mass security and brainwashing, which could be used to develop a stable repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is likewise a threat for the makers themselves. If devices that are sentient or otherwise deserving of ethical consideration are mass developed in the future, engaging in a civilizational path that forever neglects their welfare and interests might be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering just how much AGI could improve mankind’s future and aid minimize other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers “an argument for proceeding with due care”, not for “abandoning AI“. [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI postures an existential danger for humans, which this risk needs more attention, is controversial however 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 widespread indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of incalculable advantages and risks, the professionals are surely doing whatever possible to guarantee the very best result, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, ‘We’ll arrive in a couple of decades,’ 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 prospective fate of humankind has often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast states that higher intelligence allowed humankind to dominate gorillas, which are now vulnerable in manner ins which they could not have actually prepared for. As a result, the gorilla has actually become an endangered types, not out of malice, however merely as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun considers that AGIs will have no desire to control mankind which we need to be careful not to anthropomorphize them and analyze their intents as we would for human beings. He said that individuals will not be “clever sufficient to design super-intelligent devices, yet extremely foolish to the point of giving it moronic goals without any safeguards”. [155] On the other side, the concept of critical convergence suggests that nearly whatever their goals, intelligent agents will have factors to attempt to survive and acquire more power as intermediary steps to attaining these goals. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are concerned about existential threat supporter for more research study into resolving the “control issue” to answer the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can programmers implement to increase the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than damaging, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is complicated by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of security precautions in order to release items before competitors), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can posture existential threat also has detractors. Skeptics usually state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other concerns associated with existing AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for numerous individuals beyond the technology industry, existing chatbots and LLMs are already perceived as though they were AGI, leading to additional misconception and worry. [162]

Skeptics in some cases charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an unreasonable belief in the possibility of superintelligence changing an irrational belief in a supreme God. [163] Some researchers think that the communication projects on AI existential danger by certain AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) may be an at attempt at regulatory capture and to inflate interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other industry leaders and researchers, provided a joint statement asserting that “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI must be a worldwide top priority along 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 employees might see at least 50% of their tasks impacted”. [166] [167] They consider office employees to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accountants or web designers. [167] AGI might have a better autonomy, ability to make decisions, to user interface with other computer system tools, but likewise to control robotized bodies.

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

Everyone can take pleasure in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or many individuals can end up miserably bad if the machine-owners effectively lobby against wealth redistribution. Up until now, the trend seems to be toward the second choice, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk considers that the automation of society will require federal governments to adopt a universal standard earnings. [168]

See likewise

Artificial brain – Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI impact
AI safety – Research location on making AI safe and beneficial
AI positioning – AI conformance to the desired objective
A.I. Rising – 2018 film directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated artificial intelligence – Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative – Collaborative public-private research 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 various video games
Generative expert system – AI system efficient in producing content in action to triggers
Human Brain Project – Scientific research study task
Intelligence amplification – Use of info innovation to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine ethics – Moral behaviours of man-made machines.
Moravec’s paradox.
Multi-task learning – Solving multiple machine discovering jobs at the exact same time.
Neural scaling law – Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of artificial intelligence – Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism – Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence – Alternate term for or form of artificial intelligence.
Transfer knowing – Artificial intelligence technique.
Loebner Prize – Annual AI competition.
Hardware for artificial intelligence – Hardware specially developed and optimized for synthetic intelligence.
Weak expert system – Form of expert system.

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 article Chinese space.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: “we can not yet identify in general what sort of computational treatments we desire to call intelligent. ” [26] (For a conversation of some meanings of intelligence used by expert system researchers, see philosophy of artificial intelligence.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI‘s “grandiose goals” and led the dismantling of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being identified to money only “mission-oriented direct research, rather than basic undirected research”. [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy composes “it would be a great relief to the rest of the employees in AI if the developers of brand-new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more safeguarded kind than has often held true.” [61] ^ In “Mind Children” [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More just recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not “cps”, which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As defined in a basic AI textbook: “The assertion that machines might possibly act intelligently (or, perhaps better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the ‘weak AI’ hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that devices that do so are in fact believing (rather than replicating thinking) is called the ‘strong AI‘ hypothesis.” [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). “What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?”. VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is developed to perform a single task.
^ “OpenAI Charter”. OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to guarantee that synthetic general intelligence benefits all of humanity.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). “Mark Zuckerberg’s new objective is developing 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 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 projects were recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c “AI timelines: What do professionals 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 quits Google and warns of risk ahead”. The New York Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can avoid 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 triggers 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 City Times. The genuine danger is not AI itself however the method we release it.
^ “Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts say AGI is coming next, and it has ‘existential’ risks”. ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might pose existential dangers 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 innovation that mankind requires 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 extinction from AI need to be a global 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 creating machines that can outthink us in general ways.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). “AGI does not present an existential risk”. Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential danger.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), “Long Live AI“, Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as “device 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 synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget”. Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ “Expert system is changing our world – it is on everybody to make certain that it works out”. Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). “Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, sitiosecuador.com according to DeepMind”. VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). “Basic Questions”. Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent qualities 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 way we believe: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). “Motivation reassessed: The principle of proficiency”. Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). “Motivation reassessed: The idea 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 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 initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). “AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for ‘intelligence’. What occurs when it does?”. The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ “Eugene Goostman is a genuine kid – the Turing Test says so”. The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ “Scientists challenge whether computer ‘Eugene Goostman’ passed Turing test”. BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). “People can not 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 exam 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 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 brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million”. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). “Expert System” (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on “AI-Complete Tasks”.).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). “Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness” (PDF). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 May 2013.
^ “AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts”. Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). “Artificial Intelligence, Business and Civilization – Our Fate Made in Machines”. Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 priced estimate in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ “Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky”. Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), priced quote in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, “Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment”.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see also Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). “Reply to Lighthill”. Stanford University. Archived from the original on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). “Behind Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People”. The New York City Times. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer scientists and software application engineers avoided the term artificial intelligence for fear of being deemed wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ “Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle”. Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). “The Symbol Grounding Problem”. Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD … 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ “Who coined the term “AGI”?”. goertzel.org. Archived from the initial 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 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 initial 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 progress in maker intelligence, synthetic general intelligence is still a significant obstacle”. EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs 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 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 general synthetic intelligence will not be realized”. 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 artificial intelligence bring us utopia or damage?”. 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 skilled opinion. In Fundamental problems of expert system (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. “How We’re Predicting AI-or Failing To.” In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, 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 creativity of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test”. Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). “Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here”. Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). “Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024”. Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ “Introducing OpenAI o1-preview”. OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. “OpenAI Announces a New AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step”. Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ “OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved”. Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ “AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts”. hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ “Next-Gen AI: forum.altaycoins.com 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 original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
^ Pandey, Mohit; Fernandez, Michael; Gentile, Francesco; Isayev, Olexandr; Tropsha, Alexander; Stern, Abraham C.; Cherkasov, Artem (March 2022). “The transformational role of GPU computing and deep learning 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 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 Expert System”. Annals of Data Science. 4 (2 ): 179-191. arXiv:1709.10242. doi:10.1007/ s40745-017-0109-0. S2CID 37900130.
^ Brien, Jörn (5 October 2017). “Google-KI doppelt so schlau wie Siri” [Google AI is twice as smart as Siri – but a six-year-old beats both] (in German). Archived from the initial on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
^ Grossman, Gary (3 September 2020). “We’re getting in the AI golden zone between narrow and general 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 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, but the consensus is that it is not AGI. … If nothing else, GPT-3 informs us there is a happy medium in between narrow and general AI.
^ Quach, Katyanna. “A designer built an AI chatbot utilizing GPT-3 that helped 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 robotics”, TechCrunch, archived from the initial on 16 June 2022, obtained 12 June 2022.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (22 March 2023). “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early 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. could match human intelligence in ‘just a couple of years,’ says CEO of Google’s primary 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 everyone appears to disagree on how to specify Artificial General Intelligence”. Fast Company.
^ Nosta, John (5 January 2024). “The Accelerating Path to Artificial General Intelligence”. Psychology Today. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
^ Hickey, Alex. “Whole Brain Emulation: A Huge Step for Neuroscience”. Tech Brew. Retrieved 8 November 2023.
^ Sandberg & Boström 2008.
^ Drachman 2005.
^ a b Russell & Norvig 2003.
^ Moravec 1988, p. 61.
^ Moravec 1998.
^ Holmgaard Mersh, Amalie (15 September 2023). “Decade-long European research project maps the human brain”. euractiv.
^ Swaminathan, Nikhil (January-February 2011). “Glia-the other brain cells”. Discover. Archived from the initial on 8 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
^ de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser 2008. A vast array of views in existing research study, all of which require grounding to some degree
^ Thornton, Angela (26 June 2023). “How uploading 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 (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 interest by the field about why a program acts the way it does.
^ Chalmers, David J. (9 August 2023). “Could a Large 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 Artificial Intelligence Have Rights?”. Psychology Today. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
^ Akst, Daniel (10 April 2023). “Should Robots With Artificial Intelligence Have Moral or Legal Rights?”. The Wall Street Journal.
^ “Artificial General Intelligence – Do [es] the expense outweigh benefits?”. 23 August 2021. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ “How we can Gain from Advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – Unite.AI“. www.unite.ai. 7 April 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b c Talty, Jules; Julien, Stephan. “What Will Our Society Appear Like When Expert System Is Everywhere?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Stevenson, Matt (8 October 2015). “Answers to Stephen Hawking’s AMA are Here!”. Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2017 ). ” § Preferred order of arrival”. Superintelligence: courses, risks, 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 progress is making it likelier than ever that people will ruin ourselves”. Vox. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Doherty, Ben (17 May 2018). “Climate alter an ‘existential security threat’ 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 takes a look at the implications 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 interesting Facebook argument in between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the risks of strong AI”. The remarkable Facebook dispute between Yann LeCun, Stuart Russel and Yoshua Bengio about the threats of strong AI (in French). Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ “Will Artificial Intelligence 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 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 threats spiralling out of control, report cautions”. Financial Times. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
^ Milmo, Dan; Stacey, Kiran (25 September 2023). “Experts disagree over threat 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 completion of Humanity Mean for Me?”. The Atlantic. Archived from the initial on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
^ Titcomb, James (30 October 2023). “Big Tech is stiring fears over AI, alert scientists”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Davidson, John (30 October 2023). “Google Brain creator says big tech is lying about AI extinction danger”. Australian Financial Review. Archived from the initial on 7 December 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
^ Eloundou, Tyna; Manning, Sam; Mishkin, Pamela; Rock, Daniel (17 March 2023). “GPTs are GPTs: An early look at the labor market effect potential of big language models”. OpenAI. Retrieved 7 June 2023.
^ a b Hurst, Luke (23 March 2023). “OpenAI says 80% of employees could see their tasks impacted by AI. These are the tasks most affected”. euronews. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
^ Sheffey, Ayelet (20 August 2021). “Elon Musk states we require universal standard earnings since ‘in the future, manual labor will be a choice'”. Business Insider. Archived from the initial on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023.
Sources

UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. Paris: UNESCO. 11 June 2021. ISBN 978-9-2310-0450-6. Archived from the original on 18 June 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2021.
Chalmers, David (1996 ), The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press.
Clocksin, William (August 2003), “Expert system and the future”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 361, no. 1809, pp. 1721-1748, Bibcode:2003 RSPTA.361.1721 C, doi:10.1098/ rsta.2003.1232, PMID 12952683, S2CID 31032007.
Crevier, Daniel (1993 ). AI: The Tumultuous Look For Expert System. 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: Artificial Intelligence 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 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”, Expert system, 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, retrieved 1 April 2009.
Gubrud, Mark (November 1997), “Nanotechnology and International Security”, Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, archived from the original on 29 May 2011, obtained 7 May 2011.
Howe, J. (November 1994), Artificial Intelligence at Edinburgh University: a Point of view, 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 seminar, 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 supreme effort is to make computer system programs that can resolve problems and accomplish objectives worldwide along with human beings.
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, recovered 23 June 2006
Nagel (1974 ), “What Is it Like to Be a Bat” (PDF), Philosophical Review, 83 (4 ): 435-50, doi:10.2307/ 2183914, JSTOR 2183914, archived (PDF) from the original on 16 October 2011, recovered 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 initial on 12 January 2008, obtained 29 September 2007
Poole, David; Mackworth, Alan; Goebel, Randy (1998 ), Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach, New York City: Oxford University Press, archived from the initial on 25 July 2009, retrieved 6 December 2007
Russell, Stuart J.; Norvig, Peter (2003 ), Artificial Intelligence: 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 original on 25 March 2020, obtained 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, retrieved 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 numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain”, The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 513 (5 ): 532-541, doi:10.1002/ cne.21974, PMID 19226510, S2CID 5200449, archived from the initial on 18 February 2021, recovered 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, retrieved 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, composes (in what might be called “Dyson’s Law”) that “Any system simple sufficient to be reasonable will not be made complex enough to act wisely, while any system made complex enough to behave intelligently will be too made complex to understand.” (p. 197.) Computer scientist Alex Pentland writes: “Current AI machine-learning algorithms are, at their core, dead easy dumb. They work, but they work by brute force.” (p. 198.).
Gelernter, David, Dream-logic, the Internet and Artificial Thought, Edge, archived from the original on 26 July 2010, retrieved 25 July 2010.
Gleick, James, “The Fate of Free Choice” (evaluation of Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, Princeton University Press, 2023, 333 pp.), The New York City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 1 (18 January 2024), pp. 27-28, 30. “Agency is what differentiates us from machines. For biological animals, reason and function originate from acting on the planet and parentingliteracy.com experiencing the consequences. 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 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 City Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 17 (7 November 2024), pp. 44-46. “‘ We can’t reasonably anticipate that those who hope to get rich from AI are going to have the interests of the rest people close at heart,’ … writes [Gary Marcus] ‘We can’t depend on governments driven by project finance contributions [from tech companies] to press back.’ … Marcus information the needs that people need to make from their federal governments and the tech business. They consist of openness on how AI systems work; payment for people if their information [are] used to train LLMs (big language model) s and the right to grant this use; and the capability to hold tech business liable for the harms they trigger by removing Section 230, imposing money penalites, and passing stricter product liability laws … Marcus also recommends … that a new, AI-specific federal company, akin to the FDA, the FCC, or the FTC, may offer the most robust oversight … [T] he Fordham law professor Chinmayi Sharma … suggests … develop [ing] a professional licensing regime for engineers that would operate in a comparable method to medical licenses, malpractice suits, and the Hippocratic oath in medication. ‘What if, like doctors,’ she asks …, ‘AI engineers also promised 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 humans for years, reveals the limitations of natural-language-processing algorithms”, Scientific American, vol. 329, no. 4 (November 2023), pp. 81-82. “This murder secret competition has exposed that although NLP (natural-language processing) models can amazing tasks, their abilities are quite limited by the quantity of context they receive. This […] could trigger [problems] for scientists who intend to use them to do things such as evaluate ancient languages. In some cases, there are few historic records on long-gone civilizations to function as training data for such a purpose.” (p. 82.).
Immerwahr, Daniel, “Your Lying Eyes: People now utilize A.I. to produce phony videos equivalent from genuine ones. How much does it matter?”, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 54-59. “If by ‘deepfakes’ we suggest reasonable videos produced utilizing synthetic intelligence that actually deceive individuals, then they barely exist. The phonies aren’t deep, and the deeps aren’t phony. […] A.I.-generated videos are not, in general, operating in our media as counterfeited evidence. Their role much better looks like that of animations, specifically smutty ones.” (p. 59.).
– Leffer, Lauren, “The Risks of Trusting AI: We must prevent humanizing machine-learning models used in clinical research”, Scientific American, vol. 330, no. 6 (June 2024), pp. 80-81.
Lepore, Jill, “The Chit-Chatbot: Is talking with a maker a conversation?”, The New Yorker, 7 October 2024, pp. 12-16.
Marcus, Gary, “Artificial Confidence: Even the most recent, buzziest systems of artificial general intelligence are stymmied by the same old issues”, Scientific American, vol. 327, no. 4 (October 2022), pp. 42-45.
McCarthy, John (October 2007), “From here to human-level AI“, Artificial Intelligence, 171 (18 ): 1174-1182, doi:10.1016/ j.artint.2007.10.009.
McCorduck, Pamela (2004 ), Machines Who Think (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 original on 3 March 2016, retrieved 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 innovation lead cops to neglect contradictory proof?”, The New Yorker, 20 November 2023, pp. 20-26.
Roivainen, Eka, “AI‘s IQ: ChatGPT aced a [basic intelligence] test but revealed 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 reasoning or an understanding of the physical and social world … ChatGPT appeared not able to reason realistically and tried to rely on its huge 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 deal with scenarios their developers did not anticipate. Learning systems are restricted by the data on which they were trained. AI failures have actually already resulted in catastrophe. Advanced auto-pilot functions in cars and trucks, although they carry out well in some scenarios, have driven cars without alerting into trucks, concrete barriers, and parked cars. In the incorrect situation, AI systems go from supersmart to superdumb in an instant. When an enemy is attempting to manipulate and hack an AI system, the risks are even greater.” (p. 140.).
Sutherland, J. G. (1990 ), “Holographic Model of Memory, Learning, and Expression”, International Journal of Neural Systems, vol. 1-3, pp. 256-267.
– Vincent, James, “Horny Robot Baby Voice: James Vincent on AI chatbots”, London Review of Books, vol. 46, no. 19 (10 October 2024), pp. 29-32.” [AI chatbot] programs are enabled by new innovations but depend on the timelelss human propensity to anthropomorphise.” (p. 29.).
Williams, R. W.; Herrup, K.